Do You Support NAMBLA In Principle?

[Plasma Snake[D]]

The core issue is that grown ass men want to be able to love small children. I say I dont support them on any level, principle or not.

[Blef]

Well, after having been educated in another thread earlier today that nothing can be said to be absolutely wrong outside of the intersubjective frame of reference of a particular culture, I can certainly say that NAMBLAs goals and advocacy cannot be said to be innately wrong. Neither can man-boy or other intergenerational sexual activity, for that matter. Or sex between humans and animals. Or sex with dead people, or even with dead animals.

Besides that, I support the right of all people and groups to hold and express whatever views they choose.

[Epistemologist]

Well, after having been educated in another thread earlier today that nothing can be said to be absolutely wrong outside of the intersubjective frame of reference of a particular culture, I can certainly say that NAMBLAs goals and advocacy cannot be said to be innately wrong. Neither can man-boy or other intergenerational sexual activity, for that matter. Or sex between humans and animals. Or sex with dead people, or even with dead animals.

Besides that, I support the right of all people and groups to hold and express whatever views they choose.

Hey don't get confused here. Just because no objective observer will ever know what's "innately" wrong, so what? Each one of us has an intersubjective frame of reference in which we establish absolute rights/wrongs. And most cultures reject man-boy sex as morally wrong. The culture that these NAMBLA are opposed to reject pedophilic actions.

We have to recognize that with the first writing censored, we move away from a society free to express divergent views. If we hope to express our widely varying opinions in a forum such as this without fear of being arrested, we must protect EVERYONE'S right to express their views no matter how repugnant they may be to others of us - just so long as we treat each other with respect and don't advocate any illegal activities.

Sometimes, however, groups advocating destructive behavior ought to be censored.

[The Bacon Guy]

And your point was that extreme free speech is good regardless of consequences?

No Epistemologist, it was not.

My analogy is quite irrelevant.

Couldn't agree more.

Think of the Titanic as extreme free speech. Think of the stupid passenger who remains on it as you. Clear?

Clear but no more relevant.

No, we come specifically to the stifling of destructive agendas which do not coincide with that of any reasonable people according to the standards of a reasonable society.

And it is society that decides which agendas are destructive based on what does not coincide with its values. If anything deviating significantly from the norm is outlawed, society can never change. If alternative agendas are not allowed to be presented, society is denied the ability to choose what is best for it. Ignorance is never the best position to take.

No, life and free for NAMBLA need not be mutually exclusive. But maximization of life requires NAMBLA to be stifled because frankly, their goal is much easier to be attainable if they are allowed free speech.

Much easier? Their goal is and, if society continues to view their agenda as extreme, always will be unattainable. There is no reason to deny them their rights.

To even allow them a spot on their country's stage i.e. even legitimizing their right to seek a "right" gives the impression that their has an inkling of reasonablity.

What’s wrong with that, provided their agenda is not achieved?

What? You think that not allowing NAMBLA to speak minimizes life? Are the NAMBLA members going to sulk back to their caves, crinkle up into fetal positions, and dissolve into thin air? No.

I didn't make any claim that denying them free speech would minimize life. I don't need to struggle to link two unrelated concepts in order to support my argument.

To keep allowing them possibilities to voice their pseudo-cause just allows them the possibility to keep their twisted urges, and these urges often lead to actions to satisfy them.

The ignorance of that beggars belief. You honestly think sexual orientations can be changed, and that these orientations can be changed by simply ignoring them? So your solution is to sweep the issue under the rug and hope it will go away?

Just close all possibilities for them to legally satisfy their urges, and then their country will be one step closer to minimizing pedophilic actions.

There is currently no possibility that their urges will be legally satisfied. In the future, maybe there will be, but this will only happen in a social climate which accepts paedophilia. Therefore, by your own logic, paedophilic actions should be legalised and we have no problem.

Well, if some pasty British guy writes that it's an unalienable right on some piece of paper two hundred years ago, then yes, it must be an unalienable right!

Yes, that is exactly correct. America is not a democracy; it is a constitutionally limited democracy. Whether you like it or not, the constitution protects minorities from your tyranny.

When free speech is in conflict with a more critical value criterion, then it becomes extreme and is trumped by the other conflicting standard. Or at least that's what should happen in a reasonable place. Otherwise, it's chaos.

Free speech is a constitutional, inalienable right. Perceived “maximization of life” is not. Why exactly does your value trump free speech?

Nope, just outlawing NAMBLA doesn't mean that people will go out an outlaw all opposing groups. Just as an anarchic group poses an inherent threat to the society, NAMBLA poses such a threat, and thus it ought to be shut down at all levels.

You avoided the question. Given that, by your own admission, NAMBLA’s views are extreme and in conflict with core values of society, do you honestly believe that there is a significant chance that they will achieve their goal.

Oh, so it's only harm if it breaks a law? What a shallow way of looking at rights and wrongs. If a society has a law that requires people to murder each other, would breaking this law be harmful? No, not in my opinion. In the same fashion, NAMBLA and its members aim to harm children and thus society; even if they get laws passed and are legally having man-boy sex, it's still harm.

Pardon me for asking, but what the hell are you talking about? I never made any of the claims that you just refuted. Did I claim that child-adult sex is not harmful? No. Did I claim that something must be illegal to be harmful? No. I asked you to prove that NAMBLA’s existence is “incubative” for child molestation, which you have not done. Avoiding the issue won’t make it go away.

I know. That question was a summary of your position. It's so bad that even you say it's nonsensical.

No, I mean it really made no sense, even as a strawman-esque representation of my view. Why would protecting NAMBLA’s right to free speech lead to all minorities being denied this right?

My definition includes a mindless application of extreme free speech, which would result in chaos. And then I explain that yes, you've never heard of that definition because no democratic country mindless applies extreme free speech.

Ok, so it is not a conventional definition of democracy and neither is it the correct definition of democracy. So you posted it because…?

I thought you had posted previously in support of NAMBLA. Maybe it was different member. But I saw your posts that seemed to defend pedophilia by differentiating the urge from the actual action satisfying it.

Your point? Are you poisoning the well or just making conversation?

Do you mean "enemy" as in one who supports extreme free speech and thus political chaos?

Obviously not.

I know what you mean. No, they're not just enemies of "the United States," they're enemies of humanity.

One who aims to abolish the inalienable right to free speech is an enemy of the US. Free speech is a constitutional right upon which US life is based.

[Gods_Mercenary]

True, NAMBLA can say whatever they want, but they should be subject to the utmost scrutiny to protect children.

[The Bacon Guy]

True, NAMBLA can say whatever they want, but they should be subject to the utmost scrutiny to protect children.

I think that's a mature and proportional response to the issue of NAMBLA. If there are grounds to suspect that the members are a potential danger to society, as I believe there are for obvious reasons, they should be monitored closely. However, until they actually cause any direct harm, they should be afforded the same rights as any other US citizen.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Words shouldn't be prosecuted, only actions.

[Blef]

Hey don't get confused here. Just because no objective observer will ever know what's "innately" wrong, so what? Each one of us has an intersubjective frame of reference in which we establish absolute rights/wrongs. And most cultures reject man-boy sex as morally wrong. The culture that these NAMBLA are opposed to reject pedophilic actions.

Sometimes, however, groups advocating destructive behavior ought to be censored.

I'm not confused. I understand you perfectly. Let's see, you said:

An innate wrong is something that is absolutely wrong regardless of the culture or intersubjective frame of reference. I can't give examples because there is no such thing.

Ultimately, I conclude that there is no innate/absolute wrong, although some cultures may share the same wrongs; there are, however, absolute wrongs within the cultures themselves, although in the broader frame of reference those wrongs are simply subjective.

So, you seek to justify regulating and controlling other people's speech and behavior based on a subjective moral code that you believe is largely shared by contemporary society. Yet you know that society is beginning to reject reasoning that was once sufficient to achieve such an end based solely on religion or belief in absolute moral laws handed down from a god. Or perhaps in your case, God. Of course, you know you'll never get everyone on board with you if you speak that language. There are too many rational thinkers, and your brand of authoritarianism doesn't work any more. Well, not unless you're holding a gun to someone's head. Best to devise another stratagem.

So you invent this confusion over the application of the word "absolute" so you can apply it within an imaginary limited context of a particular culture's "intersubjective frame of reference", and thereby avoid having to deal with the inconvenient reality of having to prove your beliefs in the context an infinite natural universe.

And just to make sure this meme you've contrived catches on and begins to pollute the minds of the more liberal rational thinkers here, you even try to argue that atheism, and in fact most belief, is religious in nature.

Religious belief is fundamental in nature and explicitly addresses the more significant objective Truth. No, not all belief is religious belief. But usually, when we say that we believe something, it's often a religious belief because other times it's an opinion stemming from that inherent belief.

Nice trick, if it catches on, because then you are free to truly ignore all semblance of reason and rational thought. As a last resort, you can always claim that all belief is religious belief, and at least yours is in the majority, absolute within your culture.

You revealed your invidious plot by referring to "objective Truth" in that last quote before going on to obfuscate reason with your baloney about innate wrongs in a subsequent thread.

And before you object to me introducing quotes of yours from other threads as you did when I quoted you elsewhere, let me just say that you cannot deny that you are the same speaker, even within the "intersubjective frame of reference" of a single thread.

You are a master of obfuscation, though, I'll give you that. Even so, you remain transparent to anyone capable of seeing beyond your "intersubjective frame of reference".

The Denis Diderot quote in my signature is specifically aimed at you and those of your ilk.

[another day]

I am against NAMBLA because it cloaks something very simple in the guise of democratic freedom. NAMBLA members have a very clear agenda - to fulfill their pedophiliac sexual desires. They put out all this stuff about freedom and human rights but in the end they want one thing - to have sex with young boys. You don't see any young boys championing this sort of thing. Why? because they don't want to have sex with older men. Its a one way street. There is no reason why relations between a dominate, mature adult should be allowed with a naive, immature child. Children are too malleable and open to suggestion.

[Epistemologist]

So, you seek to justify regulating and controlling other people's speech and behavior based on a subjective moral code that you believe is largely shared by contemporary society. Yet you know that society is beginning to reject reasoning that was once sufficient to achieve such an end based solely on religion or belief in absolute moral laws handed down from a god. Or perhaps in your case, God.

My gosh is your position that dimwitted? Absolute moral laws aren't necessarily handed down from God/Gods. Absolute moral laws exist within cultures, and some cultures, over time, might determine that those laws come from their God/Gods. You clearly do not understand the concept of intersubjectivity. I explained it to you in the other thread! And you're claiming that I have some ulterior motives because you don't understand it; blame yourself before you blame me.

Of course, you know you'll never get everyone on board with you if you speak that language. There are too many rational thinkers, and your brand of authoritarianism doesn't work any more. Well, not unless you're holding a gun to someone's head. Best to devise another stratagem.

You clearly don't understand intersubjectivity.

So you invent this confusion over the application of the word "absolute" so you can apply it within an imaginary limited context of a particular culture's "intersubjective frame of reference", and thereby avoid having to deal with the inconvenient reality of having to prove your beliefs in the context an infinite natural universe.

This is so irritating. You can not absolutely "prove you beliefs in the context of an infinite natural universe." Yes, there may be absolutes, but we simply can not know them. Maybe you don't understand it when I say "frame of reference" in my explanation? Okay, I'll make it simpler.

In the broadest context i.e. among all cultures (i.e. they don't share absolute beliefs), all beliefs are subjective. But within a single culture, where an absolute does exist, it's not subjective. It's an intersubjective belief. "Intersubjective" basically means between subjects i.e. people of the same ontology.

My gosh Blef, I even gave you an example of Hitler, and you still don't understand.

Within the objective frame of reference (i.e. context), we can't know of any innate wrongs. However, each culture approximates what's innately wrong and within each intersubjective frame of reference, absolute wrongs do exist. That's so simple. Why are you getting suspicious? Maybe one or none of those cultures are right, but who knows in the unbiased perspective? No one.

But each culture is convinced that its own ethical system is correct, and it often comes down to "might makes right" or some other method of resolution.

And without clear ethical systems within our cultures, our aesthetic condition is quite lower than is possible.

And just to make sure this meme you've contrived catches on and begins to pollute the minds of the more liberal rational thinkers here, you even try to argue that atheism, and in fact most belief, is religious in nature.

Please, for all those readers who don't want to be polluted, read my quotes in their context in the actual thread they were posted on.

Nice trick, if it catches on, because then you are free to truly ignore all semblance of reason and rational thought. As a last resort, you can always claim that all belief is religious belief, and at least yours is in the majority, absolute within your culture.

I've never claimed all belief is religious belief. I even say that it isn't in the atheistic religion thread. Don't speak for me Blef. You're being abusive here.

You revealed your invidious plot by referring to "objective Truth" in that last quote before going on to obfuscate reason with your baloney about innate wrongs in a subsequent thread.

Do you mean "insidious" in your statement? No, I'm not insidious at all. Please don't post any more of these unwarranted insults.

And before you object to me introducing quotes of yours from other threads as you did when I quoted you elsewhere, let me just say that you cannot deny that you are the same speaker, even within the "intersubjective frame of reference" of a single thread.

I am the same speaker. And I always take caution to explain which perspective I'm talking in when I make my posts. Think about it. If we were all speaking within our biased perspectives i.e. within our respective intersubjective frame of reference, then we'd get nowhere in our discussions, because no side can prove the other side wrong.

Often, it helps to speak from our more unbiased perspectives i.e. as much without our respective intersubjective frame of reference as possible, since we're not as biased as before and we can thereby analyze the issue in a more optimal manner.

You are a master of obfuscation, though, I'll give you that. Even so, you remain transparent to anyone capable of seeing beyond your "intersubjective frame of reference".

Please stop attacking me.

The Denis Diderot quote in my signature is specifically aimed at you and those of your ilk.

Come on, be reasonable. Am I some sort of different species. It's clear that you're speaking from your more biased perspective throughout your post. Calm down. :(

I've done nothing dishonest, and frankly, if you don't want to take the time to just understand what I'm saying, then there's a problem. :(

[Epistemologist]

I am against NAMBLA because it cloaks something very simple in the guise of democratic freedom. NAMBLA members have a very clear agenda - to fulfill their pedophiliac sexual desires. They put out all this stuff about freedom and human rights but in the end they want one thing - to have sex with young boys. You don't see any young boys championing this sort of thing. Why? because they don't want to have sex with older men. Its a one way street. There is no reason why relations between a dominate, mature adult should be allowed with a naive, immature child. Children are too malleable and open to suggestion.

I agree. NAMBLA supports a clearly destructive agenda within their society.

[Blef]

I understand what an intersubjective frame of reference is. I also understand what absolute means, and I'm skeptical of the notion that you do not. I'm sure you really know that there is nothing absolute within a culture unless it is absolute in fact. To be absolute, a thing cannot depend on anything else, such as the beliefs or customs of a culture. There's no such thing as "absolute within a culture".

Thus, when you misuse the word absolute to refer to beliefs or custom within a particular intersubjective frame of reference (that of the culture you speak of), and use that as a basis for evaluating behavior, rights, or law in society (as you are doing in this thread), you are actually abusing the concept of absolute to lend the appearance of credibility to a philosophy of moral relativism and utilitarianism.

And that is dishonest.