Would you convict this man?

@William,

William;67137 wrote:

Caroline,

"There's freedom of speech and there's what's deemed to be harmful to children and NAMBLA are, i wouldnt represent them in a million years........."

The statement you just made is identical to the mindset of the majority when abortions were "deemed" legal. The exact same sentiments. Now do you see these hearings appearing in the public domain "were the people are". Remember "of the people, by the people and for the people". You can't make decisions concerning all the people if all the people haven't a clue as to what is going on. Our judicial system is a prime illustration of intelligence gone insane.

William

Im sorry William i dont quite understand what you mean, could you explain in more detail the example aswell please?

---------- Post added at 12:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:18 PM ----------

I think NAMBLA should be ripped down and banned. It's disgusting.

@Bonaventurian,

Well, that's the downside of freedom of speech. On one hand you get to suggest what you want to without fear of censure within acceptable forums, on the other hand you have to hear other people vioce opinions you might find distasteful.

I think it's pretty much dictionary definition wrong-mindedness to suggest prepubescent sex should be considered a good idea. However, in the crucible of free debate I think good ideas will tend to thrive whilst bad ideas die the death. NAMBLA seem to me to have become increasingly marginalised since their inception without recourse to banning.

So I don't think NAMBLA should be banned, and I think their rights to legal defence should be the same as anyone elses. This needn't imply that I'm not shocked by their position, but I think allowing pressure groups - even for something so widely shocking - is better than criminalising people for what is essentially thoughtcrime, and thoughtcrime only.

@Bonaventurian,

It's not thought crime though is it, it's encouraging people to practise molestation of children by educating them and teaching them on how to do it.

---------- Post added at 12:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:49 PM ----------

And as i've said in my other op the murderers in the Curely case were found to have possession of NAMBLA material.

@Bonaventurian,

Having only learned a little bit about the movement in light of William's use of them as an example I can't be sure if I'm correct about their practices.

They do seem to be a group who advocate the abolishment of current (note to William, my use of the word current in no way indicates that I feel things should be different in the future) age of consent laws, and that charges of statutory rape against those men who have had sexual relations with young boys are unjust.

I agree with none of this, but I don't think it amounts to "teaching people how to molest children". As for encouraging it, well I suppose thats kind of implicit to their motives, but they aren't suggesting people break the law as far as I know - just that the law should be changed and that people who they see as "victimised" by the law should recieve support.

I don't think it's tasteful - but it's not quite as sinister as you make out. I think allowing a public pressure valve for groups such as this to vent their steam is preventative, and generally means that they don't become some furtive and underground thing, which would almost certainly provoke them into links with organised crime.

@Bonaventurian,

Im not saying that because NAMBLA are who they are they should be blamed because then you may aswell blame every organistaion like that. But in this particular case they had NAMBLA material. In general organisations like NAMBLA shouldnt be able to be within the public domain.

---------- Post added at 01:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:59 PM ----------

Yes I agree Dave, parties like the BNP are permitted for exactly that reason, so they can be monitered.

@Caroline,

Caroline;67154 wrote:

And as i've said in my other op the murderers in the Curely case were found to have possession of NAMBLA material.

Sure, and they may have had copies of the New York Times in their possession as well.

The question is - did the fact that they owned a certain possession influence them to take part in the crime?

Or, were they people drawn to certain acts, and a certain lifestyle, that the possessions were marketed to.

My assertion is the latter - that crimes like this are mostly performed by people who would have done it anyway. I think it's a bit cynical of the marketeers to produce products aimed at exploiting abberant eccentrics, but I think abberant eccentricity would be a bigger problem if forced underground.

@Bonaventurian,

It's just shocking to see things like NAMBLA and i can understand the Curley's blaming NAMBLA if only partly, dont you agree?

@Caroline,

Caroline;67157 wrote:

Yes I agree Dave, parties like the BNP are permitted for exactly that reason, so they can be monitered.

I don't think that's the reason. They are permitted because it would be obvious that our democracy was a sham if they were not.

---------- Post added at 01:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:06 PM ----------

Caroline;67160 wrote:

It's just shocking to see things like NAMBLA and i can understand the Curley's blaming NAMBLA if only partly, dont you agree?

Not really. It's obvious to me that if I were a bereaved parent - especially in a case so appalling as that of the Curleys, I would probably want to lash out. The natural desire to see heads roll would be in me. I would want to have some perspective left to me, however.

For all their apparent wrong-headedness, NAMBLA have always asserted that they only stand to support those who indulged in gentle and consentual sexual activity that did not result in physical harm. They are not law-makers, but a pressure group dedicated to an unpopular idea.

I've seen issues of Class War advocating the fire-bombing of police, and I've read articles pointing out that over 10 gunmen in the US have cited Natural Born Killers as an influence. I don't doubt that there is some power in expression, or that the "straw that breaks the camel's back" might be a particular depressing song, rap music, a violent film, or a computer game. On the other hand how often are these things a cathartic release for people, and how highly do we regard freedom of expression knowing that there may be the odd nutjob who gets inspired to do something terrible? My feeling is that it is worth not repressing things like this.

It's obviously a horrible personal tragedy, but I would hope that in the position of the Casey's I would refrain from taking action against those who only sought to diseminate ideas unless there was a lot more evidence to suggest that such diseminators weilded real influence and malicious intent over the criminals - such as blackmail or brainwashing.

@Dave Allen,

Dave Allen;67156 wrote:

.... and generally means that they don't become some furtive and underground thing, which would almost certainly provoke them into links with organised crime.

So which is it they dont go underground or we live in a democacry?

@Bonaventurian,

Ah right, I understand the confusion. I'll try and clarify.

In terms of something criminal, such as beating up grannies or sex with prepubescents I think we need to allow the expression of such crimes in part to avoid them becoming a repressed underworld phenomena and to allow freedom of speech and ideas.

In terms of unpopular political stances, I think we need to allow them to speak in order to demonstrate that we aren't afraid of them, and so that there can be an honest discourse about them so that people can make informed choices.

So there are simularities there, I agree. The fact is without discourse about things that disturb us we have no way of understanding why we should oppose them, or what they actually represent. I don't think political parties should be banned - because doing so disenfrachises those whose voice they represent, even if they are bigots. I don't think crimes should be allowed, but the expression of crimes and pressure groups to defend them - even if they are heinous - are also needed for an open and informed debate.

@Bonaventurian,

Bonaventurian;67001 wrote:

Why should I care what the law says any more than I would have cared what the German law said when holocaust was legal?

Approximately 600,000 Jews fled Germany during the 1930s, before the war ever started and certainly before the Holocaust happened. Those who cared enough about the law to try and change it were brutally suppressed. Very little of the Holocaust actually took place in Germany, the vast majority of it took place in Poland and Russia in lawless, stateless places of military occupation. And essentially none of the Holocaust was ever a law on the books.

So it's a useless question. If you find the laws of this land to be an abomination, you can 1) flee, 2) accept the legitimacy of our system whether or not you accept all its results, or 3) wage war on the state at your own peril.

That's what happened in Germany under the Nuremberg laws -- but the difference there was that there was no democratic system to change laws, there was political repression, and no one ever asked the people what they wanted. In this country by contrast, the legality of abortion is the will of the people and not the mandate of some oligarch.

@Aedes,

Aedes;67169 wrote:

3) wage war on the state at your own peril.

Yes, I was wondering - seeing as Bonaventurian believes that justice must be served despite the law - when he was planning to kill his first abortionist.

@Dave Allen,

Dave Allen;67138 wrote:

And there was a moral panic amongst many when they stopped burning witches.

Just because one putatively "progressive" (madly so in the case of NAMBLA) movement is widely agreed upon to be distasteful it doesn't mean that the abortion debate need necessarily be tarred with the same brush.

I mean, do note that NAMBLA remain a tiny proportion of people widely regarded as nutbags, the fact that the ACLU did their job in defending freedom of speech need not be taken as some sign that they are becoming acceptable.

As you now consider NAMBLA as "nutbags", prior to women's liberation, homosexuality was considered obscene. Now we have all but forbid the word obscene to be uttered in this politically correct society, as we will some day do the same to "nutbag". The same rhetoric of Larry flynt used as he compared the obscenity of allowing the gruesome photos of war compared to his beautiful depiction of pornography as he declared "which is the obscenest?". The courts approved pornography too. With no regard whatsoever as to the children that lived in that "adults only" public domain".

Dave, it is exactly this type of wishy washy, grey area, weak, middle of the road; using erroneous analogous events in history to justify and make a wrong seem right, type of rhetoric that will, I guarantee you, insure that sodomizing young boys will someday be legal. Damn! "Remember, it is consensual, your "Honor" and under the constitution, I have a legal right to pursue happiness......"

[/I]Homosexuality is a "tiny proportion", that cause the death of millions. Hell, look at the virus. I do not condemn the person. We can fix the person. If we have the technology to turn a man into a woman and a woman into a man, we can turn them back again. If an infant has the physiology of a man and there is a hormonal imbalance, we can fix that.

Feminism is an insignificant amount of people and look at all the deaths they caused. Damn. So the weight of your argument makes about as much sense as a feather in a tornado.

Now the idols love them. My God, they chauffeur them around, polish their toes, fix their hair, design their clothes, come to their beckon call, tell them how "simply marvelous" they are and are paid one hell of a lot of money to remain their "slaves". I am sorry. I am getting a little angry. I guarantee you it is not hatred, it is anger. I am getting so tired of seeing this type of argument.

I promise you, anyone can find a reason in past to justify even the most horrendous behavior in the present. That is exactly what the ego does, that's what the lawyers do, that's what Hitler did, and Dave, that is what you just did. Sorry, everyone needs to vent sometime and it needs to be in the presence of others. My two cents are spent. Somebody throw some cold water on me.

William

@William,

William;67179 wrote:

Homosexuality is a "tiny proportion", that cause the death of millions. Hell, look at the virus. I do not condemn the person. We can fix the person. If we have the technology to turn a man into a woman and a woman into a man, we can turn them back again. If an infant has the physiology of a man and there is a hormonal imbalance, we can fix that.
William

Some people may not want to change their bodies and are happy the way the are.
What virus, HIV? Because that affects everyone including hetrosexuals.

@Bonaventurian,

William, I know we don't generally agree, so I'm not wanting to make a huge issue about this as I suspect we'll just argue forever if left to it, but I just fail to even understand your post on a fundamental level of comprehension.

I mean - feminism caused the deaths of hundreds?

I suppose you mean to imply that without feminists there would be no abortion (which I think is clearly wrong) or that someone who thinks women should share equal rights and suffrage with men also feels that the unborn should have no rights (I think this is also wrong).

I don't think my stance is wishy washy or weak. I am essentially a Voltarian in regards to freedom of speech - I may not like what people have to say but I support their right to say it. This is within reason - I do not want to have any particular opinion channelled into my ear 24/7 - but I feel that societies benefit from having forums where anything can be said - no matter how it might offend someone.

I'm pretty firm on the matter - it's not a grey area for me at all.

Quote:

So the weight of your argument makes about as much sense as a feather in a tornado.

Yet, with respect, it is the opinion that George Tiller's death was justified that is the marginal voice, within the context of this thread an US society (let alone the UK, where the abortion debate is much less heated).

Indeed, I find it slightly alarming that people seem to be seriously suggesting that the right of members of NAMBLA to legal representation when accused of a crime they didn't commit is somehow more shocking than the murder of an abortionist.

Quote:

As you now consider NAMBLA as "nutbags", prior to women's liberation, homosexuality was considered obscene.

Yes, I regard them as a progressive step too far - I have my limits, they just aren't the same as yours. The fact that I do acknowledge some limits needn't make me wishy-washy or hypocritical. Homosexuality and feminism are well within my limits. Abortion is a regrettable thing that I don't want to see occur, but I think it is better off being legal and I think murderers of arbortionists should be locked up. NAMBLA have the right to state their desires - but I would oppose those desires being made legal.

I don't see what's particularly problematic here.

@Caroline,

Caroline;67181 wrote:

Some people may not want to change their bodies and are happy the way the are.
What virus, HIV? Because that affects everyone including hetrosexuals.

Homosexuality is not as "gay" as the word indicates. Go to the NARTH website and find out more about that. I referred to the virus to indicate what damage "tiny" can do as it relates to the "tiny numbers of feminist and Gays" and their tiny numbers in the world. Feminism is the female voice that was given loud speakers (television) that was the foundation that led to roe v. wade resulting in millions of deaths to our unborn children. Of course then they were called unborn children. Now they are just fetuses meaning nothing. Pieces of meat. There is absolutely nothing wrong with killing a piece of meat. The millions that have died as a result of male homosexuality is evident. In other words tiny can do one hell of a lot of damage.

in vitro fertilization, surrogate child birth, and NAMBLA are methods that will turn that tiny into many. And it will spread like a virus.

You might also want to go to the NAMBLA website and note their pin-up of the day. When it was known a few years ago that an organization like NAMBLA even existed, hackers destroyed their websites. Obviously, they have some pretty good barriers now. Now for the most part the vast majority of people are still disgusted. But I guarantee you there are judges who are sitting in our courts who belong to this group. You see Caroline, in homosexual jargan the young are just pieces of meat to satisify their morbid hedonism.

William

---------- Post added at 04:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:07 PM ----------

Dave Allen;67185 wrote:

I don't see what's particularly problematic here.

And that is your problem. Dave are you a member of Nambla or the ACLU? Just curious. I have spoken with other men (men/men) heterosexual variety and yet have we ever gotten past the disgust, let alone talk about their "rights". Frankly, if I had a son and a member of nambla approached my son, he would be a dead member of nambla. Can you possibly understand that?

William

@Bonaventurian,

Yes, I know that judges belong to groups and they should be ousted,thankfully there are some really decent judges out there too or where we be.

@William,

William;67199 wrote:

Dave are you a member of Nambla or the ACLU?

I must have referred to NAMBLA as "shocking" and "wrong-headed" enough times in my previous posts to give at least some degree of insight into my feelings on the matter. I don't see why I would want to be a member of an organisation that I felt was wrong-headed and I think an age of consent between 16-18 (as it is in most western nations) is sensible. I don't think it's physically wise to have sex before sexual maturity, let alone psychologically wise.

However, they commit no crime as far as I can see, they just support those who have committed crimes. I'm not interested in visiting their website or learning anything more about them, I don't agree with their objectives and I think they are a marginal group of nutbags as I stated earlier. I just agree with their right to express themselves.

As a UK citizen living in Northern Ireland I can't see how I could be a member of the ACLU. In the spirit of your constitution and first ammendment though I think American civil liberties are something to be admired and I am glad there are groups willing to defend them even in the case of groups like NAMBLA.

Does that clear things up for you or do you still think that I think statutory rape should be made legal?

@Dave Allen,

Dave Allen;67294 wrote:

I just agree with their right to express themselves.

Let me put it this way. Considering what I have said about the judges sitting on the benches of our courts and NAMBLA and their "desire" to sodomize young boys, let's say the court should decide that the age of concent were 14 years old. Would you go along with that ruling and allow fourteen year old "children" to be seduced by older homosexual men. This is not about "consent" this is about "seduction". And the easiest person to seduce is a child. Do you see what I mean. By the way do you have any children?

William

@William,

William;67320 wrote:

Let me put it this way. Considering what I have said about the judges sitting on the benches of our courts and NAMBLA and their "desire" to sodomize young boys, let's say the court should decide that the age of concent were 14 years old. Would you go along with that ruling and allow fourteen year old "children" to be seduced by older homosexual men. This is not about "consent" this is about "seduction". And the easiest person to seduce is a child. Do you see what I mean. By the way do you have any children?

William

William i don't think you will find anyone on this forum would contemplate pedos being given any credence or support them in any way.What worries me is that you are using this extreme minority as a weapon in your fight against homosexuality in general.In Africa due to RC dogma thousands of heterosexual men women and children are dying of aids.Its not sex that kills its ignorance,dogma or stupidity.The church in America are partially to blame for the deaths in Africa due to their selective charitable aid being targeted at countries who dont encourage contraception.Your anger appears to be very selective and is blinkered to other evil acts.

Philosophy Forum

Would you convict this man?

Quick Links

My Account

able2know