Civil rights, Religious Freedom, pedophilia

[Kathy29]

Why not? If same sex marriage is a civil right, why not pedophilia?

http://www.nbc10.com/news/9621055/detail.html

[Oolon Coluphid]

Why not? If same sex marriage is a civil right, why not pedophilia?

http://www.nbc10.com/news/9621055/detail.html

Consent, consent, consent. That's why. Jeez you people. :rolleyes:

[Lubbock]

No, no, no, OC. You don't understand. The ACLU is fighting for the rights of pedophiles.

RIGHTS!!!

Pedophiles have rights.

Don't you get it?

[Borgia]

Don't pedophiles have the same rights as the rest of us? :question:

The man in the article is an idiot and I hope he spends the rest of his life in prison.

[Beowulf]

Consent, consent, consent. That's why. Jeez you people. :rolleyes:

Go back to Fundies where you belong! I'm so glad I don't post their anymore....you and Left Wing radical BS!!

[Oolon Coluphid]

Go back to Fundies where you belong! I'm so glad I don't post their anymore....you and Left Wing radical BS!!

Was there anything false in what I said? No.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Consent, consent, consent. That's why. Jeez you people. :rolleyes:

NBC10.com - Local News - Ohio Man Claims Right To Have Sex With Boys (http://www.nbc10.com/news/9621055/detail.html)

Appearing in an Ohio court for a pretrial hearing, Phillip Distasio, 34, of Rocky River, Ohio, said he was a pedophile.

He told the judge, "I'm a pedophile. I've been a pedophile for 20 years. The only reason I'm charged with rape is that no one believes a child can consent to sex. The role of my ministry is to get these cases out of the courtrooms."


Special rights sought based upon deviant behavior, special rights sought based upon deviant behavior, special rights sought based upon deviant behavior! Jeez, you liberals! :rolleyes:

[Peachdiane]

NAMBLA and ACLU go hand in hand...

Colon, you're sick....

Here is the link to an ACLU page, where they defended the “liberties” of NAMBLA. The case stems from the conviction of two murderers, both gay, of a 10-year-old boy. One was possession of NAMBLA material: NAMBLA (http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/Rage/NAMBLARAGEPAGE.html)

This picture is yet one more reason to support the war on NAMBLA:

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7552/1517/1600/untitled.4.jpg

[Oolon Coluphid]

(http://www.nbc10.com/news/9621055/detail.html)
He told the judge, "I'm a pedophile. I've been a pedophile for 20 years. The only reason I'm charged with rape is that no one believes a child can consent to sex. The role of my ministry is to get these cases out of the courtrooms."


Special rights sought based upon deviant behavior, special rights sought based upon deviant behavior, special rights sought based upon deviant behavior! Jeez, you liberals! :rolleyes:

Children cannot legally give consent, adults can. It's that simple.

Not to mention the fact that anyone who is even wishing that children could give consent is a sick freak and should consider putting themselves out of their misery.

[Lubbock]

EDIT: Post deleted by Poster because it was a really stupid thing to say!!!

[Oolon Coluphid]

Colon, you're sick....

Colon. How clever.

Why am I sick? I merely pointed out that the difference between same sex relationships and pedophilia was consent. It's the farking truth! Do you not like truth around here?

[Oolon Coluphid]

OC just can't bring himself to condemn child rape.

Amazing.

Just stunning.

I JUST DID YOU FARKING IDIOT!!!!

[Lubbock]

EDIT: You're right OC. I should have recognized what you were responding to, and I owe you a profound apology. I'm sorry.

[Oolon Coluphid]

Then why wasn't that the first words out of your mouth, instead of making it appear that you concurred with the pedophile?

YOU FREAKING IDIOT!!!

Because of Kathy29's asinine comment that

Why not? If same sex marriage is a civil right, why not pedophilia?

I do not enjoy being accused of being a pedophile sympathizer. How about reading and understanding next time before you do it again?

[Kathy29]

Awww.

You mean you don't know that age of consent is an artificial construct. It's just a word on a page. It's the same sort of artificial construct that says marriage is only between one man and one woman. Change the age of consent and now what's the problem. Why, centuries ago, there was no such thing as an age of consent. Mohammad married a six year old. See how other cultures treated consent.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">He told the judge, "I'm a pedophile. I've been a pedophile for 20 years. The only reason I'm charged with rape is that no one believes a child can consent to sex. The role of my ministry is to get these cases out of the courtrooms."


</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Children cannot legally give consent, adults can. It's that simple.

Not to mention the fact that anyone who is even wishing that children could give consent is a sick freak and should consider putting themselves out of their misery.

You just don't get it. What if the quote read like this:

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">He told the judge, "I'm a homosexual. I've been a homosexual for 20 years. The only reason I'm charged with sodomy is because no one believes a homosexual is born that way. The role of my ministry is to get these cases out of the courtrooms."</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Not to mention the fact that at one time in this country a majority of the people thought anyone who even considered homosexual behavior to be "normal" was a sick freak and should consider putting themselves out of their misery.

Try as its defenders might, they cannot ignore or escape the truth. BOTH homosexuality and pedophelia are deviant sexual behaviors -- they deviate from the norm. BOTH feel they are "born that way," and unable to change their "orientation." When allowances are made for one (homosexuality) it will not be long before the practitioners of the other will be using the SAME arguments to bolster their position that THEIR deviant behavior be accepted, normalized and legalized.

It is not WE who "don't get it."

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Awww.

You mean you don't know that age of consent is an artificial construct. It's just a word on a page. It's the same sort of artificial construct that says marriage is only between one man and one woman. Change the age of consent and now what's the problem. Why, centuries ago, there was no such thing as an age of consent. Mohammad married a six year old. See how other cultures treated consent.

EXCELLENT point, Kathy :claps:

[Peachdiane]

Yeah, kids are easy to trick and manipulate. They are not old enough to hold their own mentally with an adult.

I'm sure people remember Ken Parnell when he kept a 7 year old child as a sex slave for seven years. When he was captured, he let it be known that his only regret was being afraid the child would bleed from anal rape. And he was caught when he sought out a new child and the older one turned him in. And he even said the 7 year old consented....

You see, for the pedophile, age trumps all. This is what society is up against. Dutch is trying to lower the consent to 12, and Canada to 14. America is next.

So what we are trying to do, simply, is to save our children.

[DeclinetoState]

It appears to me that some comments meant as sarcasm were taken literally.

The issue of consent is interesting: by what standards do we say that kids can't consent to something, and below what age? A line has to be drawn somewhere, but wherever it is, it has to be a bit arbitrary.

Let's say the age of consent is 16. On the night before her "Sweet 16" birthday, a girl "becomes a woman" at the hands of her 19-year-old beau. Is this rape? Technically, yes. Yet many would feel squeamish about prosecuting the young man. But what if the man was 29--or 39? Would it be a crime then?

[Oolon Coluphid]

BOTH homosexuality and pedophelia are deviant sexual behaviors -- they deviate from the norm.
Pedophilia hurts kids. Two adult men or women being together does not.

[Borgia]

Awww.

You mean you don't know that age of consent is an artificial construct. It's just a word on a page. It's the same sort of artificial construct that says marriage is only between one man and one woman. Change the age of consent and now what's the problem. Why, centuries ago, there was no such thing as an age of consent. Mohammad married a six year old. See how other cultures treated consent.

We have changed the age of consent here in the US too. 16, 18, ??

I am not sure what your point is.

[DoctorDoom]

Consent, consent, consent. That's why. Jeez you people.You liberals place a lot of stock in consent, but it's not conservatives who are constantly agitating for lowering or eliminating the age of consent.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Pedophilia, hurts kids. Two adult men or women being together does not.

Does that change the fact that they are BOTH deviant behaviors? Why should ONE deviant behavior be legitimized while the other prosecuted? As Kathy pointed out, "age of consent" is a man-made construct, it can be changed or even ELIMINATED, paving the way for "legitimacy." Would you still have a problem with pedophilia if the age of consent was eliminated? If you would, why?

I sure as shooting would! Same as I have a problem with legitimizing the OTHER deviant behavior!

BTW, two adult men "being together" does hurt them -- the anus is not for receiving; the behavior is unsafe and dangerous.

[Lubbock]

It's NAMBLA who is agitating for lowering or eliminating the age of consent, and the ACLU is backing them up.

<!-- / message -->

[DoctorDoom]

Does that change the fact that they are BOTH deviant behaviors? Why should ONE deviant behavior be legitimized while the other prosecuted?Faggotry is politically correct. Pedophilia isn't. Yet.

[Kathy29]

Deviant sexual behavior is a family of behavior. Accept one and acceptance of the rest is easy.

That's why what two men or two women do in their own private lives should remain private, but not accepted as normal behavior by the larger society.

[Peachdiane]

Lub is right...

Not only are they trying to lower consent, there's a NAMBLA publication called "The Rape and Escape Manual." Its actual title is "The Survival Manual: The Man's Guide to Staying Alive in Man-Boy Sexual Relationships."

[Borgia]

It's NAMBLA who is agitating for lowering or eliminating the age of consent, and the ACLU is backing them up.

<!-- / message -->

I think memebers of NAMBLA are allowed to voice their discontent with the age of cnsent, right? After all, it is their First Amendment right to do so, correct? And the ACLU backs them up in their right to freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech isn't worth much if the only protected speech is speech that everyone thinks is acceptable.

[Wyatt_Junker]

How old was Priscilla when Elvis de-cherry'd her?

[Borgia]

Not only are they trying to lower consent, there's a NAMBLA publication called "The Rape and Escape Manual." Its actual title is "The Survival Manual: The Man's Guide to Staying Alive in Man-Boy Sexual Relationships."

I am sure tehy are trying to lower the age of consent. Is there anything illegal about them voicing their opinion through publications? Are they not protected by the First Amendment to write that stuff?

(I feel the need to add that I do not endorse NAMBLA in any way but will fight to allow them their free speech)

[Peachdiane]

Just harmlessly voicing their opinion eh? Please, you cannot possibly be that dense.

In the guide I mentioned earlier, the chapters explain how to build relationships with children and how to gain the confidence of children's parents. They also state where to go to have sex with children so as not to get caught. There is even advice, if one gets caught, on when to leave America and how to rip off credit card companies to get cash to finance your flight.

How about the civil suit filed by Mr. and Mrs. Robert Curley? The murderer of their son, Charles Jaynes, is a NAMBLA freak and he was driven by NAMBLA materials to stalk the boy.

NAMBLA is not merely lobbying Congress for legal change. They are actively training their members to rape and abuse young boys.

"Just voicing their opinion through publications...." My ass. These pamphlets are aiding and abetting felonious conduct.

[Lubbock]

Yes, he's a Lib and he's that dense.

Here's the bottom line: There are a few things --pedophilia being one, that are simply too evil to be defended or given rights.

A pedophile having the RIGHT to voice his displeasure at the age of consent is simply too evil to be tolerated.

AND I DON'T WANT TO HEAR ANY DAMNED CRAP ABOUT THE FIRST AMENDMENT.

[DoctorDoom]

I am sure tehy are trying to lower the age of consent. Is there anything illegal about them voicing their opinion through publications? Are they not protected by the First Amendment to write that stuff?Bore-gia, do you have even a microclue about the original intent of the 1A? It was to protect POLITICAL speech, not pedophiles expounding on how to f**k children. Liberal judges have perverted the 1A until the only thing that is NOT protected is political speech (q.v., Campaign Finance Reform).

[Borgia]

Just harmlessly voicing their opinion eh? Please, you cannot possibly be that dense.
I am not saying thier opinions are without consequences. Would you outlaw thier right to vopice their opinion?


In the guide I mentioned earlier, the chapters explain how to build relationships with children and how to gain the confidence of children's parents. They also state where to go to have sex with children so as not to get caught. There is even advice, if one gets caught, on when to leave America and how to rip off credit card companies to get cash to finance your flight.
Interesting. Are books that teach people how to avoid or break the law without being caught illegal? SHould they be? I ask cause I do not know. I remember the Anarchist Cookbook from a while ago that taught bombmaking. I don't think it was illegal to have one. Am I wrong? Should it be? All good questions.



How about the civil suit filed by Mr. and Mrs. Robert Curley? The murderer of their son, Charles Jaynes, is a NAMBLA freak and he was driven by NAMBLA materials to stalk the boy.

NAMBLA is not merely lobbying Congress for legal change. They are actively training their members to rape and abuse young boys.

"Just voicing their opinion through publications...." My ass. These pamphlets are aiding and abetting felonious conduct.

Aiding and abetting, now that is something legal that we can hang them on, I guess. But if they stand up and say they think the legal age of consent should be 8, that is free speech, right?

[Borgia]

Bore-gia, do you have even a microclue about the original intent of the 1A? It was to protect POLITICAL speech, not pedophiles expounding on how to f**k children. Liberal judges have perverted the 1A until the only thing that is NOT protected is political speech (q.v., Campaign Finance Reform).

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
So only political speech is protected there? That is a unique interpretation of the 1A. Anyone else think that only political speech is protected by the 1A? That govt can outlaw nonpolitical speech as it pleases?

[DoctorDoom]

Bore-gia is a classic liberal who "thinks" that the 1A protects filth merchants, boy-rapers, et al. I'm sure the FF would agree with him.

[Borgia]

Do all you other conservatives believe that the First Amendment only protects political speech? I mean, this is a new one for me but maybe conservatives do actually interpret the 1A that way and I never knew it.

[DoctorDoom]

My point:

Bore-gia, do you have even a microclue about the original intent of the 1A?Do you really think the FF intended that the Bill of Rights would protect the speech of men who want to ram their dicks into little boys' asses?

[Lubbock]

Of course that's what he believes, Doctor. He's a Liberal, and there isn't an evil on the planet that a Liberal won't defend.

Raping children?

Sure.

What the hell.

Just so long as a pedophile's rights to rape or rights to free speech aren't violated.

Anything goes, as far as the Libs are concerned.

Liberals: defenders of evil.

[Oolon Coluphid]

Of course that's what he believes, Doctor. He's a Liberal, and there isn't an evil on the planet that a Liberal won't defend.

Raping children?

Nobody is defending the act of raping children

Sure.

What the hell.

Just so long as a pedophile's rights to rape or rights to free speech aren't violated.

How many times does it have to be said? NOBODY IS DEFENDING THE ACT OF CHILD RAPE!!!!

[TechnoPrincess]

No, owning NAMBLA material is not against any Federal law. Some states are trying to enact laws against it, but they get resistance from the ACLU. The Anarchist Cookbook is also still not against any Federal law.

Should it be illegal, in my opinion yes. Any material that advocates and gives instructions on how to commit illegal acts should be illegal.

And there is speech that is restricted already. You can't go into a crowded theatre and yell 'FIRE' for no reason.

[Kathy29]

The First Amendment is a bar to the federal government only. It protects political speech. Other types of speech are subject to restrictions. Child porn is against the law but is a type of speech. Libel and slander are subject to penalties but are types of speech. Fraud is illegal but is speech. Even political speech is subject to restrictions such as time and place. If political speech was "free" why would you need a permit to engage in a political rally and what happens when that permit is denied.

Incitement to violence. Threats, they are all speech and are definitely illegal.

May I steal? Liberals, defenders of evil.

[Oolon Coluphid]

May I steal? Liberals, defenders of evil.

No, but you can talk about it, and even tell others how to.

[MSGT]

You libs sure are gettin your panties twisted in a knot trying to defend this crap.

And, yes you are defending child rape. They are being defended with the 1a argument.





Consent, consent, consent. That's why. Jeez you people. :rolleyes:Dumbest post ever.

[Oolon Coluphid]

Dumbest post ever.

And you're the dumbest person ever if you didn't understand it.

Can someone please explain to me how two consenting adults of the same sex getting it on is equivalent to a pervert raping a helpless child?

[Oolon Coluphid]

And, yes you are defending child rape.

No, we are defending talking about it, not the act itself. There is a difference.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Can someone please explain to me how two consenting adults of the same sex getting it on is equivalent to a pervert raping a helpless child?

I already did, but you refuse to accept the truth.

Pedophilia is a deviant sexual behavior.
Homosexuality is a deviant sexual behavior.

Neither pedophilia nor homosexuality is a normal sexual behavior, ergo they are the equivalent of each other -- deviant sexual behavior.

Please explain to me why one deviant sexual behavior should be elevated to the same status and recogniztion as a normal behavior, but not the other?

Please explain to me by what authority can the two (deviant) behaviors be separated, and one deemed normal?

Please explain to me how homosexual behavior and heterosexual behavior are the same, and pedophilia different. If you are hanging its similarity on the "consent" aspect, recognize we have already blown that out of the water.

[MSGT]

And you're the dumbest person ever if you didn't understand it.

Can someone please explain to me how two consenting adults of the same sex getting it on is equivalent to a pervert raping a helpless child? Did you read any of the posts on this thread?
http://www.picpop.com/gallery/albums/userpics/10415/hey-you.jpg (http://javascript%3Cb%3E%3C/b%3E:;)

[DoctorDoom]

No, we are defending talking about it, not the act itself. There is a difference.You can't possibly be as dumb as you seem, ergo you're just trolling for quotes.

Talking about it is one thing. We are doing that here. You libs are defending material that promotes child rape, describes how to make it seem acceptable, and provides advice on dealing with the legal ramifications of doing it. If you defend their right to publish that material, then you are in fact defending the activities that it promotes, and your bullshit disclaimers will not pass muster here.

[DoctorDoom]

Did you read any of the posts on this thread?Of course not. He's harvesting quotes for use on that other board, and he is making an utter asshole of himself in order to evoke the responses that he and his braindead fellow dipshits find amusing.

[Borgia]

If you defend their right to publish that material, then you are in fact defending the activities that it promotes

If the Republicans print material telling how Democrats are wrong on the war in Iraq, I would defend their right to publish that material.

Does that mean I promote the Republican agenda in Iraq?

If you Doom, support the right of the Democrats to make speeches about how Bush's fiscal policy is wrong, does that mean you support the Democrats?


On this very site, I saw people defend Phelps' right to speech. Does that mean they support Phelps? Should I look up the names of those who defended his right to speak so you can tear them a new one?

[DoctorDoom]

If the Republicans print material telling how Democrats are wrong on the war in Iraq, I would defend their right to publish that material.Red herring. First, that is political speech. Second, it has nothing whatsoever to do with defending material published by a pedophile group.

Don't you have a toilet to clean somewhere?

[MSGT]

If the Republicans print material telling how Democrats are wrong on the war in Iraq, I would defend their right to publish that material.

Does that mean I promote the Republican agenda in Iraq?

If you Doom, support the right of the Democrats to make speeches about how Bush's fiscal policy is wrong, does that mean you support the Democrats?


On this very site, I saw people defend Phelps' right to speech. Does that mean they support Phelps? Should I look up the names of those who defended his right to speak so you can tear them a new one?Is there some secret competition for the dumbest shit ever to be posted on the internet?

[DoctorDoom]

Nah, they're just the usual accumulation of moonbats.

<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/moonbat200.jpg" />

[Oolon Coluphid]

I already did, but you refuse to accept the truth.

Pedophilia is a deviant sexual behavior.
Homosexuality is a deviant sexual behavior.

Neither pedophilia nor homosexuality is a normal sexual behavior, ergo they are the equivalent of each other -- deviant sexual behavior.

Normal schmormal. I don't care about normal.

Listen, in one instance you have two consenting adults who may or may not be harming themselves, but that's OK because they are both adults.

In the other case, you have a sorry excuse for a human being harming an innocent child who definitely didn't (and couldn't) agree to it.

Now do you see a difference? You are being dishonest if you say you don't.

[Oolon Coluphid]

If you are hanging its similarity on the "consent" aspect, recognize we have already blown that out of the water.

We have not "blown it out of the water"

Consent is a legal and social construct based on the age at which average people are deemed responsible enough to be able to make informed decisions.

[Oolon Coluphid]

Is there some secret competition for the dumbest shit ever to be posted on the internet?

Yes, and right now you're in the lead.

[Kathy29]

You see the difference, but it's the wrong difference. One is condemning homosexuality and condemning pedophilia because they are the same. They aren't.

The other difference is acceptance by the larger society of homosexuality as a normal state of being, and acceptance of pedophilia as a normal state of being, and both are alternative lifestyles equally looking for that societal acceptance.

The only reason why a child cannot consent to being sexually abused is because there is a law that says they can't. That law is the age of consent, which can be arbitrarily raised or lowered by the same body that put the law into place. Or, even eliminated entirely. Homosexuals and pedophiles want the very same thing, a change in existing law that makes their perversion socially and legally acceptable.

Do you understand the difference? Don't be dense. I can't make it much clearer than that.

[Borgia]

Red herring. First, that is political speech. Second, it has nothing whatsoever to do with defending material published by a pedophile group.

You said that if you defend a groups right to speak that you must agree with the speech. Is that true or not? Here are your words yet again:

If you defend their right to publish that material, then you are in fact defending the activities that it promotes

Or does this "logic" only apply to pedophiles?

[Oolon Coluphid]

That law is the age of consent, which can be arbitrarily raised or lowered by the same body that put the law into place.

It can't be raised or lowered without the OK of the people living in the society where it exists.

[Borgia]

Is there some secret competition for the dumbest shit ever to be posted on the internet?

I agree, it is dumb to think that supporting someone's right to free speech translates into supporting their position.

[TechnoPrincess]

It can't be raised or lowered without the OK of the people living in the society where it exists.

Really, do you have any idea how hard it is to rescind a law that is already on the books?

[Lubbock]

Here's what it boils down to:

Gays --backed up by the ACLU and Legislators In Black Robes, have been so successful in their attempt to "Normalize The Gay Lifestyle", that now Pedophiles [who are being backed up by the ACLU, and will probably also get help from Legislators In Black Robes], have taken a page from the Gay Playbook.

Normalize child rape.

That is the intent.

The intent is to normalize child rape, and the First Amendment is what they are hiding behind.

That should not be allowed to happen, but when you've got the Libs advocating for Pedopholes, it is being allowed.

There is no difference in the evil of child rape and those who advocate for it using a Constitutional Guarantee of RIGHTS, than the Muslims Terrorists it Gitmo using a Constitutional Guarantee of RIGHTS to continue trying to kill all of us.

And I'm going to say this one more time: There are certain evils that only Libs will defend --child rape being one of them.

[MSGT]

It can't be raised or lowered without the OK of the people living in the society where it exists.Congratulations, You're back on top. What do we have for the winner, Johnny.

http://www.picpop.com/gallery/albums/userpics/Idiot/assclown.jpg

[Rhino]

It can't be raised or lowered without the OK of the people living in the society where it exists.
That's the theory. Reality is a different matter.

I think some people here are using differing defintions of "equivalent". Consensual homosexuality and pedophelia are not at all equal, even if one considers them both deviant.

[DeclinetoState]

How old was Priscilla when Elvis de-cherry'd her?According to Priscilla's page at IMDB.com (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001636/), she was born in 1945, but met Elvis the Pelvis in 1959, making her 14 (she was born in May, so she might still have been 13 when they first met). They married in 1967 (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001636/bio), a few weeks before she turned 22. They split up in 1973, having been married about six years.

If Elvis made her into a woman the first time they met, and she hadn't reached her birthday yet, she could have been as young as 13.

[Kathy29]

It can't be raised or lowered without the OK of the people living in the society where it exists.

YES it can.

All you need is a judge sympathetic to the demands of pedophiles. The Texas courts didn't ask the people who put the law into place when it struck down the sodomy statutes did it?

All you need is a state legislature who feels that children are more sophisticated today at 10 years old than when the archaic law was put into place.

[Kathy29]

That's the theory. Reality is a different matter.

I think some people here are using differing defintions of "equivalent". Consensual homosexuality and pedophelia are not at all equal, even if one considers them both deviant.

Although homosexuality and pedophelia are not at all equal, the legitimacy they are looking for from the general society is exactly the same.

[Wolfcounsel]

"If Elvis made her into a woman the first time they met,..." --DeclinetoState

An adult pervert having sexual intercourse with a child DOES NOT make the child a woman.


:whip: That's 50 peepee whacks for you!

[Peachdiane]

I think I read somewhere she was deflowered at 14.

But they were in LURVE....:rolleyes:

[Peachdiane]

And you know else is ironic? Dakota Fanning (12) just shot a rape scene for "Hounddog." It's supposed to be realistic as if one were right there. And in the movie, she finds solace in Elvis Presley songs....

Anyway her mom said her performance in the rape scene is Oscar-worthy. Acting or no, I wouldn't put any child of mine through that. :flame:

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Normal schmormal. I don't care about normal.

Listen, in one instance you have two consenting adults who may or may not be harming themselves, but that's OK because they are both adults.

In the other case, you have a sorry excuse for a human being harming an innocent child who definitely didn't (and couldn't) agree to it.

Now do you see a difference? You are being dishonest if you say you don't.

YOU are feigning blindness -- all it will take is a change of the age of consent, and pedophilia will be "legitimized." All it has taken is a change in the "normalization" of homosexual behavior for the homosexual community to push for a special right to "marriage." YOU are being dishonest if you don't recognize that BOTH behaviors, homosexuality and pedophilia are deviant behaviors. YOU are being dishonest if you don't recognize that deviant sexual behaviors do not deserve "special rights."

I will ask again -- by what authority do we assign legitimacy to one deviant sexual behavior (homosexuality) while condeming the other (pedophilia)? If it is based on subjective "feeling" such as:

"In the other case, you have a sorry excuse for a human being harming an innocent child who definitely didn't (and couldn't) agree to it."

then you'll need to definitively (for all time!) . . .
. . . define "sorry excuse for a human being"
. . . define "innocent child"
. . . define "couldn't agree to it"
and keep those from ever being redefined.

ALL of those are subject to interpretation, ergo subject to change! If the consent age is lowered to 10, and a 9 year, 11 month, 28 day old child has "consented" to sex with an adult, is the adult a "sorry excuse for a human being"? Is s/he (child) an "innocent child"? Could s/he truly "not agree to it" because she was 2-3 days shy of 10 years old?

There was a TIME when homosexual behavior was NOT accepted in this country, NOT condoned in this country, NOT defined as just another "alternative lifestyle." Now we have struck down sodomy laws and state judiciaries have embraced "homosexual (non)marriage".

If ONE deviant behavior can be forced down the throat of a decent moral society (pardon the pun :smirky: ), there is very little to stop another from following the same track -- because there is no firm foundation for preventing it.

If YOU don't understand that, YOU are truly deaf, dumb, and blind.

[DoctorDoom]

You said that if you defend a groups right to speak that you must agree with the speech. Is that true or not? Here are your words yet again:Quote:
Originally Posted by Doom
If you defend their right to publish that material, then you are in fact defending the activities that it promotes.You, sir, are a brazen, shameless liar. "Defend" and "agree with" are not synonymous. I can defend political speech without agreeing with it because political speech is legal and is protected by the 1A.

You, OTOH, are defending the "speech" of perverts who are sexually excited by naked little boys. What they advocate is neither political nor legal, and their "speech" is therefore NOT protected by the 1A. So why are you defending it? Could it be that men who lust for boys are faggots, and therefore politically correct?

[Timberwolf]

Ron White is right..."Ya cain't fix stupid".

[DoctorDoom]

For the record, I am not in any way a supporter of NAMBLA. Nor do I have some crazy desire to have sex with young boys or girls. But ...You're a typical spineless, gutless, amoral liberal, chanting the mantra of liberalism:

"I [ ] am personally opposed to [ ] do not support [ ] am not in favor of (cloose one) __enter social abomination here__, BUT ..."

America is sinking into the pit of immorality when it is necessary to defend one's opposition to publications by pedophiles.

[Rhino]

Although homosexuality and pedophelia are not at all equal, the legitimacy they are looking for from the general society is exactly the same.
I know. It's just that some aren't using that context when arguing "equivalence". That's seemingly the source of some of the misunderstandings here.

[Kathy29]

It's deliberate. Which is why voters consistently vote to ban same sex marriage because they see it clearly and understand the deliberateness of the moral confusion argument. The more liberals argue their points the more it is clear that those positions should not prevail.

[Oolon Coluphid]

then you'll need to definitively (for all time!) . . .
. . . define "sorry excuse for a human being"
. . . define "innocent child"
. . . define "couldn't agree to it"
and keep those from ever being redefined.

Where do YOU define these?

Sorry excuse = person who is attracted to pre-pubescent children and/or someone who preys upon people who don't have the mental, emotional, or physical maturity to understand the effect of their decisions.

[DoctorDoom]

*Yawn*

You're slipping Doc. That wasn't even a good rant.It wasn't a rant.

[gnome]

You're a typical spineless, gutless, amoral liberal, chanting the mantra of liberalism:

"I [ ] am personally opposed to [ ] do not support [ ] am not in favor of (cloose one) __enter social abomination here__, BUT ..."

America is sinking into the pit of immorality when it is necessary to defend one's opposition to publications by pedophiles.

Is there room for a moral individual to oppose a publication, without thinking it should be banned by the government?

[Oolon Coluphid]

Is there room for a moral individual to oppose a publication, without thinking it should be banned by the government?

I think so, but these big government conservative types obviously wouldn't agree. :biggrin:

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

I know. It's just that some aren't using that context when arguing "equivalence". That's seemingly the source of some of the misunderstandings here.

Well, I can only believe this is directed at me since I am the one that equated them in a post. I stand by by statement as well. There is only ONE type of sexual behavior ordained of God; respected by man; and worthy of, and requiring, special recognition (marriage) -- heterosexual sexual behavior.

Homosexual sexual behavior IS deviant sexual behavior, as is pedophilia. They ARE equivalent in this respect, and NEITHER should be afforded the same status as that which we hold in the highest esteem -- neither are ordained of God, respected by man, or wothy of special recognition (such as marriage -- in the case of homosexual behavior, or civil rights protections -- in the case of pedophilia behavior).

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Where do YOU define these?

I don't HAVE to -- the age of consent should be fixed and firm, just as the fact that marriage IS man and woman should be fixed and firm. If they are not, then it's simply subjective, and a snowball rolling, because the door will be opened for all types of (deviant) behaviors to be "normalized" and "legalized".

We deem 18 to be the magic number for all sorts of things -- considered an adult, can enter into contracts, can buy cigarettes legally, can join the military legally, etc. IMO, eighteen should be the age of consent, cut and dry.

Sorry excuse = person who is attracted to pre-pubescent children and/or someone who preys upon people who don't have the mental, emotional, or physical maturity to understand the effect of their decisions.

One's "sorry excuse" is another's "born that way, should have the right to be who they are." You are STILL missing the point -- you think it "common sense" as to who should be labeled "sorry excuse," but there is no uniformity for making such a ruling, no foundation upon which to build the argument -- it is SUBJECTIVE. Unless there is a firm line of demarkation for EVERY deviant sexual behavior (whose practitioners are pushing for recognition, acceptance, legitimacy, legality, and normalization).

Just as, at one time homosexuality was considered morally reprehensible and inconceivable that anyone would want to equate a homosexual couple with a married couple, NOW the homosexuals are pushing their deviant sexual behavior to be considered "mainstream." The SAME will happen with OTHER deviant behaviors -- they will follow the trail blazed by homosexual 'pioneers' and then the unconscionable (now) will become mainstream (later).

[Lubbock]

" . . . Is there room for a moral individual to oppose a publication, without thinking it should be banned by the government? . . . "

Absolutely NOT!

No room. If you oppose the publication, then you have to absolutely believe that the "government" has a right to ban it.

I AM GOING TO SAY THIS ONE MORE TIME:

THERE ARE CERTAIN EVILS THAT SIMPLY CAN NOT BE DEFENDED.

There is no defense for NAMBLA and their publications, and their goals --and if you do not believe that, then you are on the side of the child rapists.

You either believe that everything about child rape is wrong and can not be defended, or you are a cheerleader for child rapists.

CASE CLOSED!

Now argue with me!

Go on.

I dare you!

[gnome]

" . . . Is there room for a moral individual to oppose a publication, without thinking it should be banned by the government? . . . "

Absolutely NOT!

No room. If you oppose the publication, then you have to absolutely believe that the "government" has a right to ban it.

This opininon can only rest on a severe misunderstanding of the First Amendment. To quote a trivial example, I oppose the publishing of Ann Coulter's "Treason". Explain how I must then believe the government has the power to ban it? It doesn't logically follow.

You may have a different reason to argue for the ban, but as I've shown here, it can't be as simple as: If you oppose a publication, you must think it can be banned.


I AM GOING TO SAY THIS ONE MORE TIME:

THERE ARE CERTAIN EVILS THAT SIMPLY CAN NOT BE DEFENDED.

There is no defense for NAMBLA and their publications, and their goals --and if you do not believe that, then you are on the side of the child rapists.

You either believe that everything about child rape is wrong and can not be defended, or you are a cheerleader for child rapists.

CASE CLOSED!

Now argue with me!

Go on.

I dare you!

I do not believe that anything about child rape can be defended. But I can hate something without wanting the government to stop it.

But where it comes to government intervention, I believe there is a difference between speech and action. No matter how disgusting the words are, I don't believe it's the government's job, or the government's privilege, to shut it down.

[Gonzo67]

I do not believe that anything about child rape can be defended. But I can hate something without wanting the government to stop it.

But where it comes to government intervention, I believe there is a difference between speech and action. No matter how disgusting the words are, I don't believe it's the government's job, or the government's privilege, to shut it down.


Gnome is correct on this one, but he didn't "explain" it far enough.

Words and actions are 2 different things. The act of molesting children is reprehensible. It's a damaging act, and as such, is an illegal act. Something that should be and is "banned" by the government.

But speaking out in support of it, is a right, protected under the first amendment.

For you to say that if you oppose an idea, then you must advocate the government's banning of voicing that idea, you rip apart everything that every soldier in every war fought to preserve for you.

It's not up to the government to provide you a list of things you can, and can not talk about. It's up to YOU to make the right decision and talk about the right thing. it's up to YOU to provide counter arguments and opposing topics to convince others that following the other line of thinking is wrong. Just as NAMBLA has a RIGHT to say that they feel sex with underage boys is good, you also have the RIGHT to say that it is not. And it's YOUR responsibility to convince people that YOU are correct, and NAMBLA is wrong.

When you demand that the government step in and make that determination for you, you have effectively turned over control of EVERYTHING you ever intend to say to the government. Now, you no longer have the freedom to speak out against anything. Government decides Christianity is detrimental to America's "new way of life", you better not utter the name Jesus or God in public. Because you have allowed government to provide you with a list of words that are allowed to be spoken, and those two aren't on the list.

Government should not be used to get ideas or speech banned. The job of educating people against the dangers of the ideas presented by organizations such as NAMBLA is, and should always remain, up to citizens capable of expressing to others the dangers of those acts, and capable of presenting alternative points of view in a manner that convinces others that their way is right, and ultimately, more desirable.<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

[Wolfcounsel]

"When you demand that the government step in and make that determination for you, you have effectively turned over control of EVERYTHING you ever intend to say to the government." --Gonzo67

Only a complete, brain-dead moron would allow a public servant to take control over what can be said.

[Gonzo67]

Only a complete, brain-dead moron would allow a public servant to take control over what can be said.


Absolutely correct. Which is why you can not allow the government to ban ANY speech. No matter how disgusting, vile, and morally reprehensible you find that that speech.

You can ban the act of pedophilia. You can ban the implementation of that speech. But you can not deny the right to speak about it.

[DesertFox]

you can not allow the government to ban ANY speech. No matter how disgusting, vile, and morally reprehensible you find that that speech.So it's okay with you for somebody to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater, or to lie about somebody else, or to shout govt secrets on the street corner. I'm mildly surprised.

[Gonzo67]

So it's okay with you for somebody to shout "Fire!"


Absolutely. If there's a fire, I would appreciate someone letting me know.


or to lie about somebody else,


What, you mean like the politicians do every election? Or like a large portion of America does every day?


or to shout govt secrets on the street corner.


Like MSM has done routinely through out this war we're in?

And yet, no one has been prosecuted. Go figure.

You can twist my argument, you can pose as many "hypotheticals" as you like, the fact remains, either the first amendment applies or it does not. There is no "half way". Granted, using speech designed to inflict harm on another is not right. That is not what the first amendment is about, and that is NOT what I am saying must be protected.

But speaking YOUR belief, is not going to endanger the troops that leaking classified information would. Speaking your beliefs is NOT going to cause an unorganized stampede out of a theater causing bodily harm to others.

Racism is wrong, yet the KKK has the right to hold rallies. Racism is wrong, yet the Reverend Al Sharpton has the RIGHT to run for public office. Personally, I find THAT offensive, but there's no way I would want the government to slap a gag on Sharpton and the KKK. It's just a small step from there to wearing a gag myself.

Yes, I agree that the things NAMBLA speaks about is disgusting. When someone acts on those ideas, they will be, and SHOULD be dealt with harshly. But acting on and speaking it are 2 different things.

If you want to combat rhetoric that you do not agree with, the BEST way is to NOT ATTEND those rallies. Do not accept their literature, do not READ their publications.

When you give them audience, they have achieved their goal.

Do you think violence would break out at KKK rallies if black people did not attend? No. Because you would have KKK assholes preaching to other KKK assholes. It's when the opposition shows up in an attempt to stop another group from expressing their beliefs, that the violence erupts.

I served my country so that each an every person living in the United States will be able to say exactly what is on their mind. EVERY PERSON. I am not willing to abandon what I served to protect. Even if it means I have to advocate someone saying something I find absolutely repulsive. Because I know that for every one single asshole that vomits out some repulsive, dumb shit idea, there are twenty others who are going to say something I agree with, and I am NOT willing to deny those twenty the right to say it. So I CAN NOT, in good conscious deny the one.

[ConspiracyBuff]

I think that the first amendment allows you your rights so long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others, thats where your rights end. This is equivelant to DF's example of shouting "fire" in a theatre, or to slander/libel someone. The first amendment does not allow you to do and say whatever you feel like saying. If your rights begin to hamper another's than you do not have that right any longer. You do not have the right to infringe upon another's rights.

[Gonzo67]

If your rights begin to hamper another's than you do not have that right any longer. You do not have the right to infringe upon another's rights.


Exactly my point. Simply saying "I hate Jews" is not infringing on a Jewish persons right. Saying "I hate Jews" while stabbing a Jewish person in the head IS infringing on the Jewish person in question.

Simply saying that you think sex with children should be legal is NOT "infringing" on the rights of children. But saying it while having sex with a child is.

Which is why I stated, the ACT should be illegal. Not the debate about the act.

[Timberwolf]

Gonzo (and everybody...open question), should the publishers / promoters of pedophilic literature / speech be held accountable for encouraging the act when someone is caught in the act?

Should decent, law-abiding citizens be able to act on their "impulse" to blow some scumbags head off, if they catch him/her in the act with a child?

[Timberwolf]

Oh, and what happens when the majority of the American public becomes desensitized to pedophilia through CONSTANTLY being exposed to it as "normal"...much in the same way America has been desensitized to homosexuality (over the past 25-30 years)?

What do we do then? Seems to me that certain heinous activities should not be promoted in the public forum by speech or otherwise. Words have meaning. When that meaning serves to undermine the public good, it is fair game for censorship.

[Gonzo67]

should the publishers / promoters of pedophilic literature / speech be held accountable for encouraging the act when someone is caught in the act?


Absolutely not. Thats the same as holding Tobacco companies responsible because I chose to smoke. Or holding gun manufacturers responsible when someone commits murder. Should we be able to hold the Ford Motor Company responsible for every hit and run, drive by shooting, or vehicular man slaughter committed?


Should decent, law-abiding citizens be able to act on their "impulse" to blow some scumbags head off, if they catch him/her in the act with a child?


Loaded question. Since taking the law into their own hands and committing murder, whether deserved or not, defines them as NOT being "law abiding citizens".

I too would like to be able to put a gun to the head of a child molester and redecorate the walls with his grey matter. But murder is illegal. Trading one crime for another makes me just another criminal. But WANTING to commit the crime and actually COMMITTING the crime are two separate things. Talking about a crime and committing are NEVER the same.


Oh, and what happens when the majority of the American public becomes desensitized to pedophilia through CONSTANTLY being exposed to it as "normal"...much in the same way America has been desensitized to homosexuality (over the past 25-30 years)?


How about violence? Plenty of it in th media, on television, in cartoons even. But yet, here you sit, in the forums, speaking of murder and other acts of violence. Should you be put in prison as a violent criminal simply because you've mentioned killing someone who speaks about pedophilia? If not, why? You want to to tell everyone they can not talk about, or "promote" one crime, yet you do just that with another crime. Does that not put you on the same moral level as the person who's rights you want to limit?

Is my saying "pedophilia exists" the same as me kidnapping an 8 year old boy and molesting him?

You can "not talk about it" all you want. But that is NOT going to make it go away. It's still going to exist. It's the ACT that is criminal. The ACT of armed robbery is illegal. But saying "you know, some times I am tempted to rob a bank" is NOT. The ACT of murder is illegal, but simply saying "If Osama bin Laden were to walk down my street, I think I would put a bullet in his head" is NOT.


What do we do then? Seems to me that certain heinous activities should not be promoted in the public forum by speech or otherwise. Words have meaning. When that meaning serves to undermine the public good, it is fair game for censorship.


So what your saying is that it's ok for the Government to step in and assume the responsibility of deciding what's good for you and what's not on occasion.

But then, what happens when those "occasions" become more and more frequent? Today it's pedophilia and homosexuality. can't talk about either of those. Tomorrow, it's religion. The next day it's something else... and something else after that. I'll be damned if I am going to let government give me a 3x5 card with "acceptable topics of discussion". I'll be damned if I'm going to let government dictate what I can and can not debate.

If that's the kind of government you want, then perhaps America is not the country for you. There's already more than a few oppressive governments in existence. There's already PLENTY of dictatorships you can live under. I'll be damned if I served this country (it's PEOPLE, not the management) just so we can turn America into another oppressed society.

[gnome]

Aside from offering my agreement to Gonzo67's excellent posts, I would like to point out that I don't believe we are being desensitized to pedophilia... in particular, there is as much or more attention to how heinous such a crime as ever before. Even the false suspicion of pedophelia can ruin someone's life undeservedly. There's no danger of the actual pedophiles ever being thought of as OK people.

[Wolfcounsel]

Gonzo,:claps: !

[DesertFox]

Nice try, Gonzo, but there is no such thing as absolute freedom of speech, and for good reason.

[Timberwolf]

Ditto that, DF...seems to me that there are some who are enamored with the thought of anarchy. Sorry, don't wanna play in that particular sandbox.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Aside from offering my agreement to Gonzo67's excellent posts, I would like to point out that I don't believe we are being desensitized to pedophilia... in particular, there is as much or more attention to how heinous such a crime as ever before. Even the false suspicion of pedophelia can ruin someone's life undeservedly. There's no danger of the actual pedophiles ever being thought of as OK people.

Riiiight! Sure seems like the media LOVES them . . .

http://www.prisonpotpourri.com/SEX_OFFENDERS/Letourneau/Mary%20Kay%20Letourneau%20and%20Villi%20Fualaau%20 posing%20Saturday,%20April%209,%202005,%20in%20the ir%20home%20in%20the%20Puget%20Sound%20area%20of%2 0Seattle.jpg

[Gonzo67]

Riiiight! Sure seems like the media LOVES them . . .


And since when is the media, the same media I might add that everyone here speaks out against, representative of "the people"?

[Gonzo67]

Nice try, Gonzo, but there is no such thing as absolute freedom of speech, and for good reason.


I never claimed "absolute" anything. Only what is guaranteed by the first amendment. But you're saying that you ought to have the right to tell me what I can and can not talk about.

If you are so dead set that the discussion of pedophilia should be banned, then why are you here, in this forum, discussing pedophilia? Are you to say that pedophilia is ok to discuss as long as you speak negatively about it? Just because you and I speak negatively of it, doesn't mean everyone will. There will ALWAYS be someone that advocates the act. If I tell them to shut the fuk up and don't speak about it, does it go away? Does that person no longer feel that pedophilia is wrong? What have I accomplished other than to stick my fingers in my ears and yell "LALALALALALA" as loudly as I can? Not a damn thing.

Now, what if a law was passed that ONLY evolution be allowed to be taught an believed in. Will you abandon your faith? Will you allow the government to impose censorship then?

How far is too far? How much "censorship" is acceptable to you, and just how much would it take for you to start screaming "UNFAIR!" "UNJUST!"?

Which politician are you willing to allow to decide for you, which topics are acceptable for discussion and which are not? Is there even a politician alive that you trust and believe in enough to allow them that much authority over you?

Are you not capable of hearing an idea and deciding for yourself whether you want to subscribe to that belief or not? If so, do you not think I am also capable of hearing that idea and deciding that I do not agree with it? Or is every single person in this country, in your opinion, incapable of making an intelligent and positively moral decision?

You have considered the issue of pedophilia, you have heard the rhetoric of the sick bastards in support of it, and you have heard the counter arguments from those opposed. You have used that information to draw your opinion that pedophilia disgusts you. All I ask is that you allow me the same opportunity. I was not aware that the first amendment, as well as my desire to gather data, process it, and form my own conclusions and opinions was THAT detrimental to your survival and the well being of your mortal soul.

[Gonzo67]

Ditto that, DF...seems to me that there are some who are enamored with the thought of anarchy. Sorry, don't wanna play in that particular sandbox.


The right to speak your mind, the right to your own opinion is HARDLY "anarchy". I would suggest that freedom of religion would lead to anarchy LONG before freedom of speech ever will.

[Wyatt_Junker]

I like that she's wearing that Kangol. It boosts her cred. Even LL doesn't wear that lid anymore. Another dumb white bitch that has been thoroughly inducted into the urbanization program, I see.

http://www.prisonpotpourri.com/SEX_OFFENDERS/Letourneau/Mary%20Kay%20Letourneau%20and%20Villi%20Fualaau%20 posing%20Saturday,%20April%209,%202005,%20in%20the ir%20home%20in%20the%20Puget%20Sound%20area%20of%2 0Seattle.jpg

Maybe to complete the portrait he should slap on a rhinestone-studded tiara or Mickey Mouse ears to finalize the two-way ethnic learning foreign exchange program.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

And since when is the media, the same media I might add that everyone here speaks out against, representative of "the people"?

They mold the minds of "the people" -- how do you think homosexuality became so "acceptable"? Through repeated, uninterrupted talk, highlighting, then mainstreaming of it through media presentations. Do you think those who pioneered television ever DREAMED there would one day be a show solely about homosexuals (Will & Grace) on primetime telly? You almost cannot watch a single show without there being at least ONE homosexual character.

The media has already been busy trying to desensitize society to pedophilia. Did you hear about good old Nicole Kidman and her movie "Birth"? The mainslime media practically salivated over Mary Kay and Villi (telly and print), and you don't think they are setting the stage for the mainstreaming of this digusting behavior?

[gnome]

A question then, for those who want to abridge the first amendment to disallow stuff like this--how would you write the law? What wording would you choose?

[Oolon Coluphid]

I like that she's wearing that Kangol. It boosts her cred. Even LL doesn't wear that lid anymore. Another dumb white bitch that has been thoroughly inducted into the urbanization program, I see.

http://www.prisonpotpourri.com/SEX_OFFENDERS/Letourneau/Mary%20Kay%20Letourneau%20and%20Villi%20Fualaau%20 posing%20Saturday,%20April%209,%202005,%20in%20the ir%20home%20in%20the%20Puget%20Sound%20area%20of%2 0Seattle.jpg

Maybe to complete the portrait he should slap on a rhinestone-studded tiara or Mickey Mouse ears to finalize the two-way ethnic learning foreign exchange program.

You got all that from a hat? Wow!

What exactly is your beef with the hat anyway? It sounds like you really have a problem with it.

[Oolon Coluphid]

A question then, for those who want to abridge the first amendment to disallow stuff like this--how would you write the law? What wording would you choose?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion besides evangelical Christianity, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech unless a majority happens to disagree with it, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble with a valid permit, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances if that's OK.

[Peachdiane]

I like that she's wearing that Kangol. It boosts her cred. Even LL doesn't wear that lid anymore. Another dumb white bitch that has been thoroughly inducted into the urbanization program, I see.


:rotflmbo:

[Kathy29]

Speech advocating the commision of a crime is itself illegal.

Was that so hard?

A muslim cleric exhorting and screaming that his followers better start beheading infidels to get right with God can't do that anymore. He doesn't have that free speech right, even if it's religious.

A serial killer can't get together with other serial killers and start demanding a change in the law to legalizing their otherwise illegal activity.

While this discussion has been about pedophilia, it doesn't matter what crime it is. There are probably more rapists around than child molesters. How about some speeches and writings to help rapists share information on how to rape women. We can have serious discussions on whether drugging is as good as binding. Which drugs? Is duct tape good enough, or will pantihose do in a pinch. They can swap GHB recipies. When does "no" really mean "yes", and of course, when should no be legally deemed unacceptable? After all NO is simply another legal construct. No could be abrogated by other conduct, making no really mean yes, or perhaps a maybe. Maybe we need a change in the law and the rapist lobby could work toward that.

What I'd really like to see is a discussion on the origin and progression of liberal evilness. How did it start? How does it keep going? Are there any limits to liberal evil?

[ConspiracyBuff]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion besides evangelical Christianity, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech unless a majority happens to disagree with it, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble with a valid permit, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances if that's OK.<!-- / message -->

Hey dipshit.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
In other words, CONGRESS CANT MAKE A LAW WITH RESPECT TO RELIGION. Surely, you would read that to mean, seperation of church and state which clearly isn't the case. Has there been a law from Congress in respect to Evangelical Christianity wise-ass?

or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
It's safe to say that the free exercise of religion has been prohibited under the guise of, seperation of Church and State-for simple things like a cross being put up. The ACLU jumps all over these cases and is quick to cite the 1st Amendment which actually protects (see above) the free exercise of religion.

As for the Free Speech I agree, people have the right to speak freely, so long as their speech isn't slander.

or the right of the people peaceably to assemble with a valid permit, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances if that's OK.<!-- / message -->--added text yours.

The key word here is peaceably. Now tell me what percentage of assemblies remain peaceful? The liberals love a good excuse to make a riot. The most recent time this has happened (permit) was the Augusta National Golf Club, when the women's attempts for a permit to assemble were denied. This was largely railed against even among, you guessed it, conservatives, most of you liberals were probably unaware of it anyways. I don't think anyone is against the right to petition the government, your bias has terribly blinded you. I guarantee you that conservatives write to their senators, lawmakers and government more than the liberal idiots who think that by trolling around on the internet all day talking shit and pointing fingers, complaining about the gov they are contributing to societies whims-I assure you that you are not.

As for the free speech argument I think everyone involved on this thread could benefit from a look at this from wikpedia:


Obscenity

The federal government and the states have long been permitted to restrict obscene or pornographic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornographic) speech. While obscene speech generally has no protection under the First Amendment, pornography is subject to little regulation. The exact definition of obscenity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obscenity) and pornography (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornography), however, has changed over time.
When it decided Rosen v. United States in 1896, the Supreme Court adopted the same obscenity standard as had been articulated in a famous British case, Regina v. Hicklin. The Hicklin standard defined material as obscene if it tended "to deprave or corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences, and into whose hands a publication of this sort may fall". Thus, the standards of the most sensitive members of the community were the standards for obscenity. In 1957, the Court ruled in Roth v. United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roth_v._United_States) that the Hicklin test was inappropriate. Instead, the Roth test for obscenity was "whether to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest."
In 1964 Justice Potter Stewart (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potter_Stewart) famously stated that although he could not precisely define pornography, "I know it when I see it."
The Roth test was expanded when the Court decided Miller v. California (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_v._California) in 1973. Under the Miller test (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test), a work is obscene if it would be found appealing to the prurient interest by an average person applying contemporary community standards, depicts sexual conduct (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sexual_conduct&action=edit) in a patently offensive way and has no serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. Note that "community" standards—not national standards—are applied as to whether the material appeals to the prurient interest; thus, material may be deemed obscene in one locality but not in another. National standards, however, are applied as to whether the material is of value. Child pornography (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_pornography) is not subject to the Miller test, as the Supreme Court decided in 1982. The Court felt that the government's interest in protecting children from abuse was paramount.
Yet, personal possession of obscene material in the home may not be prohibited by law. In writing for the Court in the case of Stanley v. Georgia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_v._Georgia), Justice Thurgood Marshall (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thurgood_Marshall) wrote, "if the First Amendment means anything, it means that a State has no business telling a man sitting in his own house what books he may read or what films he may watch." It is not, however, unconstitutional for the government to prevent the mailing or sale of obscene items, though they may be viewed only in private. Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashcroft_v._Free_Speech_Coalition) (2002) further upholds these rights by invalidating the 1996 Child Pornography Prevention Act, holding that "banning the depiction of pornographic images of children, including computer-generated images, was overly broad and unconstitutional under the First Amendment". Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote: "First Amendment freedoms are most in danger when the government seeks to control thought or to justify its laws for that impermissible end. The right to think is the beginning of freedom, and speech must be protected from the government because speech is the beginning of thought."
U.S. courts have upheld certain regulation of pornographic speech. U.S. courts have found that regulation and banning pornography as a way of protecting children meets the strict scrutiny (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny) test. A zoning regulation which restricts where pornography can be viewed is valid if the purpose for the statute is based on secondary effects, the zoning is not related to the suppression of the pornographic content and the statute makes other ways of viewing the content.
[edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=First_Amendment_to_the_United_Stat es_Constitution&action=edit&section=10)]
[/URL]
Libel, slander, and private action

The American prohibition on defamatory speech or publications—[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slander_and_libel"]slander and libel (http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/)—traces its origins to English law. The nature of defamation law was vitally changed by the Supreme Court in 1964, while deciding New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._Sullivan). The New York Times (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times) had published an advertisement indicating that officials in Montgomery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montgomery%2C_Alabama), Alabama (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alabama) had acted violently in suppressing the protests of African-Americans during the Civil Rights Movement. The Montgomery Police (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Montgomery_Police&action=edit) Commissioner, L. B. Sullivan (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=L._B._Sullivan&action=edit), sued the Times for libel on the grounds that the advertisement damaged his reputation. The Supreme Court unanimously overruled the $500,000 judgment against the Times. Justice William J. Brennan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_J._Brennan) suggested that public officials may sue for libel only if the publisher published the statements in question with "actual malice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_malice)", a difficult standard to meet.
The actual malice standard applies to both public officials and public figures, including celebrities. Though the details vary from state to state, private individuals normally need only to prove negligence on the part of the defendant.
In Greenbelt Cooperative Publishing Association, Inc. v. Bresler (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greenbelt_Cooperative_Publishing_A ssociation%2C_Inc._v._Bresler&action=edit), 398 U.S. 6 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_citation) (1970) the supreme court ruled that an article which quoted a visitor to a city council meeting who didn't like Bresler's aggressive stance in negotiating with the city as "blackmail" to not be libelous since nobody could believe anyone was claiming that Bresler had committed a crime and that the statement was essentially hyperbole, i.e. obviously an opinion.
As the Supreme Court again ruled in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gertz_v._Robert_Welch%2C_Inc.) (1974), opinions cannot be considered defamatory. It is thus permissible to suggest, for instance, that a lawyer is a bad one, but not permissible to declare that the lawyer is ignorant of the law: the former constitutes a statement of values, but the latter is a statement alleging a fact.
More recently, in Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milkovich_v._Lorain_Journal_Co.) 497 U.S. 1 (1990), the Supreme Court backed off from the protection from "opinion" announced in Gertz. The court in Milkovich specifically held that there is no wholesale exemption to defamation law for statements labeled "opinion," but instead that a statement must be provably false (falsifiable) before it can be the subject of a libel suit.
In 1988, Hustler Magazine v. Falwell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._Falwell) extended the "actual malice" standard to intentional infliction of emotional distress in a ruling which protected a parodic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parody) caricature. In the ruling, "actual malice" was described as "knowledge that the statement was false or with reckless disregard as to whether or not it was true."
Ordinarily, the First Amendment only applies to prohibit direct government censorship. The protection from libel suits recognizes that the power of the state is needed to enforce a libel judgment between private persons. The Supreme Court's scrutiny of defamation suits is thus sometimes considered part of a broader trend in U.S. jurisprudence away from the strict state action requirement, and into the application of First Amendment principles when private actors invoke state power.
Likewise, the Noerr-Pennington doctrine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noerr-Pennington_doctrine) is a rule of law that often prohibits the application of antitrust law to statements made by competitors before public bodies: a monopolist may freely go before the city council and urge the denial of its competitor's building permit without being subject to Sherman Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Act) liability. This principle is being applied to litigation outside the antitrust context, including state tort suits for intentional interference with business relations and "SLAPP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SLAPP) Suits".
Similarly, some states have adopted, under their protections for free speech, the Pruneyard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center%2C_Campbell%2C_Californi a) doctrine, which prohibits private property owners whose property is equivalent to a traditional public forum (often shopping malls and grocery stores) from enforcing their private property rights to exclude political speakers and petition-gatherers. This doctrine has been rejected as a matter of federal constitutional law, but is meeting growing acceptance as a matter of state law.

<!-- / message -->

[Rhino]

He was being sarcastic.

[Kathy29]

In the lib world, prohibiting the establishment of religion exists, but the following clause "nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof" does not exist.

[ConspiracyBuff]

Maybe So but is it not a reflection of what he truly thinks of Conservatives Rhino?

[ConspiracyBuff]

I've seen enough of his posts to recognize this is how he feels, and frankly, I don't care if he is being sarcastic, I'm dead serious.

[TechnoPrincess]

You got all that from a hat? Wow!

What exactly is your beef with the hat anyway? It sounds like you really have a problem with it.

Are you really that stupid that you do not know who she is?! His slap was at that bitch, not the hat.

[Borgia]

A serial killer can't get together with other serial killers and start demanding a change in the law to legalizing their otherwise illegal activity.
Actually, yes they can. If you don't think murder should be a crime, you are free to speak against it being a crime and work with other like-minded individuals. We are all free to advocate changes in laws.

You are not free to attempt to coerce others into breaking the law though.

I trust you can see the difference in the speech though.

[Oolon Coluphid]

Maybe So but is it not a reflection of what he truly thinks of Conservatives Rhino?

Not all conservatives, just the wannabe theocrats. I've got no problem with most classic "Goldwater" conservatives.

[TechnoPrincess]

Speech advocating the commision of a crime is itself illegal.

Was that so hard?

A muslim cleric exhorting and screaming that his followers better start beheading infidels to get right with God can't do that anymore. He doesn't have that free speech right, even if it's religious.

A serial killer can't get together with other serial killers and start demanding a change in the law to legalizing their otherwise illegal activity.

While this discussion has been about pedophilia, it doesn't matter what crime it is. There are probably more rapists around than child molesters. How about some speeches and writings to help rapists share information on how to rape women. We can have serious discussions on whether drugging is as good as binding. Which drugs? Is duct tape good enough, or will pantihose do in a pinch. They can swap GHB recipies. When does "no" really mean "yes", and of course, when should no be legally deemed unacceptable? After all NO is simply another legal construct. No could be abrogated by other conduct, making no really mean yes, or perhaps a maybe. Maybe we need a change in the law and the rapist lobby could work toward that.

What I'd really like to see is a discussion on the origin and progression of liberal evilness. How did it start? How does it keep going? Are there any limits to liberal evil?

:claps: Exactly!

[Rhino]

Maybe So but is it not a reflection of what he truly thinks of Conservatives Rhino?
An exaggerated version maybe.

I've seen enough of his posts to recognize this is how he feels, and frankly, I don't care if he is being sarcastic, I'm dead serious.Then, by all means, proceed. :D

[ConspiracyBuff]

Actually, yes they can. If you don't think murder should be a crime, you are free to speak against it being a crime and work with other like-minded individuals. We are all free to advocate changes in laws.

You are not free to attempt to coerce others into breaking the law though.

This is true Borgia, but it would be a waste of their time. I mean we ain't changing the murder law anytime soon.

[Oolon Coluphid]

Are you really that stupid that you do not know who she is?! His slap was at that bitch, not the hat.
I know who she is, my sister used to go the school where she taught.

Wyatt seemed to have a real issue with the hat itself and with white women being urbanized, whatever that means. I just wanted to know what was up.

[ConspiracyBuff]

Then, by all means, proceed. :D<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

LOL. I think I have said all I wanna say about that.

[Oolon Coluphid]

Are you really that stupid that you do not know who she is?! His slap was at that bitch, not the hat.

Besides, even if I didn't know who she was, how would that make me stupid? It would make me uninformed, or ignorant, but not stupid.

[ConspiracyBuff]

Maybe Not....

Not all conservatives, just the wannabe theocrats. I've got no problem with most classic "Goldwater" conservatives.<!-- / message -->

Are you calling me a wanna-be theocrat because I don't believe in the sep of Church and State as constitutionally backed?

[Borgia]

This is true Borgia, but it would be a waste of their time. I mean we ain't changing the murder law anytime soon.

Likewise for pedophilia. The pro-pedophiles can advocate changes in laws (I don't see it happening) and that is legal for them to do.

Would you want it any other way? I mean, like Gnome said, how do you write it into law?

Article 4, Sec 3: One can only speak against laws if they are laws that do not outlaw offensive actions.

Boy, that the interpretation and subsequent enforcement of that law makes my head spin! :)

[Oolon Coluphid]

Maybe Not....



Are you calling me a wanna-be theocrat because I don't believe in the sep of Church and State as constitutionally backed?

Do you want to make Christianity the official religion of this country?

[ConspiracyBuff]

No. I never said I disagreed on this point. Personally I feel as though, let them talk or advocate if ya wanna call it that all they want. It isn't going to get them anywhere. I see the oppositions view that merely discussing it is "obscene" and breaks down the moral code but I don't agree that it is grounds for censorship.

[ConspiracyBuff]

Do you want to make Christianity the official religion of this country?<!-- / message -->

I believe in freedom of religion, whatever religion it may be. However, Christianity is the official religion of this country merely due to the fact that it is the most practiced religion of this country. There is no need to say, "Christianity is the official religion". Again, I believe that everyone has the right to practice whatever religion they choose.

[Gonzo67]

LOL. I think I have said all I wanna say about that.


ROFL This "Forrest Gump" moment brought to you by CB! Makes of fine UFO sightings everywhere! ;)

lol Sorry CB, I just couldn't let that one slide.... ;)

"And thats all I have to say about that!"<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

[ConspiracyBuff]

I got shot in the buttocks

[Wolfcounsel]

That's "butt-TAWKS".

[Kathy29]

Likewise for pedophilia. The pro-pedophiles can advocate changes in laws (I don't see it happening) and that is legal for them to do.

Would you want it any other way? I mean, like Gnome said, how do you write it into law?

Article 4, Sec 3: One can only speak against laws if they are laws that do not outlaw offensive actions.

Boy, that the interpretation and subsequent enforcement of that law makes my head spin! :)

I gather that child abuse is merely "offensive" to you.

Talk about making heads spin!

[ConspiracyBuff]

That's "butt-TAWKS".
<!-- / message -->

I stand corrected.

[gnome]

I gather that child abuse is merely "offensive" to you.

Talk about making heads spin!

This point isn't going to be settled by deciding who says they hate child abusers more... there is an honest question here, if you want to ban such publications, you have to decide how to word the law.

You proposed a wording, but it is flawed. It's too broadly stated. For example, let's say the FDA banned a popular herbal supplement, but I wish to argue that their research is flawed and the product is in fact harmless. I would be advocating the taking of this product, which is advocating an illegal act--so I could be charged under this law.

[Oolon Coluphid]

I gather that child abuse is merely "offensive" to you.

Talk about making heads spin!

Advocating child abuse is offensive. Actually doing it is much more than just offensive.

[Timberwolf]

Speech advocating the commision of a crime is itself illegal.

Was that so hard?
Apparently, for some, it is.

A muslim cleric exhorting and screaming that his followers better start beheading infidels to get right with God can't do that anymore. He doesn't have that free speech right, even if it's religious.

A serial killer can't get together with other serial killers and start demanding a change in the law to legalizing their otherwise illegal activity.
BEFORE s/he is convicted of the crime, I think s/he can...AFTER being paroled, it is illegal for convicted felons to fraternize.

While this discussion has been about pedophilia, it doesn't matter what crime it is. There are probably more rapists around than child molesters. How about some speeches and writings to help rapists share information on how to rape women. We can have serious discussions on whether drugging is as good as binding. Which drugs? Is duct tape good enough, or will pantihose do in a pinch. They can swap GHB recipies. When does "no" really mean "yes", and of course, when should no be legally deemed unacceptable? After all NO is simply another legal construct. No could be abrogated by other conduct, making no really mean yes, or perhaps a maybe. Maybe we need a change in the law and the rapist lobby could work toward that.
:clap: :clap: :clap:

Well said...BTW, for those of you who think talking about it is OK...have you never heard of conspiracy to commit a crime? Advocating the rape of children is conspiring to commit a crime and therefore, ILLEGAL. And I believe that would be a felony.

What I'd really like to see is a discussion on the origin and progression of liberal evilness. How did it start? How does it keep going? Are there any limits to liberal evil?
Ooooooh....start a thread!!

[Timberwolf]

Do you want to make Christianity the official religion of this country?
What a nutcase...NO ONE wants a theocracy you putz. Get a grip of something other than your little member.

[Timberwolf]

That's "butt-TAWKS".
Lewtenant Dayan!!!

[dPrasse]

Well said...BTW, for those of you who think talking about it is OK...have you never heard of conspiracy to commit a crime? Advocating the rape of children is conspiring to commit a crime and therefore, ILLEGAL. And I believe that would be a felony.


The Feds could use RICO if they are conspiring and profitting from child molestation manuals .... leave the hard working Italian businessmen alone and go after the perverts ...

[Gonzo67]

Well said...BTW, for those of you who think talking about it is OK...have you never heard of conspiracy to commit a crime? Advocating the rape of children is conspiring to commit a crime and therefore, ILLEGAL. And I believe that would be a felony.


Campaigning to change a law is not conspiracy. Speaking about why you feel something that is illegal ought to me made legal is not conspiracy. THAT is what I am defending.

It's those of you who want to "rubber stamp" the first amendment that inserted the "child rape instruction manual".

If we followed your definition of "conspiracy", then everyone in the United States will have been guilty of conspiracy on many occasions. Did you discuss anyone drinking and driving? By your definition, simply TALKING about it constitutes conspiracy.

Here we all are, in an open public forum discussing child molestation... we're ALL guilty of conspiracy if we accept your definition of the crime.

I said it once, and I'll say it again, TALKING about something debating the "right and wrong" of an issue, petitioning to change something from illegal to legal is NOT conspiracy. And THAT is what must be protected. If you fail to protect that, then your definition of "conspiracy" could very well come about, and the next time you merely mention the word "Marijuana", you could be looking at a 5 to 10 year sentence, even if all you said was "Smoking marijuana is bad for you". Frankly, thats not the America that I want to live in.

[cerberus]

Ok, I admit, I'm late to the party on this thread, but this post is just asinine.
I already did, but you refuse to accept the truth.

Pedophilia is a deviant sexual behavior.
Homosexuality is a deviant sexual behavior.

Neither pedophilia nor homosexuality is a normal sexual behavior, ergo they are the equivalent of each other -- deviant sexual behavior. By "deviant" you mean outside the norm? Well in that case we can re-institute racial misegination laws too. It's clearly outside the "norm" as most people don't engage in it, therefore by your definition it should be outlawed.

Please explain to me why one deviant sexual behavior should be elevated to the same status and recogniztion as a normal behavior, but not the other? Because one type hurts an unwilling participant, and one does not. This country was founded by people that weren't "normal" where they came from. Not being "normal" is, in and of itself no reason to persecute someone.

Please explain to me by what authority can the two (deviant) behaviors be separated, and one deemed normal? Because one is between 2 consenting adults and its none of your damn business and one involves a child incapable of making an informed decision.

Please explain to me how homosexual behavior and heterosexual behavior are the same, and pedophilia different. If you are hanging its similarity on the "consent" aspect, recognize we have already blown that out of the water. If you can't figure it out by now, I can't help you.

[Borgia]

I gather that child abuse is merely "offensive" to you.

Talk about making heads spin!

Kathy, I never said that. I said the SPEECH is offensive. Not the act. The act is illegal AND offensive.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Ok, I admit, I'm late to the party on this thread, but this post is just asinine.

Yes, I agree -- your post most certainly is.

Obviously you've not read the whole thread, and have chosen to skew MY post. I know . . . since I wasn't talking to you, AND you admitted you entered the discussion late, how's about you just keep your nose out of it -- or try an original post, instead of (mis)answering one of mine. :rolleyes:

By "deviant" you mean outside the norm?

Well, duh! Glad we didn't have to play "One-of-these-things-is-not-like-the-other" for you to get it.

Well in that case we can re-institute racial misegination (say what :question: ) laws too.

Might want to try the spell checker there cerb.

It's clearly outside the "norm" as most people don't engage in it, therefore by your definition it should be outlawed.

Boy aren't you brilliant, :rolleyes: . Yeah sex between different races -- BUT STILL MAN AND WOMAN -- is deviant behavior, riiiiiggggghhhhhtttt! I think you need to look for a better argument, even a crazy liberal such as yourself should have come up with a better example than this one.

Because one type hurts an unwilling participant, and one does not.


This argument does not hold up. First off, BOTH types hurt the participants -- anal sex DOES hurt the recipient . . . gee talk about a nine-donkey worthy response! Besdes that, have you even READ the arguments put forth regarding those working feverishly to lower, if not completely erase, the age of consent??? That would eliminate your "unwilling participant" argument all together. BTW, in case you didn't pick up on it because you were so late to the discussion . . . I have been arguing it is the deterioration of norms in this country that has lead to an increased "normalization" of homoasexual behavior which most certainly will lead to the same for pedophilia.

This country was founded by people that weren't "normal" where they came from. Not being "normal" is, in and of itself no reason to persecute someone.

Nice twist (of my words) there, Chubby-Checker, why not try again. 1) We weren't discussing the type of people who founded this country -- we are discussing the possbility of deviant behaviors being recognized as normal (through civil rights laws, such as marriage). 2) I wasn't talking about persecuting someone -- but (no pun intended :smirky: ) about not allowing them to pervert an age old, respected institution (marriage), which, btw, does NOT equate to persecution. I suggest you read The Voice of the Martyrs (http://www.persecution.com/) and you'll learn about REAL persecution.

Because one is between 2 consenting adults and its none of your damn business and one involves a child incapable of making an informed decision.


Wha-whaa-whaa-wha. You're beginning to sound like Charlie Brown's teacher. Your argument COMPLETELY falls apart when the age of consent is lowered, lowered, lowered, and then eliminated (which it eventually will be, thanks to the radical homosexuals pushing their agenda.) BTW, for the record, I do not care about those engaged in homosexual behavior in private (well, I do, I care about their souls, but I'll stick to praying for them, and not telling them what they can/can't do in their bedroom) -- it's the legitimization of that behavior (by recognizing homosexual (non)marriages) that I am COMPLETELY against.

If you can't figure it out by now, I can't help you.

Your "help" is neither desired, required, nor requested. Besides, considering your response, looks like your the one needing help.



Oh yeah, and I am SICK AND TIRED of liberals jumping into a thread, running off at the keyboard and then deriding one of my posts. I'm usually rather tolerant, but I am fed-up.

[DesertFox]

But you're saying that you ought to have the right to tell me what I can and can not talk about.

If you are so dead set that the discussion of pedophilia should be banned, then why are you here, in this forum, discussing pedophilia?Say what? You got me confused with somebody else, dude. I haven't said a word about what you can or can't talk about, or about banning discussion of pedophilia.

There are limits to free speech. That's the sum of what I've said. You and I simply disagree about where the line should be drawn.

[Borgia]

Homes:

To Cerb's credit, he did highlight a logical fallacy on your part. Logically, you said because A is not C and since B is not C then A=B which anyone who has taken logic will tell you is quite erroneous.

(A = Homosexuality, B = Pedophilia, C = Normal)

He simply applied you logic of saying if homosexuality is considered normal than that will lead to Pedophilia.

I am fairly sure people made similar slipperly slope arguments about miscegination and they were shown to be quite wrong. You see, the reason why slippery slope arguments are prone to fallacy is because they ignore the probability of intermediate steps.

One item you ignore is that homosexual sex is approved between two consenting adults. That means consent is required. Pedophilia does not involve consent and claiming that they will lower the age of consent is chicken little thinking. I see no reason to think that they will succeed.

NAMBLA has to be one of the most hated groups in the US. You would be hard pressed to find even 1% support for their position. Feel free to find me a poll that shows over 1% support for their position and then I will start to seriously consider your claim. Until then, your slipperly slope argument appears rather ludicrous.

[TechnoPrincess]

Campaigning to change a law is not conspiracy. Speaking about why you feel something that is illegal ought to me made legal is not conspiracy. THAT is what I am defending.

It's those of you who want to "rubber stamp" the first amendment that inserted the "child rape instruction manual".

If we followed your definition of "conspiracy", then everyone in the United States will have been guilty of conspiracy on many occasions. Did you discuss anyone drinking and driving? By your definition, simply TALKING about it constitutes conspiracy.

Here we all are, in an open public forum discussing child molestation... we're ALL guilty of conspiracy if we accept your definition of the crime.

I said it once, and I'll say it again, TALKING about something debating the "right and wrong" of an issue, petitioning to change something from illegal to legal is NOT conspiracy. And THAT is what must be protected. If you fail to protect that, then your definition of "conspiracy" could very well come about, and the next time you merely mention the word "Marijuana", you could be looking at a 5 to 10 year sentence, even if all you said was "Smoking marijuana is bad for you". Frankly, thats not the America that I want to live in.

Debating legalities is one thing, publishing manuals on how to commit the pedophelia is another. If the mob started publishing manuals on loan sharking, drug smuggling and how to carry off a hit without being caught, the government would be all over them and we all know it. But for some reason NAMBLA can get away with publishing material on how to entice your young victim, how to cover up your crimes, and disgusting details of how to carry them out.
Would you condone a bunch of Muslims getting together in LasVegas to discuss the best way to fly planes into buildings and bomb subways?? How about if they start publishing books on how to do it, showing diagrams of the best places to lay your explosives, or how to drive your car full of explosives right up to an important building without being noticed? Would that bother you?
NAMBLA ADVOCATES the sexual abuse of children by adult males. They seek to normalize the behavior of child rape. They are not just talking about changing the laws or advocating the laws be changed, they are actively producing literature that tells their members how to commit and get away with CRIMES. Showing someone how to commit the crime and then helping them to cover it up is CONSPIRACY.

[Borgia]

Debating legalities is one thing, publishing manuals on how to commit the pedophelia is another.

NAMBLA ADVOCATES the sexual abuse of children by adult males. They seek to normalize the behavior of child rape. They are not just talking about changing the laws or advocating the laws be changed, they are actively producing literature that tells their members how to commit and get away with CRIMES. Showing someone how to commit the crime and then helping them to cover it up is CONSPIRACY.

If they are producing literature on how to commit crimes then that enters a different area for me. I would think that producing literature on how to commit a crime would be illegal but perhaps it is not.

The Anarchist's Cookbook told people how to make bombs, right? I think it is considered a legal book. Perhaps it should not be? I dunno.

One could also argue that a novel detailing a crime also teaches someone how they can elude capture. We see that in real life as CSI investogators say that criminals are getting smarter about crime scene evidence due to the plethora of shows on TV telling them how cops find and analyze the evidence. Should the producers of these very popular crime shows be charged for conspiracy?

You can see how it might be difficult to produce a bright line of criminal versus non-criminal behavior in these cases. I really have no idea how the law proceeds. Anyone have some insight to share?

[TechnoPrincess]

If they are producing literature on how to commit crimes then that enters a different area for me. I would think that producing literature on how to commit a crime would be illegal but perhaps it is not.

The Anarchist's Cookbook told people how to make bombs, right? I think it is considered a legal book. Perhaps it should not be? I dunno.

One could also argue that a novel detailing a crime also teaches someone how they can elude capture. We see that in real life as CSI investogators say that criminals are getting smarter about crime scene evidence due to the plethora of shows on TV telling them how cops find and analyze the evidence. Should the producers of these very popular crime shows be charged for conspiracy?

You can see how it might be difficult to produce a bright line of criminal versus non-criminal behavior in these cases. I really have no idea how the law proceeds. Anyone have some insight to share?

I think you can look at the purpose behind those shows though...they are not produced in order to show people how to commit crimes. They are produced as entertainment or as informational regarding criminalistics (sp?). They are not ADVOCATING that people go out and commit crimes. They are not telling their viewers that crime is OK.

Currently literature detailing how to commit a crime is not against the law, at least not in the state of Illinois. Other states may have some statute.

NAMBLA's sole reason for existance is to assist pedophiles in enticing victims, commiting the crime and covering it up. If that is not the definition of a criminal organization, I do not know what is.