[JerryLove]

Dammit, what the hell does it matter, Jerry? Imagine any office that would have the power to determine anything for the nation (Chairman of the fed, senators, presidents, supreme court justices....)

The topic isn't "anything" it's the censuring of free speech. This should involve neither the chairman of the fed, nor the president. For that matter, shy of a constitutional ammendment, it should rarely involve the legislature. Which speechs might be exempt is a question for the courts, but it's one which they have had more than 200 years to sort out at this point. The basic questions should be well answered by now.

Well, it's a vague question, and my apologies for not having (nor wanting to write out for you) a platform that thoroughly explains my position on this.

Then you'll understand why I can't agree with an undefined position.

You are so full of crap. "Many moral standards"=/=whatever moral standards Jerry wants to emphasize right now. Our law is aligned with some of the ten commandments (though possibly not entirely based, but likely based). Like no murdering, no stealing, no perjuring, etc. What on earth guided you to think I supported any of that which you just described?

"The thing is, I don't put myself at odds with the majority. I stand for many of the same moral issues Christians do, and if need be, I can pretend to be Christian." - BrooksB post #43

The majority of Americans are Christians. The majority of Americans, if asked, would say that they support all 10 commandments. Of course, you do have a point in that the majority of Christians do not, in fact, follow the first four at all.

Of course, there are pronounced exceptions, and we've seen them on this board. You've asserted that you don't put yourself at odds with the majority, and

All these things are caused by people and their irresponsibility, not sundaes. And the oppression of cows is not of my concern. I'll oppress cows so I can eat, and I don't feel bad about it. What's the moral problem here? Not sundaes- irresponsible people.

Illegal acts of pedophilia are caused by irresponsable people, not access to a website which expouses that children have a right to control their sexual lives. NAMBLA does not feel bad about children having control of their own sex lives, what's the problem?

Oh yes, the problem is that you and I disagree with their morality, much as many disagree with your morality that containing, controlling, and ultimately killing another animal so you can have the foods you like is immoral. Of coruse, perhaps you would censure them as well, I don't know.

You are taking a hypocritical position, at once blaming NAMBLA's statement for the acts of pedophiles, and dismissing sundays for the acts of the obese. Which is it? Is it the fault of the person committing the act (whether pedophillia or eating too many sundays), or is the fault shared by anyone who facilitated the have sex with children / eat sundays culture by providing a mechanism (such as actual sundays).

Though in many ways, the analogy is poor. After all, the website is not providing children; so it would be more analogous to wanting to take down a website that said sundays were tasty because many people become obese.

So you think that children are maturely capable of making decisions like whether or not they are homosexual or whether or not they should be having sex with their teacher?

No I do not. I believe that NAMBLA is incorrect in their position.

Do you believe that we should worship Jehovia? Are you in favor of censuring Christian sites like this one?

But that's what it IS more often than not. It may not be physical force, but these children are cajoled into it. They do not engage in the relationship expecting sexual relations. The adult brings it up and manufactures consent from the child.

Again, NAMBLA's website does not promote this. Please don't hack at a strawman.

And perhaps my assumption isn't valid, but it falls in line with what I've seen having personally known sexual predators and the children they molested.

And we all agree with the arresting and prosecution of sexual predators. In fact, I'm personally for lifetime imprisonment for anyone who shows a distinct likelyhood to repeat offend... but we digress. The question at hand is the exercise of free speech on the website.

What does that have to do when comparing the removal of the UN to the removal of the US government? I personally think it would be a bigger deal for the US gov to disappear than the UN. Your thoughts?

I think that your statement in post 39 that the US government is neccessairy is incorrect. You advocated the removal of the UN (post 27) for "corruption and lack of usefulness"

The UN has been "useful".
The US is at least as corrupt.

You then said that the UN was unneccessairy (post 39) and the US government was neccessairy. I said it was not.

You then said that the disolution of the US would be "more drastic" than the dissolution of the UN to Americans. While I don't find this unlikely, I don't see how it relates to your original dislike of the UN based on it's unusefull corruptness.

It always is if you're arbitrary and critical.

I'd assert the exact opposite. Removing a given entity (NAMBLA) from it's broader context (free speech) is arbitrary.

Good answer, but for what question? The question was whether restricting NAMBLA's speech was worse than the advocation of paedophilia.

Yes, it is.

By reading my previous post, as I'm sure you did, you would see that no, I do not support this.

Your complaint about the ACLU:

"Well, I don't see you or the ACLU fighting for my second ammendment rights" - Post #39

I took from the fact that this was a complaint that you supported the second ammendment. When I then asked you for clarification on what you believe the second ammendment to allow, this was the conversation:

"So you believe that the Second ammendment allows me to produce a nuclear bomb?" - Jerry #42

"I reckon it does" - Brooks #43

You pointed out that the law does not actually allow you to, and called this disallowment an infringement on the second ammendment. Perhaps I was wrong and you oppose the second ammendment.

What do you think I believe it guarantees?

The right of citizens to posess nuclear weapons, as per your comment in post #43

Well I guess you're just a half-ass. I roll over half-asses on a daily basis.

That's hardly a supported argument. Again I would have to take the opposite position that someone who supports some free speech while restricting others based on whether he agrees with it is, in fact, being half-assed.

No, Christianity in power is morally oppressive. Science in power is morally oppressive. The morality of Christianity is not oppressive. It's just morality.

The "morality" of Biblical Christianity makes women and children property. How is this less opressive then the morality of NAMBLA which gives children control over their sexual lives?

Do I really need to bring up Liviticus here?

Power is just generally oppressive, and I think I may have to point out yet again that I am not Christian and do not believe all the things that Christians do.

"I don't put myself at odds with the majority." - BrooksB #43

However, some things that I agree with Christian morality on are that paedophilia, lying, killing, violence, homosexuality, infidelity/divorce, and drunkenness are wrong, among possibly some other things.

So then you would also censure speech on homosexuality or divorce? Half of all marriages end in divorce. If any that do not would have under the right circumstances, then I must conclude that the majority of Americans are not opposed to divorce. I thought that you were not at odds with the majority.

The thing is, currently, Christianity is not as morally oppressive as science, in my opinion. I think science has more effect on policy than christianity.

Science has no morality.

Both or one are held true by pretty much everyone in America. What is also held true by pretty much all Americans is that paedophilia is bad and should be stopped.

As do I. The majority of Americans do not, I believe, that anything which might stop a pedophile somwhere (say, getting rid of every computer in America as they might be used by pedophiles) is an OK method to do it.

So since we agree that it's not "stop them at ALL costs", and since we are not discussing the legality of pedophillia, but the legality of speaking on a moral position, what's your point?

Maybe not right, but might makes possible. And if the mighty are right, as in this case, then might and right happen to coincide. Why should the mighty back down when they are in fact right?

In the example, you said that, had England been mighty enough, they could have prevented the revolution and kept America as a held territory that paid taxes but had no representation.

So we are back to the fact that your argument against allowing the website is that it is morally wrong because it promotes something which is illegal / not popular with the majority, revolution is also illegal (and was under Britian) so this position would say that the revolutionaries were morally wrong as they too promoted something which was both illegal and not popular witht he majority of Brits.

Despite the fact that this conclusion is pretty inescapeable with your argument, you don't oppose the revolution (you see it as a right). Therefore your asserted reason for censure of NAMBLA is not a position you actually hold.

So now we are back to "censure things BrooksB doesn't like", which is not a position you should reasonably expect me to support; especially when you haven't defined a bright-line test for what that is.

["BrooksB"]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

The topic isn't "anything" it's the censuring of free speech. This should involve neither the chairman of the fed, nor the president. For that matter, shy of a constitutional ammendment, it should rarely involve the legislature. Which speechs might be exempt is a question for the courts, but it's one which they have had more than 200 years to sort out at this point. The basic questions should be well answered by now.

You say that because you find those answers agreeable, not because you really believe all questions about constitutional law have been answered. I know what the topic is, and we can take that for granted. What I meant, for the challenged, was the neither you nor I will be making decisions for the nation. It was put quite clearly in my post.

"The thing is, I don't put myself at odds with the majority. I stand for many of the same moral issues Christians do, and if need be, I can pretend to be Christian." - BrooksB post #43

The majority of Americans are Christians. The majority of Americans, if asked, would say that they support all 10 commandments. Of course, you do have a point in that the majority of Christians do not, in fact, follow the first four at all.

You just pick and choose what you want to highlight whenever something is left open-ended. I don't think you are so ignorant to have really believed what you said in the last post about the moral beliefs I have in common with Christians. I don't really think you are stupid enough to believe that I am not a Christian (as explicitly noted) AND that I believe in the morals that are believed by Christians only (as you asserted).

Furthermore, just because I don't believe in the same things as the majority doesn't mean I put myself against them. The moral things I believe in are usually the ones that come up most often. Only evangelists worry about who believes in the one true god or idol worship. Most christians are mainly concerned with the same morality I am. Therefore, I am rarely at odds with Christians. I have many Christian friends, and they know that I am not. But because I don't put myself against them, we can be friends. And, there are others that probably think I am a Christian just because I have a lot of the same morals as them and they've never asked me if I believe in the one true god or whether I worship a golden calf.

Illegal acts of pedophilia are caused by irresponsable people, not access to a website which expouses that children have a right to control their sexual lives. NAMBLA does not feel bad about children having control of their own sex lives, what's the problem?

Firstly, children don't have control over their own sex lives. They want that freedom so that they can legally have control over children's sex lives. That's the problem. And you keep repeating the part about children's rights. That's a load of crap. It mentions that, but it also mentions about ways to avoid getting arrested and put in jail for their crimes. This is illegal, and if it's not it should be.

Oh yes, the problem is that you and I disagree with their morality, much as many disagree with your morality that containing, controlling, and ultimately killing another animal so you can have the foods you like is immoral. Of coruse, perhaps you would censure them as well, I don't know.

If you don't control and kill SOMETHING to eat it you will die. Those people that say that are hypocritical because they differentiate animals from plants for some reason. I, personally, believe that carrots are every bit as alive as a cow. However, because I value my own survival and that of my own species above that of other animals, I will gladly kill something and eat it. Those who find this morally reprehensible will not need to be censored, they will die from their own folly. And those who do decide to eat plants are hypocritical. And if they want to stop cattle ranchers from doing their thing, I would definitely like to stop them because I would like to eat meat. And if you wouldn't, I would have this same argument about that situation.

You are taking a hypocritical position, at once blaming NAMBLA's statement for the acts of pedophiles, and dismissing sundays for the acts of the obese. Which is it? Is it the fault of the person committing the act (whether pedophillia or eating too many sundays), or is the fault shared by anyone who facilitated the have sex with children / eat sundays culture by providing a mechanism (such as actual sundays).

I don't blame NAMBLA for paedophile's actions, but I blame them for what they have done, which is tell paedophiles how to evade police and arrest. In law, this is called "Aiding and abetting", or "conspiracy" for certain acts. For instance, I knew my roommate in the dorm a few years back had a bong in his closet. When the authorities found it, I was kicked out with him. Not because it was my bong. Not because I actively helped him. Not even because I told him how to hide it best. Just because I knew it was there and did not turn him in myself. I was guilty because of my passivity. By the same token, you are guilty because of your passivity. The ACLU is guilty for actively helping these people. NAMBLA is guilty for helping paedophiles not get caught. And paedophiles (including the ones who actually run NAMBLA) are guilty for harming children. And if you think that just because you're not going out there and molesting little boys that you are good, then you are just wrong. You promulgate the good of the ACLU who supports NAMBLA who supports child molestors who harm children. And since you don't buy the support bit, try this: you're allowing a situation to arise in which paedophilia is not a transgression, but a "natural thing" much like the general debate of homosexuality some time ago. Let those folks lie about something so harmful for long enough, it will become an acceptable practice, much like homosexuality. And when that happens, remember this and how YOU are PERSONALLY guilty for the harm done to children and my society. And if you don't feel guilty, find me and I will personally blame you. It's because you and I are part of society, and our activity and passivity have a lot to do with what goes on. I personally am not satisfied with passivity when it comes to things like this. People loosing a few years because of obesity is not as grave a problem to me (yeah, I like to discriminate). But children living their entire lives knowing the harm done to them by a paedophile is something I'll get off my ass about.

Though in many ways, the analogy is poor. After all, the website is not providing children; so it would be more analogous to wanting to take down a website that said sundays were tasty because many people become obese.

The analogy is a joke, at best. There's no valid connection I can see between them. Sundaes can be good in moderation while paedophilia is always a harmful attack on a child.

No I do not. I believe that NAMBLA is incorrect in their position.

But you don't think Christians should be able to tell lies about Creation in schools? Hypocrite. (you call me that, so right back atcha)

Do you believe that we should worship Jehovia? Are you in favor of censuring Christian sites like this one?

I don't think we should, but I don't think we shouldn't. I kinda think that's up to you or whoever. But paedophilia is ALWAYS bad. Worshiping Jehova has helped people. Paedophilia has helped no one. It has been consistently harmful to my society and it should end.

Again, NAMBLA's website does not promote this. Please don't hack at a strawman.

You're right it promotes a lie. The operators of NAMBLA, I assure you, know the truth that they hunt children. That's why they are called sexual predators. They also know in sober moments that they are sick and can't stop. So, in an act of self preservation they made up that bull**** that you are hanging onto as their justification for sticking around legally. Great job, Jerry. Way to defend your society from sickness and moral depravity. You deserve a Nobel Prize for your efforts defending the free speech of child-molestors.

And we all agree with the arresting and prosecution of sexual predators. In fact, I'm personally for lifetime imprisonment for anyone who shows a distinct likelyhood to repeat offend... but we digress. The question at hand is the exercise of free speech on the website.

Truly, it is. Sadly, sentences are usually much shorter than that.

I think that your statement in post 39 that the US government is neccessairy is incorrect. You advocated the removal of the UN (post 27) for "corruption and lack of usefulness"

So you think America would be as good in anarchy, without its government? Or do you suppose a revolution is in order?

The UN has been "useful".
The US is at least as corrupt.

Perhaps, but the UN is an added corruption with marginal success in usefulness.

You then said that the UN was unneccessairy (post 39) and the US government was neccessairy. I said it was not.

You then said that the disolution of the US would be "more drastic" than the dissolution of the UN to Americans. While I don't find this unlikely, I don't see how it relates to your original dislike of the UN based on it's unusefull corruptness.

My point was that I don't particularly like the US gov't or the UN. However, I'm in favor of the US gov't staying like it is for obvious reasons-- I think it's dissolution would have costs that outweigh benefits. However, the UN's dissolution would be different, I believe.

I'd assert the exact opposite. Removing a given entity (NAMBLA) from it's broader context (free speech) is arbitrary.

And as I said, you can separate an entity from its implications to other groups by being arbitrary and critical. Then you say - no, that would be arbitrary. Of course it would be.

Yes, it is.

No it's not

Your complaint about the ACLU:

"Well, I don't see you or the ACLU fighting for my second ammendment rights" - Post #39

I took from the fact that this was a complaint that you supported the second ammendment. When I then asked you for clarification on what you believe the second ammendment to allow, this was the conversation:

"So you believe that the Second ammendment allows me to produce a nuclear bomb?" - Jerry #42

"I reckon it does" - Brooks #43

'
I know this is confusing, but here it is...

I was trying to make a point. The second ammendment looks like it gives absolute rights, just like the first ammendment looks like it gives absolute rights. That doesn't mean I think that citizens should have those absolute rights.

You pointed out that the law does not actually allow you to, and called this disallowment an infringement on the second ammendment. Perhaps I was wrong and you oppose the second ammendment.

I don't oppose the second ammendment, nor have I ever expressed that. I oppose absolute application of the second ammendment, much like I oppose the absolute application of the first. So, yes-- there are infringements, infringements that I am alright with. I don't have any sympathy for some guy that wants an AK47, even if he's not a violent offender. Nor do I have sympathy for some sick ****ers who want a website that tells paedophiles how to not get caught.

That's hardly a supported argument. Again I would have to take the opposite position that someone who supports some free speech while restricting others based on whether he agrees with it is, in fact, being half-assed.

It's being whole-hearted. Being half-assed is supporting a group, but not really supporting them or liking them. Like your position NAMBLA. I am fully against them. I dont' advocate a single thing about them. And that's half-assed? Do you know what "half-assed" means?

The "morality" of Biblical Christianity makes women and children property. How is this less opressive then the morality of NAMBLA which gives children control over their sexual lives?

The morality of Christianity also commands that men treat women and children with respect and fidelity. NAMBLA offers no such thing. They offer a way to attack children and disrespect women with one fell swoop.

Do I really need to bring up Liviticus here?

I really don't care what Leviticus says...I mean, you can sit around all day finding unfavorable positions in the Bible and for every one you bring I could bring a positive and enlightening one. The thing is you cannot find a positive truth on NAMBLA. That's why NAMBLA and Christianity are different. Christianity might not be entirely good, but NAMBLA is entirely bad.

"I don't put myself at odds with the majority." - BrooksB #43

So then you would also censure speech on homosexuality or divorce? Half of all marriages end in divorce. If any that do not would have under the right circumstances, then I must conclude that the majority of Americans are not opposed to divorce. I thought that you were not at odds with the majority.

If it were up to me? There would be no homosexuality and no divorce. Those things destroy families. I wish it weren't to oppressive to eliminate speech on those things. The thing is, it's not too late to eliminate stuff about paedophiles. They haven't taken over like the fags have. Not yet at least. You know, homosexuality was looked down upon bigtime for a long time. But people like you and the ACLU helped them when they were down, and now they're all over TV influencing our children and all over everywhere being themselves-- gay. Do we want that to happen with paedophiles? The ACLU seems to want it that way. You do too, apparently. I know I'm not the only one that sees this coming. Same thing for divorce. The state backed down and now we have broken families all over the place. Marriage is highly trivialized, cause you know what, we can always just get divorced if "it doesn't work out". That's just immature and irresponsible. However, I don't put myself against people who are divorced. I don't have to-- they know it's a bad thing to go through. Ask anyone that's divorced (that is, if you've never been divorced). And homosexuals-- I can attack them all day long because they aren't the majority and they never will be.

Science has no morality.

In politics it does.

As do I. The majority of Americans do not, I believe, that anything which might stop a pedophile somwhere (say, getting rid of every computer in America as they might be used by pedophiles) is an OK method to do it.

I agree. I'm just advocating that NAMBLA not be able to assist paedophiles in getting away with horrible crimes that you think deserve a life sentence.

So since we agree that it's not "stop them at ALL costs", and since we are not discussing the legality of pedophillia, but the legality of speaking on a moral position, what's your point?

I don't think the censorship of one group is "ALL costs". Feel free to quantify the contrary and show me.

In the example, you said that, had England been mighty enough, they could have prevented the revolution and kept America as a held territory that paid taxes but had no representation.

So we are back to the fact that your argument against allowing the website is that it is morally wrong because it promotes something which is illegal / not popular with the majority, revolution is also illegal (and was under Britian) so this position would say that the revolutionaries were morally wrong as they too promoted something which was both illegal and not popular witht he majority of Brits.

It's been a while since this was brought up, but I don't recall comparing this situation to the American Revolution. Moreover, revolutionaries had little in common with paedophiles: they were known to be genial, moral fellows of gentlemanly deportment. Paedophiles harm children by definition and NAMBLA is likely composed entirely of paedophiles. Your analogies are quite idiotic, I must say. Seriously, you're going to have to compare something rotten and nearly universally thought of to be morally reprehensible, not just by the majority of a particular population. Then you may have a good analogy, but American Revolutionaries and hot fudge sundaes are simply not going to cut it.

Despite the fact that this conclusion is pretty inescapeable with your argument, you don't oppose the revolution (you see it as a right). Therefore your asserted reason for censure of NAMBLA is not a position you actually hold.

Earlier, I pointed out that I don't know whether or not I would have been on their side in 1776. Therefore, you have no argument against my position except that it is reprehensible that I would like to actually do something about a group I strongly feel is harmful to my society. I feel like I'm living up to my duty as an American citizen to want my society to be better regardless of politics.

And how would that be a position that I don't actually hold? My position on the American Revolution is (and should be) unrelated to my position on NAMBLA. Here's why-- NAMBLA is a group of child molestors. The revolutionaries were men-- mostly rich men who were very politically minded and mostly thought of as sane people. And if you don't see the difference between those two groups of people, you need to wake up. Different situations call for different judgements and responses. I don't have a set of 10 rules that I apply to every situation. I call it like I see it, and this is how I see it. I think it would be foolish to treat two different things the same way. It's not a very effective way to live.

So now we are back to "censure things BrooksB doesn't like", which is not a position you should reasonably expect me to support; especially when you haven't defined a bright-line test for what that is.

I don't have to have a bright-line test. I'm not a politician, nor will I ever be. And you're forgetting about being "arbitrary and critical" which puts your little comment about "censure things BrooksB doesn't like" in my toilet. I would like to censor very few things. This is the only thing that has ever come to light that I would choose to censor outside of what the government usually censors. And the beauty of all this is that I don't need your support. I don't expect it. It seems as though you oppose just about everything I say on this board, probably just for the sake of argument. And that's really sad... do you agree with ANYONE? I'm surprised someone hasn't shut YOU up...

[JerryLove]

You say that because you find those answers agreeable, not because you really believe all questions about constitutional law have been answered. I know what the topic is, and we can take that for granted. What I meant, for the challenged, was the neither you nor I will be making decisions for the nation. It was put quite clearly in my post.

I didn't say "all questions about constitutional law have been answered"; I said that there's more than 200 years of prescedent on exactly this topic (people advocating change in law and the first ammendment) and that this particual subject is well established.

You just pick and choose what you want to highlight whenever something is left open-ended. I don't think you are so ignorant to have really believed what you said in the last post about the moral beliefs I have in common with Christians. I don't really think you are stupid enough to believe that I am not a Christian (as explicitly noted) AND that I believe in the morals that are believed by Christians only (as you asserted).

" I stand for many of the same moral issues Christians do, and if need be, I can pretend to be Christian." - BrooksB Post #43

Furthermore, just because I don't believe in the same things as the majority doesn't mean I put myself against them. The moral things I believe in are usually the ones that come up most often. Only evangelists worry about who believes in the one true god or idol worship.

It's commandment 1 and commandment 2. Where have you gotten your statistic from?

Firstly, children don't have control over their own sex lives. They want that freedom so that they can legally have control over children's sex lives. That's the problem. And you keep repeating the part about children's rights.

So you assert. You assertion as to their motives is entierly irrellevent to whether the speech is protected.

That's a load of crap. It mentions that, but it also mentions about ways to avoid getting arrested and put in jail for their crimes. This is illegal, and if it's not it should be.

Got a link?

If you don't control and kill SOMETHING to eat it you will die.

So if you were in a crashing plane without a parachute it would be OK to kill the guy next to you and take his? After all, of you don't you will die.

Those people that say that are hypocritical because they differentiate animals from plants for some reason.

You mean like people who hipocritically assert that people aren't animals.

I believe "those people" have the logic that plants are incapable of feeling want, or pain, or fear. Plants, while alive, are not consious. Animals, however, are. They can suffer, fear, hurt, etc.

I, personally, believe that carrots are every bit as alive as a cow. However, because I value my own survival and that of my own species above that of other animals, I will gladly kill something and eat it.

What you are advocating is morally reprehensable (to many). You should be arrested for such speech.

I don't blame NAMBLA for paedophile's actions, but I blame them for what they have done, which is tell paedophiles how to evade police and arrest.

So has the TV show CSI. How's your campaign against them going?

In law, this is called "Aiding and abetting", or "conspiracy" for certain acts. For instance, I knew my roommate in the dorm a few years back had a bong in his closet. When the authorities found it, I was kicked out with him. Not because it was my bong. Not because I actively helped him. Not even because I told him how to hide it best. Just because I knew it was there and did not turn him in myself. I was guilty because of my passivity.

Yep.

OTOH, had you not lived there, but suggested ways he hide it, you would have been fine.

By the same token, you are guilty because of your passivity. The ACLU is guilty for actively helping these people. NAMBLA is guilty for helping paedophiles not get caught.

Don't forget the founding fathers while you are at it.

And paedophiles (including the ones who actually run NAMBLA) are guilty for harming children. And if you think that just because you're not going out there and molesting little boys that you are good, then you are just wrong. You promulgate the good of the ACLU who supports NAMBLA who supports child molestors who harm children. And since you don't buy the support bit, try this: you're allowing a situation to arise in which paedophilia is not a transgression, but a "natural thing" much like the general debate of homosexuality some time ago.

Did you know that the Church (those people who are the majority you don't go against, and with whom you share most morality) declared 9 a marriable age?

Did you know that the Bible (held as the epitome of rightiousness by that majority you don't disagree with and those believers you can pass for) says that children are property, as are women. Women are sold to their husbands, and should be killed for not being virgins.

But any rate: No, I'm not allowing a situation where children are allowed to have sex. I'm allowing a situation where people who thing children should be allowed to have sex can say so.

Let those folks lie about something so harmful for long enough, it will become an acceptable practice, much like homosexuality. And when that happens, remember this and how YOU are PERSONALLY guilty for the harm done to children and my society.

LOL You have a couple problems.

1. I don't dislike homosexuals.
2. I think "God fearing morals" have done more harm to "your socieity" than most other things.
3. You have a contra-indicated claim (let them talk about it enough and it will become accepted). How long did the Quakers talk about their beliefs? How's that coming? How about the Poligimists (oh wait, that actually got outlawed in the 90s), How about Manson? He's been talking about his mass-murder belief for a long time: How is that coming? The communists? Did they take over when I wasn't looking? The Neo-Nazis? The British Loyalists? The White seperatists? It seems that we've not resegrigated nor have we kicked out the blacks/whites.

What fantasy land are you living in to assert something being said means it becomes culturaly acceptable? Besides, if it does, you will have to support it under your claim in post #43.

And if you don't feel guilty, find me and I will personally blame you. It's because you and I are part of society, and our activity and passivity have a lot to do with what goes on. I personally am not satisfied with passivity when it comes to things like this. People loosing a few years because of obesity is not as grave a problem to me

And if you don't feel guilty, find me and I will personally blame you. It's because you and I are part of society, and our activity and passivity have a lot to do with what goes on. I personally am not satisfied with passivity when it comes to things like obesity.

The analogy is a joke, at best. There's no valid connection I can see between them. Sundaes can be good in moderation while paedophilia is always a harmful attack on a child.

Sundays are not "good in moderation", they are just less harmful.

And adults spending time interacting with children can be good too. It's when the level of interaction turns sexual that it's harmful. So my analogy stands alongside your hypocracy.

But you don't think Christians should be able to tell lies about Creation in schools? Hypocrite. (you call me that, so right back atcha)

WHen have you seen me seek the government closing down Christian creationist sites? (Which, BTW, retell actuall lies rather than assert philosophical positions).

Alternately, when have you seen me say that the state should sponosor NAMBLA (as it does the school system)?

You haven't seen either. You are tossing out a straw-man.

I don't think we should, but I don't think we shouldn't. I kinda think that's up to you or whoever. But paedophilia is ALWAYS bad. Worshiping Jehova has helped people. Paedophilia has helped no one. It has been consistently harmful to my society and it should end.

Define "help".

You are assuming your conclusion. NAMBLA asserts that children are being opressed and advocatees removing laws that further their opression. I think NAMBLA is wrong. I also think Christianity is wrong.

You're right it promotes a lie. The operators of NAMBLA, I assure you, know the truth that they hunt children. That's why they are called sexual predators.

1. Not everone affiliated with NAMBLA is identified as a "sexual predator".
2. I've seen the requirements in my state for identifying someone as a "sexual predator". An 18-year-old who has sex with his 15-year-old girlfriend is, even 40 years later after they've been married for 4 decades, a "sexual predator".

They also know in sober moments that they are sick and can't stop. So, in an act of self preservation they made up that bull**** that you are hanging onto as their justification for sticking around legally. Great job, Jerry. Way to defend your society from sickness and moral depravity. You deserve a Nobel Prize for your efforts defending the free speech of child-molestors.

Rhetoric. AFAIK, NAMBLA, unlike Pat Robertson, has not advocated murder. Why are you not trying to get him arrested?

So you think America would be as good in anarchy, without its government? Or do you suppose a revolution is in order?

State governments != Anarchy. You are hacking a straw-man again.

Perhaps, but the UN is an added corruption with marginal success in usefulness.

Or added to usefullness with a marginal change in corruption.

Perhaps the UN has lowered individual corruption while it was at it.

Perhpas the UN has saved lives with relief efforts and peacekeeping. Perhaps many people would have died who did not. What was your position on advocating something that was bad (like disbanding a UN that saves lives?), you felt it made you an accomplice to teh results?

My point was that I don't particularly like the US gov't or the UN. However, I'm in favor of the US gov't staying like it is for obvious reasons-- I think it's dissolution would have costs that outweigh benefits. However, the UN's dissolution would be different, I believe.

I don't agree; but I have my own plans for the UN that are well beyond the4 scope of this topic.

I was trying to make a point. The second ammendment looks like it gives absolute rights, just like the first ammendment looks like it gives absolute rights. That doesn't mean I think that citizens should have those absolute rights.

I don't think that either gives absolute rights. I do think that the rights that the ammendments do give should be protected. I do think the NAMBLA website does (from what I've seen of it) come under the first ammendment protection.

I am also in favor of replacing the second ammendment. The way it's worded is horrible. I would like a national protection for handguns and rifles for citizens in good standing, but I don't think it exists in the second ammendment (my state guarentees it, however).

I don't have any sympathy for some guy that wants an AK47, even if he's not a violent offender.

I have an AKM.

[quote]It's being whole-hearted. Being half-assed is supporting a group, but not really supporting them or liking them. Like your position NAMBLA. [/qutoe] I don't support NAMBLA.

I am fully against them. I dont' advocate a single thing about them. And that's half-assed?

So you would not support an attempt to prevent the webmaster of the NABMLA site from being killed?

Do you know what "half-assed" means?

Supporting a right, but only for some.

The morality of Christianity also commands that men treat women and children with respect and fidelity

childrenIf any man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father or his mother, and when they chastise him, he will not even listen to them, then his father and mother shall seize him, and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gateway of his hometown. "They shall say to the elders of his city, 'This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey us, he is a glutton and a drunkard.'" Then all the men of his city shall stone him to death; so you shall remove the evil from your midst, and all Israel will hear {of it} and fear.

womenYou, Eleazar the priest, and the family leaders of the community are to take a count of what was captured, human and animal. 27 Then divide the captives between the troops who went out to war and the entire community. 28 Set aside a tribute for the Lord from what belongs to the fighting men who went out to war: one out of [every] 500 humans, cattle, donkeys, sheep, and goats. 29 Take [the tribute] from their half and give [it] to Eleazar the priest as a contribution to the Lord. 30 From the Israelites' half, take one out of every 50 from the people, cattle, donkeys, sheep, and goats, all the livestock, and give them to the Levites who perform the duties of the Lord's tabernacle."
31 So Moses and Eleazar the priest did as the Lord commanded Moses. 32 The captives remaining from the plunder the army had taken totaled:675,000 sheep and goats, 33 72,000 cattle, 34 61,000 donkeys, 35 and 32,000 people, all the females who had not had sexual relations with a man.

BTW, do you support this free speech?
Whoever strikes a person so that he dies must be put to death.
Whoever kidnaps a person must be put to death, whether he sells him or the person is found in his possession.
Whoever curses his father or his mother must be put to death.
Observe the Sabbath, for it is holy to you. Whoever profanes it must be put to death. If anyone does work on it, that person must be cut off from his people.

You mentioned "half-assed". Here is the advocacy of the murder of a child for cursing his parents. Do you support this free speech, or is it "harmful"?

Nothing negative comes from hot-fudge sundaes-- which makes it grossly different from paedophilia. How could you even attempt to compare the two?

Obesity, diabetes, food addiction, opressed cows (which are also bad for teh envyronment I might add).

There's plenty of positive going around in those things. They are mutually enjoyable by all those involved or else they can not be involved. However, child molestors are predators that cause harm to those without a equal amount of control to engage or disengage in the activity.

We assume that the pedophillia is enjoyable for at least one party involved.

Politics that I morally oppose. It's clear to anyone with a moral conscious that what they do is morally wrong. Why shouldn't we stop them on that notion alone?

How many people makes "anyone"?

It was clear that blacks should be slaves, women shouldn't have rights, Christians were preaching in violation of the Torah and should be stoned, Washington was revolting, and that beating yor wife was OK.

It's amazing what's "clear".

[Novan_Leon]

This is a marvelous example of why it is impossible to separate religion and government. At some level, wherever it is, there has to be a standard for deciding right and wrong, and the government must hold a hold a position somewhere along the line. There is no such thing as truly neutral.

Anyways... on with the fun...

[jfahler03]

This thread is more than a month old, Novan_Leon. If you want to discuss it further please open a new thread.

Thanks,

the management (I just like to call myself that...)