Is PETA the worst organization in america?

[Detroitdad]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

To face ridicule defending a mans "right" to mount little boys isn't courageous.

ACLU defends NAMBA's right to exist.

There isn't a single thing in the Constitution that tells me men have the right to molest underage boys.

Defending a "right" that does not exist is not courageous.

The ACLu did not defend the right to have sex with boys. The defended the freedom of speech of the people who were part of NAMBLA. Freedom of speech is in the constitution.

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by Detroitdad

The ACLu did not defend the right to have sex with boys. The defended the freedom of speech of the people who were part of NAMBLA. Freedom of speech is in the constitution.

You are easily beguiled.

[Detroitdad]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

You certainly have an interesting way of twisting what is Freedom of Speech and what isn't.

You are easily beguiled.

It may be true that I am easily beguiled (which btw is a most excellent word), but I do support the first amendment right of people to express their perverted, disgusting, unpopular opinions, and to bust their ass if they act on those opinions.

NAMBLA's undoing is the fact that its members are despicable and its purpose is horrifying. In the court of public opinion it is roundly and thoroughly routed, in a way that is more thorough and satisfying than if government regulation prevented them from airing their stupidity. Some ideas are so stupid and repulsive that they will hoist themselves on their own pitard immediately upon airing and the ideas underlying NAMBLA are some of them.

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by Detroitdad

It may be true that I am easily beguiled (which btw is a most excellent word), but I do support the first amendment right of people to express their perverted, disgusting, unpopular opinions, and to bust their ass if they act on those opinions.

NAMBLA's undoing is the fact that its members are despicable and its purpose is horrifying. In the court of public opinion it is roundly and thoroughly routed, in a way that is more thorough and satisfying than if government regulation prevented them from airing their stupidity. Some ideas are so stupid and repulsive that they will hoist themselves on their own pitard immediately upon airing and the ideas underlying NAMBLA are some of them.

Tells you a lot about a group like the ACLU that will associate themselves with something despicable and horrifying.

I find it interesting that Liberals are almost never black and white on anything,,,,except for defending purely evil perversions such as NAMBLA and as if the actions of it are somehow expressions of "freedom of speech".

[Detroitdad]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

Tells you a lot about a group like the ACLU that will associate themselves with something despicable and horrifying.

I find it interesting that Liberals are almost never black and white on anything,,,,except for defending purely evil perversions such as NAMBLA and as if the actions of it are somehow expressions of "freedom of speech".

I sense that we are going around in circles so I will just say two things as my last point 1-defense of the right to say soemthing does not mean that you endorse the message of what is said (which is why the organization has defended Mormons rights, Jews rights, Nazis Rights etc. and other groups that are sometimes diametrically opposed) 2- There was no defense of the "actions" of NAMBLA, only of their right to advocate their point of view, which will be defeated in the public arena of ideas.

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by Detroitdad

I sense that we are going around in circles so I will just say two things as my last point 1-defense of the right to say soemthing does not mean that you endorse the message of what is said (which is why the organization has defended Mormons rights, Jews rights, Nazis Rights etc. and other groups that are sometimes diametrically opposed) 2- There was no defense of the "actions" of NAMBLA, only of their right to advocate their point of view, which will be defeated in the public arena of ideas.

And their point of view is that they have the right to have sex with boys.

The ACLU defends that right. To merely say,,,"they're just defending their right to say they can mount boys" is a cop out in my mind. It's a very shrewd agenda.

[MikeWaters]

there is the instructive case of the guy out in California who takes pictures of kids in public places, and then posts the pictures on the internet. He has a professed "love" for very young girls, but says he has never acted on it.

http://www.mercurynews.com/crime/ci_6543919

A judge has ruled that he may not go within 30 feet of a child in the state of California. On what basis? I'm not sure.

I've listened to interviews of prominent people saying that he should somewhow be locked up or otherwise banned from taking photographs in a public place, etc.

I.e. the fear of this man makes them wish to abrogate his rights, even though he has done nothing illegal.

Rocky, I'm sure you would be first in line to say this man should be in prison for life. And you would have not a second thought about the implications of that, or whether it would constitutional.

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

there is the instructive case of the guy out in California who takes pictures of kids in public places, and then posts the pictures on the internet. He has a professed "love" for very young girls, but says he has never acted on it.

http://www.mercurynews.com/crime/ci_6543919

A judge has ruled that he may not go within 30 feet of a child in the state of California. On what basis? I'm not sure.

I've listened to interviews of prominent people saying that he should somewhow be locked up or otherwise banned from taking photographs in a public place, etc.

I.e. the fear of this man makes them wish to abrogate his rights, even though he has done nothing illegal.

Rocky, I'm sure you would be first in line to say this man should be in prison for life. And you would have not a second thought about the implications of that, or whether it would constitutional.

If you choose to stand with the pedophiles in the name of "Freedom of Speech" that's certainly you're right guranteed under the Constitution.

If it came down to your little girl or boy he was doing this too, that he was preying upon....don't tell me for a second you'd think of his Constitutional "rights" first before defending the safety of your own children because you wouldn't.

The man is clearly a danger to society.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

If you choose to stand with the pedophiles in the name of "Freedom of Speech" that's certainly you're right guranteed under the Constitution.

If it came down to your little girl or boy he was doing this too, that he was preying upon....don't tell me for a second you'd think of his Constitutional "rights" first before defending the safety of your own children because you wouldn't.

The man is clearly a danger to society.

So he is a danger to society. What do you do? Are you a member of the federal dept. of pre-crime?

There was a case of a man in North Texas being arrested for taking pictures at a community festival. The pictures were thought to be "prurient". Of course his name was plastered all through the papers. Two weeks later the charges were dropped.

You don't moonlight as law enforcement in North Texas do you?

Those will will tear the constitution to shreds will promise us that they are doing it for own safety and protection, no doubt.

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

So he is a danger to society. What do you do? Are you a member of the federal dept. of pre-crime?

There was a case of a man in North Texas being arrested for taking pictures at a community festival. The pictures were thought to be "prurient". Of course his name was plastered all through the papers. Two weeks later the charges were dropped.

You don't moonlight as law enforcement in North Texas do you?

Those will will tear the constitution to shreds will promise us that they are doing it for own safety and protection, no doubt.

You and I have a difference of opinion on what constitutes Freedom of Speech and that's fine.

Don't tell me either if it were your son or daughter this loser in California was stalking that the first thing you'd be doing is wondering how you can protect his "Constitutional Rights", cause you'd be lying.