NAMBLA

[Korvan]

If it does then we have a huge fucking problem.

I would tend to agree, but the presence of a NAMBLA site indicates that there are a fair number of them.

A friend of mine used to work as a lifeguard for public pools. One of the pools he guarded at kept a binder know as the "Dirty old Man" file. He said it was almost as thick as a phonebook. Most of them haven't "done" anything, just sit and stare at the kids. I bet if you got close to 'em you could hear "tick, tick, tick".

When I was seven, my dad was getting his Master's degree during the summer. He was driven home from university by a fellow master's student and I was introduced to a man who would go on to molest a number of young boys during his tenure as a school principle.

As a kid I sometimes hated that my mom was overprotective and kept a close eye on me, but sometimes those instincts are dead on.

I'd rather have pedophiles out in the open about what and who they are rather than hidden as a teacher, cop, judge, etc.

[Aaron]

However, I wouldn't want to limit their free speech even though I find their message disgusting!

I guess we're stuck with this sick fuck of a site, and it's members for good or bad. And seeing as they have the unrestricted right to free speech they get to peddle their sick shit. But I don't have to be happy about it.

If any NAMBLA members or "Pat Kelly" are reading this, this is for you:

[Pick]

I'm not sure where I can stand on this as a free speech issue, only that pedophiles are the worst scum on the earth, ever, period, in my book.

Seriously.

[Stofsk]

I'm not sure where I can stand on this as a free speech issue, only that pedophiles are the worst scum on the earth, ever, period, in my book.

What about murderers? Or child-killers, if you prefer. Anyone who basically ends another human being's life, intentionally, in malice.

[Chris OFarrell]

I was laughing at the idea of NAMBLA. I found it funny as hell.

Then I found out the next day it WASN'T something South Park made up and I felt sick.

How such an organisation can exist and not have long been shut down and all its members imprisoned....I just don't get it.

[Pick]

I'm not sure where I can stand on this as a free speech issue, only that pedophiles are the worst scum on the earth, ever, period, in my book.

What about murderers? Or child-killers, if you prefer. Anyone who basically ends another human being's life, intentionally, in malice.

I still put child molesters below murderers. This is just my personal viewpoint, however, and I won't begin to claim it's some kind of divine truth. Heck, just different life experiences could make one person see it differently. I don't think there's a universal answer, just my opinion.

[Lord Revan]

I agree with Pick that child molesters lowest of the low when comes humans (so low that I don't consider them to be human anymore). If kill somebody the victim won't survive, victim of pedophiles can survive (but is scared for the rest of his/her life).

[Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba]

Sometimes, quite frankly, individual rights DO have to take a hike in the interest of the greater good. If we had to violate a few laws to end NAMBLA, it would be acceptable in my books.

The problem enters when you have things like the Patriot Act, where anyone 'suspicious' can be put behind bars or have his property searched without a warrant or reason for this.

It's a slippery slope, but as long as everyone frets and cries enough so that we don't even take a step towards the ledge for the Greater Good, NAMBLA will still exist, and the human trash which comprises it can go about their business without being stamped as the sick fucks that they are.

NAMBLA members, this is a special finger just for you:

[fighterace]

NAMBLA, nothing but a bunch of sick fucks!

Unfortunatly as long as they are not mentioning anyone specific they want to molest then, regretably, are within the law and protected.

The little dictator in us all would love to see those creeps lined up and shot, but alas, that glorious day will only happen in our minds.

Although, if I ever have kids, and I suspect anyone of them are thinking about making any moves on my kids, I'm not saying I'll resort to full blown violence, and officially I never will. I'm just saying they'll have a terrible string of bad luck. I'm not saying any more.


NAMBLA FUCK YOU, YOU WORTHLESS COCKSUCKING ASSWIPES!


Okay, my rant against NAMBLA is over.

Comments anyone.

Also, slightly off topic, and I can't be sure if its true or not, I heard a few years back about a child molester they suspected of fleeing to Mexico, I heard a few months later they found his rotting body impaled on a cactus in the desert. Amusing story, if its true of course. I heard it from a friend, can anyone confirm it?

[salm]

free speech is overrated. ban these fuckers.

[Tinkerbell]

I agree with Pick that child molesters lowest of the low when comes humans (so low that I don't consider them to be human anymore). If kill somebody the victim won't survive, victim of pedophiles can survive (but is scared for the rest of his/her life).

If you kill someone, their family and friends live on with the memory, so in a sense the person you are killing is not your only victim. They're just the one that dies. Although I agree with placing child molesters in their own little scumbag arena.

[Rye]

Though it's really easy to demonise and call for lynchings of paedophiles, the unfortunate reality of the matter is, they're people too. Say if you found a relative's or friend's PC with child porn images on, it'd be horrific, but they wouldn't suddenly turn into an 8 foot tall ebony goatman, repleat with obsidian claws and horns and burning red eyes. So, what to do with them? Therapy would seem like the only way to go (well, unless they'd been committing the acts) but what if, as with hetero and homosexuaity, it just doesn't work? What if it's a "genuine" aspect of human sexuality? What do we do then? Castrate them and send them to work on oilrigs?

[Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba]

Though it's really easy to demonise and call for lynchings of paedophiles, the unfortunate reality of the matter is, they're people too. Say if you found a relative's or friend's PC with child porn images on, it'd be horrific, but they wouldn't suddenly turn into an 8 foot tall ebony goatman, repleat with obsidian claws and horns and burning red eyes. So, what to do with them? Therapy would seem like the only way to go (well, unless they'd been committing the acts) but what if, as with hetero and homosexuaity, it just doesn't work? What if it's a "genuine" aspect of human sexuality? What do we do then? Castrate them and send them to work on oilrigs?

That's a question for greater men than I, sadly.

[Knife]

Though it's really easy to demonise and call for lynchings of paedophiles, the unfortunate reality of the matter is, they're people too. Say if you found a relative's or friend's PC with child porn images on, it'd be horrific, but they wouldn't suddenly turn into an 8 foot tall ebony goatman, repleat with obsidian claws and horns and burning red eyes. So, what to do with them? Therapy would seem like the only way to go (well, unless they'd been committing the acts) but what if, as with hetero and homosexuaity, it just doesn't work? What if it's a "genuine" aspect of human sexuality? What do we do then? Castrate them and send them to work on oilrigs?

That's a question for greater men than I, sadly.

You don't have to be a 'great man' to understand that a certain amount of the population will for one reason or another, want to prey upon the weaker parts of the population. It may be a certain part of human nature, but that doesn't mean that they are a undesireable part of human nature worth getting rid of.

[Pick]

Though it's really easy to demonise and call for lynchings of paedophiles, the unfortunate reality of the matter is, they're people too. Say if you found a relative's or friend's PC with child porn images on, it'd be horrific, but they wouldn't suddenly turn into an 8 foot tall ebony goatman, repleat with obsidian claws and horns and burning red eyes. So, what to do with them? Therapy would seem like the only way to go (well, unless they'd been committing the acts) but what if, as with hetero and homosexuaity, it just doesn't work? What if it's a "genuine" aspect of human sexuality? What do we do then? Castrate them and send them to work on oilrigs?

I'm probably a really bad person to ask that question.

[Darth Wong]

Though it's really easy to demonise and call for lynchings of paedophiles, the unfortunate reality of the matter is, they're people too. Say if you found a relative's or friend's PC with child porn images on, it'd be horrific, but they wouldn't suddenly turn into an 8 foot tall ebony goatman, repleat with obsidian claws and horns and burning red eyes. So, what to do with them? Therapy would seem like the only way to go (well, unless they'd been committing the acts) but what if, as with hetero and homosexuaity, it just doesn't work? What if it's a "genuine" aspect of human sexuality? What do we do then? Castrate them and send them to work on oilrigs?

The question of how society chooses to punish someone for a crime is not tied to the question of whether they can help themselves. There is increasing evidence that there are certain "genetic markers" associated with violent criminal activity, which should not come as a huge surprise since the inhibition against committing violence against another human being is said to be instinctive, and instincts are genetic.

So, let's suppose that a "murder gene" is found someday. Note that it would be possible for someone without the "murder gene" to commit murder anyway, but people with the gene are far more likely to do so. Would you advocate changes in the way murders are prosecuted? If so, why? If not, why not?

I know it's just a hypothetical situation, but it illustrates the dangers of the "we can't punish them if it's a natural compulsion" mentality. Society has an imperative to punish people who do things that harm others. It is irrelevant whether those things can be said to result from an immutable aspect of their nature. This policy can also be applied to the "he had a bad childhood" excuse.

[Wicked Pilot]

So, let's suppose that a "murder gene" is found someday. Note that it would be possible for someone without the "murder gene" to commit murder anyway, but people with the gene are far more likely to do so. Would you advocate changes in the way murders are prosecuted? If so, why? If not, why not?

I don't mind answering this one. We should use knowledge of this 'murder gene' to give those individuals special attention, especially in childhood, in an attempt to steer them away from what will become their instincts. However if they grow up and start showing violent behavior then society's hands are tied, and they have to be dealt with in the usual manner.

And this 'murder' gene does exist, it's called the Y chromosome.

[Rye]

The question of how society chooses to punish someone for a crime is not tied to the question of whether they can help themselves. There is increasing evidence that there are certain "genetic markers" associated with violent criminal activity, which should not come as a huge surprise since the inhibition against committing violence against another human being is said to be instinctive, and instincts are genetic.

So, let's suppose that a "murder gene" is found someday. Note that it would be possible for someone without the "murder gene" to commit murder anyway, but people with the gene are far more likely to do so. Would you advocate changes in the way murders are prosecuted? If so, why? If not, why not?

I don't think the prosecution for an actual crime should change in either case, as with paedophilia. They're still in control of their mental faculties and are subject to the law. My question was about the prevention of the crime in the first place. If we institituted genetic screenings (or found child porn on a computer), and found that these people would most likely not be able to help themselves if the opportunity presented itself, what should we do preemptively?

I know it's just a hypothetical situation, but it illustrates the dangers of the "we can't punish them if it's a natural compulsion" mentality. Society has an imperative to punish people who do things that harm others. It is irrelevant whether those things can be said to result from an immutable aspect of their nature. This policy can also be applied to the "he had a bad childhood" excuse.

Sure we can punish them if they do something, but they're already a significant threat.Moreso than someone without the genetic markers or kid porn. If it turned out that they were looking at porn and presumably, may in the future, want to actually have sex with children, we surely couldn't leave them in normal society until they did it. Looking at the porn in and of itself hurts noone, but it is indicative of a mindset that already exists and, i would guess (not really based in any figures here), probably manifest in the future. Making the porn would be criminal, of course, since someone is clearly being abused, but viewing it would be evidence of a precursor to further abuse.

So yeah, should we keep them around but under watch permanently to see if they do commit a crime, or should we be allowed to do something preemptively and cart them off somewhere where there's no temptation and they can still have some use for society?

[AdmiralKanos]

You can't punish someone for a crime he hasn't committed yet, but you can ideally keep him under close surveillance. I would actually suggest registering all such people, but no doubt some people would try to equate this to Nazism

[Tinkerbell]

The question of how society chooses to punish someone for a crime is not tied to the question of whether they can help themselves. There is increasing evidence that there are certain "genetic markers" associated with violent criminal activity, which should not come as a huge surprise since the inhibition against committing violence against another human being is said to be instinctive, and instincts are genetic.

So, let's suppose that a "murder gene" is found someday. Note that it would be possible for someone without the "murder gene" to commit murder anyway, but people with the gene are far more likely to do so. Would you advocate changes in the way murders are prosecuted? If so, why? If not, why not?

I don't think the prosecution for an actual crime should change in either case, as with paedophilia. They're still in control of their mental faculties and are subject to the law. My question was about the prevention of the crime in the first place. If we institituted genetic screenings (or found child porn on a computer), and found that these people would most likely not be able to help themselves if the opportunity presented itself, what should we do preemptively?

I know it's just a hypothetical situation, but it illustrates the dangers of the "we can't punish them if it's a natural compulsion" mentality. Society has an imperative to punish people who do things that harm others. It is irrelevant whether those things can be said to result from an immutable aspect of their nature. This policy can also be applied to the "he had a bad childhood" excuse.

Sure we can punish them if they do something, but they're already a significant threat.Moreso than someone without the genetic markers or kid porn. If it turned out that they were looking at porn and presumably, may in the future, want to actually have sex with children, we surely couldn't leave them in normal society until they did it. Looking at the porn in and of itself hurts noone, but it is indicative of a mindset that already exists and, i would guess (not really based in any figures here), probably manifest in the future. Making the porn would be criminal, of course, since someone is clearly being abused, but viewing it would be evidence of a precursor to further abuse.

So yeah, should we keep them around but under watch permanently to see if they do commit a crime, or should we be allowed to do something preemptively and cart them off somewhere where there's no temptation and they can still have some use for society?

Are we not giving at least some of them the benifit of the doubt that they can keep their urges in check? Not everyone who likes kiddie-porn is going to become a child molester. Granted, I think it's disgusting, but there are a lot of things I don't personally agree with. Saying "you like kiddy-porn, now we're going to watch you for the rest of your life because you can't be trusted to function normally in society." Is taking things a bit far. As is removing them from society together. Isn't that more or less imprisonment before the crime takes place? The phrase "until they did it" icinuates that if you look at child porn, you will rape a child. And I can't see that.

Don't get me wrong. I hate child molesters. I want to kill them. But you need to consider what can and cannot be controlled. Liking kid porn isn't something you can just stop. There is no control over that. But acting upon that in the form of child molestation is controllable.

[Darth Wong]

Are we not giving at least some of them the benifit of the doubt that they can keep their urges in check? Not everyone who likes kiddie-porn is going to become a child molester. Granted, I think it's disgusting, but there are a lot of things I don't personally agree with. Saying "you like kiddy-porn, now we're going to watch you for the rest of your life because you can't be trusted to function normally in society."

"Being watched" does not take away any fundamental rights.

Is taking things a bit far. As is removing them from society together. Isn't that more or less imprisonment before the crime takes place? The phrase "until they did it" icinuates that if you look at child porn, you will rape a child. And I can't see that.

No, if you actually imprisoned them pre-emptively, you would be saying this. As it is, we are only saying that they are more likely to rape a child, which is true.

Don't get me wrong. I hate child molesters. I want to kill them. But you need to consider what can and cannot be controlled. Liking kid porn isn't something you can just stop. There is no control over that. But acting upon that in the form of child molestation is controllable.

Wanting child porn isn't something a pedophile can just stop, but possessing it is.

[Tinkerbell]

Are we not giving at least some of them the benifit of the doubt that they can keep their urges in check? Not everyone who likes kiddie-porn is going to become a child molester. Granted, I think it's disgusting, but there are a lot of things I don't personally agree with. Saying "you like kiddy-porn, now we're going to watch you for the rest of your life because you can't be trusted to function normally in society."

"Being watched" does not take away any fundamental rights.

I think first we need to come to a decision on what "being watched" consists of.

Is taking things a bit far. As is removing them from society together. Isn't that more or less imprisonment before the crime takes place? The phrase "until they did it" icinuates that if you look at child porn, you will rape a child. And I can't see that.

No, if you actually imprisoned them pre-emptively, you would be saying this. As it is, we are only saying that they are more likely to rape a child, which is true.

Of course they are more likely to. If you don't like the idea of sex with a child, there is no reason to go out and do it is there? OTOH, there are many child molesters who don't watch the porn. So I think a lot of molesers would be overlooked if focus lies solely on the porn-watchers. All I really meant with the original excerpt there was that I thought removing them from society alltogether seemed unnecesary.

Don't get me wrong. I hate child molesters. I want to kill them. But you need to consider what can and cannot be controlled. Liking kid porn isn't something you can just stop. There is no control over that. But acting upon that in the form of child molestation is controllable.

Wanting child porn isn't something a pedophile can just stop, but possessing it is.

Posessing it is a crime if I'm not mistaken. You win on that count.