One of my teachers today voiced his opinions of how offensive political groups should not be allowed, then asked us for our opinions.
The answer must perforce be "It depends . . ."
Some of the organizations must be allowed, as distasteful as they are.
In general, I cannot support banning political groups who aren't actively breaking the law. The Constitution is pretty clear on this. The People are guaranteed the Right to Free Speech, Right of Free Assembly, and absolutely can associate themselves with whatever Political Advocacy Group they choose.
While I find many of these groups personally detestable, such groups simply must be allowed. I may hate with a passion what they stand for, but I will defend to the death their right to espouse their beliefs.
Sadly, this includes the KKK. Hate them. Absolutely cannot stand what they espouse. I won't go near them when they hold their rallies. I don't want to risk prison, and I'd likely assault one of them if I went.
Ditto for the various National Socialist organizations (NAZIs).
I consider all of them to be woefully (and occassionally WILLFULLY) ignorant persons. Enough said.
I do not, however, grant that one particular organization on your list is in fact a Political Group. They can and should be banned, because they exist primarily to assist people in violating quite a number of laws.
I refer of course, to N.A.M.B.L.A. I don't know from under what rock these particular cretins crawled, and I do not frankly care. They need to be thrown into a special hell for all eternity.
For those who do not know, NAMBLA stands for the National Man/Boy Love Association. This is a group which seeks to legalize Pedophilia by having it classified as a "lifestyle choice." Stop and digest that for a moment.
They are dedicated to enabling particularly sick sexual predators who seek to have sex with children as young as 4 years old. I cannot support that, in any way. (I submit that any parent who could should be stripped of their parental rights immediately and permanently.)
If I go any further, this will turn into a HUGE rant. Why the organizers of this group haven't been tossed into prison already is a total mystery to me. They actively engage in subverting and violating all sorts of laws; it just boggles the mind.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Pedophilia is not a crime. Pedophilia is legal.
Sex between children and adults is illegal. In fact, sex between two children is also illegal in many states. Several 13 year olds are now permanently registered as sex offenders because they were caught having consensual sex with their peers.
However, few people realize that 37 American states start the age of consent at 16 and above not 18, 42 states start age of consent at 16-17 and above. The age of consent is 14 in Canada and Iceland, 15 in France, and General MacArthur approved the Japanese Constitution which set age of consent at 13.
www.ageofconsent.com
Pedophiles are sexually and emotionally attracted to people who are under 13 years old according to the DSM. Millions of such adults live in America and never act on their attraction. 22% of college age males admit some pedophile impulses. http://www.mhamic.org/sources/smiljanich&briere.htm Other studies show even higher percentages of males in the general population sexually attracted to prepubescent children.
Know your enemy is very sound advice. Yet, very little research is possible in this area because of hysteria. Your solutions contribute to the black hole of understanding the real risks and dangers involved
Of the research that does exist, very little of if supports your stance. The Rind report tells us damge from adult child sex is not nearly as deep or intense as the public beleives.
http://www.ipce.info/library_3/rbt/metaana.ht...
This entire area needs more research and less hysteria, anger, and political grandstanding.
NAMBLA is just as legal and politically importatnt as are organizations that promote changes in marijuana laws.
NAMBLA does not advocate breaking any laws. NAMBLA advocates changing laws. You are correct that NAMBLA is not a political party. If they wanted to be a political party, would not the vote of the people adequately put them in their place? Or are you worried that some of what they have to say may be truthful enough to change people's minds in someway? Is it your role in society to determine what issues others are allowed to decide for themselves? No.
Question: Since we know there are many pedophiles in the population, you probably know one. Would you rather know who that person is or not? You solutions and ideas make it impossible for pedophiles to be truthful and honest in their dealings with you and society, so, you could easily be asking a pedophile to babysit your children because of ignorance.
So the banning of NAMBLAs existence stifles the sexual/social outlet of pedophiles and the ability to identify them so they will forever pass under my radar since pedophiles wear NAMBLA shirts where ever they go and their membership is listed in their transcript.
NAMBLA T-Shirts were worn in public in the 1980s by members. They did try to be open and identify themselves to the public. They had 1,500 members nationwide.
Now, pederasts - men who love boys, do not identify themselves in public. Instead, 10s of thousands of pedophiles read websites such as:
http://www.boylover.net/
hundreds of other sites are set up for boy lovers, see where they are at:
http://www.boyloverlinks.net/
So, yes, I can say that some pedophiles were open and out when they were allowed to be so. However, attacks such as yours have driven them underground where no one knows who they are.
The people caught by vigilante groups such as Peverted-Justice are merely a very tiny fraction of the pedophiles who exist. They are also some of the stupidest pedophiles around. The majority of pedophiles are much smarter and conduct their lives and loves out of public view and in secrecy.
Did you check those other websites I cited? Did you find any facts there you believe? Do you have any facts from other peer-reviewed journals to support your position or can you only issue your personal opinion?
I'm only here to issue my personal opinion. Maybe you came to the blogging community with mislead expectations.
However, I'm currently reading around boylover.net. Maybe you were expecting some sort of coming of age realization where I abandon my opinion and embrace the newfound act of loving boys.
Currently reading about Osbourne...
"Often Osborne would attempt to teach the boy what to expect in heterosexual contacts by initiating oral intercourse. As heterosexuals who have engaged in oral intercourse will know, the sensations experienced by the person inserting his penis into the partner’s mouth are approximately the same as those experienced by the same person performing vaginal intercourse minus of course, the face contact. Osborne firmly believed that he was furthering a boy’s education in anticipating heterosexual experiences and would often talk about what the boy should be doing when he was having intercourse with a girl or a woman."
Thank god for Osbourne, making sure the little boys know what they are doing when it comes to heterosexual intercourse. Without his lay of hands and an extended mutual jackoff, I'm sure the wee one would have been sexually confused.
"Osborne went to extraordinary lengths to make sure that his boys attained the maximum amount of sexual enjoyment and would stimulate his partners for hours in order to make them satisfied. He did not insist on a boy fellating because, as he put it, ‘My greater penis size would create a gag reflex in the boy.’ "
Ah, once again Osbourne. Always keeping a good eye out for your boys. He probably also didn't want to disrupt the tonsils either, which weren't even likely fully developed in the little boys he fondled.
I am in no way against homosexuality, and from what I read on your cites, not all of NAMBLA's participants/members are necessarily homosexual. It's the sexual relations and endeavors with boys below the age of consent that is just as wrong as consensual intercourse with little girls. And why should the consent law be ignored in way to NAMBLA.
Progressive U is for progress.
Progress will not occur because you write your personal opinion. Social progress occurs with thought, exchange, understanding, and facts.
No one said consent should be "ignored [sic] in way to NAMBLA".
You started this thread saying NAMBLA should be banned. That was your proposition. Now you have been to several boylove sites. So, now you a bit more about how to keep your nephew's away from such men. Good for you, and good for freedom of speech, association, and the press.
I strongly challenge your use of the term "progress."
Yes, Progressive U is for progress. I agree.
Unrestricted tolerance however is not progressive. Or on the contrary side, not all connotative progress is salutary.
From the Progressive U "about us" statement we find:
"We provide a voice for progressive students and other problem solvers using new media channels, allowing people to study and discuss creative solutions to social problems, economic issues, and cultural conflict."
You are the only person in this thread to mention "unrestricted tolerance".
Your proposal to ban minor attracted adults from free association would require a new huge draconian dragnet to identify a large part of the population, it would also require an entirely new government method to discriminate against people - discrimination based in thoughts of an individual rather than the actions of an individual.
NAMBLA has been in existance since about 1978. The NAMBLA Journal is available for purchase in public at San Francisco bookstores and has been published since around 1978.
Your argument basiclly was that they enable and promote criminal activity and should therefore be shut down. Over decades the FBI has infiltrated the organization many times. If it were a criminal enterprise, the FBI would have been able to put them out of businesss during this time. While some individuals have been jailed, the organization itself remains because NAMBLA promotes only lawful activity - a change in age of consent laws.
The foundation of your argument simply does not exist.
So, do you have any other creative ideas about how to deal with one fifth of the college male population who find minors erotically attractive? While you are at it, have your solution incorporate those 12-17 year olds who are attracted to people younger than themselves.
Think about solutions that do not require gutting the Bill of Rights and Constitution.
How about a way for a young person to get help about such attractions without being villified, ostracized, and being forced into electro-shock therapy, chemical castration, etc?