It's more sarcasm methinks, to some extent. They have not committed a crime, but they advocate statutory rape. If I wanted to propagandize, I could just say "They advocate rape" and leave it at that. By all accounts, NAMBLA supports rape as the laws stand. There is no reason why a man should have sexual interaction with an 8 year-old. None. I don't think they should be shot, but I think they need their heads checked.

IMHO, alias just equates that with someone who advocates the legalization of heroin. There's no reason for it, the act is illegal, so therefore you support an illegal act. Period. There is also no reason to make the said acts legal, either.

NAMBLA and heroin addicts both inhabit the same level of stupidity, thereabouts in my opinion.

I'm not trying to debate that NAMBLA is correct. I do not agree with NAMBLA, and your arguments against them are unnecessary.

The only thing I said about NAMBLA is that these two molestors are not NAMBLA members. I think that Alias believes I am somehow defending NAMBLA or defending these child molestors. I am not. Alias said he wanted to know whether these men were members of NAMBLA, and I answered that.

This statement sort of opens up another discussion. There is always a reason to allow a freedom: people may want to use that freedom, and the government should never deny a freedom unless it has good reason. It may be that we should keep heroin and child molestation illegal, but it is not enough to say that there is no reason to legalize them. Freedoms should be legal by default. If we want to justify keeping these things illegal, we must explain their harms.

Since we are moving to heroin, how about the dangers of heroin? Much worse than smoking. Could be regulated, but you'd have the same situation as OxyContin. People still would spend all their money and thus start robbing and whatever in order to get their fix. You don't fix anything, execpt that now the government is sanctioning heroin use. It's too addictive, and it's benefits as a painkiller arefar outweighed by the negatives. The freedom is more of a detriment to society than anything else. The government won't save enough money by regulating it to make it worth the cost of still fighting the crime, nad the whole process of legalizing it. It's not worth the trouble.

In the case of NAMBLA and statutory laws, children that young are NOT capable of making that decision. Most would have no idea what's going on when a 30 year-old is trying to fellate him. When you're that young, consent is the equivalent of a drunk person consenting to sex. It's not an informed decision in the least. Morally, many people are against the 14 yearold AOC, and Texas has the age set to 18. By the time you're 15 or so most people are mature neough to decide what they want. Some are, some aren't. By that time many people are used to their bodies and the hormonal changes and evrything and can make an informed decision about sex.

At least heroin addicts are only hurting themselves, if we're not counting drug motivated crimes.

Yeah, too bad you have to include drug-related crimes.

It's kind of like arguing whether dog feces or cat feces smell better.

That's a stretch but sure.

You don't think an organization that promotes adult men having sex with young boys is a crime? I certainly do. I think everyone of them should be shot for who and what they are.....scum.

Can you see any reason to legalize adult men having sex with young boys in America? I cannot. All I have to do is think of my sons when they were children to make my blood boil with what these scum want to do to someone's child without any care of what harm that will do to the child and their only concern is their sexual gratification. Scum.

I think Jaxian's point is that as long as their just organizing, and not actually doing any molesting, they aren't committing a crime.

It's kind of like how we're allowed to have Nazis in this country.