Bondag said:

---

This was a South Park episode 20 years ago.

---

Cartman joins NAMBLA

Well, if nothing else, such a gathering could surface people that needed to be watched damn closely

These are all LIES LIES LIES, I can promise you that the LBGTQ+-*%&#@ / Mainstream media/ The Democratic party have all been VERY CLEAR that THEY ARE NOT COMING FOR YOUR KIDS!!!!
Next all you conspiracy theorist will be saying all these groups are working 24/7 to make all their so called
" degeneracy " legal and those who criticize/ oppose them the criminals who will be sent to jail. Ridiculous !!!!!

Rocag said:

---

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

---

Yes. Recently three major players in your party have all came out specifically starting there is "no guarantee of free speech."

so who can do what and when is subject to interpretation at any given point in time.

So to answer your question, Yes. Your own party actively endorses deciding which groups are and are not entitled to free speech

The only appropriate location for a MAP gathering:

Do they carry Beepers or Walkie Talkies?

Quote:

---

I also think no one should be treated as a criminal solely based on who they are attracted to,

---

So when some f wad from the pedo group freely talks about hookin up with my 10 year old daughter and then contacts her, am I allowed to page the fella or do I have to wait until diddles my daughter?

You can defend pedos all day, sure they have a right to gather, but if you gather freely talking about hooking up with kids aka breaking the law and then you talk to a kid, that is no longer free speech, that is breaking the law. No dad is going to sit around, knowing that pedos are in groups talking about diddlin their daughters and then allow that pedo to talk to his daughter.

Much like attempted murder, talking about diddlin kids and then talking to a kid is attempted diddlin. That is a death penalty.

MD1993 said:

---

Do they carry Beepers or Walkie Talkies?

---

screw that. just drone strike the gatherings.

Logos Stick said:

---

MAP = minor attracted person, aka pedo. I guess MAP gatherings are a thing now. First I've heard of it. And no, it's not some support group for those trying to recover. I saw the ad and it was sick..

How long until they are a protected class and it's no longer illegal?

Washington City council meeting last night in Marshfield, Vermont where a “MAP” aka p*doph*Ie gathering was scheduled to take place today.

The police said they will make sure “MAPs” feel safe.

The owner of the grounds where it was scheduled to take place said the event was… pic.twitter.com/GtasRVOfwC

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) September 19, 2024

---

Didn't you listen to the video, it's already not illegal

There's a difference there. In your example the person has taken some action to inappropriately approach a minor. At that point, the line is crossed.

There is nothing illegal about contacting her. The MAP may say he just wants to be friends. That's not illegal.

Quote:

---

There's a difference there. In your example the person has taken some action to inappropriately approach a minor. At that point, the line is crossed.

---

OK, so after attending one of these diddler meetings, that individual can never talk to an underage individual ever again because any communication with a minor would be considered attempted diddling.

backintexas2013 said:

---

There is nothing illegal about contacting her. The MAPay say he just wants to be friends. That's not illegal.

---

It's like on the "To Catch a Predator" series. The people involved were guilty of solicitation of a minor even though there was no child at the house when they showed up.

Read what I wrote. Contacting isn't illegal so the MAP is ok. It's when they solicit.

Quote:

---

There is nothing illegal about contacting her. The MAP may say he just wants to be friends. That's not illegal.

---

Wrong. If you go to a diddler meeting, admit you have feelings for diddlin kids, then you talk to a kid, you are attempting to diddle the kid. You are in the process of diddlin. If you shoot at someone that you want to kill and miss that is attempted murder. If you confess to wanting to act inappropriately with minors and then you talk to them you attempted to diddle them. That person should be arrested and have their day in court to prove otherwise.

Film all in attendance.

IndividualFreedom said:

---

When dads start whipping pedos arse, it is up to us to be at that court case demanding all charges are dropped.

---

FIFY

B-1 83 said:

---

Film all in attendance.

---

Yup

Captain Pablo said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

Film all in attendance.

---

Yup

---

Exactly, this was probably 20 years ago when 60 minutes were just closeted marxist and not pro child sexual abuse. They did a story about NAMBLA and surprised them at one of their meetings at a library. When they learned it was 60 minutes filming them, the pedos left the room like somebody had dropped a live grenade on the table.

People who defend these NAMBLA types should have their children removed from their care.

The person I was responding to stated that going to the meeting isn't a crime. I was staying neither is contacting a 10 year old. Seems he wanted one to be a crime but not the other. He wants to decide what it's and isn't a crime

You know what, you're right. I repent. I have seen the light.

I want to embrace the vision of my small government conservative brethren and give the federal government the ability to strip away the rights not just of people who have been convicted of some crime but who are deemed guilty of harboring thoughts the government has declared to be deviant.

Let's create a federal watch list, just like we do for people with terrorist connections. I'm sure this will work out just fine. And these people will have to accept living under constant surveillance, without the ability to speak freely or assemble. Maybe we can even take away their right to buy firearms, how about that! And it doesn't matter that they might not have technically committed any crime, this is for the children. We have to err on the side of caution. So, by default, it's going to be a lot easier to get on the list than get off. Oh well. For the children.

And, while we're already taking away rights of people for having deviant thoughts, perhaps we can expand this just a bit. We've got precedent after all. I can think of some political beliefs I just don't like the look of. Let's add them to the list as well.

Hallelujah! My eyes have been opened!

Rocag said:

---

You know what, you're right. I repent. I have seen the light.

I want to embrace the vision of my small government conservative brethren and give the federal government the ability to strip away the rights not just of people who have been convicted of some crime but who are deemed guilty of harboring thoughts the government has declared to be deviant.

Let's create a federal watch list, just like we do for people with terrorist connections. I'm sure this will work out just fine. And these people will have to accept living under constant surveillance, without the ability to speak freely or assemble. Maybe we can even take away their right to buy firearms, how about that! And it doesn't matter that they might not have technically committed any crime, this is for the children. We have to err on the side of caution. So, by default, it's going to be a lot easier to get on the list than get off. Oh well. For the children.

And, while we're already taking away rights of people for having deviant thoughts, perhaps we can expand this just a bit. We've got precedent after all. I can think of some political beliefs I just don't like the look of. Let's add them to the list as well.

Hallelujah! My eyes have been opened!

---

"Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - guy who was more conservative than you.

Oh exactly! Only moral and religious. How about another watch list for people we deem not to be "moral and religious"?

I'm of the opinion that just like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater is not protected speech neither is "I wanna **** kids."

Next you will type "Provide them with lifelike adolescent sex dolls!", as some other simple minded poster suggested be done.

Great. Have the meeting.
Photograph every participant entering and leaving and post it on the internet. Thank you for identifying yourself. Now deal with the aftermath.

Sure you have free speech. And you also deal with the consequences of your speech.

Nope. I'm all in on the "No rights for those the government declares to be deviants" train!

When pedos get together, it is a criminal conspiracy (conspiring to commit buggery on kids). Seems like thats probably not protected speech.

Rocag said:

---

Nope. I'm all in on the "No rights for those the government declares to be deviants" train!

---

Sorry about your feelings being hurt.

And your angry sarcasm is noted.

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.

---

You say it's plausible for some people to be attracted to people under the legal age, but be specific. Are you talking about a 16 or 17 year old or do you also feel that way for people who are attracted to a 7 or 8 year old? Heck what about a 3 or 4 year old? Those perverts are out there and they should hide in shame alone in their homes forever, not be holding group sessions to discuss their fantasies

To even say out loud they can't control who they are attracted to is the slippery slope of lessening the punishment for abusing a child because you are excusing the crime before it is even committed. It already sounds like something a defense lawyer will start using in the future do defend their pervert clients. These people are sick, there is nothing normal about them but for some reason there seems to be a push by the left to normalize these freaks. In fact the left seems hell bent on normalizing everything that was considered not normal just 10 years ago

This is the way.

B-1 83 said:

---

Film all in attendance.

---

Document them and create a website like neighborhoodwatchdog so anyone living near the pedofile is aware.

You stated one was a crime and the other wasn't. Don't go all triggered meltdown because I was pointing out you being inconsistent.