Starlight's "No NAMBLA Connection" Thread

[Starlight]

No, that's not what I'm saying.

For the sarcastically impaired the following is said in jest

No, you just happen to talk about pedophilia on a regular basis in association with gay rights whenever gay rights comes up as a topic. You obviously don't mean anything by it. You're not trying to imply anything. You're just musing aloud, right?

...oh, wait, no, you actually are really clear about what you're trying to imply. You literally insist that there's really a "gay agenda" and that they actually do want to promote pedophilia. And you claim to know this because say you're read several books written by pedophiles. (Why you were reading and believing books written by pedophiles, or what wisdom you felt you could learn from them, I'm not quite sure...?!) And you've apparently decided that because those individual pedophiles wanted to promote pedophilia, that therefore some significant or large number of other people also wanted to do the same, and you feel it's a great idea to try to try to tar the entire gay rights movement with that brush.

[Adrift]

If you want to know what I mean, it's best to actually ask me instead of assuming you know.

That NAMBLA was associated with the nascent gay rights movement is documented fact. There's no getting around that. The movement disassociated itself from NAMBLA because they ultimately realized it dirtied their image, and effected their goals in normalizing homosexuality in the minds of the general public.

I do not believe that the gay rights movement is now secretly supporting pedophilia, and is biding it's time until it can display public support. That's something you read into my reply to CP. What I believe is that a new movement will eventually manifest for pedophile acceptance as a normative sexual orientation. I have no doubt that this new movement will see at least some support from those in the current gay rights movement (and likely denunciation from others within the gay rights movement), but the gay rights movement will have acted as a trailblazer for this new movement.

Why you think I would hide what I'm really trying to imply is a mystery to me. Do I strike you as someone who is afraid to voice his opinion on this subject? Also, I have no idea where you're getting the idea that I read books written by pedophiles so that I could learn from them. I read books by Beat authors because I'm a fan of that literary period, and am fascinated by countercultures in general. Kerouac in particular is one of my favorite authors, and got me motivated to travel, listen to jazz, drink wine, and study eastern religions. Ginsberg just had some nice poetry.

[Cow Poke]

Yes. In case it wasn't abundantly obvious, I support gay rights and advocate for them. And I find the generalized and totally unsubstantiated suggestion that gay rights advocates in the present day have a widespread agenda to support pedophilia to be extremely personally offensive.

Ah, so now you're changing it to "the present day".

When Adrift says:

But there's just too much stigma around it right now for the gay rights movement as a whole to take the heat of supporting something like NAMBLA directly, especially as it's currently so successful in it's endeavors. I give it another 15-20 years before we see a popular push in the mainstream media.

He's saying that "the gay rights movement as a whole" would secretly like to support pedophilia, but feels it should continue hiding that fact for the time being. That's just absurd slander, and I find it very personally offensive.

No, that's not what he said. And you're certainly entitled to find anything personally offensive - that seems to be "the thing" these days. In fact, why don't you just go ahead and move to "outraged".

[Cow Poke]

...oh, wait, no, you actually are really clear about what you're trying to imply.

Adrift is not given to "trying to imply" - he's pretty straight forward, sometimes painfully so.

On the other hand, you seem quite given to inferring, and often wrongly so.


ETA: left out "not"

[Starlight]

That NAMBLA was associated with the nascent gay rights movement is documented fact. There's no getting around that.

I consider that statement false, in the sense that while there is a grain of truth to that, your generalized phrasing will lead the average reader on the whole toward beliefs that are more false than true. You're just deliberately misleading people about the entire subject.

A less deceptive way of saying it would be something like "some of the gay rights activists in the 1950s were also associated with NAMBLA", a crucial word in that sentence is "some" where you are making clear the limited nature of the association and not implying a near-universal collaboration with the "gay rights movement" in general. But, of course, you naturally don't want to do that because it would defeat your ultimate purpose of trying to tar the entire gay rights movement with this brush.

The movement disassociated itself from NAMBLA because they ultimately realized it dirtied their image,

This is false in an even more basic way. The predominant reason that NAMBLA was rejected by early gay rights activists was because they didn't support pedophilia and didn't like what NAMBLA stood for. Your statement falsely implies that the majority of activists at that time supported pedophilia, but felt it was a bad idea to say so publicly.

I do not believe that the gay rights movement is now secretly supporting pedophilia, and is biding it's time until it can display public support.

Okay. Then I can agree with you on that one thing.

What I believe is that a new movement will eventually manifest for pedophile acceptance as a normative sexual orientation.

You are welcome to make whatever speculations you like about the future. However, that's not merely what you were saying - you were very clearly trying to draw a line from the past existence of NAMBLA through the present gay rights movement, and thus extrapolate into the future. Your predictions about the future were very clearly predicated on extrapolating from both the past and present, and your implications about the extent of pro-pedophilia sentiment within the gay rights movement in both the past and present.

I have no doubt that this new movement will see at least some support from those in the current gay rights movement (and likely denunciation from others within the gay rights movement), but the gay rights movement will have acted as a trailblazer for this new movement.

IMO, the most successful argument that the gay rights movement has used is the point that no harm is actually done by allowing gay people to have rights, while it clearly harms them if their rights are restricted. This has almost always been the single winning argument in the dozens of same-sex marriage court cases. There seems to be a significant modern consensus that laws, and morality, should be based on maximizing well-being and minimizing harm in a way that is equitable.

Pedophilia clearly harms children, and as a result modern society has tended towards waging a small legal war against pedophilia and child pornography. In the last couple of decades, we have seen a repeated upping the penalties for those things and making databases to track offenders etc. Pedophilia is now one of the most widely hated of all crimes. The same modern morality and logic that brought us same-sex marriage, hates on pedophiles with a vengeance, for the exact same reason - its desire to maximize well-being and minimize harm in an equitable way.

So it seems to me a really strange prediction on your part that gay rights in the present might eventually spawn a movement for pedophilia in the future, because the predominant reason for the victory of gay rights is diametrically opposed to pedophilia, and we have seen this in terms of how zealously modern society has cracked down on pedophilia while endorsing gay rights. I can understand why someone who takes a 10,000 foot kind of overall view might say in a hand-waving way "well, they've discarded biblical morality, so now anything goes, right?" or "well permitting one thing is going to lead to permitting the next thing, right?". But that would be a very uninformed sort of prediction to be making, and anyone who's actually followed the on-the-ground logic and read through the legal arguments would know that that's not what's going on here at all.

I would point out that in a previous post you predicted that we will see polygamy approved before we see pedophilia approved. If you check out the current approval ratings for polygamy and extrapolate the changes, then polygamy might have majority approval in 50 years time if the current high rate of change of people's opinions on that issue continues over the next multiple decades. So I might live to see polygamy become legal in the US. I strongly doubt that pedophilia will ever be legal.

[Cow Poke]

A less deceptive way of saying it would be something like "some of the gay rights activists in the 1950s were also associated with NAMBLA",

An even LESS deceptive way of saying it would be something more like "the 'Father of the Modern Day Gay Rights Movement was associated with NAMBLA, and even memorialized on NAMBLA's website".



As I said earlier...

Here, the GayPatriot talks of Hays' association with NAMBLA as a known fact, arguing whether Kevin Jennings was aware of it or not when he publicly praised Hays.

Zomblog presents a very convincing case that Jennings may indeed have known about Hays’ support for NAMBLA when he publically praised the man years ago. Until now I’ve seen most of the criticism directed at Jennings as being sketchy and partisan in nature. While this too may be influenced somewhat by politics, there is persuasive evidence to back up the accusation. I would encourage everyone to read this post for yourselves.

nambla.JPG

[Adrift]

I consider that statement false, in the sense that while there is a grain of truth to that, your generalized phrasing will lead the average reader on the whole toward beliefs that are more false than true. You're just deliberately misleading people about the entire subject.

A less deceptive way of saying it would be something like "some of the gay rights activists in the 1950s were also associated with NAMBLA", a crucial word in that sentence is "some" where you are making clear the limited nature of the association and not implying a near-universal collaboration with the "gay rights movement" in general. But, of course, you naturally don't want to do that because it would defeat your ultimate purpose of trying to tar the entire gay rights movement with this brush.

This is false in an even more basic way. The predominant reason that NAMBLA was rejected by early gay rights activists was because they didn't support pedophilia and didn't like what NAMBLA stood for. Your statement falsely implies that the majority of activists at that time supported pedophilia, but felt it was a bad idea to say so publicly.

Nothing I wrote was false or misleading.

You are welcome to make whatever speculations you like about the future. However, that's not merely what you were saying - you were very clearly trying to draw a line from the past existence of NAMBLA through the present gay rights movement, and thus extrapolate into the future. Your predictions about the future were very clearly predicated on extrapolating from both the past and present, and your implications about the extent of pro-pedophilia sentiment within the gay rights movement in both the past and present.

I know what I was implying, and I've stated what I was implying in the post you are replying to.

IMO, the most successful argument that the gay rights movement has used is the point that no harm is actually done by allowing gay people to have rights, while it clearly harms them if their rights are restricted. This has almost always been the single winning argument in the dozens of same-sex marriage court cases. There seems to be a significant modern consensus that laws, and morality, should be based on maximizing well-being and minimizing harm in a way that is equitable.

Pedophilia clearly harms children, and as a result modern society has tended towards waging a small legal war against pedophilia and child pornography. In the last couple of decades, we have seen a repeated upping the penalties for those things and making databases to track offenders etc. Pedophilia is now one of the most widely hated of all crimes. The same modern morality and logic that brought us same-sex marriage, hates on pedophiles with a vengeance, for the exact same reason - its desire to maximize well-being and minimize harm in an equitable way.

So it seems to me a really strange prediction on your part that gay rights in the present might eventually spawn a movement for pedophilia in the future, because the predominant reason for the victory of gay rights is diametrically opposed to pedophilia, and we have seen this in terms of how zealously modern society has cracked down on pedophilia while endorsing gay rights. I can understand why someone who takes a 10,000 foot kind of overall view might say in a hand-waving way "well, they've discarded biblical morality, so now anything goes, right?" or "well permitting one thing is going to lead to permitting the next thing, right?". But that would be a very uninformed sort of prediction to be making, and anyone who's actually followed the on-the-ground logic and read through the legal arguments would know that that's not what's going on here at all.

Harm is done by normalizing homosexuality. At the very least it's spiritually harmful. But anyhow, pedophilia proponents also assert that their movement is not harmful. In fact, they assert that it's helpful. They believe that by normalizing pedophilia it removes the stigma and persecution that exists that causes them to hide their behavior, and commit self-harm. They also seem to believe that legalizing child porn will dampen their desire to molest children since they now have another outlet for their sexual passions. They seem divided over whether or not sexual relations between adults and children should be allowed to develop, but those that do advocate for it seem to believe that children ought to initiate the relationship, and that if they do, then they must be mature enough to handle that relationship.

My prediction that this movement will eventually take place is not based on any sort of paranoia, you can read everything I've just repeated here on websites that tend to attract far left leaning young people like Tumblr and Reddit (even on some of the major subreddits), and support for pedophiles seems to be growing in those places.

I would point out that in a previous post you predicted that we will see polygamy approved before we see pedophilia approved. If you check out the current approval ratings for polygamy and extrapolate the changes, then polygamy might have majority approval in 50 years time if the current high rate of change of people's opinions on that issue continues over the next multiple decades. So I might live to see polygamy become legal in the US. I strongly doubt that pedophilia will ever be legal.

I did not. I said that polyamory, not polygamy, will likely see approval before pedophilia, and in this I was in agreement with Boxing Pythagoras.

[Paprika]

Yes. In case it wasn't abundantly obvious, I support gay rights and advocate for them. And I find the generalized and totally unsubstantiated suggestion that gay rights advocates in the present day have a widespread agenda to support pedophilia to be extremely personally offensive.

As regards to abortion you claimed that

On the whole though I don't overly concern myself about the issue, because I'm not a woman so it will never be a personal issue for me, and my own opinions ultimately have no effect on political policy.

So the conclusion that 'gay rights is a personal issue for Starlight' appears indicated. Care to confirm?

[Starlight]

So the conclusion that 'gay rights is a personal issue for Starlight' appears indicated. Care to confirm?

Yes. As I have mentioned before, I know several gay people, and one of my best friends helps run a church that has services for gay people. I have met and talked to numerous gay people about the issues they face from discrimination and prejudice. By contrast, I do not know anyone who has ever had an abortion (to my knowledge). So the former is a personal issue for me in a way the latter is not. Plus abortion is already legal, so there's not really that much to fight for on that front. Although the fight for gay rights is pretty much settled now too. :)

[Paprika]

Yes. As I have mentioned before, I know several gay people, and one of my best friends helps run a church that has services for gay people.

I think I missed that.

Plus abortion is already legal, so there's not really that much to fight for on that front.

But isn't gay marriage already legalised in the NZ?

One does wonder: if you claim that "I'm not a woman so [abortion] will never be a personal issue for me" and at the same time consider gay rights a personal issue, are you a homosexual?

[Cow Poke]

Nothing I wrote was false or misleading.

Starlight has no fact or reason, so he relies on emotion and false accusations.

[Juvenal]

If you want to know what I mean, it's best to actually ask me instead of assuming you know.

That NAMBLA was associated with the nascent gay rights movement is documented fact. There's no getting around that. The movement disassociated itself from NAMBLA because they ultimately realized it dirtied their image, and effected their goals in normalizing homosexuality in the minds of the general public.

Took me years to reliably remember the difference between those two: Affect is the cause, effect is the result. Here you're saying NAMBLA was causing their image to be dirtied, so the word is "affected."

</Jerk™>

I do not believe that the gay rights movement is now secretly supporting pedophilia, and is biding it's time until it can display public support. That's something you read into my reply to CP. What I believe is that a new movement will eventually manifest for pedophile acceptance as a normative sexual orientation. I have no doubt that this new movement will see at least some support from those in the current gay rights movement (and likely denunciation from others within the gay rights movement), but the gay rights movement will have acted as a trailblazer for this new movement.

Quite true, I'd imagine, but since that's an argument that could easily be extended to the civil rights movement or even the suffragettes, I don't think it's particularly well considered.

Take me, for example. I'm not a woman, or black, or gay, or a Muslim. But seeing them treated fairly is a wedge toward seeing "my group" treated fairly as well, so I'm personally, if indirectly, interested in supporting their rights to be treated equally in our society. That's because I'm a member of the one minority in the US it's still okay to hate: atheists.

I post anonymously on these boards to avoid the impact of having "my kids" associate "that word" with me using a simple google search. I defuse it every semester with the avowal that while "I'm highly sympathetic to all religious beliefs," listing the major and minor branches I know are followed by some of my students, I'm "very much none of the above."

It's part of the standard patter during orientation, "I don't believe any of that stuff, but I do believe ... no, I'm absolutely sure ... that people take comfort from those beliefs, and I would not wish them to lose that. In fact, I have some beliefs that I take comfort from, that might not withstand too much scrutiny ..." Cue the "stork theory," something I've adopted as part of my teaching persona to de-hypersexualize my classrooms. If it also helps my Venezuelans get along with my Saudis, well, that's called finesse.

quote-it-s-a-poor-atom-blaster-that-won-t-point-both-ways-isaac-asimov-207705.jpg

Conversely, linking NAMBLA, which isn't true pedophilia in any case, to homosexuality, as occurs every time homosexuality is brought up on these boards, emphasizes a lack of finesse. Attempts to link homosexuality with pedophilia are no more or less valid than linking David Duke, "formerly" of the Ku Klux Klan, to the modern Republican Party. Both associations are there, but there's are ways of treating that association honestly, and then there are other ways ...

That David Duke was associated with the Republican Party is documented fact. There's no getting around that. The party disassociated itself from Duke because they ultimately realized it dirtied their image, and affected their goals in normalizing conservatism in the minds of the general public.

I have no doubt that this new racism will see at least some support from those in the current Republican Party (and likely denunciation from others within the party), but the new conservatism will have acted as a trailblazer for this new racism.

As ever, Jesse

[Adrift]

Quite true, I'd imagine, but since that's an argument that could easily be extended to the civil rights movement or even the suffragettes, I don't think it's particularly well considered.

Take me, for example. I'm not a woman, or black, or gay, or a Muslim. But seeing them treated fairly is a wedge toward seeing "my group" treated fairly as well, so I'm personally, if indirectly, interested in supporting their rights to be treated equally in our society. That's because I'm a member of the one minority in the US it's still okay to hate: atheists.

I post anonymously on these boards to avoid the impact of having "my kids" associate "that word" with me using a simple google search. I defuse it every semester with the avowal that while "I'm highly sympathetic to all religious beliefs," listing the major and minor branches I know are followed by some of my students, I'm "very much none of the above."

Aren't you a mathematician at a university? I'd figure being an atheist was a prerequisite. I don't buy the "I'm a minority because I'm an atheist" spiel. By and large, nobody cares, and there are probably more people in the US who are disinterested in religion altogether than there are passionate about it. Yeah, if you live in certain areas of the South you might get some flack, but you'd get flack for being Middle Eastern, or being a left winger. But, that's probably another discussion altogether.

It's part of the standard patter during orientation, "I don't believe any of that stuff, but I do believe ... no, I'm absolutely sure ... that people take comfort from those beliefs, and I would not wish them to lose that. In fact, I have some beliefs that I take comfort from, that might not withstand too much scrutiny ..." Cue the "stork theory," something I've adopted as part of my teaching persona to de-hypersexualize my classrooms. If it also helps my Venezuelans get along with my Saudis, well, that's called finesse.

I don't really know what you're on about here.

Conversely, linking NAMBLA, which isn't true pedophilia in any case, to homosexuality, as occurs every time homosexuality is brought up on these boards, emphasizes a lack of finesse. Attempts to link homosexuality with pedophilia are no more or less valid than linking David Duke, "formerly" of the Ku Klux Klan, to the modern Republican Party. Both associations are there, but there's are ways of treating that association honestly, and then there are other ways ...

How do you mean that it isn't true pedophilia? No, linking homosexuality to pedophilia doesn't occur every time homosexuality is brought up on these boards. No I'm not attempting anything, and surely you mean "there are ways", not "there's are ways".

That David Duke was associated with the Republican Party is documented fact. There's no getting around that. The party disassociated itself from Duke because they ultimately realized it dirtied their image, and affected their goals in normalizing conservatism in the minds of the general public.

I have no doubt that this new racism will see at least some support from those in the current Republican Party (and likely denunciation from others within the party), but the new conservatism will have acted as a trailblazer for this new racism.

As ever, Jesse

I think a better analogy, if we're going to compare NAMBLA to the KKK, is to show the link between the KKK and the Democratic party in the late 19th and mid 20th century and the eventual disavowal by the party later in the century. At any rate, I hope I'm wrong about the growing interest in the pedophile rights movement. I don't think I am, but we'll see. Let's meet back here in 20 years and see how things shaped up.

[Juvenal]

Aren't you a mathematician at a university? I'd figure being an atheist was a prerequisite.

My dean, who's currently my acting chair, has an M. Div. He must not have gotten the memo.

You'll find, if you wander away from this odd fantasy you've adopted onto a real university campus, that it's made up almost entirely of students, with their typical beliefs, and a scattering of college educated employees, including professors, who are no more atheistic in general than your typical IT department.

I don't buy the "I'm a minority because I'm an atheist" spiel.

The numbers say you're wrong.



That means you're wrong, even if your religious beliefs get in the way of acknowledging it.

By and large, nobody cares, and there are probably more people in the US who are disinterested in religion altogether than there are passionate about it. Yeah, if you live in certain areas of the South you might get some flack, but you'd get flack for being Middle Eastern, or being a left winger. But, that's probably another discussion altogether.

The numbers say you're wrong.

evl6uzgnekoeiuja132xjw.gif

That means you're wrong, even if your religious beliefs get in the way of acknowledging it.

I don't really know what you're on about here.

Sometimes it's a choice between saying too much or too little.

How do you mean that it isn't true pedophilia?

I've seen Catholic apologists insert that quibble into these discussions.

No, linking homosexuality to pedophilia doesn't occur every time homosexuality is brought up on these boards.

Just this time, right?

No I'm not attempting anything, and surely you mean "there are ways", not "there's are ways".

Yes you are, and yes I did.

I think a better analogy, if we're going to compare NAMBLA to the KKK, is to show the link between the KKK and the Democratic party in the late 19th and mid 20th century and the eventual disavowal by the party later in the century.

Because then they stopped voting.

At any rate, I hope I'm wrong about the growing interest in the pedophile rights movement. I don't think I am, but we'll see. Let's meet back here in 20 years and see how things shaped up.

Works for me. You remember the Gerbil's "Mac's are gonna die bwahaha" thread? And how $cir kept bumping it again and again over the years? This could never be that epic.

If'n I were tempted to ride that horse, I'd probably choose to prick Pap by bumping his comments on Ebola.

But I think I'll leave that kind of horseplay to Cervantes.

As ever, Jesse

[Abigail]

My dean, who's currently my acting chair, has an M. Div. He must not have gotten the memo.

You'll find, if you wander away from this odd fantasy you've adopted onto a real university campus, that it's made up almost entirely of students, with their typical beliefs, and a scattering of college educated employees, including professors, who are no more atheistic in general than your typical IT department.



The numbers say you're wrong.



That means you're wrong, even if your religious beliefs get in the way of acknowledging it.



The numbers say you're wrong.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]7067[/ATTACH]

That means you're wrong, even if your religious beliefs get in the way of acknowledging it.



Sometimes it's a choice between saying too much or too little.



I've seen Catholic apologists insert that quibble into these discussions.



Just this time, right?



Yes you are, and yes I did.



Because then they stopped voting.



Works for me. You remember the Gerbil's "Mac's are gonna die bwahaha" thread? And how $cir kept bumping it again and again over the years? This could never be that epic.

If'n I were tempted to ride that horse, I'd probably choose to prick Pap by bumping his comments on Ebola.

But I think I'll leave that kind of horseplay to Cervantes.

As ever, Jesse

You are hardly running for president are you, and people will always look for some deeper connection in someone who is going to be their president. I agree with Adrift and don't buy your atheist spiel. In fact I think in this day and age, atheism, like being gay it is increasingly a door opener.