Nope. Not defending anyone who has committed a crime of any kind. But assuming these people haven't committed any crimes and don't plan to? Yeah, leave them alone.

No one should be punished for their thoughts.

Actions, however are a much different story. Millstones.

Rocag said:

---

Well don't these people, assuming they've committed no crimes, have the right to free speech and assembly?

Personally I don't think people pick who they're attracted to, so the idea that someone could naturally be attracted to people under the legal age seems plausible to me. Not that it would make any kind of sexual contact with them legal, just that attraction alone shouldn't be criminal.

---

What do you think about a snuff film festival, celebrating the most creative way to depict raping a woman just before slicing her throat? That kinda film really gets some people off.

Rocag said:

---

Nope. Not defending anyone who has committed a crime of any kind. But assuming these people haven't committed any crimes and don't plan to? Yeah, leave them alone.

---

Again, what's the stated purpose of this gathering?

Is it to reinforce and enable one another, or is it an AA-type meeting to try and keep everyone on the straight and narrow?

I will assume it's the former in which case we have a golden opportunity for prevention by putting them on notice at the very least.

Are we going to start protecting terrorists gathering to plan out their acts too?

BusterAg said:

---

Rocag said:

---

Well don't these people, assuming they've committed no crimes, have the right to free speech and assembly?

Personally I don't think people pick who they're attracted to, so the idea that someone could naturally be attracted to people under the legal age seems plausible to me. Not that it would make any kind of sexual contact with them legal, just that attraction alone shouldn't be criminal.

---

What do you think about a snuff film festival, celebrating the most creative way to depict raping a woman just before slicing her throat? That kinda film really gets some people off.

---

Do the KKK have a right to assemble?

Rocag said:

---

Interesting. So how do we decide which groups aren't entitled to free speech or freedom of assembly?

---

The First Amendment guarantees free speech, but it's clear that US law does not include all speech as free speech. There are several things that don't fall under the umbrella of protected speech. So, from my perspective, the real question here isn't whether there is a guarantee to free speech but how do we draw the line between protected speech and unprotected speech.

I watched the OP's video and it isn't clear what the purpose of the meeting was.

Rocag said:

---

I watched the OP's video and it isn't clear what the purpose of the meeting was.

---

put in some work and go find the ad

oh no said:

---

police should set up MAP gathering honeypots just so they can arrest shoot every single person that shows up.

---

FIFY

BusterAg said:

---

Rocag said:

---

Well don't these people, assuming they've committed no crimes, have the right to free speech and assembly?

Personally I don't think people pick who they're attracted to, so the idea that someone could naturally be attracted to people under the legal age seems plausible to me. Not that it would make any kind of sexual contact with them legal, just that attraction alone shouldn't be criminal.

---

What do you think about a snuff film festival, celebrating the most creative way to depict raping a woman just before slicing her throat? That kinda film really gets some people off.

---

I don't actually know much about the legality of snuff films. It looks like they are already illegal in the US so I question whether a film festival dedicated to them would ever be allowed.

BusterAg said:

---

I might be OK with labeling people as MAP in the same way we lable people with drug addictions, xtreme pyromaniacs, homicidal tendencies, or major schizophrenia problems. It is perfectly acceptable to diagnose people with a dangerous mental disease, help them seek treatment, and protect society from their choices.

---

No.

Just no.

Labels do nothing except protect the individual labeled.

Stop accepting evil because you can put a label on it.

Rocag said:

---

Interesting. So how do we decide which groups aren't entitled to free speech or freedom of assembly?

---

Those planning crimes should not be entitled to free speech or freedom of assembly.

We just want the government out of our bedrooms.

Rocag said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

Rocag said:

---

Well don't these people, assuming they've committed no crimes, have the right to free speech and assembly?

Personally I don't think people pick who they're attracted to, so the idea that someone could naturally be attracted to people under the legal age seems plausible to me. Not that it would make any kind of sexual contact with them legal, just that attraction alone shouldn't be criminal.

---

What do you think about a snuff film festival, celebrating the most creative way to depict raping a woman just before slicing her throat? That kinda film really gets some people off.

---

I don't actually know much about the legality of snuff films. It looks like they are already illegal in the US so I question whether a film festival dedicated to them would ever be allowed.

---

The question was, what is your opinion of a large group of snuff film enthusiasts getting together? Should we label them as normal people and protect their freedom of association? Or, should we take down all of their names and addresses, and start monitoring their internet usage under a legal surveillance warrant? I vote the latter for snuff film enthusiasts. And MAPs.

ME92 said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

I might be OK with labeling people as MAP in the same way we lable people with drug addictions, xtreme pyromaniacs, homicidal tendencies, or major schizophrenia problems. It is perfectly acceptable to diagnose people with a dangerous mental disease, help them seek treatment, and protect society from their choices.

---

No.

Just no.

Labels do nothing except protect the individual labeled.

Stop accepting evil because you can put a label on it.

---

Calling people with sexual urges towards children as "evil" is labeling them as people with evil thoughts. I mean, it's a correct label, but it is a label.

MAPs is a label. So is pedophile. So is murderer. So is potentially murderous psychopath. Not all labels are about legitimacy.

Funky Winkerbean said:

---

We just want the government out of our bedrooms.

---

Yes, well.

Would these MAPs groups be interested in purchasing some pagers to help coordinate their meetings. I've heard of a source that can provide them for a low, low cost....

Logos Stick said:

---

Rocag said:

---

Interesting. So how do we decide which groups aren't entitled to free speech or freedom of assembly?

---

The First Amendment guarantees free speech, but it's clear that US law does not include all speech as free speech. There are several things that don't fall under the umbrella of protected speech. So, from my perspective, the real question here isn't whether there is a guarantee to free speech but how do we draw the line between protected speech and unprotected speech.

---

Good point. Who do you trust to draw the line on protected free speech.
Me I don't trust anyone in the Democratic Party leadership and many in the Republican Party leadership.

BusterAg said:

---

ME92 said:

---

BusterAg said:

---

I might be OK with labeling people as MAP in the same way we lable people with drug addictions, xtreme pyromaniacs, homicidal tendencies, or major schizophrenia problems. It is perfectly acceptable to diagnose people with a dangerous mental disease, help them seek treatment, and protect society from their choices.

---

No.

Just no.

Labels do nothing except protect the individual labeled.

Stop accepting evil because you can put a label on it.

---

Calling people with sexual urges towards children as "evil" is labeling them as people with evil thoughts. I mean, it's a correct label, but it is a label.

MAPs is a label. So is pedophile. So is murderer. So is potentially murderous psychopath. Not all labels are about legitimacy.

---

The only label needed is "Deceased".

&ct=g

Canyon99 said:

---

Don't use the term MAP. They are disgusting pedophiles and need to be referred to as such all of the time.

---

Exactly.

These are the only things that should be called MAP:

richardag said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Rocag said:

---

Interesting. So how do we decide which groups aren't entitled to free speech or freedom of assembly?

---

The First Amendment guarantees free speech, but it's clear that US law does not include all speech as free speech. There are several things that don't fall under the umbrella of protected speech. So, from my perspective, the real question here isn't whether there is a guarantee to free speech but how do we draw the line between protected speech and unprotected speech.

---

Good point. Who do you trust to draw the line on protected free speech.
Me I don't trust anyone in the Democratic Party leadership and many in the Republican Party leadership.

---

That text was rocag's post from another thread.

In this thread, he's advocating FOR free speech for pedos. In the other one, he was advocating AGAINST free speech for those who engage in hate speech of misinformation.

Like any good radical lefty, he starts with what he wants based on his feelings. He then argues to get that conclusion, not based on data, logic or thought.

LOL


eta; to answer your Q. I dont trust any human to make that judgement!

Oh, quit lying already.

In that other thread I readily admitted that the Supreme Court had declared hate speech was still protected speech and that the term "misinformation" was overly vague and that for it to not be protected it would likely need to also meet one of the existing criteria. I stand by all of that.

I also think no one should be treated as a criminal solely based on who they are attracted to, which I believe most people have very little control over to begin with. That changes as soon as they act in some illegal manner.

If those stances are controversial then so be it.

Was Tim Walz at this gathering?

WTF. Only 16 years ago, pre-Obama, this would have been a sting operation. I sure AF will not thank Obama for fundamentally changing the US.

Could you imagine a MAP meeting during COVID. What would a liberal do?

Just like trans people, they don't need a support group, they need therapy.

MAPs and MAP apologists should have the crap beaten out of them

No reason to excuse or enable/encourage those bad actions and thoughts.

Rocag said:

---

Interesting. So how do we decide which groups aren't entitled to free speech or freedom of assembly?

---

Promoting child endangerment is the solution? It's a sickness that damages the innocent.

Not surprising because you are a staunch democrat and they have devolved into the baby killing party. Congratulations.