Apparently there’s something called NAMBLA @chris_ottawa told me about. I thought this was just a joke featured on South Park, but it’s real.
One of my problems with the 1st amendment/unwavering right to free speech is the existence of organisations like this. A group preaching/supporting child molestation shouldn’t be allowed to exist.
God knows what’s going on behind closed doors within this community.
Certainly.
You’re confused about small government?
Isn’t this what an independent is?
Yeah, if they wanted to spread propaganda of this nature at any online site, it wouldn’t be one sole crusader. It would be a whole group of them doing it at the same time.
I think they should have the right to exist. Even if we’re talking about practical reasons:
Probably lots more but I’m not a cop.
Pedophelia and and child molestation are two different entities. Pedophilia appears to be associated with marked neurological abberations as is evident within neuroimaging of pedophiles. Being a pedophile isn’t a choice, similar to homosexuality. Choosing a consenting adult male as a partner isn’t harming anyone (regardless of what the religous crowd says). Having sex with a child who obviously can’t consent irreversibly alters/scars the child preyed upon.
Therefore pedophilia is considered a malignant disorder… coupled with neuroimaging indicative pedophiles have neurological dysfunction residing within regions of the brain responsible for dictating what objects are/should be sexualised.
Homosexuality also revolves around attraction to sexually mature, same sex partners as opposed to prepubescent children.
I could understand the rationale behind a pedophile support group existing aimed at members helping one another CONTROL impulses/urges. But a group advocating for legalised child molestation… nope
Well, I’ve also stated the practical reasons such as LEO being able to track them down more easily and they can potentially lead to busting large producers of child exploitation material. It’s a net win if you don’t believe people can turn into paedophiles or child molesters.
You can still have a small government (or smaller government) and strong military. Most libertarians believe that one of the few roles that the government should handle is the military, which the market can’t effectively coordinate (unless you start getting into anarcho-capitalist territory where they believe that every household can have a contract with a PMC or some other stupid shit). I think you can quite easily expand this into “the government should be responsible for the military, defending the country’s interests on the world stage and for securing borders against illegal immigrants” and I think at this point most libertarians would disagree.
By the way, this isn’t even getting into the weeds on some of this stuff. For example, “pro-LGBT” can be a very broad range. Simply not wanting to stone all gay people to death would be considered progressive in some parts of the world. Similarly you can support the rights of gay people to be together while being against trans people. In the west, for a lot of progressives, not marching in the street and beating a drum in active support of trans rights and gay marriage makes you right wing.
Same thing for abortion. You can outright oppose abortion, or support abortion at any stage, or only during a rape case, or up to a certain week period, or a million other disclaimers. You can be pro-gun but be opposed to civilians having access to select-fire rifles or machine guns (or at least, make them harder to acquire) and a lot of gun owners would label you a fudd, a liberal or a commie for that.
My point is that every single issue has multiple shades of grey that makes it hard to just a stick a conservative/progressive label on people. Even the major parties have massive, rapid shifts in their beliefs. For example Hillary Clinton:
“On LGBT rights, she supports the right to same-sex marriage, a position that has changed throughout her political career.[[549]] In 2000, she was against such marriages altogether. In 2006, she said only that she would support a state’s decision to permit same-sex marriages, but opposed federally amending the Constitution to permit same-sex marriage. While running for president in 2007, she again reiterated her opposition to same-sex marriage, although expressed her support of civil unions.[[560]]. 2013 marked the first time that Clinton expressed support for a national right to same-sex marriage.”
This rather standard progressive issue really wasn’t a fixture in the progressive agenda until relatively recently. Nowadays good luck being against gay marriage and trying to run for election as a Democrat/progressive/liberal.
@unreal24278 Remember this?
Once bigass bust that would have taken multitudes of the amount of time and resources they used to get the same amount of people.
These markets keep popping up
Silkroad wasn’t the end of it. Every time they shut down one market, another (of equatable size) pops up.
It’s arguably less risky for a consumer to use these markets as compared to procuring off the street.
Yes, but we’re talking about a different thing altogether though the principle remains the same. How many child molesters are there and how many sites are there offering child porn?
Good point, I concede
Don’t need you to concede lol. This is a discussion, not a debate.
I don’t get what you’re saying. Can you expound on this? I’m definitely not sitting on the fence on a lot of issues.
You said you can’t stand intellectual honesty or dishonesty
Contradictory statements
Forgot the smiley face on what was probably an edit
Oh shit I make lots of typos as you can see with the number of edits in my posts lol. My eyesight’s been a bit wonky due to a lack of sleep and facing the computer screen too much this past few months.
And just to show I can back up anything I write with a blatant display of narcissism 
, I’m gonna self quote myself from a month or so back:
EDIT:
I meant THIS kind of tech(the css shit). I’m not clueless at all when it comes to other stuff,
No prob. I couldn’t tell I spelt it wrong in the first post when I read it lol. Eyesite’s not very good today.
That’s not what you said.
Ehh…I guess you could be “pro-some-guns” or “pro-guns-for-some.” “Pro-gun” is one of those somewhat-meaningless terms, I guess, like the two below.
The biggest problem with those labels is that what’s “progressive” the day it’s passed becomes “conservative” the next.
Making them harder to acquire should a reasonable proposition IMO. I’m not really sure since I haven’t considered all the factors but I’m bored.
Have you ever been seen what happens in the military where they put all the people with border line IQs together in basic training and it’s time to teach them how to throw a grenade? It’ a pretty harrowing experience lol.
EDIT:
Not sure if they allow people with IQs this low into the army in the US in the first place. I vaguely remember having this conversation with @usmds34234 (I see his account’s been deleted so I can’t remember the exact number in his username) once quite some time back.