Protests are often a good way of moving one’s cause forwards.
Best to keep the message simple, something that sums up the goals of the organization in a few pithy words.
**“What do we want?”
“To fuck little boys in the ass!”.
“When do we want it?”
“Now!”**
Simple but effective, I feel.
aldiboronti:
Protests are often a good way of moving one’s cause forwards.
Best to keep the message simple, something that sums up the goals of the organization in a few pithy words.
**“What do we want?”
“To fuck little boys in the ass!”.
“When do we want it?”
“Now!”**
Simple but effective, I feel.
Crude, but entirely correct. This thread is one of the most chilling things I’ve encountered here in quite a while.
I was thinking the same thing. This is why people worry about moral relativism.
I’m not the remotest bit worried about moral relativism, barring some evidence of an absolute moral referent. I am a bit worried about the OP, though.
Miller:
If morality is objective, there’s some way of showing, beyond argument, that something is moral or immoral.
This does not follow. Even in the far more rigorous world of math and logic, something can be true without being provable. (Godel demonstrated that.)
And that fact that the FBI agent happened to meet a child pornography distributor at an organization who hopes to legalize sex with children is a mere coincidence, right?
Sorry…didn’t mean to put words in your mouth. :smack:
Self-nitpick: “an organization which hopes to legalize…”
Jebus : Here’s the thing: The FBI monitors NAMBLA because these are men who are incredibly prone to molest children. It’s the same reason they monitor the KKK. The meetings themselves might be legal, but it seems obvious that the members of either organization are apt to either pursue sex with children or lynching or what have you. For this reason, I can’t see why NAMBLA shouldn’t be treated differently than 99% of all political groups. Their stated views and goals are currently illegal and, fact of the matter is members of this organization do break the law, do molest kids, and should be monitored. They aren’t waiting for the laws to be changed. Some members are actively breaking them while waiting for the laws to be changed. And the laws aren’t going to be changed, so you’ve basically got a pool of card-carrying probable pedophiles. Monitor away.
As for your…creative…reading of the poem & letter, I’m actually speechless.
That’s because going to a meeting is not illegal.
You have that backwards.
No, but this one does .
If you’re not a member of the organization, why are you defending them so?
Quartz
June 7, 2006, 7:24pm
72
Well, it’s not as if the Houses of Parliament haven’t had their share of people fall from grace. And let us remember that juvenile marriages used to be unremarkable. Equally, it was not unusual for a young girl to marry a rich old man - he’d get his jollies and die within 10 years or so and she’d inherit. Now I don’t agree with these or with NAMBLA, but I do want those who do agree to be out in the open.
http://216.220.97.17/beslut.htm (bolding mine)
JOINING NAMBLA was a significant step in my evolution from isolation to self acceptance. I was exposed for the first time to others with sexual feelings similar to mine; as heinous as my thoughts and feelings about boys might have seemed to me there were others in this world who had similar leanings.
The first NAMBLA meeting I attended surprised me because not only were there others like me, they were as diverse as those of any single-purpose group could be. There was a range of social, ethnic and political representations. There were people I respected: men and women who were honest with themselves and others, who saw the need for examining the issues surrounding the love between children and adults from broad social, political, legal and personal perspectives and whom I considered to have personal integrity. My association with these people has helped me increase my self-respect tremendously.
As my “perversion” became less perverse, I started looking outward for sources of my feelings of inadequacy related to my attraction to boys. The more I examined my life, the more obvious it became to me that my feelings were not necessarily bad. What was bad were the repressive measures inflicted upon children who chose to love an adult completely and upon those adults who chose to so love a child. Through this exploration, I came to see my repression as but one facet of a much larger pattern of social and political oppression.
:dubious:
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA - FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF STAFFORD COUNTY - James W. Haley, Jr., Judge (bolding mine):
John David Smith, appellant, appeals his convictions of seven counts of aggravated sexual battery, two counts of object sexual penetration, seven counts of taking indecent liberties with children while in a custodial relationship, and four counts of taking indecent liberties with children.
:snip:
Detective Thomas Polhemus of the Fairfax County police testified that, as a part of his undercover investigation of child sexual abuse, he joined the North American Man-Boy Love Association (“NAMBLA”), an organization that advocates sexual activity between adults and boys. Polhemus attended NAMBLA conferences in New York and Seattle, and became acquainted with appellant, who was a member of NAMBLA. Polhemus testified that he had heard appellant refer to himself as a “boy lover” on occasion.
In January of 1996, appellant and Polhemus had a telephone conversation concerning what appellant perceived as a favor Polhemus had performed for appellant. Appellant later wrote Polhemus thanking him for his help and stating an intention to repay him. Appellant asked the specific age of boys who interested Polhemus, suggesting that the repayment would be in the form of pornography involving boys. Appellant said he would bring the materials to Polhemus on his next visit to Virginia.
Appellant called Polhemus and arranged to meet him on August 14, 1996 to give him a videotape. Polhemus picked up appellant at the arranged location, and, as they drove in Polhemus’s truck, the police recorded the conversation between appellant and Polhemus. Appellant said that he had a videotape, four magazines, and some photocopied material involving boys. Appellant described the video as having a rating of “triple X” and showing young boys having sex with each other and with adults. After discussing various aspects of enticing boys for sex and an upcoming NAMBLA conference, appellant asked about Polhemus’s plans for August 31, 1996. Appellant said he would bring “his” boy, whom he identified by the victim’s first name, and would swap him for Polhemus’s boy. Appellant displayed a picture of the victim. Appellant said he had adopted “his” boy, who had been a runaway, and lived with him in San Francisco.
What you’re not understanding is that it’s entirely a coincidence. The fact that maybe, a few members of this kiddy-diddler club exchanged pornography or arranged sex tours when they met at club functions is entirely a coincidence! You could just as easily discover the same thing at a convention for dentists! THE CLUB IS NOT EVIL! THE CLUB IS NOT EVIL!
Even a NAMBLA founder says NAMBLA has drifted away from its political goals as pederasts have taken over the group.
‘Boy Crazy: NAMBLA: The Story of a Lost Cause’
Two boy-lovers sit at a small table in a Boston coffee shop. “Everyone’s telling me not to talk to you,” says one, a gray-haired, 62-year-old NAMBLA founder who goes by the pseudonym Socrates. “I mean, really, what’s the point? It may be naive to think that an article that is really honest about NAMBLA can be published in any major magazine in America. We are the poison group. This is the poison story.”
:snip:
The Bulletin publishes news pieces, opinions, semi-erotic short stories, and pictures of boys, most of whom have not reached puberty. “I never felt very comfortable with how the Bulletin had pictures of so many young kids,” says Steve, the NAMBLA founder from an eastern city. “I felt that it was politically stupid.”
NAMBLA members have long disagreed over what they are and what kind of unified front they should show the public. Socrates insists that the group is made up of a majority of pederasts (as NAMBLA defines them, people attracted to boys in or after puberty) and a minority of pedophiles (people attracted to prepubescent children). Yet the Bulletin has rarely reflected that, angering many of NAMBLA’s members.
“The Bulletin is turning into a semi-pornographic jerk-off mag for pedophiles,” NAMBLA cofounder David Thorstad wrote in a December 1996 letter to the magazine. “Has the Bulletin forgotten that NAMBLA has always consisted not only of pedophiles, but also of pederasts? In fact, were it not for the pederasts, there would never have been a NAMBLA. . . . What has happened to the political goals of NAMBLA, which are to struggle for sexual freedom and liberation, not merely for the right of dirty old men to get their vicarious jollies?”
The Bulletin’s then-editor, Mike Merisi, replied angrily in print: “I well remember visiting Mr. Thorstad’s NYC apartment in the early '70s, and viewing in his library books and magazines . . . [that] featured nude boys apparently between 6 and 16, and I can assume Mr. Thorstad has since shredded these artifacts of our culture, at which time he became a good pederast, only interested in age-appropriate teens, leaving the rest of us bad ‘pedophiles’ behind, in much the same way as the larger gay movement left him.”
Nearly every year at NAMBLA’s annual convention, a small faction requested that the organization decide on an age at which the group believed a boy could give consent. Every year, NAMBLA chose not to do so.
Cliffy
June 7, 2006, 9:46pm
79
Let’s see, who started the ad hominem attacks? I seem to remember someone insinuating that I’m a pederast. Who could that have been? I wonder.
And it’s rude now to point out the flaws in someone’s logic? Crikey, that’s gonna make this an interetsing hangout.
Excalibre, you wound me. I don’t just think I’m clever. I know it. My mommy told me so.
–Cliffy
I was merely trying to get you to clarify your position.
I have no problem with you pointing out the flaws in my logic.
