or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Aclu?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Aclu? - Page 3

post #81 of 159
well said midwinter...those "rights" are NOT what the aclu is fighting for.

It is your rights, and mine, and every other American's rights they are fighting for.
post #82 of 159
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
Don't conservatives usually say that lawsuits of this kind are silly? Wasn't it you NaplesX that was debating about tort reform and how it's a serious problem that people sue the party that's not responsible, like fat people suing McDonalds or smokers suing RJR.

This seems to me to be a case like that. Not that the parents or kids brought the murder on themselves, but that the perpetrators of the crime did it, not some third party like NAMBLA. Suing NAMBLA seems to me to be shifting responsibility from the perpetrators to some other group that really isn't responsible for the crime.

How do you feel about the case where some kids committed suicide after listening to Judas Priest or Ozzy, and then the parents sued the band?

I have mixed feelings about it. I'd like to see what it is specifically that appears in NAMBLA's books. I strongly doubt that they advocate murdering a child like these guys did. What if they advocate reducing the age of consent? That's fine. If they advocate seducing minors, then I don't know.

The man that killed the young boys after raping them told the court that Nambla encouraged that kind of behavior. The parents of those boys have a right to pursue a suit against Nambla if in fact they do promote that behavior. Check out their site and tell me they don't.

The ACLU is a joke anymore, and so is your reasoning.
post #83 of 159
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
Please get it through your head that no one here is defending some non-existent "right" to molest young boys. This is an issue of free speech.

No it is not. Why do you want Nambla spreading pedophilia? That is what they are doing now and will do more-so if they prevail in this case.
post #84 of 159
Quote:
The man that killed the young boys after raping them told the court that Nambla encouraged that kind of behavior. The parents of those boys have a right to pursue a suit against Nambla if in fact they do promote that behavior.

OK. So are you with me then that big businesses that advocate smoking should be pursued too? Or can only child murderers escape personal responsibility, while smokers just have to accept it? Between big tobacco and big fat, they're getting close to 1 million lives per year in the US. How many deaths is NAMBLA responsible for?
post #85 of 159
Quote:
[i]Suing NAMBLA seems to me to be shifting responsibility from the perpetrators to some other group that really isn't responsible for the crime. [/B]

The murderers are already convicted and in prison. They are moving on to getting rid of the coconspirators. Sounds like a reasonable step.
post #86 of 159
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
OK. So are you with me then that big businesses that advocate smoking should be pursued too? Or can only child murderers escape personal responsibility, while smokers just have to accept it? Between big tobacco and big fat, we're talking close to 1 million lives per year in the US. How many deaths is NAMBLA responsible for?

You are equating smoking or eating with child molestation and pedophilia?

Nambla encourages it's members to pursue sexual relationships with minors! Read that sentence again if you have to. This is not even close to McDonalds saying "Eat here, It tastes good"

Please
post #87 of 159
Screw NAMBLA. I say we go after Reader's Digest. I'm sick and tired of them shoving their Christian ideology in my face every time I go to the store! I don't like it. It must go.

And if you elect me president, my first act will be to install a series of publication censors at the national level who will assist me in deciding what people are allowed to say and what they are not.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #88 of 159
http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/Nudi...me/NAMBLA.html

Here is something I ran across. The new york government viewed Nambla as a pedophile/criminal group.
post #89 of 159
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
No it is not. Why do you want Nambla spreading pedophilia? That is what they are doing now and will do more-so if they prevail in this case.

Pedophilia is not something that spreads. Most people recoil at the thought of having a sexual relationship with a minor (and where you define the age of that group is of course touchy); those who dont have a mental illness of some sort. NAMBLA really isnt doing anything to increase this mental illness in society let alone calling for its members to act.
post #90 of 159
Co-conspirators? Do you even know what that word means?
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #91 of 159
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
You are equating smoking or eating with child molestation and pedophilia?

Nambla encourages it's members to pursue sexual relationships with minors! Read that sentence again if you have to. This is not even close to McDonalds saying "Eat here, It tastes good"

Please

No, I'm equating the claim that pamphlets make people commit murder to the claim that corporations make people smoke or become obese. Actually, I find the latter more plausible, and certainly more widespread.

You know, I do believe in distal causes like this. I don't think that NAMBLA should be allowed to advocate the seduction of minors and provide how-to guides, if that's really what they did. I certainly expect the ACLU to defend them on free speech grounds, and I don't lose respect for them because of it. But I'm just curious if you're willing to follow this principle more generally, i.e., that people don't have personal responsibility for all their actions, and that there are other forces at work in society that causally influence our actions.
post #92 of 159
Quote:
Originally posted by billybobsky
Pedophilia is not something that spreads. Most people recoil at the thought of having a sexual relationship with a minor (and where you define the age of that group is of course touchy); those who dont have a mental illness of some sort. NAMBLA really isnt doing anything to increase this mental illness in society let alone calling for its members to act.

You must be lawyer.

Give us a break.

Deviant sexual behavior on children tend to make those children open to more behavior of the same when they get in position they can exploit other children.

http://www.jimhopper.com/male-ab/

This study is very interesting
post #93 of 159
And black children in the 1940's study thought that white dolls were more attractive than black dolls.

Same idea, the point is though that NAMBLA isnt acting on children and people who pick up NAMBLA documents are seeking them out intentionally.

Most people who are molesters are family members so that study you cite could be due to simple genetics. There may be a genetic proclivity to be a child molester (not a comfortable thought is it?).
post #94 of 159
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
No, I'm equating the claim that pamphlets make people commit murder to the claim that corporations make people smoke or become obese. Actually, I find the latter more plausible, and certainly more widespread.

You know, I do believe in distal causes like this. I don't think that NAMBLA should be allowed to advocate the seduction of minors and provide how-to guides, if that's really what they did. I certainly expect the ACLU to defend them on free speech grounds, and I don't lose respect for them because of it. But I'm just curious if you're willing to follow this principle more generally, i.e., that people don't have personal responsibility for all their actions, and that there are other forces at work in society that causally influence our actions.

It is not just about free speech. The ACLU is a huge organization that is supposed to be supporting and defending civil rights. You would think they would take up a good cause. but instead they choose to defend an organization that is on it's face, an effort to legitimize pedephilia. It is arguably a criminal enterprise. They are adding legitimacy to Nambla by putting their huge resources behind it. They and you and all others that throw their support to Nambla have tainted their credibility. This speech that they are trying to protect is not harmless. It is very harmful to children.

Just because we have free speech does not mean that we should use that freedom to harm others. That is the catch 22 here.
post #95 of 159
Quote:
Originally posted by billybobsky
And black children in the 1940's study thought that white dolls were more attractive than black dolls.

Same idea, the point is though that NAMBLA isnt acting on children and people who pick up NAMBLA documents are seeking them out intentionally.

Most people who are molesters are family members so that study you cite could be due to simple genetics. There may be a genetic proclivity to be a child molester (not a comfortable thought is it?).

Look you can apologize for the ACLU and Nambla all you like. Nambla is evil and the ACLU is wrong for even touching this case with a 10 foot pole, yet alone embracing it.
post #96 of 159
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
It is not just about free speech.

Oh but it is.

Quote:
The ACLU is a huge organization that is supposed to be supporting and defending civil rights.

The Bill of Rights.

Quote:
You would think they would take up a good cause.

I think defending freedom of speech, even when people like you scream bloody murder, is a pretty good cause.

Quote:
but instead they choose to defend an organization that is on it's face, an effort to legitimize pedephilia.

No. They're defending that organization's right to publish.

Quote:
It is arguably a criminal enterprise.

Since when did speech become a crime?

Quote:
They are adding legitimacy to Nambla by putting their huge resources behind it.

NAMBLA's been around for a while. It doesn't need any help getting attention when it wants it.

Quote:
They and you and all others that throw their support to Nambla have tainted their credibility.

They're not supporting NAMBLA. They're defending an organization's right to publish what it wants to.

Quote:
This speech that they are trying to protect is not harmless.

I would argue that no speech, however innocuous it may seem, is harmless.


Quote:
It is very harmful to children.

My eyes just glazed over. I really hope you aren't suggesting that we limit everything in the universe that's harmful to the children.

Quote:
Just because we have free speech does not mean that we should use that freedom to harm others. That is the catch 22 here.

No. That's not the Catch-22. THAT'S THE POINT OF HAVING FREEDOM OF SPEECH, PRESS, AND ASSEMBLY.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #97 of 159
Quote:
Originally posted by billybobsky
Most people who are molesters are family members so that study you cite could be due to simple genetics. There may be a genetic proclivity to be a child molester (not a comfortable thought is it?).

Sure an killers are born that way and goat doinkers are born that way and white collar criminals are born that way....

It is scary.
post #98 of 159
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
Oh but it is.



The Bill of Rights.



I think defending freedom of speech, even when people like you scream bloody murder, is a pretty good cause.



No. They're defending that organization's right to publish.



Since when did speech become a crime?



NAMBLA's been around for a while. It doesn't need any help getting attention when it wants it.



They're not supporting NAMBLA. They're defending an organization's right to publish what it wants to.



I would argue that no speech, however innocuous it may seem, is harmless.




My eyes just glazed over. I really hope you aren't suggesting that we limit everything in the universe that's harmful to the children.



No. That's not the Catch-22. THAT'S THE POINT OF HAVING FREEDOM OF SPEECH, PRESS, AND ASSEMBLY.

What is it with you "there is no such thing as evil" people?

You can't see the wrong through your civil liberties glasses. I feel for you. But hey, I will have to agree to disagree on this one.
post #99 of 159
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
What is it with you "there is no such thing as evil" people?

I don't know. I'm trying to understand why you don't like the freedoms guaranteed by the US Constitution.

Quote:
You can't see the wrong through your civil liberties glasses.

Any other rights you'd like to take away from us while you're at it?

Quote:
I feel for you.

Don't.

Quote:
But hey, I will have to agree to disagree on this one. [/B]

Whatever.

Cheers
Scott
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #100 of 159
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
Any other rights you'd like to take away from us while you're at it?

Unless you are a pedophile or a pedophile organization, what do you have to worry about? Those are the only people I want to take anything from here.
post #101 of 159
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Unless you are a pedophile or a pedophile organization, what do you have to worry about? Those are the only people want to take anything from here.

That's cool.

Can the recording industry and movie industry still parade young girls around in skimpy clothing? What about movies that use of-age actors to simulate molestation for the sake of making art? Can Playboy still shoot naked photos of girls who turned 18 the day before? Or do you plan on backing that age requirement up a little to appease the record companies, who really want to show us a 14 year-old diva wearing nothing but a thong.

Cheers
Scott
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #102 of 159
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
That's cool.

Can the recording industry and movie industry still parade young girls around in skimpy clothing? What about the movies?

What about movies that use of-age actors to simulate molestation for the sake of making art? Can Playboy still shoot naked photos of girls who turned 18 the day before? Or do you plan on backing that age requirement up a little to appease the record companies, who really want to show us a 14 year-old diva wearing nothing but a thong.

Cheers
Scott

You are just being silly now.

Give it up.
post #103 of 159
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
You are just being silly now.

Give it up.

Try to think. Pretty please?
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #104 of 159
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
That's cool.

Can the recording industry and movie industry still parade young girls around in skimpy clothing? What about movies that use of-age actors to simulate molestation for the sake of making art? Can Playboy still shoot naked photos of girls who turned 18 the day before? Or do you plan on backing that age requirement up a little to appease the record companies, who really want to show us a 14 year-old diva wearing nothing but a thong.

Cheers
Scott

Nambla (North American Man/Boy Love Association) ecourages it's members to have sexual relationships with minors.

ow can you sit there with a straight face and compare that with the recording industry, hollywood, playboy or anything else.

grow a moral compass will ya.
post #105 of 159
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Nambla (North American Man/Boy Love Association) ecourages it's members to have sexual relationships with minors.

Ok. That's gross and all, but encouraging a thing isn't the same as doing a thing. One is protected by the first amendment. The other is not.

Quote:
How can you sit there with a straight face and compare that with the recording industry, hollywood, playboy or anything else.

Because for the past twenty years, we have watched as female recording artists get younger, sexier, and wear next to nothing. If you don't think this trains the culture to want to have sex with increasingly young girls, you're deluded. And to make this worse, this is a completely culturally sanctioned passive pedophilia.

Quote:
grow a moral compass will ya.

They're overrated, considering what constitutes "moral" keeps changing.

Cheers
Scott
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #106 of 159
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
Ok. That's gross and all, but encouraging a thing isn't the same as doing a thing. One is protected by the first amendment. The other is not.

It is called being an accessory in a crime. This organization will be found to be unlawful.
post #107 of 159
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
It is called being an accessory in a crime. This organization will be found to be unlawful.

Good job ignoring the rest of my post.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #108 of 159
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
Good job ignoring the rest of my post.

Thanks, I allready replied to that flawed argument.
post #109 of 159
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Thanks, I allready replied to that flawed argument.

Must've been such an impressive response that I missed it.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #110 of 159
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
The ACLU is committed to the preservation of rights and freedoms guaranteed by the US Constitution.

post #111 of 159
Quote:
Originally posted by Scott



wonderful retort.



post #112 of 159
Thread Starter 
I guess for many the ACLU is sacrosanct. If the ACLU is on the case then it must be a just cause and cannot be questioned.


I'm still not sure why the Boy Scouts need to be chased out of public places? Care to explain midwinter?
post #113 of 159
Quote:
Originally posted by Scott

I'm gonna have to agree here...

That's not at all what the ACLU is about. It's a joke.
Come waste your time with me

In a world without doors or walls, there is no need for Gates or Windows
Reply
Come waste your time with me

In a world without doors or walls, there is no need for Gates or Windows
Reply
post #114 of 159
Quote:
Originally posted by Scott
I'm still not sure why the Boy Scouts need to be chased out of public places? Care to explain midwinter?

I don't know for the ACLU, but I'm all for British paramilitary training organizations now effectively run by the Mormons not being allowed to meet in schools.

I'll look into the ACLU's argument, though.

Cheers
Scott
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #115 of 159
where's the case scott?

edit: nm, i found it.

Apparently the Scouts are a discriminatory association (which is fair) thatm by the law of California (I guess) which states that public property cannot be used by groups that have discriminatory policies, cannot use public property.

This isnt so much a Bill of Rights issue as it is a civil rights issue and it is apparently California specific. I havent yet decided what i think about this case. But i could easily see this simply as a challenge to test the limit of the law, i mean if the law is indefensible, ie counties can decide randomly whether they consider groups discriminatory, i could see this issue blowing up...
post #116 of 159
Quote:
Originally posted by billybobsky
where's the case scott?

I think Scott's referring to this case, which seems to be about the BSOA being granted all kinds of preferential treatments while at the same time being allowed to discriminate against certain groups who wish to join. This amounts to the state, both de facto and de juro, supporting that discrimination through its clear bias in favor of the BSOA.

Cheers
Scott
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #117 of 159
The Boy Scouts are run by Mormons? Hmm. Oh well, guess I don't care <uses ex-scout honor>
"Its a good thing theres no law against a company having a monopoly of good ideas. Otherwise Apple would be in deep yogurt..."
-Apple Press Release
Reply
"Its a good thing theres no law against a company having a monopoly of good ideas. Otherwise Apple would be in deep yogurt..."
-Apple Press Release
Reply
post #118 of 159
Quote:
Originally posted by Crusader
The Boy Scouts are run by Mormons? Hmm. Oh well, guess I don't care <uses ex-scout honor>

The LDS church wields tremendous influence in the BSOA. Here's a story about it (although I don't know anything about its provenance. Anyway. There's lots of info out there about it.

Cheers
Scott
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #119 of 159
i was a cub scout at some point but i realized that the whole forcing service thing had to go... it wasnt real. etc etc.
post #120 of 159
Quote:
Originally posted by DMBand0026
I'm gonna have to agree here...

That's not at all what the ACLU is about. It's a joke.

Gosh, you guys have really nailed the persuasive rhetoric. It's like debating Socrates.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Aclu?