|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
 Posted - 02/01/2006 : 14:41:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
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.
So you admit to not knowing what was on the website but were gung-ho to violate the people's right of free association and instead lable them pervs. That's an easy way to marginalize the rights of the accused. Instead you actually demonize the ACLU for actually living up to their mission statement of defending the rights of people who you find personally objectionable. That you attribute their defense of the legal processes as facilitating a criminal act is very telling. We have laws in this nation and they apply to all defendants, not just the ones you feel sorry for.
quote:
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.
They also went to bat for the Klan. It was about the rights being trampled, not the organization themselves.
quote:
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.
If you're a Libertarian, I would call your cavialier attitude towards Constitutional rights appalling.
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
 |
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 02/01/2006 : 14:45:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
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.
I suppose that pointing out that homosexuality is not a determining factor in pediophilla. In fact, heterosexual males are far and away most likely to commit pediophilla. (96% of all statutory rape. Source: FBI crime reports) |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 02/01/2006 : 15:55:16 [Permalink]
|
I think that I am begining to understand. Bill is not so much concerned with paedophilia as he is with homosexuality. NAMBLA is an easy and unpopular, rightly unpopular in my book, target.
As Val has stated, hetrosexuals are by far more predatory, and something that seems odd to me is that a fair percentage of these scumbags, at least the ones we are likely to read about, are quite religious. Seems something of a contradiction, doesn't it?
Never the less, as citizens of this country, they cannot be deprived of their rights accorded by the Constitution unless they've committed or attempted to commit, or conspired to commit a crime. And in that case, emperical evidence is required for proscution -- much more difficult to aquire, for any crime, than to just shout about the injustice of it all. The case Bill cited in another thread was the culmination of a lot of hard work; they all are.
The law, applied properly and in accordance with the Constitution, works.
How'd we get off on to this? I thought it was all about Bill O'Reilly, the blatherskite, stalker, and dildo fancier.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 02/01/2006 : 16:01:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
I think that I am begining to understand. Bill is not so much concerned with paedophilia as he is with homosexuality. NAMBLA is an easy and unpopular, rightly unpopular in my book, target.
As Val has stated, hetrosexuals are by far more predatory, and something that seems odd to me is that a fair percentage of these scumbags, at least the ones we are likely to read about, are quite religious. Seems something of a contradiction, doesn't it?
Never the less, as citizens of this country, they cannot be deprived of their rights accorded by the Constitution unless they've committed or attempted to commit, or conspired to commit a crime. And in that case, emperical evidence is required for proscution -- much more difficult to aquire, for any crime, than to just shout about the injustice of it all. The case Bill cited in another thread was the culmination of a lot of hard work; they all are.
The law, applied properly and in accordance with the Constitution, works.
How'd we get off on to this? I thought it was all about Bill O'Reilly, the blatherskite, stalker, and dildo fancier.
Does the word loofah strike fear into your heart? 
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
ronnywhite
SFN Regular
501 Posts |
Posted - 02/02/2006 : 03:55:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
And here is what is sad. So the ACLU provided 1000's of pervs...
Well, our opinions don't split on some of this... I'm no fan of any child molesting freaks, especially the non-secular variety who's scumbag antics have been all over the news in recent years- as far as I'm concerned, if they're conclusively proved guilty, they should be blasted with both barrels of the legal code. However, remember the Founding Fathers bit about "Better 100 guilty men are set free than one innocent..." er somethin' like that? Just look at the disturbing number of death row inmates exonorated by DNA evidence who'd been waiting to die for years- the governer of Illinois responded by essentially saying until the police and courts got their acts together, he wasn't going to allow executions. The system is flawed, and the ACLU is trying to prevent it from continuing to "railroad" people. I'm really not legally knowledgeable, but if it happens in murder cases as mentioned, it likely happens for molestation cases, too.
I think in the US those of lower socioeconomic stature are probably more at-risk for being "railroaded" for something than others more fortunate, but I don't think anyone's entirely immune (except for the very wealthy, perhaps.) Police can't be trusted to police themselves- that's been well demonstrated- and the degree to which being able to afford (or not afford) attorneys dictates one's disposition from a courtroom has been documented in the media to the most insane degrees. Those are a couple of the reasons the ACLU serves a good cause. If you don't think the factors I cite are valid, you must have a far higher opinion of the honesty of the police and a significant portion of the public than I do. |
Ron White |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 02/02/2006 : 04:03:02 [Permalink]
|
I never heard of NAMBLA until now. But just using logic, if their web site had kiddie porn, the ACLU would not have had a case. If they were raping children, then the prosecutor would have had to have evidence to convict them and the ACLU would again, not have had a case. So logic would indicate there wasn't any evidence to support your accusations against the web site sources.
Sounds like a lynching when you want people prosecuted despite the lack of evidence against them, and without any option of defense.
If you know they were guilty, what was the evidence that they were?
In case you weren't aware of it, every accused pervert in this country gets a lawyer. In fact, your tax dollars pay for those that use public defenders. Is every public defender assigned to a case of a child rapist equally vile in your mind? What does that make you since you likely contributed something to that public defender's salary at some time in your life?
And, do you think there has ever been someone wrongly accused of child rape? You might want to read a bit about the Little Rascals Daycare and the McMartin cases. Dozens of people were convicted on what later turned out to be words the interviewers put into the mouths and minds of toddlers. Both cases turned out to be a modern day Salem witch hunts. |
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 02/02/2006 04:04:42 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 02/02/2006 : 04:44:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Does the word loofah strike fear into your heart?
If it's O'Reilly's loofah, I'll carry my pistol every day (shudder).
The thought occurs: O'Reilly ruthlessly stalked and harrassed a young, female member of his staff with obscene calls. It seems to me that the difference between this and molesting a child is only one of degree. He did not physically assault her, but if what I have read about it is correct, the assault might not have been all that far off in the future.
The world has more than it's share of vile people, and O'Reilly's one of them, in my anything-but-humble opinion.
Sexual predation has a long and inglorius history in our species, and indeed, is mentioned, favorably I might add, in the Bible. NAMBLA is an abberition only in that it's a homosexual, paedophilic organization, and if one reads history, it's not really all that much of an abberition. The ancient Greeks and Romans were known to have liked boys as well, and saw nothing wrong with it. Philip of Macedonia was murdered by his young, male lover, and his son, Alexander the Great would dip his wick into anything with legs and body heat, gender not withstanding.
We really are a disgusting species, aren't we?
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
| Edited by - filthy on 02/02/2006 06:20:14 |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 02/02/2006 : 06:51:27 [Permalink]
|
I guess Bill just did a drive by yesterday and has, like the Groundhog, seen his shadow and retreated back to his burrow.
Six more weeks of fundie nutjobs running their collective mouths. |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
| Edited by - pleco on 02/02/2006 06:52:02 |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 02/02/2006 : 08:45:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
I think that I am begining to understand. Bill is not so much concerned with paedophilia as he is with homosexuality. NAMBLA is an easy and unpopular, rightly unpopular in my book, target.
As Val has stated, hetrosexuals are by far more predatory, and something that seems odd to me is that a fair percentage of these scumbags, at least the ones we are likely to read about, are quite religious. Seems something of a contradiction, doesn't it?
Never the less, as citizens of this country, they cannot be deprived of their rights accorded by the Constitution unless they've committed or attempted to commit, or conspired to commit a crime. And in that case, emperical evidence is required for proscution -- much more difficult to aquire, for any crime, than to just shout about the injustice of it all. The case Bill cited in another thread was the culmination of a lot of hard work; they all are.
The law, applied properly and in accordance with the Constitution, works.
How'd we get off on to this? I thought it was all about Bill O'Reilly, the blatherskite, stalker, and dildo fancier.
I think that I am beginning to understand. Bill is not so much concerned with paedophilia as he is with homosexuality.
(bill) Look, if two grown men want to pack fudge in the privacy of their own home then I agree, there is not much the govn't, or anybody else, can do to stop this deviant activity. However, I am sure the govn't will be called upon to pay for their aids medical bills in the end so how ironic is that? But that is another discussion. But once the homo's cross the line and start ass raping little boys and then flaunting, promoting, encouraging this behavior on the WWW then not only is it the right of the gov. to step in but it is their sworn duty to protect society from such an element. Once the deviants go for children the sodomy laws must be inforced and society purged of this cancer.
Of coarse 96% of the crime is down by hetro. 99.5 out of every 100 males are hetro. So in reality the homo child/perv is more active per capita.
.
As Val has stated, hetrosexuals are by far more predatory,
(bill) Not per capita
and something that seems odd to me is that a fair percentage of these scumbags, at least the ones we are likely to read about, are quite religious. Seems something of a contradiction, doesn't it?
(bill) Nothing surprising to me about roman Catholicism, except maybe the scope of homo's serving in their priesthood and man/boy homo's on top of it, who were kept secret for so many years. Unbelievable. It sounds like a twisted horror pic.
Never the less, as citizens of this country, they cannot be deprived of their rights accorded by the Constitution unless they've committed or attempted to commit, or conspired to commit a crime.
(bill) Fine. But let them hire and pay for their own defense. Here the ACLU picked up a case they had no obligation to and willingly and knowingly helped conceal the man/boy pervs. Clearly the ends did not justify the means in this case. What did the ACLU accomplish? Well they did preserve the rights of the child pervs to support man/boy rape anonymously. They also left the door open for 1000's of nambla supports to remain in the shadows and God only knows how many boys were raped as result. Good job ACLU! Spin it however you want but the fact remains that they threw all the kids under the bus to protect the fags right to anonymous deviant behavior. Just great!
And in that case, emperical evidence is required for proscution -- much more difficult to aquire, for any crime, than to just shout about the injustice of it all.
(bill) I am not even talking about the dildos that did the crime. I am talking about the private law firm known as the ACLU that willingly defended the pervs out of no obligation. There are many free speech cases they can go fight so the fact that they choose to pick up the case that ultimately protects child pervs is just them showing their true colors.
How'd we get off on to this? I thought it was all about Bill O'Reilly, the blatherskite, stalker, and dildo fancier.
(bill) Yeah, I am very surprised that he and Clinton don't get along any better. They seem to be two peas in a pod as far as this area of the human experience goes.
|
"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 - 02/02/2006 : 08:49:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ronnywhite
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
And here is what is sad. So the ACLU provided 1000's of pervs...
Well, our opinions don't split on some of this... I'm no fan of any child molesting freaks, especially the non-secular variety who's scumbag antics have been all over the news in recent years- as far as I'm concerned, if they're conclusively proved guilty, they should be blasted with both barrels of the legal code. However, remember the Founding Fathers bit about "Better 100 guilty men are set free than one innocent..." er somethin' like that? Just look at the disturbing number of death row inmates exonorated by DNA evidence who'd been waiting to die for years- the governer of Illinois responded by essentially saying until the police and courts got their acts together, he wasn't going to allow executions. The system is flawed, and the ACLU is trying to prevent it from continuing to "railroad" people. I'm really not legally knowledgeable, but if it happens in murder cases as mentioned, it likely happens for molestation cases, too.
I think in the US those of lower socioeconomic stature are probably more at-risk for being "railroaded" for something than others more fortunate, but I don't think anyone's entirely immune (except for the very wealthy, perhaps.) Police can't be trusted to police themselves- that's been well demonstrated- and the degree to which being able to afford (or not afford) attorneys dictates one's disposition from a courtroom has been documented in the media to the most insane degrees. Those are a couple of the reasons the ACLU serves a good cause. If you don't think the factors I cite are valid, you must have a far higher opinion of the honesty of the police and a significant portion of the public than I do.
(bill) You make some very valid points Ron. I agree that a blanket statment saying everything the ACLU does is wrong or based on the bizaro world is not fair or accurate. When judging the ACLU you really need to go on a case by case basis because, I agree, they have taken up some good cases and defended against abuse of power as well. And I agree that the notion of the police policing the police is just insane. In this respects the ACLU helps to keep those in power accountable, I agree. It is just hard for me to gloss over the case when they are willing to protect know child pervs even if it is all legal and buy the books. That still does not make it right IMO. Think about how many kids lives have potentially been impacted for the negative because of the protection the ACLU offered the pervs. 1000's of boys being setup as future rape victims can erase a whole lot of good that the ACLU has done. |
"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.-
|
|
|
|
Fripp
SFN Regular
USA
727 Posts |
Posted - 02/02/2006 : 09:26:55 [Permalink]
|
Bill,
You seem to want to blame the ACLU for all of the molestation cases. Perhaps you are aiming at the wrong target.
The following excerpt was posted by an SFN member a feww weeks ago and is very illuminating:
"A disturbing fact continues to surface in sex abuse research. The first best predictor of abuse is alcohol or drug addiction in the father. But the second best predictor is conservative religiosity, accompanied by parental belief in traditional male-female roles (emphasis mine). This means that if you want to know which children are most likely to be sexually abused by their father, the second most significant clue is whether or not the parents belong to a conservative religious group with traditional role beliefs and rigid sexual attitudes (emphasis in original).
(Brown and Bohn, 1989; Finkelhor, 1986; Fortune, 1983; Goldstein et al, 1973; Van Leeuwen, 1990).
References:
Brown, J.C and C.R. Bohn (eds) 1989 "Christianity, Patriarchy, and Abuse" New York, Pilgrim Press.
Finkelhor, D. 1986. A Sourcebook on Child Sexual Abuse. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Fortune, M.M. 1983. Sexual Violence: The Unmentionable Sin. New York, Pilgrim Press.
Goldstein, M.J, et al 1973. Pornography and Sexual Deviance. Los Angeles, University of California Press.
Van Leeuwen, M.S. 1990. Gender and Grace: Love, Work, and Parenting in a Changing World. Downers Grove, Il. InterVarsity Press.
***END QUOTE***
Of course I expect you to wave this off as the work of "Satan-worshippers", "atheists", "Socialists", or the worst-of-the-worst, "liberals". **GASP** (I shudder in horror). |
"What the hell is an Aluminum Falcon?"
"Oh, I'm sorry. I thought my Dark Lord of the Sith could protect a small thermal exhaust port that's only 2-meters wide! That thing wasn't even fully paid off yet! You have any idea what this is going to do to my credit?!?!"
"What? Oh, oh, 'just rebuild it'? Oh, real [bleep]ing original. And who's gonna give me a loan, jackhole? You? You got an ATM on that torso LiteBrite?" |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 02/02/2006 : 09:42:08 [Permalink]
|
| Nah, just not "real chrisitans" |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 02/02/2006 : 09:55:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Fripp
Bill,
You seem to want to blame the ACLU for all of the molestation cases. Perhaps you are aiming at the wrong target.
The following excerpt was posted by an SFN member a feww weeks ago and is very illuminating:
"A disturbing fact continues to surface in sex abuse research. The first best predictor of abuse is alcohol or drug addiction in the father. But the second best predictor is conservative religiosity, accompanied by parental belief in traditional male-female roles (emphasis mine). This means that if you want to know which children are most likely to be sexually abused by their father, the second most significant clue is whether or not the parents belong to a conservative religious group with traditional role beliefs and rigid sexual attitudes (emphasis in original).
(Brown and Bohn, 1989; Finkelhor, 1986; Fortune, 1983; Goldstein et al, 1973; Van Leeuwen, 1990).
References:
Brown, J.C and C.R. Bohn (eds) 1989 "Christianity, Patriarchy, and Abuse" New York, Pilgrim Press.
Finkelhor, D. 1986. A Sourcebook on Child Sexual Abuse. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Fortune, M.M. 1983. Sexual Violence: The Unmentionable Sin. New York, Pilgrim Press.
Goldstein, M.J, et al 1973. Pornography and Sexual Deviance. Los Angeles, University of California Press.
Van Leeuwen, M.S. 1990. Gender and Grace: Love, Work, and Parenting in a Changing World. Downers Grove, Il. InterVarsity Press.
***END QUOTE***
Of course I expect you to wave this off as the work of "Satan-worshippers", "atheists", "Socialists", or the worst-of-the-worst, "liberals". **GASP** (I shudder in horror).
You seem to want to blame the ACLU for all of the molestation cases. Perhaps you are aiming at the wrong target.
(bill)Nope, I don't blame the ACLU for child molestation. I blame the ACLU for going to bat for the pervs and protecting their rights to hide in the shadows when they had no obligation to the pervs at all. Again. spin the freedom of speech anyway you want. The bottom line remains that the ACLU threw the young boys under the bus in favor of the fags right to support fag/boy sex anonymously
The following excerpt was posted by an SFN member a feww weeks ago and is very illuminating:
"A disturbing fact continues to surface in sex abuse research. The first best predictor of abuse is alcohol or drug addiction in the father. But the second best predictor is conservative religiosity, accompanied by parental belief in traditional male-female roles (emphasis mine). This means that if you want to know which children are most likely to be sexually abused by their father, the second most significant clue is whether or not the parents belong to a conservative religious group with traditional role beliefs and rigid sexual attitudes (emphasis in original).
(bill) So you justify and defend the ACLU's gross alignment with child pervs by pointing out other deviant behavior by other groups? How lame and childish. Look, if those pervs want to start a website know as "conservative dads for incest" or "parent/child sex" I will blow my whistle on them just as loud as the nambla gang. And if the ACLU wants to defend CDFI (conservative dads for incest) and their right to support the movement in secret then I say the ACLU is just as disturbed in this decision as in the one they made to defend homo child perv who supported nambla.
***END QUOTE***
Of course I expect you to wave this off as the work of "Satan-worshippers", "atheists", "Socialists", or the worst-of-the-worst, "liberals". **GASP** (I shudder in horror).
(bill) And I expect you to come with some more lame attempts to justify the ACLU defending homo child pervs. |
"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.-
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 02/02/2006 : 10:20:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
I think that I am begining to understand. Bill is not so much concerned with paedophilia as he is with homosexuality. NAMBLA is an easy and unpopular, rightly unpopular in my book, target.
As Val has stated, hetrosexuals are by far more predatory, and something that seems odd to me is that a fair percentage of these scumbags, at least the ones we are likely to read about, are quite religious. Seems something of a contradiction, doesn't it?
Never the less, as citizens of this country, they cannot be deprived of their rights accorded by the Constitution unless they've committed or attempted to commit, or conspired to commit a crime. And in that case, emperical evidence is required for proscution -- much more difficult to aquire, for any crime, than to just shout about the injustice of it all. The case Bill cited in another thread was the culmination of a lot of hard work; they all are.
The law, applied properly and in accordance with the Constitution, works.
How'd we get off on to this? I thought it was all about Bill O'Reilly, the blatherskite, stalker, and dildo fancier.
I think that I am beginning to understand. Bill is not so much concerned with paedophilia as he is with homosexuality.
(bill) Look, if two grown men want to pack fudge in the privacy of their own home then I agree, there is not much the govn't, or anybody else, can do to stop this deviant activity. However, I am sure the govn't will be called upon to pay for their aids medical bills in the end so how ironic is that? But that is another discussion. But once the homo's cross the line and start ass raping little boys and then flaunting, promoting, encouraging this behavior on the WWW then not only is it the right of the gov. to step in but it is their sworn duty to protect society from such an element. Once the deviants go for children the sodomy laws must be inforced and society purged of this cancer.
Of coarse 96% of the crime is down by hetro. 99.5 out of every 100 males are hetro. So in reality the homo child/perv is more active per capita.
.
As Val has stated, hetrosexuals are by far more predatory,
(bill) Not per capita
Standard homophobic bullshit. Assumes per capita relevance in the face of multiple victims per offender. Incidence of single victim per offender is more prevalent in heterosexual statutory rape.
quote:
and something that seems odd to me is that a fair percentage of these scumbags, at least the ones we are likely to read about, are quite religious. Seems something of a contradiction, doesn't it?
(bill) Nothing surprising to me about roman Catholicism, except maybe the scope of homo's serving in their priesthood and man/boy homo's on top of it, who were kept secret for so many years. Unbelievable. It sounds like a twisted horror pic.
Standard homophobic and anti-Catholic rhetoric which ignores the same abuses within the Prodestant churches.
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 02/02/2006 : 10:23:52 [Permalink]
|
Nothing like being preached to by hate-filled bigots. Fred?
I should add that myself and ACLU would agressively defend a hate-filled bigot's right to say what they want, even though we may think they are digusting human beings. |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
| Edited by - pleco on 02/02/2006 10:29:04 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
