From: cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: My Purpose In Getting NAMBLA Shunned
Date: 18 Aug 92 01:13:09 GMT
Organization: Optilink Corporation, Petaluma, CA

In article <11763@optilink.UUCP>, manley@optilink.UUCP (Dave Manley) writes:
> In article <11752@optilink.UUCP> cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> >Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
> >I can make myself popular on USENET again -- all I have to say is that I'm not 
> >disturbed by the support for North American Man-Boy Love Association in the 
> >homosexual community.  Being popular at a child's expense isn't worth it.
> 
> I don't know if that will work.
> 
> I'm not sure that you were ever popular!   8^)
> 
> But seriously, what do you hope to accomplish by continuing the thread?
> 
> Your FOA arguments have value.  They have convinced at least one person
> (Brian Kane) that legislation along the lines of AB101 are not the way
> to make progress.  Your arguments along these lines often find
> inconsistancies in the other's line of reasoning.
> 
> On the other hand, except for flushing out some support for NAMBLA,
> and a refusal of some homosexuals to distance themselves completely
> from NAMLBA, you have not accomplished anything other than consuming a
> large amount of bandwidth and pissing off a lot of people who would
> like to discuss subjects pertinent to the newsgroup.  It is a noble
> goal to want to protect children from sexual abuse - but do your
> postings do anything to accomplish that? 

> dave
> manley@optilink.com

My purpose?  It's simple enough.  I fear that if child molesters hear 
that there is ANY level of support for what they do, it will encourage
them to continue to do the same.  Some years ago, one of the trashy
afternoon talk shows (_Donahue_, I think) had several guests on
talking about child molestation.  At one point, the host took a call
from a guy who complained about the tone of all the discussions,
as if the child molesters were responsible.  The guy who called
in complained about three year-olds "coming on" to him.  I have
received email from a guy in Australia, similarly asserting that
an eleven-year old was "coming on" to him.  Some of the posters
that have left me so angry have asserted that a child of 12 is
capable of making his own decisions about sex, even with an adult.
Do you see a pattern to all this?  Going up in age, doesn't seem
so shocking.  Going the other direction does.

Some of the participants have argued that because the age of
consent is arbitrary, that there is nothing magic about 18.  The
age could be 16.  Or 14.  Or 12.  I would hope that nearly everyone
can recognize that 6 is far too young.  So is 8.  Nearly everyone
(other than soc.motss regulars) seems to recognize that adults
shouldn't be having sex with 12 year olds, or even 14 year olds.
But in the pursuit of this ideal of "no age of consent" laws,
a number of USENETters have insisted that if the age of consent is
arbitrary, then it should be eliminated completely.

They say that this doesn't mean that they support child molestation.
Fine.  But if you eliminate a law that prevents NAMBLA's members
from manipulating 6 year olds into sex, you ARE, effectively,
supporting child molestation, because you have eliminated the
only legal way of preventing this horrible crime against a 
child.

They say that they don't support child molestation, simply because
they defend NAMBLA's ideal of eliminating age of consent laws.
But tell me, how will your assertions that any child should be
allowed to make any choice he wishes about sex sound to child
molesters (regardless of sexual orientation)?  That his little
problem isn't really so bad?

Our society restrains criminal behavior by at least four
mechanisms: conscience, fear, social pressure, and finally,
least effective of all, the criminal justice system.  If
our society stopped teaching that murder was wrong, the most
fundamental level of restraint -- self-restraint -- would
be gone.  (The case can be made that we have already started
to reach this state in some of our inner cities).

Social pressure only works with activities that are well known,
but aren't likely to get you killed by a pissed off victim
or friend.  Smoking and drinking can be dealt with by social 
pressure, without denying the rights of those people who choose to
do those things.  This approach doesn't do much for child 
molestation because it will always be done very secretively, because of
the next factor.

Fear of injury or death is another restraining influence in
a society -- that a victim or angry relative of the victim
will take direct action.  Doubtless, the realization that
there is little risk of a burglar being shot in Canada is the
reason that burglary rates are now higher in Canada than in
the U.S.  In the case of child molestation, the victim is
usually unable to protect him or herself.  Our legal system
acts (correctly) as a restraint on a parent taking revenge.

The last, and least effective restraint is the criminal justice
system.  It seldom handles child molestation cases well,
but it does provide some small level of risk for the child
molester who gets caught.

Asserting loudly, and with the smugness that wanders out of
soc.motss, that adults having sex with kids isn't really a
problem, undercuts conscience as a restraint on those depraved
people who see children as sexual partners.  If those smug
little brats on soc.motss get their way, and child molestation
becomes legal, the only mechanisms left are social pressure,
which is ineffective, and revenge, which has a bad habit of
killing those innocent people who wrongly accused.

Please: think about what you are saying to child molesters
when you bring NAMBLA into the fold of "respectable" or even
"marginal" homosexual organizations.
-- 
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer  My opinions, all mine!
I can make myself popular on USENET again -- all I have to say is that I'm not 
disturbed by the support for North American Man-Boy Love Association in the 
homosexual community.  Being popular at a child's expense isn't worth it.
Xref: sparky talk.politics.misc:39782 alt.politics.clinton:1966 alt.politics.bush:1626