Political Crossfire Forums

spearsy23 · Joined: 24 Oct 2005 Posts: 5597 Location: Fulton, Ks

I don't think Drake actually thinks gays support NAMBLA; but the fact they have never spoken out against them (coupled with the other couple of tidbits) would make it SEEM to the CASUAL OBSERVER that they do

Drake · Joined: 20 Feb 2006 Posts: 402

UrielsFyre wrote:
It takes a person with preconcieved bias to look at a twelve year-old incident, in isolated gay pride parades, to draw the conclusion that it somehow represents the feelings of the modern gay rights movement.

Let me restate this from an earlier post, again. This wasn't an incident. NAMBLA was a member of ILGA for years, and some believe they were ousted from ILGA only because they became a political liability.

And I don't agree one must be biased to draw the conclusion about today's movement. Place yourself on the outside for a moment. Hypothetically, you're a fairly average "mainstream" heterosexual, not politically well informed, but not biased.

What conclusion would you draw from the following information?

1. You understand that NAMBLA has participated in gay pride events in the recent past.
2. You understand that NAMBLA was a member of ILGA well into the 90's after years of membership.
3. You've never heard anyone from the gay community speak out against NAMBLA.

Therefore, you are not sure whether the gay community supports NAMBLA or not. It isn't clear. It appears they might.

Be honest. Is the conclusion I suggest unreasonable?

Drake · Joined: 20 Feb 2006 Posts: 402

The Underground wrote: I don't think Drake actually thinks gays support NAMBLA; but the fact they have never spoken out against them (coupled with the other couple of tidbits) would make it SEEM to the CASUAL OBSERVER that they do

Thank you for the clarification. Unlike some, you've obviously read the thread.

I've tried to say that as clearly and concisely as I know how. I hope they can understand you better than they understand me.

Enoch · Joined: 29 Aug 2005 Posts: 8780

Drake wrote: UrielsFyre wrote:
It takes a person with preconcieved bias to look at a twelve year-old incident, in isolated gay pride parades, to draw the conclusion that it somehow represents the feelings of the modern gay rights movement.

Let me restate this from an earlier post, again. This wasn't an incident. NAMBLA was a member of ILGA for years, and some believe they were ousted from ILGA only because they became a political liability.

And I don't agree one must be biased to draw the conclusion about today's movement. Place yourself on the outside for a moment. Hypothetically, you're a fairly average "mainstream" heterosexual, not politically well informed, but not biased.

What conclusion would you draw from the following information?

1. You understand that NAMBLA has participated in gay pride events in the recent past.
2. You understand that NAMBLA was a member of ILGA well into the 90's after years of membership.
3. You've never heard anyone from the gay community speak out against NAMBLA.

Therefore, you are not sure whether the gay community supports NAMBLA or not. It isn't clear. It appears they might.

Be honest. Is the conclusion I suggest unreasonable?
While not necissarily unreasonable, it is the sign of intellectual immaturity to see lack of vocal condemnation as indicative of support.

Enoch · Joined: 29 Aug 2005 Posts: 8780

The Underground wrote: I don't think Drake actually thinks gays support NAMBLA; but the fact they have never spoken out against them (coupled with the other couple of tidbits) would make it SEEM to the CASUAL OBSERVER that they do

Since the mid-1990s, ILGA's Constitution includes an endorsement of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which explicitly condemns the sexual exploitation of minors (defined as anyone under 18). Such an endorsement is reason enough to see that ILGA is no longer willing to associate with, nor grant membership to, groups such as NAMBLA.

The fact that people are looking to the past to determine the state of mind of people in the present is highly indicative of a lack of intellectual ability or reasoning.

spearsy23 · Joined: 24 Oct 2005 Posts: 5597 Location: Fulton, Ks

UrielsFyre wrote: The Underground wrote: I don't think Drake actually thinks gays support NAMBLA; but the fact they have never spoken out against them (coupled with the other couple of tidbits) would make it SEEM to the CASUAL OBSERVER that they do

Since the mid-1990s, ILGA's Constitution includes an endorsement of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which explicitly condemns the sexual exploitation of minors (defined as anyone under 18). Such an endorsement is reason enough to see that ILGA is no longer willing to associate with, nor grant membership to, groups such as NAMBLA.

The fact that people are looking to the past to determine the state of mind of people in the present is highly indicative of a lack of intellectual ability or reasoning.
Well given this info, it seems they HAVE spoken out however indirectly.

Drake · Joined: 20 Feb 2006 Posts: 402

UrielsFyre wrote: Drake wrote: UrielsFyre wrote:
It takes a person with preconcieved bias to look at a twelve year-old incident, in isolated gay pride parades, to draw the conclusion that it somehow represents the feelings of the modern gay rights movement.

Let me restate this from an earlier post, again. This wasn't an incident. NAMBLA was a member of ILGA for years, and some believe they were ousted from ILGA only because they became a political liability.

And I don't agree one must be biased to draw the conclusion about today's movement. Place yourself on the outside for a moment. Hypothetically, you're a fairly average "mainstream" heterosexual, not politically well informed, but not biased.

What conclusion would you draw from the following information?

1. You understand that NAMBLA has participated in gay pride events in the recent past.
2. You understand that NAMBLA was a member of ILGA well into the 90's after years of membership.
3. You've never heard anyone from the gay community speak out against NAMBLA.

Therefore, you are not sure whether the gay community supports NAMBLA or not. It isn't clear. It appears they might.

Be honest. Is the conclusion I suggest unreasonable?
While not necissarily unreasonable, it is the sign of intellectual immaturity to see lack of vocal condemnation as indicative of support.

I would agree if the lack of vocal condemnation was the only indicator. That's not what we have here.

Drake · Joined: 20 Feb 2006 Posts: 402

UrielsFyre wrote:
Since the mid-1990s, ILGA's Constitution includes an endorsement of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which explicitly condemns the sexual exploitation of minors (defined as anyone under 18). Such an endorsement is reason enough to see that ILGA is no longer willing to associate with, nor grant membership to, groups such as NAMBLA.

Can you explain why NAMBLA was granted membership prior to the mid- 90s? Did ILGA not condemn sexual exploitation of minors way back before 1994?

UrielsFyre wrote:
The fact that people are looking to the past to determine the state of mind of people in the present is highly indicative of a lack of intellectual ability or reasoning.

Not necessarily. Past behavior is thought to be the best predictor of future behavior.

Drake · Joined: 20 Feb 2006 Posts: 402

The Underground wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: The Underground wrote: I don't think Drake actually thinks gays support NAMBLA; but the fact they have never spoken out against them (coupled with the other couple of tidbits) would make it SEEM to the CASUAL OBSERVER that they do

Since the mid-1990s, ILGA's Constitution includes an endorsement of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which explicitly condemns the sexual exploitation of minors (defined as anyone under 18). Such an endorsement is reason enough to see that ILGA is no longer willing to associate with, nor grant membership to, groups such as NAMBLA.

The fact that people are looking to the past to determine the state of mind of people in the present is highly indicative of a lack of intellectual ability or reasoning.
Well given this info, it seems they HAVE spoken out however indirectly.

I don't doubt that they've spoken out. I just question how vehemently. If I go look up the websites of gay rights organization, I'll probably find statements condemning NAMBLA. But if I were part of a group trying to gain mainstream acceptance knowing this impression exists, I would speak out at every opportunity.

Enoch · Joined: 29 Aug 2005 Posts: 8780

Drake wrote: The Underground wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: The Underground wrote: I don't think Drake actually thinks gays support NAMBLA; but the fact they have never spoken out against them (coupled with the other couple of tidbits) would make it SEEM to the CASUAL OBSERVER that they do

Since the mid-1990s, ILGA's Constitution includes an endorsement of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which explicitly condemns the sexual exploitation of minors (defined as anyone under 18). Such an endorsement is reason enough to see that ILGA is no longer willing to associate with, nor grant membership to, groups such as NAMBLA.

The fact that people are looking to the past to determine the state of mind of people in the present is highly indicative of a lack of intellectual ability or reasoning.
Well given this info, it seems they HAVE spoken out however indirectly.

I don't doubt that they've spoken out. I just question how vehemently. If I go look up the websites of gay rights organization, I'll probably find statements condemning NAMBLA. But if I were part of a group trying to gain mainstream acceptance knowing this impression exists, I would speak out at every opportunity. Nice way to keep shifting gears.

First, you say NAMBLA participates in gay pride parades. Then you say "oh, no, they USED to participate"

Next, you say gay rights groups aren't speaking out. Now, you say they ARE speaking out, just not enough.

Could you please keep your claims straight?

Drake · Joined: 20 Feb 2006 Posts: 402

UrielsFyre wrote: Nice way to keep shifting gears.

Could you please keep your claims straight?

UF, you really need to improve your reading comprehension. I don't want to be rude, but I just don't have the patience to keep repeating things for you. Please, READ THE THREAD AND PAY CLOSER ATTENTION.

UrielsFyre wrote:
First, you say NAMBLA participates in gay pride parades. Then you say "oh, no, they USED to participate"

I did not assert this. I posed the question: 'Aren't they seen participating in gay pride parades?'
I later provided a link showing NAMBLA's participation in a parade in 1999. I admitted that it was dated and that I wasn't sure if they continue to participate today.

UrielsFyre wrote:
Next, you say gay rights groups aren't speaking out. Now, you say they ARE speaking out, just not enough.

You stated in your first post that the gay community does speak out. In response, I clarified to say that I've never seen it and that therefore they should be more vocal.
My claims are straight. This isn't shifting gears, this is the position I've held from very early in the thread.

But, speaking of shifting gears, you seem to have ignored this question:
Drake wrote:
Can you explain why NAMBLA was granted membership prior to the mid- 90s? Did ILGA not condemn sexual exploitation of minors way back before 1994?

Care to offer an answer?

ToonArmyIsComing · Joined: 15 Feb 2005 Posts: 5888 Location: Ontario

Drake wrote: The Underground wrote: I don't think Drake actually thinks gays support NAMBLA; but the fact they have never spoken out against them (coupled with the other couple of tidbits) would make it SEEM to the CASUAL OBSERVER that they do

Thank you for the clarification. Unlike some, you've obviously read the thread.

I've tried to say that as clearly and concisely as I know how. I hope they can understand you better than they understand me.

Will you be happy if I, as someone who is not a heterosexual, denounce any type of child exploitation? :-|

Or are you waiting for a statement from some other person/group?

Enoch · Joined: 29 Aug 2005 Posts: 8780

Drake wrote: I don't want to be rude.
If you don't want to be, don't be. It is really that simple.

Drake wrote: Can you explain why NAMBLA was granted membership prior to the mid- 90s? Did ILGA not condemn sexual exploitation of minors way back before 1994?

Care to offer an answer? I can't offer an answer. Beings that I am not a member of ILGA, I can not comment on their reasoning.

Drake · Joined: 20 Feb 2006 Posts: 402

ToonArmyIsComing wrote:

Will you be happy if I, as someone who is not a heterosexual, denounce any type of child exploitation? :-|

Or are you waiting for a statement from some other person/group?

Once again, you seem to be missing the point.

What makes you think I'm waiting for a statement from anyone? Frankly, I could care less whether they speak out against NAMBLA or not. My point has been that I believe they should because it would help their current cause.

Drake · Joined: 20 Feb 2006 Posts: 402

UrielsFyre wrote: Drake wrote: I don't want to be rude.
If you don't want to be, don't be. It is really that simple.

Really? O.K. well, if you don't want to be gay, don't be.

Still believe it's really that simple?

UrielsFyre wrote: Drake wrote: Can you explain why NAMBLA was granted membership prior to the mid- 90s? Did ILGA not condemn sexual exploitation of minors way back before 1994?

I can't offer an answer. Beings that I am not a member of ILGA, I can not comment on their reasoning.

I'm not asking you to speak for ILGA. Maybe you could speculate?

ToonArmyIsComing · Joined: 15 Feb 2005 Posts: 5888 Location: Ontario

Drake wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: Drake wrote: Can you explain why NAMBLA was granted membership prior to the mid- 90s? Did ILGA not condemn sexual exploitation of minors way back before 1994?

I can't offer an answer. Beings that I am not a member of ILGA, I can not comment on their reasoning.

I'm not asking you to speak for ILGA. Maybe you could speculate?

Are you trying to somehow say the gays are trying to normalize child exploitation secretly? :shock:

Surely, you realize that's just absurd.

Enoch · Joined: 29 Aug 2005 Posts: 8780

Drake wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: Drake wrote: I don't want to be rude.
If you don't want to be, don't be. It is really that simple.

Really? O.K. well, if you don't want to be gay, don't be.

Still believe it's really that simple?
Let's see...changing one's sexuality and treating others with respect. Yeah, those are comparable. :roll:

Drake wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: Drake wrote: Can you explain why NAMBLA was granted membership prior to the mid- 90s? Did ILGA not condemn sexual exploitation of minors way back before 1994?

I can't offer an answer. Beings that I am not a member of ILGA, I can not comment on their reasoning.

I'm not asking you to speak for ILGA. Maybe you could speculate?
Speculation get people no where. I honestly have no idea why they were admitted to ILGA originally.

Æ · Joined: 17 Jun 2005 Posts: 5105

Drake wrote: ToonArmyIsComing wrote:

Will you be happy if I, as someone who is not a heterosexual, denounce any type of child exploitation? :-|

Or are you waiting for a statement from some other person/group?

Once again, you seem to be missing the point.

What makes you think I'm waiting for a statement from anyone? Frankly, I could care less whether they speak out against NAMBLA or not. My point has been that I believe they should because it would help their current cause.
What makes you think that gays coming out against NAMBLA will further their cause anymore than 5% of the most intelligent people telling the other 95% why they are smarter? The majority is always going to force themselves on the minority because there is no way for the minority to stop it.

Drake · Joined: 20 Feb 2006 Posts: 402

ToonArmyIsComing wrote: Drake wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: Drake wrote: Can you explain why NAMBLA was granted membership prior to the mid- 90s? Did ILGA not condemn sexual exploitation of minors way back before 1994?

I can't offer an answer. Beings that I am not a member of ILGA, I can not comment on their reasoning.

I'm not asking you to speak for ILGA. Maybe you could speculate?

Are you trying to somehow say the gays are trying to normalize child exploitation secretly? :shock:

Surely, you realize that's just absurd.

No, I'm not saying that. But I'm also not willing to say that it's an absurd notion. Maybe you can offer a reasonable explanation why ILGA would grant membership to NAMBLA until 94. This might help support your assertion that it's absurd.

And let's be very clear up front. Do you believe that supporting the lowering of the age of consent is an attempt to normalize child exploitation?

ToonArmyIsComing · Joined: 15 Feb 2005 Posts: 5888 Location: Ontario

Drake wrote: ToonArmyIsComing wrote: Drake wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: Drake wrote: Can you explain why NAMBLA was granted membership prior to the mid- 90s? Did ILGA not condemn sexual exploitation of minors way back before 1994?

I can't offer an answer. Beings that I am not a member of ILGA, I can not comment on their reasoning.

I'm not asking you to speak for ILGA. Maybe you could speculate?

Are you trying to somehow say the gays are trying to normalize child exploitation secretly? :shock:

Surely, you realize that's just absurd.

No, I'm not saying that. But I'm also not willing to say that it's an absurd notion. Maybe you can offer a reasonable explanation why ILGA would grant membership to NAMBLA until 94. This might help support your assertion that it's absurd.

I simply do not know. However, ILGA supporting something does not mean other homosexual people necessarily support it. I am not a member of ILGA and I do not know how their membership system works, so that's a question you have to pose to that organization NOT the entire gay community.

Drake wrote: And let's be very clear up front. Do you believe that supporting the lowering of the age of consent is an attempt to normalize child exploitation?

In Canada, the age of consent for heterosexual sex is currently 14. I personally think that is too young and wouldn't mind if it was 15 or 16. Though for homosexuals, for some reason, the age of consent is 18 in Canada as far as I am aware. I don't know why one is 14 and the other is 18 ... :-|

Now, as for lowering the age of consent, it really depends. In my opinion, the lowest it could go is 15. Anything under that is not acceptable. I personally support anything between 16-18.