Now, short of a revolution similar to that experienced in Iran, America is still officially a secular nation. Now, what this means is that, “The Bible says so” is not a legal justification. What does this mean? Well, let’s look at it this way:
In Maryland, if you commit rape you will be automatically tried as an adult (See Md. Code Ann., Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article, § 3-804(e)) Now, within this legal definition, if you are aware enough to be having sex, you are legally an adult (read it, you’ll see that clear as day). So, what happens when a 14 year old doesn’t force themselves upon another, but instead seeks out a randy 34 year and old picks them up, and they have consentual sex?
Well, the legal framework is such that, since the child was aware enough to actively seek out sex, they must be an adult; ergo, it is OK for the adult and the (formerly) minor to engage in sex acts.
Remember, pedophiles aren’t arguing for their legal right to fuck children, but for a child’s legal right to fuck them (read their propaganda, you’ll see that is the tactic most commonly employed).
Without disputing the above, can you see a case, as with Nazism, for allowing it a public voice in order to shoot it down in the strongest available terms? Fine, let’s have a discussion with these fuckers, because we’ll win hands down. Of course, I’m not a parent.
that’s fine for maryland… point out that law to most parents in that state and they’ll demand it be changed. although the liberal democRATS will prevent it on behalf of nambla …
the party of child rape, abortion and ridiculously high taxes. fucking wonderful.
the “she was asking for it” rape defense doesn’t fly with me…
However, I am saying that it is the Republican party and the American right that is pushing for lower-and-lower ages to be tried as an adult, as well as for certain serious crimes (and I certainly hope rape will always be a serious crime) always be tried as though the defendent were an adult.
That creates a legal culture ripe for the legalization of pedophila. Certainly much moreso than letting some people get their ass-buggery on within the sanctity of state-recognized marraige.
People in the thread seemed to think that because a group is for gay marraige, they create a culture were child-molestation is also acceptable. I agrue that movements on the right are doing a much better job.
Support your argument with examples, because you certainly haven’t been.
as opposed to letting criminals go free as the left wishes?
no, the fact that a young criminal may be tried as an adult for committing an adult crime does not equate into the right for that child’s emancipation.
Would you prefer that I rephrase it “gently make love to the children”?
Close your eyes and bend over, or bury your head in the sand…
Passersby will gently make love to your anus…
If I was to argue that cannabis should not be prohibited by law, would it follow that I, personally, would want to use cannabis? I don’t think it would.
If I look to change the law so that lynching black people is legalized does that make me a racist? Not necessarily.
If I am looking to allow terrorist networks in the U.S. does that mean I hate America. Not necessarily.
Does that change the ultimate goal? No.
Do these policies endanger people? Yes.
I wouldn’t say that it’s quibbling - it’s recognising an important distinction.
I don’t think those policies do endanger people. They only endanger people if those policies are in any way successful. Do you think that there’s any chance of this Dutch political party gaining any legislative power? I certainly don’t.
In Britain, we have a political party called the British National Party (BNP). They are a racist party with some pretty stupid views (of course, they deny that they are racist). Provided that their expressing of their views do not “incite violence” they are permitted an electoral platform. I think that that is a good system.
Saying “I think that having sex with children over the age of 12 should not be prohibited” does not incite rape. If it did, then you’re quite right that the party in question should be prevented from expressing its views.
As below, in this tiny thread microcosm, so it will be above, in the ‘real’ world. Let’s overview events.
The event of a pro-paedophillia movement is noticed.
The first type of replies are… Violent, emotive. Definitively not ‘modern’. The voice of the lynch-mob.
Then the second type - those that are ‘against’ the concept of paedophillia - but cannot actually understand the threat is ‘real’.
Perhaps their logic goes like this:
I am a normal person.
Everyone normal is like me.
I wouldn’t screw a child.
No-one would screw a child.
→ People who say they would like to screw children are only joking.
And so they laugh. The threat to their peace of mind evaporated. But this still leaves them troubled by the emotive responses of the previous repliers - repugnant in their display of animal violence. They must distance themselves from the likes of these neanderthals.
This desire to distance themselves from the animal, to display a human reasonableness, begins to rival their aversion to the subject of paedophillic legality (which they don’t actually believe anybody really desires anyway…)
eg.
The principle becomes in their minds, more important than the particular subject in hand (which is disturbing to their peace of mind and needs to robbed of its emotive sting.)
So they begin to argue abstracts, and rationalize their solutions.
And the other escape route - discussion of children’s rights to choose - abstract, unemotive details. talked about in a supremely calm voice.
So - in short.
*Paedophillia party reported.
*Outrage, violent intent. Outcry.
*Voice of reason. Appeasing, non-violent. Rationalizing.
*Clouding of issue.
*Points of principle.
*Escape into detail.
The people in NAMBLA know this drill. They know that the face of ‘reasonable’ humanity within society, reacting against the violent outcry of the ‘not so reasonable’ will be forced to take their side.
And as the process continues and views polarize - the violent opposers becoming moreso - the none-violent opposers wishing to distance themselves from that faction ever more greatly. To the point at which they forget their initial repugnance and begin to actively champion the cause of paedophillic rights, simply because they abhor violence, believe that the paedophiles are really just acting on disinterested principle and do not really want to screw children, only to have the right to do so. (And rights are always good things aren’t they…?)
NAMBLA know this. They only have to act in a non-violent fashion:
“Gee look - we are this way through no fault of our own - what can we do as reasonable people to accomodate ourselves within society…?”
…And the people in society who pride themselves on being ‘reasonable’ will champion the peadophile’s cause for them, however much they abhor paedophillia itself - because they cannot allow themselves to imagine the act, nor imagine that such a reasonable-sounding faction of society could desire to commit it.
I would rather keep them organized and in sight, it makes it easier to keep track of them and what they do. If they fear ,then they go underground and are much more dangerous. Allow them to speak it is their right, and I will argue to upold that right, they, as a group, have broken no laws. It is easier to track individuals if they voluntarily put themselves on lists that can be easily copied it is to the good. I may want to put bullets in their heads, or better yet a much lower bullet or two, now but, then I would be the one commiting the crime and throwing away any possible chance to do good for others in the future. Unless I caught one then, of course it was self defense and I can’t aim worth shit.
We are not logical beings. Our conscious minds rest paint-thin over a huge thrash and turmoil of unconscious and emoitively based judgement engines. Very often - these snap judgements, these thin-slice appraisals - are true. But in this case, they will not be. We will see the man, and judge the man, purely on his appearance, his way of speaking, his way of moving and emoting. Not all of these observations will pass through the filter of the conscious mind.
At the end of it we will be conflicted, because our conscious mind will be holding onto the knowledge that this man is a self-acknowledged paedophile. But our unconscious snap-judgement will have already judged him favourably, will have been impressed. Unless we are very rigidly aware of our thought-process, we will automatically blur conscious knowledge of an abhorrent deed, and unconscious positive appraisal of doer - and conclude unconsciously/consciously that “Paedophillia isn’t quite as bad as I thought.”
Keeping carefully groomed media-friendly paedophiles in sight will have this effect on a faction of society: They will give a borderline faction of people ‘permission’. They will see these people saying “I do it.” And suddenly it will be okay for them to do it too. The shame of it is leeched.
Of course they have broken laws. Of course they have sexually molested children. Do you think the people who are campaigning for what amounts to the legalization of paedophillia are doing so on a whim…? They have not been caught. That is all.
If this was not about speech. Say instead, these people were sick, physically sick. Contageous, each time they hacked out a breath, a million viral particles bloomed and billowed on the air - Would you stand up and say - “These people have a right to breathe in a public place. They have a right to infect who they wish.”…?
Of course not - you would quarrantine them. Where they could do no harm to the body politic. Because you must realize that there is little difference between an idea and a virus.
Again, Tab - things are not so simple as this. You say that people are not logical. Yes, they are, and they are a lot of other things, too. Kris promotes a strategy here. I’m not sure it would work, but maybe it would. If it got the tip of the iceberg, that’s better than nothing. Organised crime is attacked through the tip of the iceberg.
With all your poetry here, you are able to eloquently paint a picture about human nature and politics - this is a matter of law enforcement, and is a bit too mundane for someone of your elevated sensibilities, I am afraid.
Find them and jail them. The rest is strategy. I had a friend who fronted for the Mob. It was a legitimate business. Just like these folks. He was allowed to exist by the law because he provided a good way to find bigger fish. It does happen.
You claim that gunning these creeps down is too primal and that allowing them to exist as a political party is denial. So you are making some political point, or a point about human nature. But poets are not needed here - cops are.