If the NAMBLA pamphlet was found to have induced a pedophile to act, then drewprops has an argument, but again this wouldnt be a free speach case under the current opinion of the supreme court.
In other words you have to prove that NAMBLA's existence causes pedophiles to act.
Basically you are making an argument that can be used against groups that train people to use guns to kill people.
Because NAMBLA is helping child rapists rape more children.
Don't you have a problem with that?
You know if NAMBLA were say "We like to do this to kids" that might be one thing but rather they say "This is how you do this to kids." That's criminal.
Free speech is a good thing. If this pamphlet is available, then not only can pedophiles be informed, but so can parents and kids. That's a good thing. If it's hidden, the information will just go underground. Out in the open it can educate everyone or anyone. That's a good thing.
Why don't you show how NAMBLA is helping child rapists rape more children with the aid of the ACLU.
NAMBLA has the legal right to print pamphlets of this particular type under their freedom of speech rights.
The ACLU has the right to defend them and their right to that speech.
Conversely, people have the right to be completely outraged and disgusted by, as well as question the legality of, the content of the NAMBLA pamphlets. and the ACLU's willingness to afford them the opportunity of producing materials that can very likely lead to the sexual assault of their child, or someone else's.
Just as the ACLU has the right to defend the rights of child molesters, dissenters have the right to say that what they believe NAMBLA is doing is inciting violence towards children, and the ACLU is perpetuating and lending validity to that.
If some of you can't at least recognize that the fact that they post instructions on how to commit illegal acts on children could be considered a call to violence, then you're terribly shortsighted and narrow minded. This is not me saying that is what this specific piece does in actuality, but I recognize the validity of the argument against this pamphlet.
If some of you can't at least recognize that the fact that they post instructions on how to commit illegal acts on children could be considered a call to violence, then you're terribly shortsighted and narrow minded. This is not me saying that is what this specific piece does in actuality, but I recognize the validity of the argument against this pamphlet.
As I stated previously, education is always a two-way street.
As I stated previously, education is always a two-way street.
Yes, therefor we should teach procedural techniques for successfully executing school massacres. This will no doubt educate the public and help curb future school shootings.
The ACLUs has gotten way too political to claim to be simply for civil rights. They came out against the California recall. Not because it was a civil rights issue but because they didn't want a democrat voted out.
They should stay out of politics.
Yes yes yes. This is exactly right. The ACLU, whether anyone here likes it or not, is a politically charged organization. The ACLU more often than not does what they do for political reasons, not always for civil liberties. I'm all for civil liberties, but the ACLU has gone beyond fighting for them and has turned itself into an organization of politics, and now I guess "Jesus-hating child rapists." I don't carry this extreme view of the ACLU, but they need to take it down a notch and get their agenda straight before fighting anymore. The politics have to go.
The ACLU, whether anyone here likes it or not, is a politically charged organization.
Um. Duh.
It's an organization committed to the defense of civil liberties guaranteed by the US Constitution. Of course it's "politically charged."
Quote:
The ACLU more often than not does what they do for political reasons, not always for civil liberties.
Civil liberties ARE politics. In America, discussion of "civil liberties" is THE BASIS of all political discussion, really. What do you think people are always arguing about if it's not the proper relationship between the individual and the state?
Quote:
I'm all for civil liberties, but the ACLU has gone beyond fighting for them and has turned itself into an organization of politics, and now I guess "Jesus-hating child rapists."
I'm all for freedom of the press, but I just don't like all that pornography and sin I see in Reader's Digest and at Disneyworld. Those publishers should have to go through an elaborate system of screeners before anything is allowed to make its way to the public. And I should be in control of those screeners. And anything that takes power away from me will not be tolerated.
Look. You either support freedom of the press and religion, or you don't. This means that, sometimes, you're going to have to support the rights of people whose ideas you despise. I suggest you go and read some Andrew Hamilton.
Quote:
I don't carry this extreme view of the ACLU, but they need to take it down a notch and get their agenda straight before fighting anymore. The politics have to go.
This kind of thinking would undo everything that makes America America. It is also ironic that you use a political statement to decry politics having influence in, well, politics.
--
Not to go all Humbert Humbert on this discussion, but can anyone confirm for me what the legal age of homosexual consent is? Is it 18? Does it vary from state to state?
Midwinter...what I meant when I said "the ACLU is a politically charged organization" was that they fight harder for certain civil liberties in order to benefit one political party. I'm aware that they are a political organization. I know that the ACLU sticks up for civil liberties of those who's views are unpopular, and I support that all they way, but I see a lot from them that I don't like.
And to answer your question...in the states that it is legal, the age is 18.
Midwinter...what I meant when I said "the ACLU is a politically charged organization" was that they fight harder for certain civil liberties in order to benefit one political party.
I disagree. Strongly. Vociferously. The very notion that you think the defense of civil liberties guaranteed by the US Constitution benefits one party above another is preposterous.
Quote:
I'm aware that they are a political organization.
Good.
Quote:
I know that the ACLU sticks up for civil liberties of those who's views are unpopular...
Good. (And it's "whose." "Who's" means "who is")
Quote:
...and I support that all they way,
I would argue that nothing you have said supports this statement.
Quote:
...but I see a lot from them that I don't like.
That's the point. They support the rights of individuals to say things that you don't like. If you want to know what it would be like without such things being legally protected, I suggest you watch the first 10 minutes of Elizabeth.
Quote:
And to answer your question...in the states that it is legal, the age is 18.
Now that's interesting. Why is it that gay men have to be older to consent to sex than heterosexual women?
I don't agree that NAMBLA's "how to" pamphlets constitutes protected speech.
What about the other side of it? Why does the ACLU have to chase the Boy Scouts out of public buildings? When I was a Boy Scout we met in the school cafeteria at night. Is that a violation of civil rights? Such a horrible violation that the ACLU has to throw it's full weight at it?
I havent read the pamphlets nor do i believe anyone on this board has either. But they have to be proven to constitute a call for violence. A gun operators manual could constitute a similar threat. The idea of free will has a great deal to do with this discussion. A person reading the pamphlet does not need to act on it. If the pamphlet induces the individual to act that is something different etc etc. Obviously the ACLU does not feel this pamphlet is a credible call for action.
All of you defending ACLU and Nambla should be ashamed of yourself.
North American MAN-BOY Love Association - this name does not say enough?
I am constantly baffled by the left's willingness to err on the side of evil/wrong, just for the sake possibly protecting someone's rights. The matter of right or wrong is pushed to the wayside in favor of the argument about civil rights, which is much more obscure. They will dance in the streets and claim victory when Nambla can, by edict from some judge, put pamphlets in every classroom or right beside the rental guides at your local grocery store.
You guys are sick. Let's educate everyone with pamphlets about beastiality and sex with the dead, while we are at it.
Let's take an organization like the BS, that helps kids and teaches them all kinds of life lessons, and kick them of schools and such where it is convenient for them to meet, which I would assume has costed enrollment, just because they as an organization recognize a creator, While at the same time encouraging an organization that "educates" men on how to establish a romantic/sexual relationship with young boys.
You lefties see nothing wrong with that philosophy?
I am sorry but this is judged in a court of law and laws dont provide a morality.
bunge is right. degrading NAMBLA's right to publish the pamphlet will provide the means for a group of gun-hating left wingers to push in court the legal liability of all publishers of gun operator guides in murders by gun use.
If i publish a means to make an explosive in a scientific journal, by NaplesX's logic I am as bad as the people who use that explosive to blow up things. Ridiculous.
I am sorry but this is judged in a court of law and laws dont provide a morality.
bunge is right. degrading NAMBLA's right to publish the pamphlet will provide the means for a group of gun-hating left wingers to push in court the legal liability of all publishers of gun operator guides in murders by gun use.
If i publish a means to make an explosive in a scientific journal, by NaplesX's logic I am as bad as the people who use that explosive to blow up things. Ridiculous.
Children are the most vulnerable in our society. It is our responsibility to protect them. You are trying to justify something that has no justification whatsoever. You ARE just as sick as those enrolled in that disgusting association.
I am disappointed to see that you or anyone finds child molestation funny. I have a special knowledge of this sick mentality that can damage or ruin the life of it's victims.
I also have 3 kids and I am very disturbed by the lack of outrage at this underbelly of society that you seems to be gaining acceptance.
So please do not ask me to be apathetic or understanding or accepting. It will not fly with me.
i dont agree with what the NAMBLA represents, but as the saying goes I will defend to the death their right to speech.
I guess since I will also defend the right of fundamentalist christians to stand on a soap box on the street and spouting fire and brimstone, I am also guilty by association with whatever crimes they are commiting like disturbing the peace etc etc.
Children should be protected, fine. But what does this mean? If a parent hits a child once a month for three years, is that abuse? By law, I dont think it is. But what effects does that hitting have on that child? Will they resort to violence at some point in their life resulting in the murder of another individual? Its society's role to defend people from actual acts, not hypothetical ones. A gun manual doesnt direct a murderer to kill his three children. A NAMBLA manual doesnt direct a pedophile to act on his/her impulses. There is a choice.
Yes, therefor we should teach procedural techniques for successfully executing school massacres. This will no doubt educate the public and help curb future school shootings.
There probably should be a class about them somewhere, in some college or university. Let some people with a good solid background in psychology investigate the topic and maybe they'll find a solution.
Comments
In other words you have to prove that NAMBLA's existence causes pedophiles to act.
Basically you are making an argument that can be used against groups that train people to use guns to kill people.
Originally posted by Scott
Because NAMBLA is helping child rapists rape more children.
Don't you have a problem with that?
You know if NAMBLA were say "We like to do this to kids" that might be one thing but rather they say "This is how you do this to kids." That's criminal.
Free speech is a good thing. If this pamphlet is available, then not only can pedophiles be informed, but so can parents and kids. That's a good thing. If it's hidden, the information will just go underground. Out in the open it can educate everyone or anyone. That's a good thing.
Why don't you show how NAMBLA is helping child rapists rape more children with the aid of the ACLU.
The ACLU has the right to defend them and their right to that speech.
Conversely, people have the right to be completely outraged and disgusted by, as well as question the legality of, the content of the NAMBLA pamphlets. and the ACLU's willingness to afford them the opportunity of producing materials that can very likely lead to the sexual assault of their child, or someone else's.
Just as the ACLU has the right to defend the rights of child molesters, dissenters have the right to say that what they believe NAMBLA is doing is inciting violence towards children, and the ACLU is perpetuating and lending validity to that.
If some of you can't at least recognize that the fact that they post instructions on how to commit illegal acts on children could be considered a call to violence, then you're terribly shortsighted and narrow minded. This is not me saying that is what this specific piece does in actuality, but I recognize the validity of the argument against this pamphlet.
Originally posted by rageous
If some of you can't at least recognize that the fact that they post instructions on how to commit illegal acts on children could be considered a call to violence, then you're terribly shortsighted and narrow minded. This is not me saying that is what this specific piece does in actuality, but I recognize the validity of the argument against this pamphlet.
As I stated previously, education is always a two-way street.
Originally posted by bunge
As I stated previously, education is always a two-way street.
Yes, therefor we should teach procedural techniques for successfully executing school massacres. This will no doubt educate the public and help curb future school shootings.
Originally posted by Scott
The ACLUs has gotten way too political to claim to be simply for civil rights. They came out against the California recall. Not because it was a civil rights issue but because they didn't want a democrat voted out.
They should stay out of politics.
Yes yes yes. This is exactly right. The ACLU, whether anyone here likes it or not, is a politically charged organization. The ACLU more often than not does what they do for political reasons, not always for civil liberties. I'm all for civil liberties, but the ACLU has gone beyond fighting for them and has turned itself into an organization of politics, and now I guess "Jesus-hating child rapists." I don't carry this extreme view of the ACLU, but they need to take it down a notch and get their agenda straight before fighting anymore. The politics have to go.
Originally posted by DMBand0026
The ACLU, whether anyone here likes it or not, is a politically charged organization.
Um. Duh.
It's an organization committed to the defense of civil liberties guaranteed by the US Constitution. Of course it's "politically charged."
The ACLU more often than not does what they do for political reasons, not always for civil liberties.
Civil liberties ARE politics. In America, discussion of "civil liberties" is THE BASIS of all political discussion, really. What do you think people are always arguing about if it's not the proper relationship between the individual and the state?
I'm all for civil liberties, but the ACLU has gone beyond fighting for them and has turned itself into an organization of politics, and now I guess "Jesus-hating child rapists."
I'm all for freedom of the press, but I just don't like all that pornography and sin I see in Reader's Digest and at Disneyworld. Those publishers should have to go through an elaborate system of screeners before anything is allowed to make its way to the public. And I should be in control of those screeners. And anything that takes power away from me will not be tolerated.
Look. You either support freedom of the press and religion, or you don't. This means that, sometimes, you're going to have to support the rights of people whose ideas you despise. I suggest you go and read some Andrew Hamilton.
I don't carry this extreme view of the ACLU, but they need to take it down a notch and get their agenda straight before fighting anymore. The politics have to go.
This kind of thinking would undo everything that makes America America. It is also ironic that you use a political statement to decry politics having influence in, well, politics.
--
Not to go all Humbert Humbert on this discussion, but can anyone confirm for me what the legal age of homosexual consent is? Is it 18? Does it vary from state to state?
Cheers
Scott
And to answer your question...in the states that it is legal, the age is 18.
Originally posted by DMBand0026
Midwinter...what I meant when I said "the ACLU is a politically charged organization" was that they fight harder for certain civil liberties in order to benefit one political party.
I disagree. Strongly. Vociferously. The very notion that you think the defense of civil liberties guaranteed by the US Constitution benefits one party above another is preposterous.
I'm aware that they are a political organization.
Good.
I know that the ACLU sticks up for civil liberties of those who's views are unpopular...
Good. (And it's "whose." "Who's" means "who is")
...and I support that all they way,
I would argue that nothing you have said supports this statement.
...but I see a lot from them that I don't like.
That's the point. They support the rights of individuals to say things that you don't like. If you want to know what it would be like without such things being legally protected, I suggest you watch the first 10 minutes of Elizabeth.
And to answer your question...in the states that it is legal, the age is 18.
Now that's interesting. Why is it that gay men have to be older to consent to sex than heterosexual women?
Cheers
Scott
What about the other side of it? Why does the ACLU have to chase the Boy Scouts out of public buildings? When I was a Boy Scout we met in the school cafeteria at night. Is that a violation of civil rights? Such a horrible violation that the ACLU has to throw it's full weight at it?
North American MAN-BOY Love Association - this name does not say enough?
I am constantly baffled by the left's willingness to err on the side of evil/wrong, just for the sake possibly protecting someone's rights. The matter of right or wrong is pushed to the wayside in favor of the argument about civil rights, which is much more obscure. They will dance in the streets and claim victory when Nambla can, by edict from some judge, put pamphlets in every classroom or right beside the rental guides at your local grocery store.
You guys are sick. Let's educate everyone with pamphlets about beastiality and sex with the dead, while we are at it.
Let's take an organization like the BS, that helps kids and teaches them all kinds of life lessons, and kick them of schools and such where it is convenient for them to meet, which I would assume has costed enrollment, just because they as an organization recognize a creator, While at the same time encouraging an organization that "educates" men on how to establish a romantic/sexual relationship with young boys.
You lefties see nothing wrong with that philosophy?
Very scary stuff.
bunge is right. degrading NAMBLA's right to publish the pamphlet will provide the means for a group of gun-hating left wingers to push in court the legal liability of all publishers of gun operator guides in murders by gun use.
If i publish a means to make an explosive in a scientific journal, by NaplesX's logic I am as bad as the people who use that explosive to blow up things. Ridiculous.
Originally posted by billybobsky
I am sorry but this is judged in a court of law and laws dont provide a morality.
bunge is right. degrading NAMBLA's right to publish the pamphlet will provide the means for a group of gun-hating left wingers to push in court the legal liability of all publishers of gun operator guides in murders by gun use.
If i publish a means to make an explosive in a scientific journal, by NaplesX's logic I am as bad as the people who use that explosive to blow up things. Ridiculous.
Children are the most vulnerable in our society. It is our responsibility to protect them. You are trying to justify something that has no justification whatsoever. You ARE just as sick as those enrolled in that disgusting association.
Guilt by association.
that was funny. guilt by association. classic.
Freedom is Slavery.
Ignorance is Strength.
Originally posted by billybobsky
that was funny. guilt by association. classic.
I am disappointed to see that you or anyone finds child molestation funny. I have a special knowledge of this sick mentality that can damage or ruin the life of it's victims.
I also have 3 kids and I am very disturbed by the lack of outrage at this underbelly of society that you seems to be gaining acceptance.
So please do not ask me to be apathetic or understanding or accepting. It will not fly with me.
Originally posted by groverat
War is Peace.
Freedom is Slavery.
Ignorance is Strength.
You are a silly baffoon.
I guess since I will also defend the right of fundamentalist christians to stand on a soap box on the street and spouting fire and brimstone, I am also guilty by association with whatever crimes they are commiting like disturbing the peace etc etc.
Children should be protected, fine. But what does this mean? If a parent hits a child once a month for three years, is that abuse? By law, I dont think it is. But what effects does that hitting have on that child? Will they resort to violence at some point in their life resulting in the murder of another individual? Its society's role to defend people from actual acts, not hypothetical ones. A gun manual doesnt direct a murderer to kill his three children. A NAMBLA manual doesnt direct a pedophile to act on his/her impulses. There is a choice.
Originally posted by rageous
Yes, therefor we should teach procedural techniques for successfully executing school massacres. This will no doubt educate the public and help curb future school shootings.
There probably should be a class about them somewhere, in some college or university. Let some people with a good solid background in psychology investigate the topic and maybe they'll find a solution.