Nambla

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Tom201
The Parents as well as the Schools should teach about it. You dont solve those Problems with making Sex a tabu.

It's not just a matter of eduction, it's moreso a matter of psychological development.

With such reasoning you could set the AOC more and more higher. Cose the new high-risk age group is always the one on the younger end with less experience. You dont suggest a AOC of 30 or 40 maybe?

It's not a slippery slope, because the new "high risk" age group is significantly less risky than the previous high risk age group. If the current high risk age group has a 90% probability of being abusive/neglectful parents, then they ought not to be parents. If the next highest risk age group has a 10% probability of being abusive/neglectful parents, then give them some education etc. to try to bring that 10% further down, but don't take the drastic measures (age of consent laws, classification as a minor, etc.) that you took with the 90% at-risk age group.

Besides the Laws arent working. Teenagers have sex no matter if it is allowed or not.

Probably one of the few universal constants is that teenagers will never do what they're supposed to do.

Such Laws are counterproductive. You can clearly see this when comparing teenage pregnancy rates, which are in Europe in the Netherlands with the most liberal Laws the lowest.

So you're saying that age of consent laws cause increased teenaged pregnancy rates?

Somehow I doubt that all of America's pregnant teenagers had trysts with 30-year-old men.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Bugs ****ing Bunny
What's more, if I were to introduce you to "Bugs Jr" (AKA "Pete the Python"), your impotence theory would be blown out, baby.

I'd also imagine that it would be pretty difficult to use a rubber when you're impotent.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

While I've never had the experience, I imagine it would be like trying to thread linguini through the eye of a needle.

[Tom201]

So you're saying that age of consent laws cause increased teenaged pregnancy rates?

My point was it has indirect influences:
"... The diffrence is just if they tell anyone, esspecially their parents, who could than give them advice, teach them about it, etc. "

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by OzzyKP


Because the majority of people have an irrational hatred for nambla and youth rights, and want to roast the one or two people defending them on a spit.

NAMBLA is not about youth rights, fool! It's members are all adults. They're not advocating on behalf of sexually active teens, they're promoting sexual contact between adult men and prepubertal boys!

Their motto is: "Eight is too late."

Any further comments? Which one of you is going to argue on behalf of a first grader's right to have a thirty year old cop a feel?

[Tom201]

not me

[Dr Strangelove]

Well it's about time we straightened things out then.

NAMBLA is an organization that advocates in favor of sexual adventures between little boys and grown men. At one time they even organized such activities first in the US (at that time they were the New Jersey Man-Boy Love Club ), and then outside the US in asia. The later activities were shut down by Interpol and the UN.

Is there anyone here who would seriously argue on behalf of hese pre-verts?

[WhiteElephants]

Originally posted by OzzyKP

Things are still changing though. Technology is developing at an astounding rate, life now is radically different than life 10 years ago. This kind of rapid change changes age roles as well. Right now the Internet and computers power this world, and who among us are most proficient with this new technology? The young, 10-20 in most cases know more about technology than thieir parents and certainly more than their grandparents. Parents have to go to their children to have them set the VCR or set up their Internet. This is not bizarre, this is just how people respond to rapidly changing technology. So in this world where 13 year olds can hack into Pentagon computer systems who posseses the knowledge and experience most needed to function? I think I have a strong argument to say that the young do.

Obviously the 13 year olds hacking into the Pentagon haven't developed the common sense and responsibility not to, unless of course you believe the children of tommorrow ought to be "functioning" behind bars. And further more, my 50+ year old step father builds computers, something I've never done. I would hardly call that out of touch with technology.

Ozzy, Tom, congradulations. The sum total of your idiocy has astounded me.

[WhiteElephants]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove

NAMBLA is not about youth rights, fool! It's members are all adults. They're not advocating on behalf of sexually active teens, they're promoting sexual contact between adult men and prepubertal boys!

Their motto is: "Eight is too late."

Any further comments? Which one of you is going to argue on behalf of a first grader's right to have a thirty year old cop a feel?

Thanks for the voice of reason.

[Alexander's Horse]

Nambla should be shut down and its members jailed.

[Velociryx]

I still disagree. Note that I am disgusted by the site, think that what they stand for and talk about is absolutely heinous, and it gives me the willies to even contemplate it. I can only imagine how much MORE disgusted I would be if I had children.

But that doesn't change the fact that if we were to shut them down and jail them simply for having a website and talking about it, we open the door to totally surrendering our rights to free speech.

Where should we stop? Because Neo-Nazi sites spew venomous fountains of hate, should we shut them down and jail them too?

Should we maybe burn a few books that don't sit well with "decent folk"?

Should we torch sites like http://www.whitehouse.org and jail their members for making a mockery of the US government and spreading disinformation (apparently, many of the people who go there spend quite some time actually believing they're actually ON the government's site).

What about jailing any and all artists who portray anything "questionable" in their work. Trent Reznor, Marylin Manson, and a whole boatload of painters and photographers ought to be put UNDER the jail if we allow such thinking to prevail.

And how far down that road do we have to go before it dawns on us that in our zeal to stamp out every inappropriate thought or vision, or idea in our society....in our efforts to create the perfect PC Universe, we have surrendered our most precious of freedoms.

And at that point, how hard will it be to get that freedom back?

I still maintain that the most responsible course of action here is to monitor the site and its members (in exactly the same way that white supremecist sites and members are monitored), and jail them as they move to act out their twisted desires (and, hopefully, with good monitoring, before they actually DO act them out).

They're twisted people who should be burned at the stake. My freedom to state that opinion is the same as their freedom to....think about the stuff they think about.

-=Vel=-

[Alexander's Horse]

Some rights are more important than free speech. The right of parents to protect children from sexual predators is one of them.

[Velociryx]

Yes...parents DO have a right to protect their children! No arguments from me about that AT ALL! However, I do not believe that protection of their children has to come at the expense of freedom of expression. As I said earlier. We know where a whole lot of these guys hang out. We've got their number, so to speak.

By torching the site and jailing the current members, do you honestly believe the problem will go away?

At least this way, we KNOW where they are, and can monitor them.

Doing as you sugesst would only drive the problem deeper underground and make it harder to root out when something DID happen.

Protect your children, WHEN someone begins to act. Don't make thinking a crime though.

-=Vel=-

[Alexander's Horse]

Freedom of speech is already proscribed in many ways - and quite rightly. You can't set up a web site to plan bank robberies or murders - its a crime. So is this.

I would have thought by participating in such a web site you are already committing a variety of crimes - conspiracy to commit a criminal act, advocating a criminal act, child abuse etc.

So let them open their web site and then jail them for doing so. Throw the book at them.

[Velociryx]

While it's true that I cannot start up a website and use it as a base of operations for planning a heist, I can start up a website or discussion thread, or whathave you, and discuss ways in which one might go about planning a heist. I could post David Letterman style "top ten lists" of things not to forget when you're planning the next big robbery. Nothing wrong with that, any more than discussing the compnents needed to make a nuclear device in my basement.

I can talk about till I'm blue in the face.....it's when I actually start shopping around for plutonium that the people no doubt monitoring my site will step in and toss my ragged arse in jail. As it should be.

Thinking about it....talking about it....discussing it in groups....nothing wrong with that. If you don't wanna participate in the "build your own nuke" discussion, don't go to the site!

But don't tell me I can't think it just cos you don't like it. Don't ask the cops to step in because it makes you uncomfortable.

If I were to write a work of fiction in which the main character was a pedophile, should I be put in jail for that?

What if I hosted a website to sell the book and discuss the characters in it?

-=Vel=-
(not that I have any intentions of writing such a book, mind you!)