NaplesX, I think, needs to have a time-out to calm down. The moment you start thinking someone else is actually accepting child molestation, it's obvious your brain has started a shut-down procedure and you're continuing on inertia.
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 murder to kill his three children. A NAMBLA manual doesnt direct a pedophile to act on hi/her impulses. There is a choice.
You are sick and every post confirms and strengthens that opinion.
The whole free speech thing was established so citizens could speak out against their government without the fear of reprisals. This has nothing to do with the free speech that the founding fathers wanted to protect. This is the left's attempt to have questionable and often offensive behavior accepted by mandate of the courts. You are defending child molestation by saying "this is the step before the actual act, so we must protect it since it is not the act itself." in essence.
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.
NaplesX, I think, needs to have a time-out to calm down. The moment you start thinking someone else is actually accepting child molestation, it's obvious your brain has started a shut-down procedure and you're continuing on inertia.
Oh dear. I am sure you have had thoughts of doing illegal acts, say speeding to get to work, but decided against it because of it legality. Since you had that thought, you broke the law? Hmm. Sounds earily familiar to pre-crime.
Are car manufacturers responsible for a death caused by speeding because they dont put govenors on their engines? No. But it took a court to decide that I believe.
Acts are what are illegal.
I really feel you believe that I am sick, its ashame. I think child molestation is the worse thing you could do to a child. I share your views on the core matter that you are arguing. And you think I am sick because I defend a group of peoples right to say what they want to say. This isnt McCarthyism, I am not a member of this organization because I defend their rights. Their rights are my rights and if they loose their rights I loose mine in a way. This is like the decency laws of the 1960's. Do you agree with those?
[i]I really feel you believe that I am sick, its ashame. I think child molestation is the worse thing you could do to a child. I share your views on the core matter that you are arguing. And you think I am sick because I defend a group of peoples right to say what they want to say. This isnt McCarthyism, I am not a member of this organization because I defend their rights. Their rights are my rights and if they loose their rights I loose mine in a way. This is like the decency laws of the 1960's. Do you agree with those? [/B]
What is the purpose of nambla? You cannot give me any other purpose than to encourage Man-Boy "Love". They are encouraging romantic/sexual relationships between adult men and young non legal boys. That is it. Nothing else. You are defending the rights of a despicable and arguably criminal organization on its face.
Why would one do that? Are you trying to prove how fair and open your views are?
Actually, I was not defending Groverat (at least not as the main point of my post), but I suppose I was being overly subtle/opaque.
My point was that arguing that agreeing with the ACLU meant agreeing with NAMBLA is ridiculous. It is the moral equivalent of stating that Groverat, because of the opinions set forth in this thread, is therefore anti-america and anti-children. It seemed obvious to me when I wrote it (especially when I included the sarcasm line), but I guess it was not.
What is the purpose of nambla? You cannot give me any other purpose than to encourage Man-Boy "Love". They are encouraging romantic/sexual relationships between adult men and young non legal boys. That is it. Nothing else. You are defending the rights of a despicable and arguably criminal organization on its face.
Why would one do that? Are you trying to prove how fair and open your views are?
so, nambla the organization, we all pretty much agree, is despicable. no one here seems to like it. but do despicable organizations have rights? i fear the day when the government comes up with a list of unliked organizations, and then gains the rights to userp constitutional powers from them. i don't like nambla, and i don't know the particulars of the aclu's association with them, but i presume that their constitutionally-guaranteed and providence-divined rights were attacked unjustly. even the really bad guys deserve a good lawyer.
so, nambla the organization, we all pretty much agree, is despicable. no one here seems to like it. but do despicable organizations have rights? i fear the day when the government comes up with a list of unliked organizations, and then gains the rights to userp constitutional powers from them. i don't like nambla, and i don't know the particulars of the aclu's association with them, but i presume that their constitutionally-guaranteed and providence-divined rights were attacked unjustly. even the really bad guys deserve a good lawyer.
The aclu is an organization that says it is for human/civil rights but they choose the side of perpetrator over the victim. That is the problem.
Thanks for someone finally putting up a link.
Quote:
"It has to do with communications on a website, and material that does not promote any kind of criminal behavior whatsoever."
...
Harvey Silverglate, an ACLU board member, said Wednesday that the group's attorneys will try to block any attempt by the Curleys to get NAMBLA's membership lists, or other materials identifying members.
I'm in favor of this so far, at least until we have some proof that the website and/or materials do promote criminal behavior. As for the second quoted part, I can't imagine why a judge would release that information but the ACLU should stop it.
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. I suppose lots of people advocate breaking the law. I'd just like to find out more info. But I'm at work right now so I'm not gonna click on any NAMBLA links.
Comments
Originally posted by billybobsky
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 murder to kill his three children. A NAMBLA manual doesnt direct a pedophile to act on hi/her impulses. There is a choice.
You are sick and every post confirms and strengthens that opinion.
The whole free speech thing was established so citizens could speak out against their government without the fear of reprisals. This has nothing to do with the free speech that the founding fathers wanted to protect. This is the left's attempt to have questionable and often offensive behavior accepted by mandate of the courts. You are defending child molestation by saying "this is the step before the actual act, so we must protect it since it is not the act itself." in essence.
Sick
Originally posted by bunge
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.
wrong poster, sorry
Originally posted by groverat
NaplesX, I think, needs to have a time-out to calm down. The moment you start thinking someone else is actually accepting child molestation, it's obvious your brain has started a shut-down procedure and you're continuing on inertia.
refer to my previous reply to you.
Are car manufacturers responsible for a death caused by speeding because they dont put govenors on their engines? No. But it took a court to decide that I believe.
Acts are what are illegal.
I really feel you believe that I am sick, its ashame. I think child molestation is the worse thing you could do to a child. I share your views on the core matter that you are arguing. And you think I am sick because I defend a group of peoples right to say what they want to say. This isnt McCarthyism, I am not a member of this organization because I defend their rights. Their rights are my rights and if they loose their rights I loose mine in a way. This is like the decency laws of the 1960's. Do you agree with those?
[i]I really feel you believe that I am sick, its ashame. I think child molestation is the worse thing you could do to a child. I share your views on the core matter that you are arguing. And you think I am sick because I defend a group of peoples right to say what they want to say. This isnt McCarthyism, I am not a member of this organization because I defend their rights. Their rights are my rights and if they loose their rights I loose mine in a way. This is like the decency laws of the 1960's. Do you agree with those? [/B]
What is the purpose of nambla? You cannot give me any other purpose than to encourage Man-Boy "Love". They are encouraging romantic/sexual relationships between adult men and young non legal boys. That is it. Nothing else. You are defending the rights of a despicable and arguably criminal organization on its face.
Why would one do that? Are you trying to prove how fair and open your views are?
Originally posted by NaplesX
Why would one do that? Are you trying to prove how fair and open your views are?
I defend the rights of drug dealers, murderers and even crooked cops.
Why do you hate America, Groverat? And children?
Fish
\\wishing there was a sarcastic font
Originally posted by fishdoc
Yeah!
Why do you hate America, Groverat? And children?
Fish
\\wishing there was a sarcastic font
Sorry fish, but you are starting to derail the thread. The thread is not about Groverat, but about ACLU. Until now i ignored that Groverat was ACLU
Perhaps you want to defend Groverat, but it's still derail the thread.
My point was that arguing that agreeing with the ACLU meant agreeing with NAMBLA is ridiculous. It is the moral equivalent of stating that Groverat, because of the opinions set forth in this thread, is therefore anti-america and anti-children. It seemed obvious to me when I wrote it (especially when I included the sarcasm line), but I guess it was not.
Fish
Originally posted by NaplesX
What is the purpose of nambla? You cannot give me any other purpose than to encourage Man-Boy "Love". They are encouraging romantic/sexual relationships between adult men and young non legal boys. That is it. Nothing else. You are defending the rights of a despicable and arguably criminal organization on its face.
Why would one do that? Are you trying to prove how fair and open your views are?
so, nambla the organization, we all pretty much agree, is despicable. no one here seems to like it. but do despicable organizations have rights? i fear the day when the government comes up with a list of unliked organizations, and then gains the rights to userp constitutional powers from them. i don't like nambla, and i don't know the particulars of the aclu's association with them, but i presume that their constitutionally-guaranteed and providence-divined rights were attacked unjustly. even the really bad guys deserve a good lawyer.
Originally posted by thuh Freak
so, nambla the organization, we all pretty much agree, is despicable. no one here seems to like it. but do despicable organizations have rights? i fear the day when the government comes up with a list of unliked organizations, and then gains the rights to userp constitutional powers from them. i don't like nambla, and i don't know the particulars of the aclu's association with them, but i presume that their constitutionally-guaranteed and providence-divined rights were attacked unjustly. even the really bad guys deserve a good lawyer.
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,38540,00.html
That is a overview of the story.
The aclu is an organization that says it is for human/civil rights but they choose the side of perpetrator over the victim. That is the problem.
prepare to be sick.
Originally posted by NaplesX
The aclu is an organization that says it is for human/civil rights but they choose the side of perpetrator over the victim. That is the problem.
The ACLU is committed to the preservation of rights and freedoms guaranteed by the US Constitution.
Originally posted by NaplesX
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,38540,00.html
That is a overview of the story.
The aclu is an organization that says it is for human/civil rights but they choose the side of perpetrator over the victim. That is the problem.
Thanks for someone finally putting up a link.
"It has to do with communications on a website, and material that does not promote any kind of criminal behavior whatsoever."
...
Harvey Silverglate, an ACLU board member, said Wednesday that the group's attorneys will try to block any attempt by the Curleys to get NAMBLA's membership lists, or other materials identifying members.
I'm in favor of this so far, at least until we have some proof that the website and/or materials do promote criminal behavior. As for the second quoted part, I can't imagine why a judge would release that information but the ACLU should stop it.
this is the rights that you are fighting for.
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. I suppose lots of people advocate breaking the law. I'd just like to find out more info. But I'm at work right now so I'm not gonna click on any NAMBLA links.
Originally posted by NaplesX
http://www.boylinks.net/
this is the rights that you are fighting for.
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.
It is your rights, and mine, and every other American's rights they are fighting for.