"Rat & Swan" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Jonathan Ball wrote:
>
> > Rat & Swan wrote:
>
> <snip>
> >>>> Where did you read that NAMBLA advocates anal penetration of young
> >>> children?
>
> >>> They're the Man Boy Love group.
>
> >> Yes. But they do not advocate anal penetration of young children.
>
> > Yes, they do, by *necessary* implication.
>
> No, jonnie -- again, a fascist concept: that anything which is not
> forbidden is required; there is no freedom in your views. To say
> that people
=====================
The discussion isn't about *people* fruitcake, it's about perverted queers
that do like to do that to yonug boys! That's their point.


must advocate anal penetration of young children
> because they oppose age of consent laws in general is entirely false
> and unwarranted.
>
> <snip>
>
> >> They oppose any action which injures or physically harms a child.
>
> > False, and a typical example of your usual sleazy sophistry. They
> > advocate legal protection for an action, anal penetration of young boys
> > by adult men, that rational people - not the perverts - feel is
> > intrinsically harmful to the children, whether or not the children feel
> > it is.
>
> Indeed, I agree anal penetration of young boys is harmful, and that it
> would be forbidden AS HARMFUL either as part of assault laws, or by
> social disapproval under anarchist social structure. Harm is not
> advocated, or protected, by opposing age of consent laws, which create
> a status crime under which harm is irrelevant.
>
> >> Certainly,
> >> there are many rational reasons one may have for opposing their views,
> >> but it is good to know exactly what those views are before attacking
> >> them.
>
> > Their view, which you support, is that boys of any age are capable of
> > giving informed consent to submit to anal penetration.
>
> No, that is not their view, nor is it mine.
>
> >> I would suggest visiting their website to see what those views
> >> actually are.
>
> > I did:
>
> And nowhere did it advocate anal penetration of young children, did it?
>
> You are constantly claiming positions imply things which they do not.
>
> <snip>
>
> Rat
>

Jonathan Ball wrote:

<snip>

> BTW, I note from NAMBLA's web site that... Harry Hay is dead.

Old news, jonnie. He's been dead for some time.

Rat

Jonathan Ball wrote:

<snip>
> Life without parole should be reserved only when grievous bodily harm
> results,

Certainly, which disagrees with what you have said about supporting
status crime laws.

> Even if the urge is still
> there, lots of people learn to curb their urges after a stint in
> prison.

Or without a stint in prison.

Rat

"Rat & Swan" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Jonathan Ball wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > Life without parole should be reserved only when grievous bodily harm
> > results,
>
> Certainly, which disagrees with what you have said about supporting
> status crime laws.
>
> > Even if the urge is still
> > there, lots of people learn to curb their urges after a stint in
> > prison.
>
> Or without a stint in prison.
>
=======================
If they're just an 'advocacy' group why the need to put out such books as
'rape and escape'?
face it rattie, teens aren't who they are targeting, just follow the news...

Jonathan Ball wrote:

> Rat & Swan wrote:
>
>> How "libertarian" of you, jonnie. Do you see why I consider you a
>> fascist at heart?

> You don't,

Oh, but I do. You prove it constantly in your posts.

> I'm not advocating that you be prosecuted for exercising
> free speech rights,

Oh, but you are, jonnie. It is a typical fascist method to
prosecute people for suggesting laws be abolished. If one
cannot advocate for repeal of laws one considers unjust, then
there is no freedom of speech. Genuine libertarians often
advocate repeal of laws they consider unjust. To advocate
prosecuting them for such expression of free speech is most
definitely not libertarian.

> You know that the
> prosecution I advocate is for your encouragement to commit crimes,
> speech that is not protected.

I do not "encourage" anyone to commit crimes.

Rat

"rick etter" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Rat & Swan" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > Jonathan Ball wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> > > Life without parole should be reserved only when grievous bodily harm
> > > results,
> >
> > Certainly, which disagrees with what you have said about supporting
> > status crime laws.
> >
> > > Even if the urge is still
> > > there, lots of people learn to curb their urges after a stint in
> > > prison.
> >
> > Or without a stint in prison.
> >
> =======================
> If they're just an 'advocacy' group why the need to put out such books as
> 'rape and escape'?
> face it rattie, teens aren't who they are targeting, just follow the
news...

I'd never heard of that book until you mentioned it, Rick. I did a search on
it and look what came up:

"The men who murdered Jeffrey were NAMBLA members
following a pedophile manual titled "Rape and Escape" when the
men stole Jeffrey's bicycle, and befriended him by offering to
buy Jeffrey a new bike.

The men were on the way to the store with Jeffrey when they
offered him money for sexual favors. As Jeffrey rebuffed them,
they resorted to force, eventually suffocating the boy. The men
then raped the corpse. 1997 Robert and Barbara Curley, of
Cambridge, Massachusetts, have asked a federal judge to let them
sue NAMBLA under Rico laws, which target criminal conspiracies.

NAMBLA is a "criminal" organization "that exists to train
pedophiles to rape children," according to the suit."

http://www.angelfire.com/nj4/savethechildren/tears2.htm

-Rubystars

Rat & Swan wrote:

>
>
> Jonathan Ball wrote:
>
>> Rat & Swan wrote:
>
>
> <snip>
>
>>> You claim to support the freedom of the
>>> individual,
>
>
>> I do, generally. As a mature adult, something you'll never be, I
>> recognize that there is no absolute freedom of the individual; it
>> conflicts with the legitimate rights of other individuals.
>
>
> Indeed, and I agree that when one person's freedom conflicts with
> the _legitimate_ rights of other individuals, that freedom must be
> curtailed. The question must be: does the action HARM the individual,

Young children are harmed by early sex.

> does it infringe on LEGITIMATE rights of others. Status crime laws
> do not fulfil those criteria, as any libertarian would agree.

False. Libertarians cheerfully and consistently make
exceptions for children to the broader statements about
liberty.

>
> <snip>
>
>> Men ****ing boys is harmful per se.
>
>
> For fifteen year olds? For seventeen year olds? For 20 year
> olds, as is forbidden in some countries' age of consent laws?

The line has to be drawn somewhere. That there is a
societal interest in protecting children from harm is
undeniable. The line quite rightly will vary from one
society to another, depending on the local culture and
mores. You, as card-carrying advocate of political
correctness, surely understand the need for respect for
other cultures...don't you?

> Any status crime is going to be unjust to someone,

No, it won't be _unjust_, because not getting to pursue
one's interests is not inherently unjust.

> as you yourself have stated.

I haven't. You are deliberately messing with words.

> So laws (if there are laws)
> should be based on harm done, not status.

They are.

>
> <snip>
> Right here, in your own words:
>
>>>> It is obviously true that an age-of-consent law is going to draw an
>>>> arbitrary age, and that some young people on the "wrong" side of the
>>>> limiting age would in fact be able to give informed consent.

There is no acknowledgment of injustice in that. Try
again.

>
>
>> You made a categorical statement: in the case of any child younger
>> than the early teens, sexual penetration is _ipso facto_ violent. Do
>> you believe that anal penetration of an eight-year-old boy is violent?
>
>
> Yes.

You have established an age-of-consent: thirteen. I
know for certain that's too young, but you have
acknowledged the moral and legal correctness of
age-of-consent: QED.

>
>> Is that kind of violence harmful to children, or isn't it?
>
>
> Yes, it is harmful, I believe. THEREFORE it should be prohibited --
> not because the boy is a certain age, but because the action involved
> is HARMFUL.

You are saying it is INTRINSICALLY harmful BASED on the
boy's age, you stupid ****! You are DEFINING as
harmful the anal penetration of an 8-year-old, when you
don't define as harmful per se the anal penetration of
an 18-year-old. The ONLY relevant difference is the age.

Is 13 the age at which penetration of a boy's asshole
by an adult male ceases to be assault, you STUPID ****?

>
>> You support the total abolition of age-of-consent laws. By absolutely
>> necessary implication, you support adult men ****ing eight-year-old
>> and younger boys.
>
>
> No, there is no implication that I support any act which is
> harmful to others.

By supporting NAMBLA in their wish to abolish
age-of-consent laws, when their wish is based on a
desire to **** boys in the ass, you are supporting an
act that is harmful to others.

>
> <snip>
>
>>>> That great good is obvious and undeniable, and one sees that the
>>>> harm is negligible.
>
>
>>> Not to the person sent to jail for 20 years for relations with someone
>>> you yourself define as capable of consensual sexual relations, nor to
>>> the young person involved.
>
>
>> Going to prison is SUPPOSED to be seen as harmful by would-be criminals.
>
>
> Begging the question, jonnie. You have said that some young people
> under the legal age of consent are capable of giving informed consent;
> therefore the status crime law is unjust in their case,

False. It is not unjust; nor is it unjust that
citizens under the age of 25 may not serve in the House
of Representatives, and under the age of 30 may not
serve in the Senate, and under the age of 35 may not
serve as President.

Repeat after me: failure to have your wishes
implemented does not constitute injustice.

> and the
> person prosecuted under an unjust law ( in the view of real
> libertarians

False. Real libertarians do not, based on being
libertarian, view such laws as unjust. I'm sure there
is a diversity of opinion, but it is not intrinsic to
libertarian thinking.

> is not a "criminal" but a victim of unjust State power.

Wrong. He is a common criminal.

Rat & Swan wrote:

>
>
> Jonathan Ball wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> BTW, I note from NAMBLA's web site that the sexual predator and
>> revolting, perverted queer Harry Hay is dead. Good. It only
>> would have been better if he had died in prison.
>
>
> Old news, jonnie. He's been dead for some time.

Thankfully, I never heard of him before now, ****witted
one-upper. My life was better for it. Now that I have
heard of the sick perverted criminal child molester, my
life is better for knowing that he is dead.

"Rubystars" > wrote in message
y.com...
>
> "rick etter" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Rat & Swan" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > >
> > > Jonathan Ball wrote:
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > > > Life without parole should be reserved only when grievous bodily
harm
> > > > results,
> > >
> > > Certainly, which disagrees with what you have said about supporting
> > > status crime laws.
> > >
> > > > Even if the urge is still
> > > > there, lots of people learn to curb their urges after a stint in
> > > > prison.
> > >
> > > Or without a stint in prison.
> > >
> > =======================
> > If they're just an 'advocacy' group why the need to put out such books
as
> > 'rape and escape'?
> > face it rattie, teens aren't who they are targeting, just follow the
> news...
>
> I'd never heard of that book until you mentioned it, Rick. I did a search
on
> it and look what came up:
>
> "The men who murdered Jeffrey were NAMBLA members
> following a pedophile manual titled "Rape and Escape" when the
> men stole Jeffrey's bicycle, and befriended him by offering to
> buy Jeffrey a new bike.


=================
You should mention to rattie that Jeffry was well advanced into his 'teen
years' at all of 10 years old.






>
> The men were on the way to the store with Jeffrey when they
> offered him money for sexual favors. As Jeffrey rebuffed them,
> they resorted to force, eventually suffocating the boy. The men
> then raped the corpse. 1997 Robert and Barbara Curley, of
> Cambridge, Massachusetts, have asked a federal judge to let them
> sue NAMBLA under Rico laws, which target criminal conspiracies.
>
> NAMBLA is a "criminal" organization "that exists to train
> pedophiles to rape children," according to the suit."
>
> http://www.angelfire.com/nj4/savethechildren/tears2.htm
>
> -Rubystars
>
>

Rat & Swan wrote:

>
>
> Jonathan Ball wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Life without parole should be reserved only when grievous bodily harm
>> results,
>
>
> Certainly, which disagrees with what you have said about supporting
> status crime laws.

Non sequitur.

>
>> Even if the urge is still there, lots of people learn to curb their
>> urges after a stint in prison.
>
>
> Or without a stint in prison.

A stint in prison is a just penalty for child molestation.

Rat & Swan wrote:

>
>
> Jonathan Ball wrote:
>
>> Rat & Swan wrote:
>>
>>> How "libertarian" of you, jonnie. Do you see why I consider you a
>>> fascist at heart?
>
>
>> You don't,
>
>
> Oh, but I do.

You don't.

>
>> I'm not advocating that you be prosecuted for exercising free speech
>> rights,
>
>
> Oh, but you are, jonnie.

I'm not. I'm advocating you be prosecuted for your
active support for the commission of crimes. Such
speech is not protected, nor should it be.

>
>> You know that the prosecution I advocate is for your encouragement to
>> commit crimes, speech that is not protected.
>
>
> I do not "encourage" anyone to commit crimes.

You do. You support sick criminal queers in their wish
to **** young boys.

Jonathan Ball wrote:

<snip>

>> Harm is not advocated,

> It necessarily will ensue. You advocate harm.

<snip>
A very slippery slope, jonnie. No libertarian would
advocate outlawing action which *might* result in
harm. Elsewhere, you have strongly opposed such a
position. Possession of guns by private individuals
necessarily means that harm and death will ensue through
the misuse of guns. Many people advocate that private
people be forbidden by law to possess guns for that reason.
Deaths result from driving automobiles -- deaths
_necessarily_ result from possession of automobiles. And
so on. There are many things which necessarily result in
harm when they are misused, but one of the basic bedrock
principles of libertarian thought is that is is wrong to
make things illegal because harm *may* result from misuse
of them by individuals. The libertarian position is that
those who cause harm by misuse of freedom should suffer
the consequences, not that those who use their freedom
wisely should be forbidden that freedom because some may,
or will, abuse it.

You are no libertarian, jonnie.

<snip>

Rat

rick etter wrote:

> "Rat & Swan" > wrote in message
> ...

>>
>>>>>They're the Man Boy Love group.
>>
>>>>Yes. But they do not advocate anal penetration of young children.
>>
>>>Yes, they do, by *necessary* implication.
>>
>>No, jonnie -- again, a fascist concept: that anything which is not
>>forbidden is required; there is no freedom in your views. To say
>>that people
>
> =====================
> The discussion isn't about *people* fruitcake, it's about perverted queers
> that do like to do that to yonug boys! That's their point.

The sole purpose of NAMBLA is to get rid of
age-of-consent laws that criminalize (on the part of
the adult) all sex with children. A queer getting a
boy to blow him, or the queer blowing the boy, is not
defined as rape; it's covered by "lewd act upon a
child" laws, the same as those for which Michael
Jackson is being prosecuted. NAMBLA wants to get rid
of statutory rape laws as well as the lewd acts upon
children laws. They want to **** young boys in the
ass, and Karen Winter is trying to help them do just that.

"rick etter" > wrote in message
<snip>
> You should mention to rattie that Jeffry was well advanced into his 'teen
> years' at all of 10 years old.

This page gives more details:
http://www.soc-um.org/nambla3.html

"Knowing there is no chance of collecting, a Massachusetts jury ordered two
convicted murderers to pay $328 million to the family of a 10 year-old boy
they brutally raped and murdered. The verdict was the largest in
Massachusetts' history and the third largest in the nation last year."

-Rubystars

Rat & Swan wrote:
>
> Jonathan Ball wrote:
>
> > Rat & Swan wrote:
>
> No, jonnie -- again, a fascist concept: that anything which is not
> forbidden is required; there is no freedom in your views. To say
> that people must advocate anal penetration of young children
> because they oppose age of consent laws in general is entirely false
> and unwarranted.
>

I have just had an insight into this discussion. You are redefining
words to mean what you want them to mean, not what is commonly or
historically meant by them.

Fascism is an economic concept, where the government controls property
and the property is privately owned.

Up is down, black is white, and left is right.

You would seem to be a true "freedom fighter" fighting freedom as a
crime fighter fights crime.

Rat & Swan wrote:

>
>
> Jonathan Ball wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> Harm is not advocated,
>
>
>> It necessarily will ensue. You advocate harm.
>
>
> <snip>
> A very slippery slope

Nope. Solid flat ground. It is exactly the same
reason you may not cry "fire" in a crowded theater.

> No libertarian would
> advocate outlawing action which *might* result in
> harm.

I'm not. I'm advocating the outlawing of a type of
behavior that will NECESSARILY result in harm.

> Elsewhere, you have strongly opposed such a
> position.

Nope. I consistently advocate the outlawing of
behavior that consistently results in harm. You're drunk.

> Possession of guns by private individuals
> necessarily means that harm and death will ensue through
> the misuse of guns.

Nope. As usual, you don't know what the **** you're
talking about. There are hundreds of millions of
privately owned firearms in the U.S., and the number of
accidental firearms deaths is under 1000 per year. As
for criminal use of firearms, that isn't "misuse"; it's
criminal use.

> Many people advocate that private
> people be forbidden by law to possess guns for that reason.

No, that's a subterfuge.

> Deaths result from driving automobiles -- deaths
> _necessarily_ result from possession of automobiles.

Nope. I've driven a car for 35 years, and never been
involved in a fatal accident, or even in one that
resulted in injury. That's true for most people.

Your claim is wrong.

> And so on.

No. YOU have already conceded, when you said that
sexual penetration of an 8-year-old is ALWAYS violent,
and should ALWAYS be prosecuted as an assault
[actually, battery]. You believe in age-of-consent
laws, seemingly believing that 13 is the right age:

Yes, I agree [it is violence] in the case of any
child younger than
the early teens.

Karen Winter, pervert in Santa Fe, NM
03 Jan 2004, 12:02AM PST

> There are many things which necessarily result in
> harm when they are misused,

Men ****ing young boys is intrinsically harmful, as you
have conceded. You consider it battery per se.

Rubystars wrote:

<snip>

> I'd never heard of that book until you mentioned it, Rick. I did a search on
> it and look what came up:

> "The men who murdered Jeffrey were NAMBLA members

Evidence? Even if it were so, if a murderer belongs to the
National Rifle Association, is the NRA responsible for the murder?
If someone is guilty of vehicular homicide, is the American
Automobile Association responsible?

> following a pedophile manual titled "Rape and Escape" when the

Never heard of it; I doubt it exists. It has never been mentioned
in any NAMBLA literature. NAMBLA does not advocate rape.

<snip>
> The men
> then raped the corpse.

Necrophilia is not advocated by NAMBLA.

> 1997 Robert and Barbara Curley, of
> Cambridge, Massachusetts, have asked a federal judge to let them
> sue NAMBLA under Rico laws, which target criminal conspiracies.

> NAMBLA is a "criminal" organization "that exists to train
> pedophiles to rape children," according to the suit."

Which is completely bogus, and being contested by NAMBLA. You
might as well target the NRA every time a gang-banger in the
inner city shoots a member of an enemy gang. Organizations which
advocate _responsible_ freedom are not to blame when violent
and vicious people misuse freedom to hurt others.

Rat

Bob Yates wrote:

> Rat & Swan wrote:
>
>>Jonathan Ball wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Rat & Swan wrote:
>>
>>No, jonnie -- again, a fascist concept: that anything which is not
>>forbidden is required; there is no freedom in your views. To say
>>that people must advocate anal penetration of young children
>>because they oppose age of consent laws in general is entirely false
>>and unwarranted.
>>
>
>
> I have just had an insight into this discussion. You are redefining
> words to mean what you want them to mean, not what is commonly or
> historically meant by them.

Exactly right. She has been known as a sophist, the
pejorative term by which such redefiners are
classically known, over in the animals-related
newsgroups (talk.politics.animals,
alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian) for years. She is the
classic sleazy, lying, equivocating sophist.

>
> Fascism is an economic concept, where the government controls property
> and the property is privately owned.
>
> Up is down, black is white, and left is right.
>
> You would seem to be a true "freedom fighter" fighting freedom as a
> crime fighter fights crime.

Heh heh heh...good one, but only funny in a bitter way.
You have correctly pegged her in just one post: as
totalitarian statist.

Stop trying to redefine the argument, jonnie. Stick to
the issue -- you show you are no libertarian with every
post on this issue.

Rat
<snip>

Rat & Swan wrote:

>
>
> Rubystars wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> I'd never heard of that book until you mentioned it, Rick. I did a
>> search on
>> it and look what came up:
>
>
>> "The men who murdered Jeffrey were NAMBLA members
>
>
> Evidence? Even if it were so, if a murderer belongs to the
> National Rifle Association, is the NRA responsible for the murder?

The NRA doesn't advocate murder. NAMBLA does advocate,
by implication, adult men preying on young boys.

> If someone is guilty of vehicular homicide, is the American
> Automobile Association responsible?

Bad analogy, like the one above.

>
>> following a pedophile manual titled "Rape and Escape" when the
>
>
> Never heard of it; I doubt it exists. It has never been mentioned
> in any NAMBLA literature.

How would you know? Are you claiming to be intimately
familiar with all NAMBLA propaganda?

> NAMBLA does not advocate rape.

They advocate men having sex with young boys, which is
rape under the law.

Rat & Swan wrote:

>
> Stop trying to redefine the argument

I'm not. That's what you are trying to do via your
sophistry.

Jonathan Ball wrote:

<snip>

> Heh heh heh...good one, but only funny in a bitter way.

Yes -- your posts are.

It's funny in exactly that bitter way when the person who
advocates people be prosecuted for exercising constitutionally
protected rights of free speech and assembly claims that those
advocating such libertarian freedoms are "totalitarian." You
live in a Humpty-Dumpty, Looking-Glass world, jonnie. Sad
And seriously hypocritical on your part.

The discussion has degenerated again on your part into silly
lies about my views. You cannot attack my views on any real
libertarian basis.

Rat

Jonathan Ball wrote:

<snip>
>>> following a pedophile manual titled "Rape and Escape" when the

>> Never heard of it; I doubt it exists. It has never been mentioned
>> in any NAMBLA literature.

> How would you know? Are you claiming to be intimately familiar with all
> NAMBLA propaganda?

Yes. I read their journal regularly, and no such pamphlet has ever
been listed, or mentioned, in any of their official publications.

>> NAMBLA does not advocate rape.

> They advocate men having sex with young boys, which is rape under the law.

Pitiful, jonnie -- pitiful....

<snip>

Rat

Rat & Swan wrote:

>
>
> Jonathan Ball wrote:
>
>>> I have just had an insight into this discussion. You are redefining
>>> words to mean what you want them to mean, not what is commonly or
>>> historically meant by them.
>>
>>
>> Exactly right. She has been known as a sophist, the pejorative term by
>> which such redefiners are classically known, over in the animals-related
>> newsgroups (talk.politics.animals, alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian) for
>> years. She is the classic sleazy, lying, equivocating sophist.
>>
>>
>>> Fascism is an economic concept, where the government controls property
>>> and the property is privately owned.
>>>
>>> Up is down, black is white, and left is right.
>>>
>>> You would seem to be a true "freedom fighter" fighting freedom as a
>>> crime fighter fights crime.
>
>> Heh heh heh...good one, but only funny in a bitter way.
>
> It's funny in exactly that bitter way when the person who
> advocates people be prosecuted for exercising constitutionally
> protected rights of free speech and assembly claims that those
> advocating such libertarian freedoms are "totalitarian."

Nope. I don't advocate any prosecution of people for
exercising their free speech rights; I never have, and
you know it. As Bob understood, you are employing your
usual filthy sophistry to redefine terms to advance
your totalitarian agenda.

Rat & Swan wrote:

>
>
> Jonathan Ball wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>>> following a pedophile manual titled "Rape and Escape" when the
>
>
>>> Never heard of it; I doubt it exists. It has never been mentioned
>>> in any NAMBLA literature.
>
>
>> How would you know? Are you claiming to be intimately familiar with
>> all NAMBLA propaganda?
>
>
> Yes. I read their journal regularly,

Yeah, *sure* you do. ****ing liar.

Rat & Swan > wrote in message >...

> If sex with any eight year old involves harm to that child, then it
> would be covered under laws against assault. Shouldn't a good
> libertarian agree "no victim, no harm" and punish only acts which
> are objectively harmful?

The act of having sex with an 8 year old is wrong because there is a
good chance that it will do harm to that 8 year old. If by good fortune,
no harm is done, this doesn't exonerate the pedophile.

Rat & Swan wrote:
>
> Stop trying to redefine the argument, jonnie. Stick to
> the issue -- you show you are no libertarian with every
> post on this issue.
>
> Rat
> <snip>

Spoken as a true disciple of that great liberal Adolph Hitler
http://www.geocities.com/hitlerwasavegetarian/

"Rat & Swan" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Rubystars wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > I'd never heard of that book until you mentioned it, Rick. I did a
search on
> > it and look what came up:
>
> > "The men who murdered Jeffrey were NAMBLA members
>
> Evidence? Even if it were so, if a murderer belongs to the
> National Rifle Association, is the NRA responsible for the murder?
> If someone is guilty of vehicular homicide, is the American
> Automobile Association responsible?
=====================
Analogies are really really hard for you, aren't they? The AAA and NRA do
not promote illegal acts in the use of these two products.
nambla perverts do promote an illegal activity.


>
> > following a pedophile manual titled "Rape and Escape" when the
>
> Never heard of it; I doubt it exists. It has never been mentioned
> in any NAMBLA literature. NAMBLA does not advocate rape.
==============
Maybe not, they just practice it. It's what they're all about.
Apparently you have as much concern for little boys as you do rodents. Hope
you don't get your hands on too many.

>
> <snip>
> > The men
> > then raped the corpse.
>
> Necrophilia is not advocated by NAMBLA.
>
> > 1997 Robert and Barbara Curley, of
> > Cambridge, Massachusetts, have asked a federal judge to let them
> > sue NAMBLA under Rico laws, which target criminal conspiracies.
>
> > NAMBLA is a "criminal" organization "that exists to train
> > pedophiles to rape children," according to the suit."
>
> Which is completely bogus, and being contested by NAMBLA. You
> might as well target the NRA every time a gang-banger in the
> inner city shoots a member of an enemy gang. Organizations which
> advocate _responsible_ freedom are not to blame when violent
> and vicious people misuse freedom to hurt others.
>
> Rat
>

Rat & Swan wrote:
>
> Yes. I read their journal regularly, and no such pamphlet has ever
> been listed, or mentioned, in any of their official publications.
>

http://www.soc-um.org/nambla3.html
"They have a manual entitled The Survival Manual: The Man's Guide to
Staying Safe in Man-Boy Sexual Relationships. I call it the 'Rape and
Escape Manual," says Frisoli. "It includes chapters on the right and
wrong places to have sex, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the
legal rights of defendants. In case someone wants to flee the country,
it explains how to avoid law enforcement in foreign countries and how to
rip off credit card companies for cash abroad. NAMBLA denies the manual
exists, but I have it sitting on my desk."

Rat & Swan wrote:
>
> Yes. I read their journal regularly, and no such pamphlet has ever
> been listed, or mentioned, in any of their official publications.
>
http://members.tripod.com/rat_terriers/Amazon.htm
Evidence introduced in court included a NAMBLA publication found in
Jaynes' vehicle titled "The Survival Manual: The Man's Guide to Staying
Safe in Man/Boy Sexual Relationships." Police also discovered a manual
published by NAMBLA called "Rape and Escape," described by the
plaintiffs as an explicit guide to luring children and then avoiding
prosecution.

Jonathan Ball wrote:
> Rat & Swan wrote:

<snip>

>>> How would you know? Are you claiming to be intimately familiar with
>>> all NAMBLA propaganda?

>> Yes. I read their journal regularly,

> Yeah, *sure* you do. ****ing liar.

Why should you doubt it?

The NAMBLA Journal is an excellent miner's canary which provides
useful information about the government's efforts to stifle
free speech and dissent.

Rat

Bob Yates wrote:

> Rat & Swan wrote:
>
>>Yes. I read their journal regularly, and no such pamphlet has ever
>>been listed, or mentioned, in any of their official publications.

> http://members.tripod.com/rat_terriers/Amazon.htm
> Evidence introduced in court included a NAMBLA publication found in
> Jaynes' vehicle titled "The Survival Manual: The Man's Guide to Staying
> Safe in Man/Boy Sexual Relationships." Police also discovered a manual
> published by NAMBLA called "Rape and Escape," described by the
> plaintiffs as an explicit guide to luring children and then avoiding
> prosecution.

Don't believe it. The government manufactures all sorts of bogus
stuff never produced by NAMBLA to try to prosecute them.

Rat

While frolicking around in alt.food.vegan, Rubystars of SBC
http://yahoo.sbc.com said:

[snip]

>Yeah, I was thinking after I posted that, to buy second hand clothes,
>someone had to buy them first hand to begin with.
>
Yeah, and then give it to second hand :0)


[snip]
><snip>
>> I feel bad when I slip, because I think that if I care, I ought to.
>
>Well like I said you can only do the best you can.
>
Yeah, I know.

><snip>
>> For caffeine I drink coffee. It's the sugar which it's sometimes hard
>> to cut down on.
>
>I don't drink coffee very often because I want it to stay effective. If I
>drank it every day then it wouldn't give me the same "Awake" feeling that it
>does now. I love coffee though.
>
I can't function without coffee, but I try to not drink coffee on days
I'm not working.
--
Nikitta a.a. #1759 Apatriot(No, not apricot)#18
ICQ# 251532856
Unreferenced footnotes: http://www.nut.house.cx/cgi-bin/nemwiki.pl?ISFN
"True. Cows and man-eating hats in the same sentence is probably
overdoing things, though.." Arcum Dagsson (afdaniain)

Rat & Swan wrote:
>
>
> Jonathan Ball wrote:
>
>> Rat & Swan wrote:
>
>
> <snip>
>
>>>> How would you know? Are you claiming to be intimately familiar with
>>>> all NAMBLA propaganda?
>
>
>>> Yes. I read their journal regularly,
>
>
>> Yeah, *sure* you do. ****ing liar.
>
>
> Why should you doubt it?

Because you couldn't possibly read all the literature
of all the radical extremist anti-western movements to
which you belong.

Rat & Swan wrote:

>
>
> Bob Yates wrote:
>
>> Rat & Swan wrote:
>>
>>> Yes. I read their journal regularly, and no such pamphlet has ever
>>> been listed, or mentioned, in any of their official publications.
>
>
>> http://members.tripod.com/rat_terriers/Amazon.htm
>> Evidence introduced in court included a NAMBLA publication found in
>> Jaynes' vehicle titled "The Survival Manual: The Man's Guide to Staying
>> Safe in Man/Boy Sexual Relationships." Police also discovered a manual
>> published by NAMBLA called "Rape and Escape," described by the
>> plaintiffs as an explicit guide to luring children and then avoiding
>> prosecution.
>
>
> Don't believe it. The government manufactures...

Yes, HERE we go: the usual leftwing paranoia. Very nice.

"Rat & Swan" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Bob Yates wrote:
>
> > Rat & Swan wrote:
> >
> >>Yes. I read their journal regularly, and no such pamphlet has ever
> >>been listed, or mentioned, in any of their official publications.
>
> > http://members.tripod.com/rat_terriers/Amazon.htm
> > Evidence introduced in court included a NAMBLA publication found in
> > Jaynes' vehicle titled "The Survival Manual: The Man's Guide to Staying
> > Safe in Man/Boy Sexual Relationships." Police also discovered a manual
> > published by NAMBLA called "Rape and Escape," described by the
> > plaintiffs as an explicit guide to luring children and then avoiding
> > prosecution.
>
> Don't believe it. The government manufactures all sorts of bogus
> stuff never produced by NAMBLA to try to prosecute them.
===========================
Right! And the nambla 'criminals' doing all these crimes are really just
gov agents posing as nambla queers and perverts to dis-credit said queers
and perverts, eh?




> Rat
>
>
>

On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 13:06:13 -0500, "rick etter"
> wrote:

>
>"Rat & Swan" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>
>> Bob Yates wrote:
>>
>> > Rat & Swan wrote:
>> >
>> >>Yes. I read their journal regularly, and no such pamphlet has ever
>> >>been listed, or mentioned, in any of their official publications.
>>
>> > http://members.tripod.com/rat_terriers/Amazon.htm
>> > Evidence introduced in court included a NAMBLA publication found in
>> > Jaynes' vehicle titled "The Survival Manual: The Man's Guide to Staying
>> > Safe in Man/Boy Sexual Relationships." Police also discovered a manual
>> > published by NAMBLA called "Rape and Escape," described by the
>> > plaintiffs as an explicit guide to luring children and then avoiding
>> > prosecution.
>>
>> Don't believe it. The government manufactures all sorts of bogus
>> stuff never produced by NAMBLA to try to prosecute them.
>===========================
>Right! And the nambla 'criminals' doing all these crimes are really just
>gov agents posing as nambla queers and perverts to dis-credit said queers
>and perverts, eh?

Were you caught in a roundup Dick? with jonny noballs!













**********************************************




'You can't win 'em all.'
Lord Haw Haw.

Since I stopped donating money to CONservation hooligan charities
Like the RSPB, Woodland Trust and all the other fat cat charities
I am in the top 0.801% richest people in the world.
There are 5,951,930,035 people poorer than me

If you're really interested I am the 48,069,965
richest person in the world.

And I'm keeping the bloody lot.

So sue me.

http://www.globalrichlist.com/

Newsgroup ettiquette

1) Tell everyone the Trolls don't bother you.
2) Say you've killfiled them, yet continue to respond.
3) Tell other people off who repsond despite doing so yourself.
4) Continually talk about Trolls while maintaining
they're having no effect.
5) Publicly post killfile rules so the Trolls know
how to avoid them.
6) Make lame legal threats and other barrel scraping
manoeuvres when your abuse reports are ignored.
7) Eat vast quantities of pies.
8) Forget to brush your teeth for several decades.
9) Help a demon.local poster with their email while
secretly reading it.
10) Pretend you're a hard ******* when in fact you're
as bent as a roundabout.
11) Become the laughing stock of Usenet like Mabbet
12) Die of old age
13) Keep paying Dr Chartham his fees and hope one day you
will have a penis the girls can see.

---------------------------------------

"If you would'nt talk to them in a bar, don't *uckin' vote for them"

"Australia was not *discovered* it was invaded"
The Big Yin.

Jonathan Ball wrote:
>> Possession of guns by private individuals
>> necessarily means that harm and death will ensue through
>> the misuse of guns.

> Nope.

Yes.

> As usual, you don't know what the **** you're talking about.
> There are hundreds of millions of privately owned firearms in the U.S.,
> and the number of accidental firearms deaths is under 1000 per year. As
> for criminal use of firearms, that isn't "misuse"; it's criminal use.

Both are misuse of a freedom which is due to those who do not misuse it.
To confiscate all guns from private hands because a small minority will
either kill themselves or others by misusing them is unjust. In the
same way, to set up age of consent laws because some people may abuse
young children is unjust. You cannot be a genuine libertarian and
support either form of injustice.

>> Many people advocate that private
>> people be forbidden by law to possess guns for that reason.

> No, that's a subterfuge.

No, it's true. People believe -- as you do -- that the potential for
harm, the "good of the majority" -- overrules the freedom of the
individual, even when that freedom is not abused. It is a fascist
view. The libertarian believes harm must be demonstrated -- not
just a potential for harm -- before individual freedom should be
abridged.

<snip>
> No. YOU have already conceded, when you said that sexual penetration of
> an 8-year-old is ALWAYS violent, and should ALWAYS be prosecuted as an
> assault [actually, battery].

I believe it should be seen as violent, yes.

> You believe in age-of-consent laws,

I do not. Like most statists, you cannot imagine any way of preserving
a good society other than State force. You are a fascist at heart.

<snip>

Rat

Rat & Swan wrote:

>
>
> Jonathan Ball wrote:
>
>>> Possession of guns by private individuals
>>> necessarily means that harm and death will ensue through
>>> the misuse of guns.
>
>
>> Nope.
>
>
> Yes.

Nope.

>
>> As usual, you don't know what the **** you're talking about. There
>> are hundreds of millions of privately owned firearms in the U.S., and
>> the number of accidental firearms deaths is under 1000 per year. As
>> for criminal use of firearms, that isn't "misuse"; it's criminal use.
>
>
> Both are misuse of a freedom which is due to those who do not misuse it.

Non sequitur.


>>> Many people advocate that private
>>> people be forbidden by law to possess guns for that reason.
>
>
>> No, that's a subterfuge.
>
>
> No, it's true.

No; it's a subterfuge.

>> No. YOU have already conceded, when you said that sexual penetration
>> of an 8-year-old is ALWAYS violent, and should ALWAYS be prosecuted as
>> an assault [actually, battery].
>
>
> I believe it should be seen as violent, yes.

Ipso facto criminal, is how you view it:

Yes, I agree [it is violence] in the case of any
child younger than
the early teens.

Karen Winter, pervert in Santa Fe, NM
03 Jan 2004, 12:02AM PST

You've conceded.

>
>> You believe in age-of-consent laws,
>
>
> I do not.

You do. You believe that sexual penetration of a
pre-teen is ipso facto criminal. Now, the only thing
is to negotiate the age at which sexual penetration of
a child is no longer ipso facto criminal. You have no
ground to context the setting of an age.

Jonathan Ball wrote:

<snip>
>>> No. YOU have already conceded, when you said that sexual penetration
>>> of an 8-year-old is ALWAYS violent, and should ALWAYS be prosecuted
>>> as an assault [actually, battery].

And here you try to sneak something in which I did not say and
hope your dishonesty will not be noticed. It was. You failed.

I do believe anal penetration of young children is violent.

I do NOT believe it should be prosecuted as assault (or battery).
That would mean I support laws, which, as an anarchist, I do not.

<snip>

> Ipso facto criminal, is how you view it:

No, jonnie. "Criminal" refers to LAWS -- that is "criminal" which
violates a criminal law. That is not the issue, nor my concern.

You must lie because you cannot argue against my position without
making it obvious your claim to be a libertarian and a supporter
of individual freedom is also a lie and a sham.

<snip>

Rat