|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
 Posted - 02/01/2006 : 07:02:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
(bill) I hate the fact that they (ACLU) defend the freedoms of child pervs
Please explain what this has to do with the ACLU.
(bill) They defend homo child pervs. Free of charge in many cases.
The ACLU defend all americans right to due process - fair treatment by the government whenever their loss of your liberty or property is at stake.
Do you have a problem with that?
Not all accused are guilty you know.quote:
Btw, is homosexual child predators more dangerous than heterosexual child predators?
(bill) No. But ACLU seems to have a fetish with defending homo child perv.
Ok, then it should be easy for you to dig up some references of this. |
"Any religion that makes a form of torture into an icon that they worship seems to me a pretty sick sort of religion quite honestly"
-- Terry Jones |
 |
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 02/01/2006 : 07:05:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Starman
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
(bill) I hate the fact that they (ACLU) defend the freedoms of child pervs
Please explain what this has to do with the ACLU.
(bill) They defend homo child pervs. Free of charge in many cases.
The ACLU defend all americans right to due process - fair treatment by the government whenever their loss of your liberty or property is at stake.
Do you have a problem with that?
Not all accused are guilty you know.quote:
Btw, is homosexual child predators more dangerous than heterosexual child predators?
(bill) No. But ACLU seems to have a fetish with defending homo child perv.
Ok, then it should be easy for you to dig up some references of this.
NAMBLA |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 02/01/2006 : 07:12:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Starman
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
(
(bill) No. But ACLU seems to have a fetish with defending homo child perv.
Ok, then it should be easy for you to dig up some references of this.
Text of post deleted for copyright violation of terms.
Kil
Use the link to access the material.
<http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,38540
This URL doesn't seem work. Use GeeMack's link to access the material. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 02/01/2006 : 09:46:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill Scott...
Don't care to much for the content of the peice huh?
Probably read it more than five years ago like everyone else who keeps up with current opinion. The world has moved a long way in the last five and a half years. You might find it a very interesting place if you could work up the nerve to come on into 2006 with the rest of us. 
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 02/01/2006 : 11:23:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
quote:
Originally posted by Bill Scott...
Don't care to much for the content of the peice huh?
Probably read it more than five years ago like everyone else who keeps up with current opinion. The world has moved a long way in the last five and a half years. You might find it a very interesting place if you could work up the nerve to come on into 2006 with the rest of us.
So all you have to do is add 5 years and you can justify anything? Not surprised. "So what if the ACLU protected and provided satuary for child pervs? That was 5 years ago dude get move on." (sigh)
"Yes your honor it was me who chopped my wife to peices and burned up the remains. But sir that was over 5 years ago. Her parents and the rest of the world have moved on. Why can't you and the prosecutor do the same?" (sigh) |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/01/2006 : 11:43:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
So all you have to do is add 5 years and you can justify anything? Not surprised. "So what if the ACLU protected and provided satuary for child pervs? That was 5 years ago dude get move on." (sigh)
"Yes your honor it was me who chopped my wife to peices and burned up the remains. But sir that was over 5 years ago. Her parents and the rest of the world have moved on. Why can't you and the prosecutor do the same?" (sigh)
You are truly immune to reality, aren't you?
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 02/01/2006 : 12:01:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
quote:
So all you have to do is add 5 years and you can justify anything? Not surprised. "So what if the ACLU protected and provided satuary for child pervs? That was 5 years ago dude get move on." (sigh)
"Yes your honor it was me who chopped my wife to peices and burned up the remains. But sir that was over 5 years ago. Her parents and the rest of the world have moved on. Why can't you and the prosecutor do the same?" (sigh)
You are truly immune to reality, aren't you?
Your in denial that the ACLU defends child pervs are you not? This whole big presentation on how they are defending the pervs "rights" but not the pers themself is just so lame. Stop it already, just stop it. They defend pervs by defending their rights, as a private firm they have the right to refuse a case. They choose to protect the "rights" of the pervs knowing damn well that in reality they would be defending the pervs and they did not care. This is not an org. to be proud of and support. This org. stands against the most inocent and unprotected demograph on the web (children) while they defend the most vile and deviant of all web users, the homo child perv. If you can gloss over this fact and support the homo child perv defending law firm then you in fact are offering aid and comfort to the pervs as well. Just great! |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 02/01/2006 : 12:04:30 [Permalink]
|
ACLU Statement on Defending Free Speech of Unpopular Organizations (8/31/2000)quote:
The case is based on a shocking murder. But the lawsuit says the crime is the responsibility not of those who committed the murder, but of someone who posted vile material on the Internet. The principle is as simple as it is central to true freedom of speech: those who do wrong are responsible for what they do; those who speak about it are not.
It is easy to defend freedom of speech when the message is something many people find at least reasonable. But the defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive. That was true when the Nazis marched in Skokie. It remains true today.
I think the ACLU has defended their position adequately.
Of course, the ACLU has become one of the right wing fundamentalist whipping boys which you, Bill, seem to have latched on to as well since you are using a 6 year old case as evidence of how evil the group is. If they were so evil, are there more recent cases that have pissed you off?
The hypocritical politics of the Republicans that claim to want the government out of the business of regulating business and personal gun ownership, while at the same time do want the government regulating adult sexual behavior (gay rights, not sex with kids), the hypocritical politics of claiming family values then destroying an innocent person who felt he was following his brain dead wife's wishes, the hypocritical politics of claiming to be pro-life while believing it OK to invade a country that conveniently has oil reserves on false pretenses and kills thousands of innocent civilian bystanders while doing it, and the hypocritical politics of standing up to protect fetal tissue while letting millions of real children die of hunger and disease around the world pisses me off.
|
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 02/01/2006 : 12:37:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill Scott...
Your in denial that the ACLU defends child pervs are you not? This whole big presentation on how they are defending the pervs "rights" but not the pers themself is just so lame. Stop it already, just stop it. They defend pervs by defending their rights, as a private firm they have the right to refuse a case. They choose to protect the "rights" of the pervs knowing damn well that in reality they would be defending the pervs and they did not care. This is not an org. to be proud of and support. This org. stands against the most inocent and unprotected demograph on the web (children) while they defend the most vile and deviant of all web users, the homo child perv. If you can gloss over this fact and support the homo child perv defending law firm then you in fact are offering aid and comfort to the pervs as well. Just great!
Nobody here, nor even the ACLU, is defending any "pervs" or child molesters against any crimes. Your continued ad hominem attacks on the ACLU and the operators and visitors at the NAMBLA web site, are based only on your unsubstantiated opinion. You haven't provided any evidence to suggest that the people involved in the NAMBLA web site actually participate in any illegal, or even immoral, activity.
I advocate the modification or repeal of several laws involving choices of personal activities, most of those activities being ones in which I do not ever participate. Because skeptics tend to stay pretty well informed on personal responsibility, personal rights issues, it's likely many of the participants here advocate modifying or repealing certain such laws. But in no way does that indicate these people have ever, or might ever violate those laws. Your position is logically indefensible. In a nut shell, your opinion, although you are certainly entitled to have it and to voice it, has the validity of a fart in the wind.
|
|
|
|
ronnywhite
SFN Regular
501 Posts |
Posted - 02/01/2006 : 13:13:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
..."So what if the ACLU protected and provided satuary for child pervs?...
Nah. No more than saying the NRA fights to shelter nuts who hijack planes with guns or go on shooting sprees in shopping malls. They don't... nor does the ACLU seek to provide sanctuary for predatory perverts. You're similarly just taking an extreme example of one area to which the more general policies they promote could apply- and distorting their stance- so as to make what they represent in a more general sense sound absurd and unethical. That's not the case. If you don't like the ACLU, or the side of the double-edged sword they prefer to sharpen, you have to do better than cite rare instances where injustices might result, while ignoring the both common and rare cases where their positions could (and do) promote justice, and provide protection from abuses of power directed at the non-crininal element. |
Ron White |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 02/01/2006 : 14:03:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Your in denial that the ACLU defends child pervs are you not? This whole big presentation on how they are defending the pervs "rights" but not the pers themself is just so lame. Stop it already, just stop it. They defend pervs by defending their rights, as a private firm they have the right to refuse a case. They choose to protect the "rights" of the pervs knowing damn well that in reality they would be defending the pervs and they did not care
Bill, every person in this country has rights. Even your "homo pervs".
Once you arbitrarily declare that any person is without rights, you endanger the rights of all people, your own included. A concept your infantile brain seems incapable of comprehending.
Nobody, even the ACLU, is defending your "homo pervs" from prosecution of crimes they commit. You rape, murder, molest... and you face the consequences. What is being defended is their inaliable right to due process and fair trial.
All people in the US have the right to free speech. Regardless of their message, and regardless of if you agree with them of not.
Unthinking savants like yourself, Bill, apparently want to destroy everyones right (your own included) to speak freely.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 02/01/2006 : 14:13:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
ACLU Statement on Defending Free Speech of Unpopular Organizations (8/31/2000)quote:
The case is based on a shocking murder. But the lawsuit says the crime is the responsibility not of those who committed the murder, but of someone who posted vile material on the Internet. The principle is as simple as it is central to true freedom of speech: those who do wrong are responsible for what they do; those who speak about it are not.
It is easy to defend freedom of speech when the message is something many people find at least reasonable. But the defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive. That was true when the Nazis marched in Skokie. It remains true today.
I think the ACLU has defended their position adequately.
Of course, the ACLU has become one of the right wing fundamentalist whipping boys which you, Bill, seem to have latched on to as well since you are using a 6 year old case as evidence of how evil the group is. If they were so evil, are there more recent cases that have pissed you off?
The hypocritical politics of the Republicans that claim to want the government out of the business of regulating business and personal gun ownership, while at the same time do want the government regulating adult sexual behavior (gay rights, not sex with kids), the hypocritical politics of claiming family values then destroying an innocent person who felt he was following his brain dead wife's wishes, the hypocritical politics of claiming to be pro-life while believing it OK to invade a country that conveniently has oil reserves on false pretenses and kills thousands of innocent civilian bystanders while doing it, and the hypocritical politics of standing up to protect fetal tissue while letting millions of real children die of hunger and disease around the world pisses me off.
The principle is as simple as it is central to true freedom of speech: those who do wrong are responsible for what they do; those who speak about it are not.
(bill) I agree. If the NAMBLA site simple had some text that states they believe man/boy sex should be legal then that in itself is not a crime. However, if the site had any information or imagery of any kind then I would call it a child porn site and would hope that under the law the site and those who visit would be subject to monitoring by officials. Of coarse this is the common since approach. For the sake of conversation we will assume the site has no material that could be considered child porn. In such case the ACLU has every legal right to defend the pervs, IF THEY SO CHOOSE. They are not under a legal obligation to protect the pervs. They know damn well that NAMBLA consists of past, current and future child rape scum bags yet they take the case anyway. Sure they could take the case and because of some legal jargon they can protect the pervs from being identified. However, if the ACLU gave one rat's ass about the kids that would be affected in the future by the pervs that enjoyed antonym and if they gave a rat's ass about living in a civil and just society then they would have simple declined to take on the defense of the pervs which as a private law firm is well with in their right. But of coarse the ACLU decided to defend the pervs anyway and damn any of the future children who might meet up with the nambla faithful.
It is easy to defend freedom of speech when the message is something many people find at least reasonable.
(bill)
Of course, the ACLU has become one of the right wing fundamentalist whipping boys which you, Bill, seem to have latched on to as well since you are using a 6 year old case as evidence of how evil the group is. If they were so evil, are there more recent cases that have pissed you off?
(bill) You guys kill me. Because ACLU went to bat for nambla six years ago that that somehow waters down the fact that they went to bat for a child rape group.
The hypocritical politics of the Republicans that claim to want the government out of the business of regulating business and personal gun ownership, while at the same time do want the government regulating adult sexual behavior (gay rights, not sex with kids), the hypocritical politics of claiming family values then destroying an innocent person who felt he was following his brain dead wife's wishes, the hypocritical politics of claiming to be pro-life while believing it OK to invade a country that conveniently has oil reserves on false pretenses and kills thousands of innocent civilian bystanders while doing it, and the hypocritical politics of standing up to protect fetal tissue while letting millions of real children die of hunger and disease around the world pisses me off.
(bill) Well I guess it is a good thing I am not a Republican then.
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 02/01/2006 : 14:31:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ronnywhite
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
..."So what if the ACLU protected and provided satuary for child pervs?...
Nah. No more than saying the NRA fights to shelter nuts who hijack planes with guns or go on shooting sprees in shopping malls. They don't... nor does the ACLU seek to provide sanctuary for predatory perverts. You're similarly just taking an extreme example of one area to which the more general policies they promote could apply- and distorting their stance- so as to make what they represent in a more general sense sound absurd and unethical. That's not the case. If you don't like the ACLU, or the side of the double-edged sword they prefer to sharpen, you have to do better than cite rare instances where injustices might result, while ignoring the both common and rare cases where their positions could (and do) promote justice, and provide protection from abuses of power directed at the non-crininal element.
you have to do better than cite rare instances where injustices might result,
(bill) And here is what is sad. So the ACLU provided 1000's of pervs with the privacy they want and need to conduct their love life unabaited, so what? So what if many kids have been raped by these very same scum bags? Freedom of speach was protected so damn the kids. ACLU did not have to take this case. They could take many cases dealing with free speach that would not have them defending child pervs and just pass on this case. They choose to take the case and in return choose to defend men who have no problem with ass raping a little boy. The ACLU had no oblagation to defend the pervs but rather choose to anyway and that is my beef with the ACLU. Yes it is my opinion but it shared with many. If you can gloss over a 8 year old boy being ass raped by a full grown man in favor of protecting the fags "rights" to full internet access then I guess this where our opinions split. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
