Rocag said:

---

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

---

Are you for red flag laws? Any type of gun control?

Wrap MAPs in paper maps infused with mapp and toss them a lit cigarette?

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.

---

Yeah. Maybe the Dems need to bring back the Klan and have their meetings. It's your party, MAPs and the KKK, so you must be cool w it.

This isn't anger, it's mockery. Sorry if you don't understand the difference.

You proposed a scenario in which an adult initiates a (presumably inappropriate) conversation with a minor. Depending on the details, it could be illegal. Not that all adult/minor interactions are illegal, obviously. I'd say any adult initiating contact with a child they don't know and have no reason to interact with is suspicious, but again not necessarily illegal.

Rocag said:

---

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.

---

Until you treat advocates of snuff films, rape sex films, and bestiality films with the same level of acceptance as MAPs, your argument is either slightly pro-pedo or intellectually inconsistent.

Wanting to have sex with kids is a mental illness. It should be treated as such. This behavior is evil. People who want to do evil things but don't are not evil, but, labeling the behavior as anything less than evil is not ok.

We shouldn't just arrest or kill people that have mental illnesses, but we shouldn't give them support groups that tell them that their harmful obsessions are anything less than evil, either.

Do you agree that having sex with a 12 year old child is evil?

Rocag said:

---

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

---

It's moreso a warning. One that our country failed to heed. Now we have "conservatives" protecting pedos rights to meet and discuss their depravity. Big win for you, buddy.

I (allegedly) disapprove of kiddie diddling, but I will defend to the death your right to diddle kiddies.



some guy on texags

backintexas2013 said:

---

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

---

How many MAP friends do your kids have?

BusterAg said:

---

Wrap MAPs in paper maps infused with mapp and toss them a lit cigarette?

---

The dems are sexually depraved. They're trying to normalize the most sick mother ****ers ever!

Rocag said:

---

This isn't anger, it's mockery. Sorry if you don't understand the difference.

You proposed a scenario in which an adult initiates a (presumably inappropriate) conversation with a minor. Depending on the details, it could be illegal. Not that all adult/minor interactions are illegal, obviously. I'd say any adult initiating contact with a child they don't know and have no reason to interact with is suspicious, but again not necessarily illegal.

---

You think its funny? That's sick. Then you should have no problem having weekend sleepovers and keggers with your friends, the kiddie buggering MAPs.

Rocag said:

---

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

---

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!

---

Lol! This is exactly where I thought you were going with this as soon as I read the first quoted statement. It took a few pages for you to get there, but I had a feeling there was some kind of gotcha coming. I thought you would be drawing a more direct parallel to the outcry here against the open calls for censorship by DNC leadership though. But maybe you haven't gotten there yet.

Or maybe I'm giving you too much credit. And/or maybe this should be a sign that I'm spending entirely too much time here! July 13 sucked me in.

What i oppose is taking away rights from people who have committed no crimes which this thread seems eager to do.

Bluto said:

---

Rocag said:

---

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

---

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!

---

Lol! This is exactly where I thought you were going with this as soon as I read the first quoted statement. It took a few pages for you to get there, but I had a feeling there was some kind of gotcha coming. I thought you would be drawing a more direct parallel to the outcry here against the open calls for censorship by DNC leadership though. But maybe you haven't gotten there yet.

Or maybe I'm giving you too much credit. And/or maybe this should be a sign that I'm spending entirely too much time here! July 13 sucked me in.

---

The guy is full of it. He wants MAPs and their philosophy to course throughout mankind.

record every license plate

find every detail about every single one of them and let everyone know who they are.

if that's doxxing, so be it.

The children need to be safe, not these sickos!

BS. I have been very specific throughout this entire thread that I am only talking about people who have not committed any crimes related to this subject. That explicitly does not include people who have hurt children in any way or are guilty of any inchoate crimes like soliciting or conspiracy or people who are guilty of related crimes like possession of child pornography. Those people have already crossed the line and should face the legal punishment for their actions. This thread is desperate to portray me as wanting to protect them and that is wrong. Flat out wrong. As I have explicitly stated over and over.

But up until the point they've committed a crime, the government has no right to strip them of rights because they are a potential danger. If that is the precedent we use I can think of lots of groups we'd be justified in taking rights away from. Maybe you would even fit into some of those thought crime categories.

Rocag said:

---

What i oppose is taking away rights from people who have committed no crimes which this thread seems eager to do.

---

So you are against red flag laws? was against the vaccine mandate? was against Walz closing churches during covid?

Rocag said:

---

BS. I have been very specific throughout this entire thread that I am only talking about people who have not committed any crimes related to this subject. That explicitly does not include people who have hurt children in any way or are guilty of any inchoate crimes like soliciting or conspiracy or people who are guilty of related crimes like possession of child pornography. Those people have already crossed the line and should face the legal punishment for their actions. This thread is desperate to portray me as wanting to protect them and that is wrong. Flat out wrong. As I have explicitly stated over and over.

But up into the point they've committed a crime, the government has no right to strip them of rights because they are a potential danger. If that is the precedent we use I can think of lots of groups we'd be justified in taking rights away from. Maybe you would even fit into some of those thought crime categories.

---

We get it. Your words have meaning. Thanks for allowing us to see inside the mind of an avowed leftist.

backintexas2013 said:

---

Rocag said:

---

What i oppose is taking away rights from people who have committed no crimes which this thread seems eager to do.

---

So you are against red flag laws? was against the vaccine mandate? was against Walz closing churches during covid?

---

With red flag laws, I think it depends on how they're written. In most cases, threatening to kill someone or shoot up a school / business is a crime in of itself and so some restrictions could be valid. Again though, the specific of how it is implemented would matter.

Closing churches is an interesting case. I don't think the government could stop people from meeting in general, no. There might, however, be a better argument for closing off buildings for public health concerns considering we already do it all the time.

We should give them all pagers that they can use to communicate…

Are you ready to open your house, the safe place, to conduct these meetings where MAPs can freely express their sexual attraction and fantasies about children?

His party is out here passing laws to make memes illegal and he's here still defending the liberty of sexual freaks who want to bang kids like he's some sort of principled person.

bobbranco said:

---

Are you ready to open your house, the safe place, to conduct these meetings where MAPs can freely express their sexual attraction and fantasies about children?

---

That's a silly question. My house isn't a meeting hall to be used by anyone who asks, no matter what they want to talk about. Do you normally let people rent out your home to hold meetings?

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.

---

And this is the gateway logic. This is exactly why libs are so toxic. They are the ones that unlock the doors to society destroying behaviors.

Always have.

Trap door, wood chipper at the bottom. Problem solved

Rocag said:

---

bobbranco said:

---

Are you ready to open your house, the safe place, to conduct these meetings where MAPs can freely express their sexual attraction and fantasies about children?

---

That's a silly question. My house isn't a meeting hall to be used by anyone who asks, no matter what they want to talk about. Do you normally let people rent out your home to hold meetings?

---

Not a silly question. You did give an answer that reveals you will force MAPs on everyone else but you will keep yourself safe from them.

No, it is silly because it's based on the premise that I'd let other groups use my house for meetings which is untrue to begin with. You'd be better off rephrasing. Perhaps, would I immediately disown a friend who confessed that they had these feelings but had never acted on them in any way? No, I wouldn't.

Quote:

---

It is perfectly acceptable to diagnose people with a dangerous mental disease, help them seek treatment, and protect society from their choices.

---

Nope - have sat through nearly 100 sexually violent predator hearings. Not a psychiatrist out there that will testify that a pedophile can be cured.

As a child sexual abuse victim myself, the 'normalization' of this mental illness sickens me.

You prove once again that your opinions should be disregarded. Thank you.

Rocag said:

---

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

---

We use common sense and common sense tells us that kid diddlers are sick, perverted criminals preying on our youth.

RoadkillBBQ said:

---

Rocag said:

---

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

---

We use common sense and common sense tells us that kid diddlers are sick, perverted criminals preying on our youth.

---

That presumes they've already committed a crime and then yes, I certainly agree that they should be punished.

Rocag said:

---

No, it is silly because it's based on the premise that I'd let other groups use my house for meetings which is untrue to begin with. You'd be better off rephrasing. Perhaps, would I immediately disown a friend who confessed that they had these feelings but had never acted on them in any way? No, I wouldn't.

---

How could you associate with someone you know has those desires? Personally I'd always be wondering if they finally caved. I'd immediately look at them and say; "I hope you get the help you need" as I walked away and never spoke to that person again. I'd also be hard pressed not to make a phone call after an admission like that. I'm no saint but that's way across the red line of what's acceptable in society.

Because I don't believe people have control over who they are attracted to. It wouldn't be something they've chosen and if they're actively struggling with it presumably it's not something they want either. I'd also imagine someone who is trying to lead a normal life despite those unwanted feelings would be better off with the support of their friends and family rather than being automatically shunned and treated as an outcast. If they've already lost their family and friends, they don't have much to lose at that point do they?

Rocag said:

---

But up until the point they've committed a crime, the government has no right to strip them of rights because they are a potential danger.

---

You're encouraging pedos to get one free illegal act against a child, makes sense.

Document these sick individuals. The problem is that children can't protect themselves. Make their identities known so parents can protect their children.