I’m aware. I guess I just have an incurably low opinion of pedophiles for some reason.
You seem to be awfully hung up on the legality aspect of this. I couldn’t care less if they commit illegal acts or not…if they are advocating changing a law in a way that I find morally unacceptable (and I do), then on that basis alone I would find cause to “treat them differently.”
What does Captain Amazing have to prove? That it is morally wrong to take sexual advantage of children? Really?
So, your opinion is that the idea of having sex with children is merely “icky?” Really?
Let’s take another political group. The Constitution Party. They advocate the end to every federal welfare program. This would lead to deaths of many people. But I doubt anyone has a problem with linking to them.
www.constitutionparty.com (possibly not work safe, link disabled (I think)
A bad comparison: there’s no crime involved.
That didn’t work.
And there is no crime involved in what NAMBLA advocates. They advocate to change the law. This is NOT illegal.
The Constitution Party wants to change welfare laws. NAMBLA wants to change sex laws.
That’s not what he’s saying at all. He’s attacking the validity of Captain Amazing’s argument, not its conclusion.
The point is, if the only argument you can give for opposing NAMBLA is that they advocate something that’s immoral, what do you say to the person who opposes, say, a gay rights group because “it advocates something that’s immoral”?
It’s a totally different situation, because one has to do with sex between consenting adults, and the other has to do with sex between an adult and a child, who cannot consent. I do not think that it has to be proven that this is morally unacceptable.
Besides, all Captain Amazing said was that it was unacceptable to him. Doesn’t sound like a “fiat” to me.
They’re advocating the legalization of a behavior that IS illegal, however, and the Constitution party is not. Thus, there’s a difference.
As far as the board goes, sites like NAMBLA’s are considered verboten more because the board doesn’t want trouble with the Chicago Reader, who we’ve sponged off of for so man years, than for moral reasons. There doesn’t have to be a totally rational reason there, for better or worse.
Cutting off welfare without changing the law IS illegal.
Both groups are arguing to change the law.
Are you saying that somehow, someone could accuse Constitution party members of stopping the government’s welfare program?
They would have as much evidence as someone claiming that NAMBLA has played a part in the raping of any children.
NAMBLA has NEVER been found to have participated in any crime.
You’re still comparing an organization that advocates an activity that’s illegal with one that doesn’t. If Constitution Party members had been arrested for stealing welfare checks even outside " their official capacity," the comparison would work better. At present, it really doesn’t.
You are confusing NAMBLA with people who happend to be members of NAMBLA.
How do you feel about slavery? How would you feel about a political group that advocated reversing several amendments (as well as state laws) to the Constitution to make slavery legal once again?
NAMBLA doesn’t have anyone who actually is in any sort of official “office.” So, it’s hard for them to commit crimes in the “official capacity” as “member of a fairly small group that advocates a generally unpopular political agenda.” In general crimes in 'official" capacity is restricted to graft and other similar sorts of things where a member illegally does certain things within an organization such as embezzle funds, mislead shareholders etc.
NAMBLA members and leaders have been convicted of serious sexual assaults on children. If George Bush sexually assaulted a child, he wouldn’t be prosecuted in his official capacity, indeed his crime wouldn’t have been convicted in his “official” capacity. In fact, the whole idea of this “official” capacity thing is kind of a weird one, to be honest. Most of the crimes NAMBLA members have committed are crimes that aren’t those that can be committed in an “official” capacity. However most people find child rape far more heinous a crime than accepting a bribe. I mean, a public official accepting a bribe is in general a bad thing, but it doesn’t nearly victimize any one person to the degree that a rape does.
In general organizations can’t be convicted of crimes.
I may be wrong on this, but I’m pretty sure the GOP wasn’t said to have committed crimes during Watergate. Individuals commit crimes, not organizations. Some organizations (corporations, for one) do things that run afoul of regulation, and those result in the organization having to pay fines. But I’m not really sure if that is considered criminal law, I don’t believe organizations are tried before a jury, or even in a court, in cases like that. Honestly I’d have to ask a lawyer to say for sure.
I think you’re treating that “happened to be” as if it were a coincidence. That’s the problem from my perspective. I’m going to go out on a limb and say a NAMBLA member is more likely to commit these crimes than is a member of most any other group.
You’re still ignoring the difference I’ve pointed to. It’s really pretty obvious. With welfare, the CP is talking about eliminating a government program. They’re not talking about legalizing anything.
Should the Mafia be treated differently from the Democratic Party?
That’s really what we’re getting at with NAMBLA. There has been strong indications in the past that NAMBLA is an organization that fronts illegal pedophile activity. That’s the best reason I can think of for NAMBLA not being given the same rights as other groups.
In general I’m in favor of NAMBLA being kept restricted because the concept of legalizing man on pre-pubescent child intercourse would violate many existing rights of U.S. citizens. Just like a return to legalized slavery would. Philosophically there may not be much ground for keeping a group that simply advocates something under heavy scrutiny, but there are practical concerns.
NAMBLA has repeatedly advocated allowing sex with children of extremely young age. We have to accept, at some point, what all the experts say–children that young really aren’t mentally developed enough to be doing things like this, most of them aren’t even physically developed enough.
Furthermore, how does NAMBLA propose to get around the parents? Almost no parent is going to say, “Okay, Johnny, you can go down the street and have sex with Mr. Jacobs, our 50 year old neighbor.” Does NAMBLA believe adults should have to right to take children in, alone and unsupervised, to have sex with them? Without approval from the parents?
Governments are formed for the purpose of protecting individuals. Even if all of NAMBLA’s wishes were granted, how could society respect a government that didn’t respect its primary reason for existing?
These indications have never panned out.
As long as the group was not directly involved in any crimes, I would support them in the same way I support NAMBLA. I would disagree with their position, but still supoort them.
The Mafia has beeen shown to be directly involved in crimes.
It might not be the best wording. The organization has never been shown to be invloved directly in any crime.