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.
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?
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"
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?).
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.
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.
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....
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.
Comments
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.
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.
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?
[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.
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
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.
Here is something I ran across. The new york government viewed Nambla as a pedophile/criminal group.
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.
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.
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
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?).
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.
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.
Originally posted by NaplesX
It is not just about free speech.
Oh but it is.
The ACLU is a huge organization that is supposed to be supporting and defending civil rights.
The Bill of Rights.
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.
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.
It is arguably a criminal enterprise.
Since when did speech become a crime?
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.
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.
This speech that they are trying to protect is not harmless.
I would argue that no speech, however innocuous it may seem, is harmless.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
I feel for you.
Don't.
But hey, I will have to agree to disagree on this one. [/B]
Whatever.
Cheers
Scott
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.
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