Yeah, information on how to commit a crime.
Never said it was, only that it is advice on how to commit an illegal act and get away with it.
You sure you want to use that example?
Those on this site aren’t the problem. The public at large is.
Yes.
So you can live with yourself for firing someone who visits a political group’s site if that group is NAMBLA?
Yes.
So you can live with yourself for firing someone who visits a political group’s site if that group is NAMBLA?
Why shouldn’t he?
Personally, I wouldn’t use that as the sole excuse to fire anyone. I’m not one who makes those decisions though.
Absolutely. First of all, you work hard trying to classify them as a political entity, as if that were automatically innocuous. Not so. The Khmer Rouge and Nazis could be classified as such without anywhere near as much as a stretch.
Secondly, they are an advocacy group. And what they advocate is stomach churningly repulsive. This isn’t the PTA.
So tell us… do you get kick out of playing devil’s advocate, or do you really believe in this cause?
I don’t think one political group, that does not advocate any illegal behavior, should be held to a different standard that other political groups because we find their positions offensive.
The Nazis and the Khmer Rouge committed crimes against humanity. They were criminals. They have members that have been convicted of crimes acting in their roles as part of the Nazi and Khmer Rouge parties.
NAMBLA has never been a had a member convicted of doing anything illegal in their official capacity as member of the group. (Something we can’t say say about the Democrats or Republicans). Nor do they advocate any illegal activity, but only changing the law.
I am going to start a thread about this in Great Debates.
The debate:
Hey Jebus you sure are milking this freebee. Why don’t you put your money where your mouth is ?
Oh, God, please don’t encourage him.
I would if I had the money. I like this place. I will probably join in December or January. I will be in a better financial position then.
This ain’t a great debate, choad. The pit is where pederast apologists can tilt at their windmills.
Maybe you’d like to take this opportunity to answer my question directly. Do you endorse the philosophy, or are you just so full of yourself that you think you can support the most insufferable position with a bit of doubletalk?
Are you sure about that? A quick web search isn’t much to ask for, or are crimes involving statutory rape, child pornography, and molestation not relevant enough to the central doctrine to meet your narrow qualification criteria?
I don’t support their positions. But I absolutely support their right to advocate their positions. And that they should be treated as any other political group.
What are you talking about? Do you have some evidence that NAMBLA has been directly involved in any such crime? (They haven’t been).
And, indeed, for all practical purposes, they are treated like any other political group. They have exactly the same legal rights as any other lobby. And, like any other lobby, they are judged by the content of their platform. I’m free to judge members of the Republican party however I wish, and if I found their platform sufficiently unsavory, it is within my rights to refuse to offer them a job. It just so happens that, while I disagree with the Republican party, I do not disagree with them to the extent that I do not wish to have any association with them, and would not mind hiring a Republican to work for me. And, luckily for Republicans, this attitude is very mainstream: there are very, very few people who would refuse to hire (or immediatly fire) someone for belonging to the Republican party.
Conversely, there are some political parties whose platforms I find so abhorrent that I would not want anything to do with them. The American Nazi party would be one such group. NAMBLA would be another. Legally speaking, it is entirely within my rights to refuse to hire someone I knew to be affiliated with either group. And morally speaking, I feel it would be my duty to refuse to do so, as their ideas are toxic to my conception of a healthy, free, and well-ordered society, and I have a responsibility to see that those ideas are as marginalized as legally possible. Unfortunetly for all the fascist kiddie diddlers out there, this attitude is also very mainstream. Very few employers would be willing to offer someone who was a member of either party a job.
Now, in the context of this messageboard: a lot of people read this board from work. Clicking on a link to the NAMBLA website from a work computer is very likely to get one in trouble with a boss who feels about NAMBLA the way that I do. So, in the interest of protecting members of this board who are not members of NAMBLA, but may click on that link without realizing where it goes, and so get in trouble with their employer, the moderators here added the NSFW tag.
Now, you are free to think that the attitude I hold towards NAMBLA is unfair or discriminatory. However, the fact remains that being caught with NAMBLA’s web address in your browser history at work presents a significant risk of getting in trouble with your employer. Far more significant than being caught with the web address of the RNC. Very, very few employers are going to care about their employees possibly being a Republican. Very, very many employers are going to care about their employees possibly being a pedophile. Therefore, one site gets the tag, and the other does not. Fair? Maybe not. But the source of this inequity is not in the moderation of this board. It is in society at large. Complaining about it here is not going to change anything out there. For that matter, it’s not going to change anything in here, either, because the vast majority of posters to this board (much like the vast majority of citizens at large) are vehemently opposed to NAMBLA and its goals, and are not interested in giving it any more consideration than the bare minimum required by the law.
It is more than a tag. The link was disabled in this thread. How is that for fighting ignorance? It amkes it harder for people to look at NAMBLA’s site. How many people in this thread do you really think know anything about NAMBLA that is backed up by hard evidence?
The only benefit I see to NAMBLA is that puts people’s beliefs to a hard test. Do you really believe in free speech? Does this message board really support an open discussion of issues in a manner to fight ignorance?
You know, if you were some people, I’d consider this to possibly be snarky and sarcastic. Given that it’s you, however, I’m taking it at face value and thanking you for the compliment (as well as apologising for taking this long to respond).
Agreed. “Far more likely” is the reason I would have a slight reservation here, but sure: the odds are far better in one direction than the other. It shouldn’t be taken as a guarantee, though.
If I understand your point correctly (which I hope I do), it’s that what’s best for a child isn’t always what’s comfortable to the child, and I would agree with that. But when we start arguing that what is uncomfortable to them IS wrong for them, we become self-contradictory. Who decides what’s acceptable? The child, or the adult (or, as mostly seems to be the case, some anonymous third party with their own agenda who has little if any concern for the people involved)? If we start saying the child should be the standard of appropriateness (a la “they can’t give informed consent, so it’s wrong”), but then insist on overruling them when we decide we know better, then it smacks of rationalizing to me. If a person wanting a child to have sex with them can’t impose against the child’s consent, then why can a person who DOESN’T want them to?
Don’t get me wrong: I think the child’s well-being should be our collective first priority (and I’m not trying to advocate sex with children–or their involvment in porn), but depriving them of physical stimulus is just as much an abrogation of their consent as imposing it. To me, having sex with them (or, in this thread, involving them in porn) when they say “no” is no more wrong than (or “just as” if you like) refusing to when they say yes.
I’m still working on a response to the rest of your post, so stay tuned if you’re interested.
As for the whole “Should NAMBLA be banned at work?” question, I’m not getting into that. Don’t know anything about NAMBLA other than what the letters stand for and a motto I once heard on this board. Employers ARE allowed to set their own policies wrt internet usage, afaik. That seems to settle that, mostly.
This may be unfair, but just to stir up the waters a bit: Curley vs. NAMBLA (Wikipedia article)
The lawsuit concerns two pedophiles who (allegedly) visited the NAMBLA website while preparing for the kidnap and murder of 10-year-old Jeffrey Curley in 1997. It should be noted that the original lawsuit against the organization itself was dismissed; however, there’s still a pending wrongful death suit against several individual members, including the co-founder of NAMBLA itself.
It is unfair. The organization had its case dismissedas you noted.
Did you do a web search? Look, I know the semantic game you are playing. Cut to the punchline already. It isn’t so clever that it deserves this lengthy buildup. General members and members of the steering committee have been arrested for practicing what the group advocates. If I join the international society of quilting and cow tipping, and I’m found with a pocketful of needles and manure on my shoes… I think it’s fair to say I do more than just talk about those activities. Catch a bunch of us down at the farm with a trunkful of quilts, and you reach the same conclusion for the group. I’m not talking about the case that the ACLU helped get dismissed.