Freedom gone to far???

[Y2A]

How do you feel about the NAMBLA and other man-boy love organizations? Should they be allowed to voice there opinion on pedophillia?

Edit: Can a mod please change title to read "NAMBLA"? Thank you.

*bows to gracious mods

[Anarchist Freedom]

lol how about no allowing pedophelia is like the ecuivalent of me killing someone in my book




:che:

CGLM! (http://www.cglm.tk)

[The Feral Underclass]

I couldnt get onto the NAMBLA website so I cant see exactly what they are saying. The problem is a question of age. I was talking to a comrade, or debating with him on che-lives and he brought up some interesting points about age. In this present society teenagers are forced to have the mental power and understanding they have. They are given set rules and set guidlines about how to mature and when to mature.

This leaves teenagers open to sexual abuse. They have not learnt how to deal with their sexual emotions and are told that they can not make choices which creates a feeling of disempowerment. What happens if a teenager of 14 had the mental capacity to understand and make decisions based on those understandings. I do not see a problem with them choosing to have a relationship with an adult. It is their choice after all.

In present society I am not sure. It is a complicated question which I have not thought about enough.

[Vinny Rafarino]

This is an easy one.


Whack them out.

[SonofRage]

The Spartacist League supports NAMBLA http://www.dopeshiznit.net/forums/images/smiles/thumbsdown.gif

[BOZG]

I definately support a lowering of the age of consent but I'm unsure as to whether it should be removed altogether though I do lean towards the Spart position on it.

To start debate, why do comrades oppose the removal of the age of consent?

[Iepilei]

If you love somebody enough, you'd wait until they're old enough to officially concent to anything. Anyone who wouldn't is just horney and trying to prey upon the naivety of a child. I say age of concent should remain the same for any relationship between any two individuals.

[LSD]

I'm happy with the age of consent where I live (14), but I think it's significantly lower than in the US

As for NAMBLA as an organization, they should be able to voice any oppinion they want to!
If they should start raping or molesting young children then fine, act, but as long as it's just advocacy, their right to speak is your right to speak and cannot be infringed.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

I thought NAMBLA was just something the south park folks made up, I didn't know this group actually existed!

[BuyOurEverything]

As for NAMBLA as an organization, they should be able to voice any oppinion they want to!
If they should start raping or molesting young children then fine, act, but as long as it's just advocacy, their right to speak is your right to speak and cannot be infringed.

I don't believe that NAMBLA is advocating the rape of molestation of anybody.


If you love somebody enough, you'd wait until they're old enough to officially concent to anything. Anyone who wouldn't is just horney and trying to prey upon the naivety of a child. I say age of concent should remain the same for any relationship between any two individuals.

That's an incredibly stupid position to hold. Why "should" they wait? If you love somebody, why the hell should you care about an arbitrary age limits?


lol how about no allowing pedophelia is like the ecuivalent of me killing someone in my book

People's stupidity never ceases to amaze me. Intergenerational sex is as bad as murder? I'd like to hear you attempt to justify that opinion.

I agree with TAT that teenagers, in general, have their maturity level dictated to them by society.

[Iepilei]

Oh Christ, it's not like anyone abides by the damn laws anyway. But a 20+ year old with a 9 year old? For god sakes, give the kid a chance to realise what it is THEY want before you have some elderly person making any choices for them.

You can convince a kid to believe anything. Trusting in adults is the easiest.

[Xuix]

its sickening to think that people would allow such things to happen to younger children, the age of consent should be when a GROWN person is competent enough to both physically and mentally able to have sex, so I'd say around the age of 16 or older, possibly 18

[LSD]

BuyOurEverything, could you clarify your position? Are you advocating that there should be no age of consent?


its sickening to think that people would allow such things to happen to younger children, the age of consent should be when a GROWN person is competent enough to both physically and mentally able to have sex, so I'd say around the age of 16 or older, possibly 18

I'd say 14 is good. Anything less is ridiculous, but since the average age of first 'sexual contact' is around 15, making it higher is insane.

[Iepilei]

In the US, It's 18. I say it should be 16, or 17.

[Hiero]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 04:04 AM
I thought NAMBLA was just something the south park folks made up, I didn't know this group actually existed!
Me to since i dont live in the U.S. Can someone please explain this group

[allixpeeke]

I don't think the opinions of NAMBLA should be censored, but I disagree full-heartedly with their agenda.

[Exploited Class]

The dangers of freedom of speech is that you will have to hear or see something you do not want.

The dangers of not having freedom of speech is that you won't hear or see something you don't want to.

This is a pretty bad trick to play on people. Show them something completely offensive and say, "Do you think these people that want to gather and organize and who want to have sex with children (considered by many to be the worst thing somebody could want to do or do), should be able to freely organize and exist as a group?"

If you say yes they should be able to do that because you believe in the freedom of speech and the protection of even unpopular speech, you can be tagged with, "Oh so you like them being around, you like pedaphiles! Socialists like adults having sex with children."

If you say no, it disgusts you, then the reply can be, "Socialists are against free speech, see I told you, that you all hated it and you wouldn't protect unpopular speech."

Its a setup.

Safe to say that if something as ugly as the KKK is allowed to have demonstrations publicly, right near black communities, to anger black members of society. Then NAMBLA which doesn't go across the street of an elementary school to hold signs saying, "I want to do it with your 14 year old kid" to incite anger, then I don't have issues with them being around.

Seriously, KKK members hold rallies in black communities under the disguise of "freedom of speech", just to ruin everybody's week and anger everybody. If we as a society can handle that, then I think we can handle an organization that doesn't do anything publicly (for obvious reasons), just gathering on the internet. There is no need to go down the slippery slope of deminished freedoms just to stop some people that like to post on the internet.

[The Feral Underclass]

COMRADE RAF


This is an easy one.


Whack them out.

Very progressive... :rolleyes:

Xuix


its sickening to think that people would allow such things to happen to younger children, the age of consent should be when a GROWN person is competent enough to both physically and mentally able to have sex

But how do you define what is physically and mentally able. Young people now are forced into certain rules. They are told they can not have sex until the are such and such age because they are mentally unprepared. They cam not look at porn or masturbate because it is wrong etc etc. If you treat young people like idiots they will become idiots. If you wrap them in cotton wool and shield them from the evilness that is sex then of course they are not going to physically or mentally prepared.

If, however, you treated young people as equals and allowed them to explore and mature by their own standards and not suppressing their sexual urges you would find that alot of teenagers are physically and mentally prepared.

You are defining something based on capitalist society. You look at the world and say all teenagers are stupid etc based on what has been taught to be right when in fact teenagers are not stupid and should not be treated any differently.

What is important for society is to teach children to be themselves. Think for themselves and learn by themselves. We should incourage children to experience and experiment and allow them to create their own understanding. In a communist society the age of consent would be irrelevant. Teenagers would have the ability to decide whether or not the wish to have sex with an adult.

Lysergic Acid Diethylamide


I'd say 14 is good. Anything less is ridiculous, but since the average age of first 'sexual contact' is around 15, making it higher is insane.

Why does the age of consent exist? It exists because society forces everyone to accept that teenagers are incapable of doing anything for themselves. Maybe a 13 year old has the understanding and mental ability to make decisions because that is how they have been taught to behave. Maybe a 23 year old dosnt have that ability yet. Just because they had ten more birthdays does not necessarily make them more capable. The age of consent should be for the indevidual to decide, not society or a state.

allixpeeke


I disagree full-heartedly with their agenda.

I dont know exactly what their agenda is. It is easy for people to automatically assume that they are paedophiles or have sinister intentions. it is also easy for the gay community to jump on the bandwagen. I am sure the pink doller gay community are afraid of this liberalism. The middle gay community want to move away from this stereotype, which is understandable, and slot right into white, middle class, straight america. They find it a threat and so have started a campaign to stamp NAMBLA out. What I find interesting though, is through all this reaction there is not one organization or government offical standing up and saying, "wait a minute, maybe they have a point." We treat out children like idiots and force them to conform to our interpretation of society. Using violence most of the time. We punish them for expression, we punish them for experience and we punish them for making choices with their lives and legalize it, calling it responsable. Well, I do not think it is responsable to hit a child because the drew on a wall to express some creativity. I do not think it is responsable to isolate your child by sending them to treatment centers because the chose to experiment with drugs and I do not think it is responsable to undermine the abilities of children by dictating to them when they can choose to have sex. Society is so busy with making the point that teenagers etc are irresponsable that the actual issue gets forgotten. Have you actually sat down and looked at what NAMBLA are saying, or are you just reacting to a social taboo with a popular opinion.

[BOZG]

I don't believe that NAMBLA is advocating the rape of molestation of anybody.

Correct



If you love somebody enough, you'd wait until they're old enough to officially concent to anything. Anyone who wouldn't is just horney and trying to prey upon the naivety of a child.

And adults cannot be naïve? What exactly is “official consent”?



But a 20+ year old with a 9 year old? For god sakes, give the kid a chance to realise what it is THEY want before you have some elderly person making any choices for them.

You can convince a kid to believe anything. Trusting in adults is the easiest.

Should we also ban sex for anybody is not of complete sound mind? Take someone who’s mentally retarded for example or someone who’s drunk to the point that they have no real idea of their actions. Because someone like that is unable to realise what he or she wants.



The argument that a child does not have full comprehension of what's going on and could quite possibly resent what has happened is also used to reject NAMBLA's position but how many adults have regretted a sexual encounter in their lives as well?

[LSD]

The argument that a child does not have full comprehension of what's going on and could quite possibly resent what has happened is also used to reject NAMBLA's position but how many adults have regretted a sexual encounter in their lives as well?

Why does the age of consent exist? It exists because society forces everyone to accept that teenagers are incapable of doing anything for themselves. Maybe a 13 year old has the understanding and mental ability to make decisions because that is how they have been taught to behave. Maybe a 23 year old dosnt have that ability yet. Just because they had ten more birthdays does not necessarily make them more capable. The age of consent should be for the indevidual to decide, not society or a state.

Yes, yes, there are individual differences but there are certain commonalities. Would you have a 3 year old handling a firearm? Would you have a 7 year old drive? At some point some standard has to exist, otherwise nothing is enforcable.


But how do you define what is physically and mentally able. Young people now are forced into certain rules. They are told they can not have sex until the are such and such age because they are mentally unprepared. They cam not look at porn or masturbate because it is wrong etc etc. If you treat young people like idiots they will become idiots. If you wrap them in cotton wool and shield them from the evilness that is sex then of course they are not going to physically or mentally prepared.

yes......but that does not negate the fact that biologically we mature as we age, and no 3 year old is able to make intelligent sexual choices. There is an element of socialization, but there is also an element of biology. It is appealing to case "ageism" as an evil of capitalism and to dismiss it along with sexism and racism, but the simple fact is that young children are not as able as older children who are not as able as adults.


What is important for society is to teach children to be themselves. Think for themselves and learn by themselves. We should incourage children to experience and experiment and allow them to create their own understanding. In a communist society the age of consent would be irrelevant. Teenagers would have the ability to decide whether or not the wish to have sex with an adult.

Yes, I would agree in terms of teenagers which is why I support an age around 14, but if there were no age of consent, sex with a 2 year old would be on the table.


Should we also ban sex for anybody is not of complete sound mind? Take someone who’s mentally retarded for example or someone who’s drunk to the point that they have no real idea of their actions. Because someone like that is unable to realise what he or she wants.

What's your point? I'm not suggesting that an age of consent is a universal answer that will prevent all sexual mistakes or misjudgements. However it is a fair statement that a 5 year old is not mentally equiped to make intelligent sexual decisions, much as he isn't equipped to vote.

[Y2A]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 08:38 AM
In the US, It's 18. I say it should be 16, or 17.
The age of concent IS 16 in the U.S. Or at least in my state that is, I believe it is according to state law.


BTW, you guys are retarded. NAMBLA has had members imprisioned for pedophillia and human traffiking. However I will say that this one has me stumped. On the one hand they idealistically should be protected by the constitution but on the other many members have been imprisioned and it is quite safe to say that many others will be imprisioned aswell.

[j.guevara]

Lets not be so progressive we loose touch with reality. Nambla is sick pervs, no other way of looking at it. Grown men who wanna fuck little boys should be persecuted.

[BOZG]

BTW, you guys are retarded. NAMBLA has had members imprisioned for pedophillia and human traffiking.

And I'm sure members of groups from all walks of life have had members prosecuted for the above 'crimes'. I'm sure that many leftists have been charged as well, should we attack the left in general? Of course they'd have had members charged for paedophilia, they're an organisation that supports the removal of paedophiliac laws.



Nambla is sick pervs, no other way of looking at it. Grown men who wanna fuck little boys should be persecuted.

Why exactly is it sick and a perversion?

[Y2A]

Why exactly is it sick and a perversion?

That is by far the stupidest thing I have ever heard in my time in Che-Lives.


the above 'crimes'

And just what the hell do you mean by putting quotations on "crimes"??? Are you stupid enough to think that these children concented to have sex with these men? Did you read the other thread that John Galt put up about the pedo getting off on some 11 yr old on the beach?

Edit: I think that you think that NAMBLA is just trying to get rid of concent laws and thus feel this way. I for one am against concent laws to a certain degree, but this is not what we are talking about. This is a group that advocates pedophillia, there names stands for North American Man-Boy Love Association.

[BOZG]

Based on who's morality? Yours. Morality changes with time. Racism and rape were not morally wrong, look at them now. In 100 years, general morality may define paedophilia as normal, would it be sick and perverse then?

[BOZG]

And just what the hell do you mean by putting quotations on "crimes"???

It's considered a crime now based on current morality.



Are you stupid enough to think that these children concented to have sex with these men? Did you read the other thread that John Galt put up about the pedo getting off on some 11 yr old on the beach?

Can you prove otherwise? Paedophilia covers a vast range of 'crimes'. So every person that is attracted to a minor definately wants to rape them and definately will do so? I haven't read that but once again, it's based on who's morality?

[Y2A]

Do you have a little brother or nephew??? What if they were molested by some 70yr old monster, would it be ok with you? Stop your liberal bullshit and grow some balls. People that act on this should be shot like dogs.

[Y2A]

Can you prove otherwise? Paedophilia covers a vast range of 'crimes'. So every person that is attracted to a minor definately wants to rape them and definately will do so? I haven't read that but once again, it's based on who's morality?

This is what the topic is about in the first place. I said since the begining that I am not 100% certain on my feelings on this. Of course there are pedopilliacs that do not act on there emotions, I never really made a statement saying they should be jailed but however those that do must be punished.

[BOZG]

Do you have a little brother or nephew??? What if they were molested by some 70yr old monster, would it be ok with you?

Well for starters, I cannot possibly answer this from a personal view for mental reasons. Is this consentual or non-consentual, if it's non-consensual I would completely oppose it.

[Y2A]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 11:11 PM

Do you have a little brother or nephew??? What if they were molested by some 70yr old monster, would it be ok with you?

Well for starters, I cannot possibly answer this from a personal view for mental reasons. Is this consentual or non-consentual, if it's non-consensual I would completely oppose it.
How can an 8 yr old grasp the concept of a serious relationship with a man of 40 or 50???? It is impossible for such a "relationship" to be consentual.

[BOZG]

Can someone who's mentally retarded grasp a relationship?
Can someone who's mentally unstable grasp a relationship?
Can someone who's completely drunk grasp a relationship?


There's hundreds of examples I could use. But what if they can't grasp a sexual relationship, should we ban it for them as well, if they can't possibly grasp it. How many adults are manipulated into sexual relationships? How many adults have regretted such things?

[Y2A]

May I ask, are you for jail time for convicted child molesters? Not those who have these feelings but rather those who act on them.

[BOZG]

As I already said I'm not completely sure but I'd be 75% against jail sentences for people caught molesting a consenting child.

[Y2A]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 11:22 PM
As I already said I'm not completely sure but I'd be 75% against jail sentences for people caught molesting a consenting child.
How can a 8 or 5 yr old be "concenting"??? We are talking about pre-pubecent children that can't grasp the concept of a sexual relationship, you for some reason can't understand that.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 11:17 PM
1)Can someone who's mentally retarded grasp a relationship?
2)Can someone who's mentally unstable grasp a relationship?
3)Can someone who's completely drunk grasp a relationship?


The answers to your questions are....










No.








No.







No.





Its statatory rape in all 3 cases.

[LSD]

BornOfZapatasGuns:

Would you have 3 year olds handling firearms??? Would you have 4 year olds driving?? Clearly there are ages at which we are more mature. An age of consent law doesn't cover every single sexual situation (like the debilitatingly drunk or mentally retarded) but at least it protects children.

What is accomplished by removing it? Sexual Abuse.

A 5 year old is not capable of consenting to a sexual relationship anymore than he is capable of voting.
It isn't "ageism", it's biology.

[Urban Rubble]

To any of you guys that are advocating removing the age of consent completely: I ask you to answer Lysergic Acid Diethylamide's post on page 3 (not the post above this one). He made some very valid points and I would love to see them answered.

[Gaia]

I think the issue of Freedom of Speech and morality are intrinsically linked. it is a challenge for us as members/changers of society to try and explore the issues around censorship without getting caught up in a debate about pedophilia.
Is it morally wrong to deny somone the right to express themselves?
Is it morally right to allow people to discuss their desires to harm, rape, abuse or oppress another person in any way?
These are the questions that need answering not what age should consent be set at (puberty?, not really the issue).
Regardless of sexual preference, desire etc I would hope we would all agree that oppression of any form (and yes sexual abuse is a form of oppression) is wrong, but should people be allowed to talk about wanting to dominate some one against their will? That is the issue not when we should start breeding.

[Guest1]

I'm very, very liberal when it comes to this. However, I will have to agree with LSD here, there does need to be a limit.

Here's a novel idea though: Set the age of consent at puberty, case by case.

If a complaint is filed by anyone about it, social workers investigate, and if the child has hit puberty, s/he can consent and everything is a-ok.

If however, s/he definitely has not hit puberty yet, it's illegal.

Does that seem like a fair compromise to everyone?

[LSD]

Here's a novel idea though: Set the age of consent at puberty, case by case.

Works for me.


Is it morally wrong to deny somone the right to express themselves?
Is it morally right to allow people to discuss their desires to harm, rape, abuse or oppress another person in any way?

Yes and Yes .


...but should people be allowed to talk about wanting to dominate some one against their will?

Yes, because the alternative is too dangerous.

Some, in today's society especially, would consider any attempt to undermine capitalism an attempt to "dominate some one against their will" others would consider any move against the government as the same. Giving anyone the power to determine what is and what isn't "wanting" to do something leads inexroably to political oppression. Even the best intentioned ruller or the fairest democracy cannot help but abuse such a broad authority. The restriction of what people can or cannot "talk about" is the first step to totalitarianism.

[Saint-Just]

I think that the members of NAMBLA should be executed or imprisoned for life.
If someone has reached puberty it does not mean they will make the right choices, some people never will. However, I think it is easier to make the right choices at 16. If a child chooses to have sex they have made the wrong choice, there is no way it is ever acceptable for a child to have sex. Their future partners are punished and the child who has sex has lost their virginity.

I think the age at which one can have sex should be the same age a person can marry without their parents consent. I think that should be 16.

[Osman Ghazi]

I don't know if you've ever talked to a 12-year kid but they're pretty dumb. They definately cannot make the right decision in a sexual relationship. They aren't mentally capable.

I think maybe 14 or 15.

By the way, what does it really matter if you don't allow someone to until they are 16? People are generally only capable of sexual activity from about 12 or 13. Giving them time to learn about it doesn't seem like such a crime to me.

[Iepilei]

Here's my suggestion. Look at the numbers of teen pregnancies following the 14-16 year old range, and you tell me if the BULK of this population, who seems unable to make a proper decision at these ages, would be able to make a logical SEXUAL decision at 9 or 10.

Don't think I'm some old harp who believes kids shouldn't have sex. I'm 18, almost 19, and have no qualms with consenting people engaging in sexual acts. HOWEVER, there are those who are incapable of making proper decisions, which ultimately harm society, themselves, and more importantly the child which they come to bear. Granted there are exceptions - however that's the same logic a capitalist will use to prove the benefits of the "free market" system. Exceptions are just that, exceptions.

[LSD]

I think that the members of NAMBLA should be executed or imprisoned for life.

It's an advocacy group.
Primarily a lobbying organization. You're suggesting executions and life-imprisonment simply for daring to speak on something of which you disaprove.
So much for free speech....


By the way, what does it really matter if you don't allow someone to until they are 16? People are generally only capable of sexual activity from about 12 or 13. Giving them time to learn about it doesn't seem like such a crime to me.

What, from books?

The average age of first "sexual behavior" in this country is 15, so making sex below 16 illegal strikes me as ludicrous.


If a child chooses to have sex they have made the wrong choice, there is no way it is ever acceptable for a child to have sex.

Define child.

[BOZG]

I maintain it's a question of morality.

[BuyOurEverything]

I'm very, very liberal when it comes to this. However, I will have to agree with LSD here, there does need to be a limit.

Here's a novel idea though: Set the age of consent at puberty, case by case.

I agree with that.

In response to whoever asked about letting a 4-year-old drive or hande guns, I say remove the age limit and create a test. Whoever passes, regardless of age, can drive or handle guns. I disagree in principle with arbitrary age limits.


It's an advocacy group.
Primarily a lobbying organization. You're suggesting executions and life-imprisonment simply for daring to speak on something of which you disaprove.
So much for free speech....

I don't believe that Chairman Mao has ever expressed support for freedom of speach.


If someone has reached puberty it does not mean they will make the right choices, some people never will. However, I think it is easier to make the right choices at 16. If a child chooses to have sex they have made the wrong choice, there is no way it is ever acceptable for a child to have sex. Their future partners are punished and the child who has sex has lost their virginity.

Aren't you 17? Do you recall some sort of epiphany you had last year which gave you the maturity to make perfect decisions, before which you were incapable of thinking for yourself at all? For the record, I'm 17 and I don't recall anything of the sort.


I maintain it's a question of morality.

How do you mean?


Here's my suggestion. Look at the numbers of teen pregnancies following the 14-16 year old range, and you tell me if the BULK of this population, who seems unable to make a proper decision at these ages, would be able to make a logical SEXUAL decision at 9 or 10.

First of all, I don't know the percentage of teens who have gotten pregnant, but I would imagine it is not that high. I would also imagine that there is a fairly high percentage of adults who have gotten pregnant accidentally. Second, why is it such a horrible thing to have a child in your teens? It seems to me, the worst part would be people judging you and accusing you of 'making bad decisions' and 'being a whore' all the time. Plus, there's always abortions. Third, the best way to prevent pregnancies and STDs is more education about condoms and birth control, not to ban sex, which I would argue would increase these things.

[John Galt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 02:32 AM
In response to whoever asked about letting a 4-year-old drive or hande guns, I say remove the age limit and create a test. Whoever passes, regardless of age, can drive or handle guns. I disagree in principle with arbitrary age limits.

Great idea.


What kind of unbiased non-guessable test will you use?



Arbitary age limits are the lesser of two evils.

[BuyOurEverything]

Great idea.

What kind of unbiased non-guessable test will you use?

Arbitary age limits are the lesser of two evils.

Sorry, have you ever taken a driver's test? I'd like to see someone 'guess' their way through that.

[Vinny Rafarino]

So much for free speech


I suppose it never occured to you that there are those of us that do not subscribe to the "anarchist" views of free speech.

Individuals such as those associated with NAMBLA deserve public execution. Comrade Mao is too thoughtful by allowing them to be "rehabilitated" with a life imprisonment sentence.

I have said it time and time again, hiding behind the "free speech for all regardless of content" rhetoric is simply irresponsible. As the more "enlightened" of the population, we have a duty to advance only the best part of humanity. If those who choose to bang kids get whacked in the process, then so be it. Anything else is simply a childish cop-out.

Any person here advocating the right of NAMBLA members to propegate their inhumane views is simply either too young to really understand the ramifications of their actions or position OR is just here to break balls.

Sometimes it's okay to simply hide the "anarchy" tattoo on your arm and actually do what is right. Those who don't are just as guilty of those labeled as "sectarian". Get some fucking balls and do what needs to be done, you dig?

[John Galt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 03:04 AM

Great idea.

What kind of unbiased non-guessable test will you use?

Arbitary age limits are the lesser of two evils.

Sorry, have you ever taken a driver's test? I'd like to see someone 'guess' their way through that.
Id love to see a tester who is 100% unbiased.

[John Galt]

To be unbiased, humans must be taken out of the testing equation.

To be non guessable, you cant use things computers can grade.

[BuyOurEverything]

Id love to see a tester who is 100% unbiased.


To be unbiased, humans must be taken out of the testing equation.

To be non guessable, you cant use things computers can grade.

Of course no test will be 100% perfect, but I'm talking about practical tests here, not multiple choice written ones. Tests, although not perfect, are a far better indicator of ability than age.


Individuals such as those associated with NAMBLA deserve public execution. Comrade Mao is too thoughtful by allowing them to be "rehabilitated" with a life imprisonment sentence.


Too thoughtful? That's not really a bad thing, care to try another adjective?


I have said it time and time again, hiding behind the "free speech for all regardless of content" rhetoric is simply irresponsible. As the more "enlightened" of the population, we have a duty to advance only the best part of humanity. If those who choose to bang kids get whacked in the process, then so be it. Anything else is simply a childish cop-out.

Any person here advocating the right of NAMBLA members to propegate their inhumane views is simply either too young to really understand the ramifications of their actions or position OR is just here to break balls.

Sometimes it's okay to simply hide the "anarchy" tattoo on your arm and actually do what is right. Those who don't are just as guilty of those labeled as "sectarian". Get some fucking balls and do what needs to be done, you dig?

This isn't an issue of 'allowing free speach to our enemies.' This is an issue of actually agreeing with what these people are saying, considerably lowering the age of consent.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Too thoughtful? That's not really a bad thing, care to try another adjective?




No.



This isn't an issue of 'allowing free speach to our enemies.' This is an issue of actually agreeing with what these people are saying, considerably lowering the age of consent.



Get some balls.

[Guest1]

No, you get some balls. You're just afraid of change.

There's a word for that: conservatism.

[Iepilei]

I slept through my drivers ed class and still got a 98 on the test.

[Guest1]

That's cause it's not very hard to understand the rules to driving.

We all know not to drink and drive, not to cross a red light, etc...

The test that really matter's though, is are you coordinated enough when you drive. That one you need to practice for and guessing is impossible for.

These are the kinds of tests gun carrying would require, practical tests, on firing ranges.

It is an abolishment of the age limit, but really only in name. In reality, it would be setting the limit to at least the age of 10. No 4 year olds are going to try to get them. Very few 10 year olds would actually try.

On top of this, though, I think there should be a mandatory psychological examination. This would require that you show a certain amount of responsibility, and a certain amount of communal instincts. Caring for the welfare of others. Psychological stability too.

These don't come with age.

[LSD]

I suppose it never occured to you that there are those of us that do not subscribe to the "anarchist" views of free speech.

No, it occured to me. It also occured to me that there are capitalists posting on this forum, doesn't mean I'm going to adjust my views accordingly.


Individuals such as those associated with NAMBLA deserve public execution.

I'm sure that despite your rhetoric, you recognize the risk of allowing the government to execute people based solely on membership in an organization or, worse, "association" with that organization. Despite your, I'm sure, well-intentioned motives, eventually someone will abuse such broad and and vague powers.


I have said it time and time again, hiding behind the "free speech for all regardless of content" rhetoric is simply irresponsible.

You may have said it, but it doesn't make it true.

What's irresponsible is giving a group of people (i.e., the government) that much power at all.


As the more "enlightened" of the population, we have a duty to advance only the best part of humanity.

Oh, good, elitism.

Doesn't that strike you as dangerously eugenicist?

"only the best part of humanity"

Giving someone as nebulous a mandate as "[advancing] only the best part of humanity" is one of the most dangerous things a people can do. "best " is such a subjective and personal concept that inevitably it will lead to "moral" totalitarianism or just a good old-fashioned theocracy.


If those who choose to bang kids get whacked in the process, then so be it. Anything else is simply a childish cop-out.

Any person here advocating the right of NAMBLA members to propegate their inhumane views is simply either too young to really understand the ramifications of their actions or position OR is just here to break balls.

hmm, so I'm either a child or I'm "here to break balls".

"When did you start beating your wife..."

Listing two options does not mean that there are not many others, my friend. In fact I would say that most people advocating any change have been labeled as exactly one of those two things.


Sometimes it's okay to simply hide the "anarchy" tattoo on your arm and actually do what is right.

No tattoo here, but I wonder, what do you mean by "right"?

Since you haven't given any justification for anything you have said, I've got to assume that you're basing it all on personal morality, which is fine, but you can't base a state on it.


Those who don't are just as guilty of those labeled as "sectarian".

Those "labeled" as sectarian??

Many people have been "labeled" as sectarian, I bet you have been "labeled" sectarian once or twice.

So, you're saying I'm what, as guilty as you??


Get some fucking balls and do what needs to be done, you dig?

And "what needs to be done" is whatever you consider right?

I understand that it's hard to allow those with differing views to speak, sometimes they say things that really piss you off, sometimes they say things that you consider absolutely disgusting.

And it's hard. It's hard to sit there and listen to their "inhumane" views.

But, unfortunately, we've all got to do it, because if we don't it will be our views and our organizations which will be labeled disgusting and wrong and it will be your ideas which won't be heard.

So to keep that from happening you've just got to grin and bear it and let those with different, even disgusting, ideas have their piece.

It's tough, I know, but it's worth it



.....you dig it?

[Iepilei]

I'm sorry guys, I still maintain that the age of concent is a relatively simple and harmless law that isn't too hard to abide by. It's been proven through biological studies that bearing children while you're too young (in your younger teen years) is detrimental to not only your health, but the average size/weight of the baby. There are complications to young mothers giving birth.

However, in this instance the problem is not about giving birth, but determining whether or not someone who is 10 can make a proper decision regarding their own sexuality - especially when you take into consideration most males don't reach sexual maturity until they're in their mid-teens. It's not a matter of "seperating those who love each other" - it's a matter of making sure both parties are able to maintain and decide for themselves, what's right for themselves. The state isn't saying "you can't be with this person" it's saying "give them a little time to develop sexually."

[Y2A]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 07:45 PM
I maintain it's a question of morality.
We are talking about 5yr olds not 15 or 14 yr olds! This has nothing to do with morality, it is wrong to screw a 5 yr old, A FIVE YEAR OLD IS INCAPABLE OF HAVING A TRUE RELATIONSHIP WITH A 50 YEAR OLD. Now if you want to argue in defence of there freedom of speech, I understand that and will probably agree with you to a certain degree. But don't sit down and give me this BS that I am some ultra right religious ultra-"moralistic" person just because I believe that a 50 yr old fucking a 5 year old is wrong. Sorry I just don't buy this BS that I am being "close-minded" about that.

[Guest1]

How about we get rid of the age of consent, and make it purely biological.

The moment you hit puberty, bam! you're allowed to decide for yourself.

Doctors/social workers would make the decision if there's a complaint. They would go, talk to the child and see if s/he's hit puberty, if they have it's all legal.

[Vinny Rafarino]

I'm sure that despite your rhetoric, you recognize the risk of allowing the government to execute people based solely on membership in an organization or, worse, "association" with that organization. Despite your, I'm sure, well-intentioned motives, eventually someone will abuse such broad and and vague powers.



some say tomato some say tomaaaaaahto.



What's irresponsible is giving a group of people (i.e., the government) that much power at all


You may have said it but it doesn't make it true. Two can play at this game kiddo.



Oh, good, elitism.

Doesn't that strike you as dangerously eugenicist?

"only the best part of humanity"

Giving someone as nebulous a mandate as "[advancing] only the best part of humanity" is one of the most dangerous things a people can do. "best " is such a subjective and personal concept that inevitably it will lead to "moral" totalitarianism or just a good old-fashioned theocracy.


I dig it when you lads try to rope everyone into your "eugenics witch hunt". You are probably one of the misguided youths that think Jim Watson is a "nazi".

I don't play ball on this field esse.


hmm, so I'm either a child or I'm "here to break balls".


I will stick with child on this one.


Since you haven't given any justification for anything you have said, I've got to assume that you're basing it all on personal morality, which is fine, but you can't base a state on it.



Why? Because you disagree? That's fine mate, let the truck roll over you.



Those "labeled" as sectarian??

Many people have been "labeled" as sectarian, I bet you have been "labeled" sectarian once or twice.

So, you're saying I'm what, as guilty as you??



Yesireee bobsky.



And "what needs to be done" is whatever you consider right?

I understand that it's hard to allow those with differing views to speak, sometimes they say things that really piss you off, sometimes they say things that you consider absolutely disgusting.

And it's hard. It's hard to sit there and listen to their "inhumane" views.

But, unfortunately, we've all got to do it, because if we don't it will be our views and our organizations which will be labeled disgusting and wrong and it will be your ideas which won't be heard.

So to keep that from happening you've just got to grin and bear it and let those with different, even disgusting, ideas have their piece.


I don't find it hard at all. I find it more comical then anything else actually.


It's tough, I know, but it's worth it


No it's not.


.....you dig it?


As an educated adult, I find it hard to dig anything you babble about.





No, you get some balls. You're just afraid of change.

There's a word for that: conservatism.



I will keep that under consideration.

[LSD]

You may have said it but it doesn't make it true. Two can play at this game kiddo.

Yes, but unlike your assertions there is historical evidence that giving such powers to state authorities does lead to oppression.


I dig it when you lads try to rope everyone into your "eugenics witch hunt". You are probably one of the misguided youths that think Jim Watson is a "nazi".

I don't play ball on this field esse.


I never called you a nazi, I asked whether your ideas "strike you as dangerously eugenicist?"

In your own words, you seek to "advance only the best part of humanity"

Which does sound a great deal like...

Eugenics: [noun] The study of hereditary improvement of the human race by controlled selective breeding.

It wasn't rhetorical name-calling, it was an analysis of your statement.


I will stick with child on this one.

As an educated adult, I find it hard to dig anything you babble about.

Fine.

I guess it makes it easier for you to ignore differing oppinions if you label them "childish" and dismiss them.


Why? Because you disagree? That's fine mate, let the truck roll over you.

umm.... I gave a reason:


Since you haven't given any justification for anything you have said, I've got to assume that you're basing it all on personal morality, which is fine, but you can't base a state on it.

As to why you can't base a state on your morals alone, the answer is simply that so many have different oppinions (as this thread clearly shows) that such a state is intrinsically unstable. The large number of people who's voices were not being heard would not support your personal theocracy for very long.


I don't find it hard at all. I find it more comical then anything else actually.

Good! Then you shouldn't have any trouble doing it.