X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-VMS-To: ADMINB::NEWS::IN%"POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu"
X-VMS-Cc: BADERTINOVS
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 24 Dec 1992 12:13:24 +0100
From:         BADERTINOVS%NEWS@ADMINB.RFERL.ORG
Subject:      Re: re:re: freedom of speech
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu

Pizz in response to my thoughts about nambla's right to free speech:
>I can see where it is more difficult for some to conform to the laws
>of this country than for others, but just because one is sick is no
>reason to allow their actions to go unpunished.

I never said people who break laws shouldn't be punished. Of course
they should be punished. But only for ACTIONS, not for thoughts or
desires. Can you imagine how many millions of prisons we would need
if we decided to punish for thoughts? Can you honestly say that you
never in your life wanted to kill someone or commit some other crime?

As to whether those people are sick, it depends on how you look at it.
Biologically, there is nothing wrong with them. Socially, their thoughts
and desires are considered to be totally unacceptable. Therefore, the
label 'sick' can have meaning only in social context. But social
attitudes change with time. Some scientists say that in pre-historic
times it was perfectly normal (and socially acceptable) for human
beings to have sex with their parents. Since then the social attitudes
have changed drammatically. It is possible that in the future our
modern social norms will change further. I can imagine that people
in the future will look back into 1992 and be surprised at how weird
the modern social norms and popular attitudes are.

>It may not be equally simple for them to be good productive members
>of society, but so what, life isn't always fair.

Are you implying that people with weird sexual desires are necessarily
social misfits or 'unproductive members of society'?  If you ever read
anything about mass murderers, for example, you would know that most of
them before committing a crime were perfectly normal (in social context)
people. OK, I take back 'perfectly normal', but it is true that most
people around them didn't notice anything unusual. Some of the mass
murderers were respected at work, had good careers, friends,etc. To put
in in a nutshell, if anyone of your friends or colleagues is a member
of nambla, you most likely don't know about it.

You say: 'but so what, life isn't always fair'.  That is a very
insensitive thing to say. You can have this attitude only for as long
as life treats you fair. Suppose something (God forbid!) happens to
you and you suddenly become a member of a discriminated minority. Surely,
you'd drastically change your attitude and become an active advocate of
some of those things that you talk so sqeamishly about.

Finally, I want to make sure that everyone understands that what I am
advocating is not nambla but freedom of speech. I personally don't
know anyone of those guys and feel only pity for them.

Sam.

P.S. Merri Christmas to all the super-conservatives and super-liberals
and all the people in between. I respect your views whether they
coincide with mine or not. (Ooops, I misspelled 'Merry'--sorry for that,
I am not a native speaker as you all probably noticed)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU