A.C.L.U. screws Boy Scouts

Printable View

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

18 Jan 2004, 07:10 PM
Brisco Bold

Quote:

Originally Posted by bbobb

Don't we have total ignore anymore? I don't even want to see the fact that he posted.

Join MVS and I in the good fight for total ignore.
18 Jan 2004, 07:18 PM
Frogacuda

Quote:

Originally Posted by Parcher D.O.D.

In all seriousness, since your and Bbobbs intention is clearly to get this thread moved to FC, you should just start cussing, pretending to be female, and your other Jerry Springer tactics you reserve for the "intollerant". People who disagree with you, in other words.

I'm really not trying to get you riled up. You should seek help. I'm not trying to be mean, but something's not right. You really sound like you're having an argument with someone who isn't there; like you're reading the posts and hearing something completely different. It's not right, it's not characteristic of a sane thinker.

Go read post #69 and tell me if that's something a sane person would say in response to my post. It's not, it had nothing to do with what I said. And alot of this stuff you're saying to bbobb doesn't make sense either. The reason everyone else seems illogical is because you aren't thinking right. You might need some meds or something.
18 Jan 2004, 11:32 PM
Gohron

In all seriousness he might be scrizophrenic
19 Jan 2004, 12:21 AM
Saint of Killers

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calliander

Nowhere in the definition of "popular" does it say "good," though. The opinion that older men should screw young boys is neither popular nor unpopular - it's not RIGHT. The same thing with lynching black people or killing Jews.

I'm not saying that I hate the ACLU, I think they do good things. I'm only saying there's a difference between weed and underage sex/murder.

I don't quite understand what your point is. You said, in essence, "How is it legal to support something that is illegal?" And I responded by saying it's legal to support anything you want. I never tried to argue that I thought pedophilia was a good thing or that NAMBLA was a bunch of fine upstanding citizens.

Quote:

Originally Posted by diffusionx

A few years ago the fraternity Zeta Psi at Dartmouth got busted for handing out pamphlets on date rape - like, "how to date rape a chick" pamphlets. The University caught them and eliminted the fraternity from its premises. Did that infringe on the fraternity's civil rights? Probably.

I'm not a Constitutional scholar or anything, but I don't remember the Ammendment about the right to fraternities. There was no criminal or civil action brought against them, so I don't think it infringed on their civil rights.

And now that I think about it, you may be liable if you give a detailed description of how to commit a crime and someone acts on it. I also don't think NAMBLA is distributing "How to Rape Little Boys" literature.
19 Jan 2004, 12:31 AM
Diff-chan

So... there is nothing about rights of a fraternal organization, but there is about rights to pedophile organizations? Come on.

And like I noted above an Ohio court showed that NAMBLA literature includes things which could be construed as 'preparation and purpose'. In all seriousness here there have been lots of cases of child rape and shit around the country in which the criminals were members of NAMBLA, I dont know why the Feds or anything havent done an investigation.
19 Jan 2004, 12:36 AM
AstroBlue

Quote:

Originally Posted by diffusionx

So... there is nothing about rights of a fraternal organization, but there is about rights to pedophile organizations? Come on.

And like I noted above an Ohio court showed that NAMBLA literature includes things which could be construed as 'preparation and purpose'. In all seriousness here there have been lots of cases of child rape and shit around the country in which the criminals were members of NAMBLA, I dont know why the Feds or anything havent done an investigation.

Shit, I thought South Park made that up for shits and giggles... scary...
19 Jan 2004, 12:56 AM
Saint of Killers

Quote:

Originally Posted by diffusionx

So... there is nothing about rights of a fraternal organization, but there is about rights to pedophile organizations? Come on.

You're confusing the issue. Nobody tried to sue the frat. The university dissolved it as a recognized fraternity on campus. I assume Dartmouth has plenty of rules in place that allows them to do such things. If the guys in the frat decided to reform off campus without being recognized by Dartmouth no one could stop them.

Quote:

And like I noted above an Ohio court showed that NAMBLA literature includes things which could be construed as 'preparation and purpose'.

I haven't read any NAMBLA literature, so it's kinda hard for me to say. Courts have been wrong before, though.

From what I understand about the case, alot of it hinged on people on NAMBLA's message board giving advice on how to gain the confidence of children. I told someone on here once how to cook with pot. Is TNL responsible if someone gets caught with pot brownies?

Quote:

Originally Posted by diffusionx

In all seriousness here there have been lots of cases of child rape and shit around the country in which the criminals were members of NAMBLA, I dont know why the Feds or anything havent done an investigation.

Logically, members of a group that advocates fucking little boys probably fuck little boys. That doesn't make it illegal to be in a group that advocates fucking little boys. You can't arrest people for something they might do.
19 Jan 2004, 12:58 AM
VX

Heh. I guess it's a backlash towards them for not accepting TEH GAYZ.
19 Jan 2004, 08:23 AM
AstroBlue

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saint of Killers

You can't arrest people for something they might do.

Tell that to John Anderton.
19 Jan 2004, 11:15 AM
Parcher D.O.D.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frogacuda

I'm really not trying to get you riled up. You should seek help. I'm not trying to be mean, but something's not right. You really sound like you're having an argument with someone who isn't there; like you're reading the posts and hearing something completely different. It's not right, it's not characteristic of a sane thinker.

Go read post #69 and tell me if that's something a sane person would say in response to my post. It's not, it had nothing to do with what I said. And alot of this stuff you're saying to bbobb doesn't make sense either. The reason everyone else seems illogical is because you aren't thinking right. You might need some meds or something.

I was answering several people who all started semi-flaming at once. Let's not let one post become our straw man, shall we?

I just tried to lump my response to the nonsense together insead of doing this:

Quote:

I hate you! All conservatives are racists!!!!

Perhaps my calling all liberals commies will show you how silly you are being. I still have not stooped to your level since I am only saying that some people have Blank Slate worshiping tendencies that clouds their judgement.

Quote:

You're crazy!!!! I don't understand how smeone can be conservative and hate liberals because they are against freedom. All conservatives hate freedom because they are nazis!!!

No. Some conservatives are isolationists, but they are not National Socialists, since SOCIALISM is not Capitalism. National Socialists are SOCIALISTS . . . that's why they have the word "Socialist" in their name. Nazis are Socialists.

Etc., etc. et al. True, there are slight variances in those last two quotes, but they are also very similar. Technichally, answering them together is wrong.

But if viewed logically, it is obvious that they are nothing but the start of a flame war.

Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page