At first I thought it was some made up joke South Park made and then I looked em up and found out they are real. Wtf? Why aren't these pedos locked up?!
same reasons that the U.S. allows lots of odious groups to exist, like various Neo-Nazi groups: Freedom of speech and freedom of association. Legally speaking these groups like NAMBLA can put forward and advocate their hideous ideas all they want, but if the group or members actually act on these ideas and do something illegal the perpetrator can be held accountable.
Aren't there limitations? Surely one can't form any association they want? Youbsayin someone could form an association devoted to eating babies and nothing could be done about it?
[QUOTE="Capitan_Kid"] Aren't there limitations? Surely one can't form any association they want? Youbsayin someone could form an association devoted to eating babies and nothing could be done about it? you want to limit liberty? an association of baby eaters can be formed as long as they never eat a human baby. Action is important, talk is just symbols.
Aren't there limitations? Surely one can't form any association they want? Youbsayin someone could form an association devoted to eating babies and nothing could be done about it? Yes, they can form the association. They cannot, however, act on it. Actually, they can act on it, but they would be processed under the law of course.
Aren't there limitations? Surely one can't form any association they want? Youbsayin someone could form an association devoted to eating babies and nothing could be done about it?It's not illegal to be into or love children. It's illegal to act on it.
Where's a libertarian crying about the first amendment when we need one? Especially someone who thinks that parents have the right to kill their children.
Aren't there limitations? Surely one can't form any association they want? Youbsayin someone could form an association devoted to eating babies and nothing could be done about it?It's not illegal to be into or love children. It's illegal to act on it.
As long as they don't actually molest children, they're allowed by the law to organize and promote whatever the hell they want. The moment they actually do have sex (or try to have sex) with a kid, they're liable for prosecution.
First I've ever heard of it, if that happened in the UK they would be charged and convicted as sex offenders purely on the intent and high threat they pose to the public
Aren't there limitations? Surely one can't form any association they want? Youbsayin someone could form an association devoted to eating babies and nothing could be done about it?
Freedom of speech means tolerating even speech that we find repugnant.
Where's a libertarian crying about the first amendment when we need one? Especially someone who thinks that parents have the right to kill their children.
Laihendi?
jimkabrhel
Indeed!
Shouldn't a true libertarian loathe the concept of an "age of consent" law?!
Where's a libertarian crying about the first amendment when we need one? Especially someone who thinks that parents have the right to kill their children.
Laihendi?
Stesilaus
Indeed!
Shouldn't a true libertarian loathe the concept of an "age of consent" law?!
Why should a libertarian "loathe the concept of an age of consent law"?
Where's a libertarian crying about the first amendment when we need one? Especially someone who thinks that parents have the right to kill their children.
Laihendi?
Master_Live
Indeed!
Shouldn't a true libertarian loathe the concept of an "age of consent" law?!
Why should a libertarian "loathe the concept of an age of consent law"?
Because the Constitution doesn't stipulate an age of consent, and because imposition of an arbitrary age of consent chosen by the judicial system (as opposed to one chosen by the child's parents) could be construed as "authoritarian".
[QUOTE="Laihendi"]If there were limitations, then it would not be freedom of speech. The purpose of freedom of speech is to allow people to express controversial ideas. If only the uncontroversial was allowed then there would be not purpose of a rule saying that it was allowed, because no one would object to what was being said anyways. Speech and action are different things. Speech is the communication of an idea, whereas action is the physical implementation of an idea. Obviously members of NAMBLA should not be allowed to actually rape other people's children; that would be deplorable. No rational parent would consent to that.Laihendi
But what if the parent did consent to it? That should be legal right? Since the child is the parent's property.
Theoretically yes, but in reality that will never happen. Allowing your children to be raped contradicts any self-preservation instinct that even an irrational parent would have, the same instinct that lead them to producing children. For the rational man who has children for rational purposes rather than instinct, he would not allow his children to be raped because that would be irrational. So really it is a non-issue. Just like your previous emphatic assertion that parents never rape or abuse their own children?
[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="PannicAtack"] Just like your previous emphatic assertion that parents never rape or abuse their own children?
Pirate700
Parents do not rape children...Unfortunately, many do... Even if it does happen it has to be so rare that it is statistically negligible. It is some bizarre anomaly, and laws of nations should not be based on senseless exceptions to the laws of nature and objective reality. That would just legitimize and encourage the behaviour.
[QUOTE="Laihendi"] Parents do not rape children...Laihendi
Unfortunately, many do... Even if it does happen it has to be so rare that it is statistically negligible. It is some bizarre anomaly, and laws of nations should not be based on senseless exceptions to the laws of nature and objective reality. That would just legitimize and encourage the behaviour.There are children who are abused and raped by their parents. That's the objective reality.
Shouldn't a true libertarian loathe the concept of an "age of consent" law?!
Stesilaus
Why should a libertarian "loathe the concept of an age of consent law"?
Because the Constitution doesn't stipulate an age of consent, and because imposition of an arbitrary age of consent chosen by the judicial system (as opposed to one chosen by the child's parents) could be construed as "authoritarian".
Doesn't giving a child's parents authority to choose for their child presuppose an age of consent?
[QUOTE="Master_Live"] Why should a libertarian "loathe the concept of an age of consent law"? Because libertarians are a bunch of heinous, villainous monsters that eat babies and set fire to homes.
Aren't there limitations? Surely one can't form any association they want? Youbsayin someone could form an association devoted to eating babies and nothing could be done about it?It's not illegal to be into or love children. It's illegal to act on it. Well damn. Would it be unconstitutional to make loving a child, in that sorta way, illegal?
Unless you're actually diddling little kids or taking pictures of them for that sort of thing I really don't have a problem with pedophiles. Second they act on it though they can rot in jail though.
[QUOTE="Capitan_Kid"] Aren't there limitations? Surely one can't form any association they want? Youbsayin someone could form an association devoted to eating babies and nothing could be done about it?Capitan_Kid
It's not illegal to be into or love children. It's illegal to act on it. Well damn. Would it be unconstitutional to make loving a child, in that sorta way, illegal?Yes it would be since you can't controle who someone loves.
Aren't there limitations? Surely one can't form any association they want? Youbsayin someone could form an association devoted to eating babies and nothing could be done about it?If there were limitations, then it would not be freedom of speech. The purpose of freedom of speech is to allow people to express controversial ideas. If only the uncontroversial was allowed then there would be not purpose of a rule saying that it was allowed, because no one would object to what was being said anyways. Speech and action are different things. Speech is the communication of an idea, whereas action is the physical implementation of an idea. Obviously members of NAMBLA should not be allowed to actually rape other people's children; that would be deplorable. No rational parent would consent to that.
Aren't there limitations? Surely one can't form any association they want? Youbsayin someone could form an association devoted to eating babies and nothing could be done about it?If there were limitations, then it would not be freedom of speech. The purpose of freedom of speech is to allow people to express controversial ideas. If only the uncontroversial was allowed then there would be not purpose of a rule saying that it was allowed, because no one would object to what was being said anyways. Speech and action are different things. Speech is the communication of an idea, whereas action is the physical implementation of an idea. Obviously members of NAMBLA should not be allowed to actually rape other people's children; that would be deplorable. No rational parent would consent to that.
But what if the parent did consent to it? That should be legal right? Since the child is the parent's property.
[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="Capitan_Kid"] Aren't there limitations? Surely one can't form any association they want? Youbsayin someone could form an association devoted to eating babies and nothing could be done about it?worlock77
If there were limitations, then it would not be freedom of speech. The purpose of freedom of speech is to allow people to express controversial ideas. If only the uncontroversial was allowed then there would be not purpose of a rule saying that it was allowed, because no one would object to what was being said anyways. Speech and action are different things. Speech is the communication of an idea, whereas action is the physical implementation of an idea. Obviously members of NAMBLA should not be allowed to actually rape other people's children; that would be deplorable. No rational parent would consent to that.
But what if the parent did consent to it? That should be legal right? Since the child is the parent's property.
Theoretically yes, but in reality that will never happen. Allowing your children to be raped contradicts any self-preservation instinct that even an irrational parent would have, the same instinct that lead them to producing children. For the rational man who has children for rational purposes rather than instinct, he would not allow his children to be raped because that would be irrational. So really it is a non-issue.
[QUOTE="Laihendi"]If there were limitations, then it would not be freedom of speech. The purpose of freedom of speech is to allow people to express controversial ideas. If only the uncontroversial was allowed then there would be not purpose of a rule saying that it was allowed, because no one would object to what was being said anyways. Speech and action are different things. Speech is the communication of an idea, whereas action is the physical implementation of an idea. Obviously members of NAMBLA should not be allowed to actually rape other people's children; that would be deplorable. No rational parent would consent to that.Laihendi
But what if the parent did consent to it? That should be legal right? Since the child is the parent's property.
Theoretically yes...Not necessarily. A car is your property too but there's still laws of what you can or can't do with it.
[QUOTE="Laihendi"]If there were limitations, then it would not be freedom of speech. The purpose of freedom of speech is to allow people to express controversial ideas. If only the uncontroversial was allowed then there would be not purpose of a rule saying that it was allowed, because no one would object to what was being said anyways. Speech and action are different things. Speech is the communication of an idea, whereas action is the physical implementation of an idea. Obviously members of NAMBLA should not be allowed to actually rape other people's children; that would be deplorable. No rational parent would consent to that.Laihendi
But what if the parent did consent to it? That should be legal right? Since the child is the parent's property.
Theoretically yes, but in reality that will never happen. Allowing your children to be raped contradicts any self-preservation instinct that even an irrational parent would have, the same instinct that lead them to producing children. For the rational man who has children for rational purposes rather than instinct, he would not allow his children to be raped because that would be irrational. So really it is a non-issue. Just a reminder that child sex rings involving the parents are not unheard of. God that's depressing.
But what if the parent did consent to it? That should be legal right? Since the child is the parent's property.
PannicAtack
Theoretically yes, but in reality that will never happen. Allowing your children to be raped contradicts any self-preservation instinct that even an irrational parent would have, the same instinct that lead them to producing children. For the rational man who has children for rational purposes rather than instinct, he would not allow his children to be raped because that would be irrational. So really it is a non-issue. Just like your previous emphatic assertion that parents never rape or abuse their own children? Parents do not rape children. That would be absurd as I have already explained why. People like the MSM and various political activists act like it is a possibility because they are fear-mongers who are trying to rally the public into supporting new laws that will further violate our individual rights by doing things such as granting the government broader surveillance powers.
[QUOTE="Laihendi"] Theoretically yes, but in reality that will never happen. Allowing your children to be raped contradicts any self-preservation instinct that even an irrational parent would have, the same instinct that lead them to producing children. For the rational man who has children for rational purposes rather than instinct, he would not allow his children to be raped because that would be irrational. So really it is a non-issue.Laihendi
Just like your previous emphatic assertion that parents never rape or abuse their own children? Parents do not rape children...Unfortunately, many do...
[QUOTE="Laihendi"] Parents do not rape children...Laihendi
Unfortunately, many do... Even if it does happen it has to be so rare that it is statistically negligible. It is some bizarre anomaly, and laws of nations should not be based on senseless exceptions to the laws of nature and objective reality. That would just legitimize and encourage the behaviour.Well yeah, of course it's rare.Â
just like westbrono "church".... IDK how some of these families deal them. IF someone i cared about died and they protested the funeral their livelihoods would be burned down.
[QUOTE="Laihendi"] Parents do not rape children...Laihendi
Unfortunately, many do... Even if it does happen it has to be so rare that it is statistically negligible. It is some bizarre anomaly, and laws of nations should not be based on senseless exceptions to the laws of nature and objective reality. That would just legitimize and encourage the behaviour. You sir is CLEARLY blind... I have hear countless times from news, articles and other places about the shit went on
[QUOTE="Capitan_Kid"]Will you people please ignore him?! He's fvcking up my topic!Laihendi
If you did not want to know why NAMBLA should be allowed to exist then why did you ask? You are being ignorant. Kuraimen please give me an example of a parent raping a child. I have never heard of anything like that happening.I linked you to an article about a case quite a while ago. You very flatly ignored it.
Even if it does happen it has to be so rare that it is statistically negligible. It is some bizarre anomaly, and laws of nations should not be based on senseless exceptions to the laws of nature and objective reality. That would just legitimize and encourage the behaviour. You sir is CLEARLY blind... I have hear countless times from news, articles and other places about the shit went on Lai has a habit of ignoring information/events from reality as he professes others to be ignorant about "objective reality." It's like he tries to shoehorn the information he receives into his predefined worldview rather than form his worldview around that information.
[QUOTE="PannicAtack"][QUOTE="Laihendi"] I have read it. How is that relevant?Laihendi
You recall how a major implication in the book was that Mayella was raped by her father? That is just fiction anyways, so it does not matter even if it was implied that Mayella was raped by her father.Moving away from your hilarious interpretation of To Kill a Mockingbird, let's back up for a second...
You say that this is irrelevant because it's a work of fiction. But a while ago when you are on a tear about how the poor are all lazy moochers, you drop a name, but the name is that of a fictional character from a book.
[QUOTE="k2theswiss"][QUOTE="Laihendi"] Even if it does happen it has to be so rare that it is statistically negligible. It is some bizarre anomaly, and laws of nations should not be based on senseless exceptions to the laws of nature and objective reality. That would just legitimize and encourage the behaviour.mattbbpl
You sir is CLEARLY blind... I have hear countless times from news, articles and other places about the shit went on Lai has a habit of ignoring information/events from reality as he professes others to be ignorant about "objective reality." It's like he tries to shoehorn the information he receives into his predefined worldview rather than form his worldview around that information. General rule of thumb is when Lai says "objective reality" replace that with "Ayn Rand" and it actually makes sense.
[QUOTE="Laihendi"]If there were limitations, then it would not be freedom of speech. The purpose of freedom of speech is to allow people to express controversial ideas. If only the uncontroversial was allowed then there would be not purpose of a rule saying that it was allowed, because no one would object to what was being said anyways. Speech and action are different things. Speech is the communication of an idea, whereas action is the physical implementation of an idea. Obviously members of NAMBLA should not be allowed to actually rape other people's children; that would be deplorable. No rational parent would consent to that.Laihendi
But what if the parent did consent to it? That should be legal right? Since the child is the parent's property.
Theoretically yes, but in reality that will never happen. Allowing your children to be raped contradicts any self-preservation instinct that even an irrational parent would have, the same instinct that lead them to producing children. For the rational man who has children for rational purposes rather than instinct, he would not allow his children to be raped because that would be irrational. So really it is a non-issue. How can a person that mentions the world rational so many times be so irrational. Parents selling their kids for sex has happened, happens and will happen in the real world. Stop living in Rand's irrational world.
Log in to comment