Pedophilia is a right!

[Shawn Hennessy]

The country that brought you legalized gay marriages, prostitution and liesure drug use is bringing you the next great thing in civil rights recognition...<a href="http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=oddlyEnoughNews&storyID=2006-05-30T170341Z_01_L30338107_RTRUKOC_0_US-DUTCH-PEDOPHILES.xml&pageNumber=0&imageid=&cap=&sz=13&WTModLoc=NewsArt-C1-ArticlePage2" target="_blank">legalized pedophilia</a>.



While this is not yet the headline, it will be in the very near future. This same thing happened with drug use in the 70's. Homosexuality in the late 70's and early 80's, and legalized gay marriage in the 90's. Now, I know that the first thing you all are going to attack me with is the typical, mindless verbal assaults of "homophobe" and other anti-Christian-type remarks.



So, mark my words...pedophilia will be a civil rights issue here in this country.

 

[Tom Schindler]

Whatever you do...just don't get drunk in a bar while visiting Texas.



:angry:





Tom

 

[Ray McIntireJr]

Now don't go overboard! Legalizing kiddie groping is a couple of decades down the line yet.

 

[NYJohn]

And please don't smoke a cigarette while kid touching. You wouldn't want them to suffer the effects of second hand smoke.

 

[Jeffrey Travis]

...if you are driving while molesting make sure you have your seatbelt on, or if on a motorcycle your helmet.....(nuff said)



These people are wrong. Next they will be cloning kids just to be able to 'pimp them out' to perverts. Gives new meaning to 'Kids 'R Us'.



JT#14

 

[Thomas Rogers]

It's funny how we have liberals in this country that say "anything goes" and "it's my right", right up until they mention a "kid", then all hell breaks lose. Carlin did a nice bit on kids and bleeding hearts....excellent.



Though, of course, I don't condone pedophilia, but then I don't condone anything that negates "the greater good".



TJR

 

[Tom Schindler]

It's funny how we have liberals in this country that say "anything goes" and "it's my right", right up until they mention a "kid", then all hell breaks lose.

Maybe you shouldn't call everyone a Liberal and see it from a different point of view. Maybe we are showwing, or making a statement, that there are more important issues like Child Pornography, Child Prostitution, Drugs, Murder, Rape, etc. then there is someone smoking in a bar with everyone else smoking there and visiting it on thier own free will.





Tom

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Caymen, I used the term "liberal", as a generality, and synonymous with those civil libertarians that champion personal rights, often in a seemingly random and contradictory way. Drop your emotions for a second, and read on...



If you read the rest of my post you will recognize that when it comes to child protection issues I am of the same point of view as most people (I will always come down on the side of protecting the children).



However, regardless the circumstances, all such issues come down to choices and personal rights, and the goverment trying to pass laws to protect those that cannot protect themselves from others who simply want to do what they want to do. Whether that is protecting a child from a molester that wants to molest; or protecting the innocent from a drunk in public (or that drunk from himself), these are all laws that are MEANT to serve the "greater good".



Such laws are all rooted in that same "greater good" purpose, and all infringe on the free actions of someone, just to varying degrees. We see some of these laws as clearly GOOD and JUST (child protection) and others as petty and unjust (arresting drunks in bars). However, if we look at these types of law "unemotionally", and recognize they are all simply "for the greater good", then our JUDGEMENT of which ones are just and which ones are unjust has us simpy drawing a "line". When we draw such a line we say EVERYTHING ON THIS SIDE is BAD, and EVERYTHING ON THIS SIDE IS OKAY or of ACCEPTABLE RISK. It's that line drawing and justification of some such laws as just and others as unjust that I find both arbitrary and often hypocritical.



And, yet, I recognize that I myself am trapped looking at both sides of the imaginary line and rationalizing laws on one side as clearly just, and on the other as unjust...but that doesn't make it right....it just makes it "difficult" to be subjective.



If you don't see it that way, well than, okay, I respect that. But it is BECAUSE I see it that way, that I can see merit in some laws that you find unjust; and it is why organizations like the ACLU, in my opinion, do more harm than good as they "pick and choose" their little justice crusades.



TJR

 

[Tom Schindler]

Tripple post...

 

[Tom Schindler]

Triple Post

 

[Tom Schindler]

It is a know fact that there is not enough law enforcement to enforce the laws we already have.



There are bigger issues then smoking in bars. Children are not allowed to enter a bar, so who cares if there is smoking in a bar. We aren't trying to protect children in an establishment they are not permitted to enter. Let those that willingly enter a bar assume the risk of secondhand smoke. If they don't like it, don't go.



The same goes for becoming intoxicated in a bar. Having two drinks in a short period of time is considered intoxicated. Arrest someone for have a double shot Jack Daniels where there are prostitutes, drug dealers, and crack heads roaming the streets is just plain ignorant. I honestly can not see how someone can agree with that line of thinking.





Tom

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Caymen, I wasn't talking about protecting children in bars, but instead just illustrating how it is easy for us to draw lines, and place unjust/petty laws on one side, and more worthy laws on the other, as your last post clearly did.



But what is petty and seemingly unjust to one, may be fair and just to another. They come down to judgement calls, and sometimes those that the laws most affect are unable to see the law rationally.



Tell a mother who lost a teenager to a drunk driver that it would be "petty and unjust" to enforce public drunkeness laws that are on the books even though logic dictates such enforcement would cut down the incidence of drunk driving and I am sure you will get a different viewpoint than if you talked to a social drinker in a bar.



Does that make one viewpoint any better than the other?



BTW, your statement "It is a know fact that there is not enough law enforcement to enforce the laws we already have."; assuming it actually is assumed a fact, I ask: "So what?" Does that mean we should have NO NEW LAWS? Or we should get rid of all the petty laws, and if so, who decides?



TJR

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Caymen also said:

Arrest someone for have a double shot Jack Daniels where there are prostitutes, drug dealers, and crack heads roaming the streets is just plain ignorant. I honestly can not see how someone can agree with that line of thinking.

Forget about the double-JD guy, and instead, let's talk about the fallen-down drunk in a bar. Talking about that guy, or gal, then "YES" I would RATHER the police arrest that guy than the prostitute, drug dealer or crack head roaming the streets. Why, because THAT DRUNK GUY lives in my neighborhood drives on my roads and can have a greater liklihood of affecting MY family, than the prostitute, or drug dealer or crack head, that by and large are only hurting themselves and the people that choose to engage them. I can avoid those people; unless I live in a bad neighborhood and the crackhead steals my TV; but even then, I can choose my neighborhood and choose NOT to be a victim that way.



The drunk driver, well, I can't get out of his way even if I try.



Sure, not all fallen down drunks in a bar will drive. But by enforcing the ONE law (public drunkeness) you can ASSURE the other law never has a chance to be broken. (we have had this conversation before...you don't agree with that rationalization, but the logic is clear and the law is already there and simply needs enforcing).



TJR

 

[Rich Stern]

What does a relationship between consenting adults have to do with pedophilia, which involves exploitation of a minor?

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Rich, nothing, really. It's just part of the "slippery slope" argument that many use.



However, it is part of that "there is a line" mentality that I am talking about. And, that line moves over time. There was a time in this country where openly gay couples where non-existent. Not the case anymore. Same with interracial marriage, etc.



I agree that "consenting adults" is a great litmus for determing what should and shouldn't fall on one side or the other. But, some states have age of consent at 13 years of age, still, don't they? Others 18. Who is right? 13 seems awfully young to me. More lines...arbitrary at best.



TJR

 

[Dallas Starr]

What a waste of time to even begin to argue about this. This is the problem, the media takes some like this and sensationalizes it so much that suddenly everybody thinks its an epademic that is going to hit their front door tomorrow.



Don't get me wrong, anybody that even thinks about making pedophilia legal or any exploitation of children around me would be lucky to make it to the emergency ward but it doesnt mean that im about to start freaking out about it.



Now Im sure that some certain members are now going to pick apart what I have said and so be it.

 

[Dreman]

I have a friend that used to work for the county prison. They would get pedophiles in there from time to time, and they always kept them separate from the rest of the inmate population to protect them, or the other inmates would severely injure or even kill them.



You know it has to be really bad when even the hard-core criminals would willingly do more time or even face the death penalty rather than let a guy live, just because of the crime he committed. Even scumbags consider pedophiles scum.

 

[TomT]

It might as well be legalized here. Thanks to all our stupid liberal lawyers there is no real punishment being dished out anyway. When our country actually becomes more concerned about victims rather then criminals rights, then maybe we wouldn't have to worry about a sex offender living right down the street.

Just look at all the pedophiles living among us.

 

[Tom Schindler]

Forget about the double-JD guy, and instead, let's talk about the fallen-down drunk in a bar. Talking about that guy, or gal, then "YES" I would RATHER the police arrest that guy than the prostitute, drug dealer or crack head roaming the streets. Why, because THAT DRUNK GUY lives in my neighborhood drives on my roads and can have a greater liklihood of affecting MY family, than the prostitute, or drug dealer or crack head, that by and large are only hurting themselves and the people that choose to engage them. I can avoid those people; unless I live in a bad neighborhood and the crackhead steals my TV; but even then, I can choose my neighborhood and choose NOT to be a victim that way.

Unfortunatly, a public inox law does not specify how much of a degree of impairment must be noticed before an arrest is made. Are we going to just assume the officer is going to arrest the guy falling over? Would it be safe to assume that the guy standing next to the juke box is on his 4th beer in a hour, and by all definition of the law, he is drunk in public and must be arrested for being drunk in public because he is breaking the law?



The law is cut and dry when it says Prostitution, selling illegal narcotics, and using illegal drugs is against the law.



I did not say laws should be repealed or no new laws made. Honestly, enforce the laws we already have and most problems will go away. Quit letting guys still drive with 15+ DUI's. Those are ral threats. Not the guy out with his friends betting hammered on his 21st birthday using a Designated Driver. Don't make it illegal to smoke in a bar when every person knowingly enters that bar knowing the majority smokes while there. Don't like the smell of smoke? Open a non-smoking bar. If there is a demand for non-smoking bars, there will be bars that will become non-smoking.





Tom

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Fine, then, Caymen, let's enforce the laws on the books...life sentences for those convicted of DUIs that lead to accidents, and the death penalty for those that drive drunk and kill someone.



Would that be your idea of justice?



As for smoking, etc, in bars, like I said before, that's no different a law than saying I can't as a business owner open a bar that ONLY serves Blacks. Just can't do it if it is a PUBLIC place, and as a public place of business I have to follow the laws of the public, even if I DON'T agree with them (you don't, but you don't get to disagree with them).



TJR