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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
Comments
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.
Originally posted by NaplesX
You are just being silly now.
Give it up.
Try to think. Pretty please?
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.
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.
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.
grow a moral compass will ya.
They're overrated, considering what constitutes "moral" keeps changing.
Cheers
Scott
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.
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.
Originally posted by midwinter
Good job ignoring the rest of my post.
Thanks, I allready replied to that flawed argument.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Thanks, I allready replied to that flawed argument.
Must've been such an impressive response that I missed it.
Originally posted by midwinter
The ACLU is committed to the preservation of rights and freedoms guaranteed by the US Constitution.
Originally posted by Scott
wonderful retort.
I'm still not sure why the Boy Scouts need to be chased out of public places? Care to explain midwinter?
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.
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
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...
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
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
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.
Originally posted by addabox
Gosh, you guys have really nailed the persuasive rhetoric. It's like debating Socrates.
Heh. More likely Thrasymachus.
Cheers
Scott