Can someone tell me why a group like NAMBLA is allowed to exist?

  • 79 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#51 Posted by mattbbpl (10904 posts) -
[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="mattbbpl"][QUOTE="k2theswiss"] You sir is CLEARLY blind... I have hear countless times from news, articles and other places about the shit went on

Lai has a habit of ignoring information/events from reality as he professes others to be ignorant about "objective reality." It's like he tries to shoehorn the information he receives into his predefined worldview rather than form his worldview around that information.

General rule of thumb is when Lai says "objective reality" replace that with "Ayn Rand" and it actually makes sense.

If nothing else, it makes his posts less irritating :)
#52 Posted by Laihendi (5834 posts) -
[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="worlock77"]

But what if the parent did consent to it? That should be legal right? Since the child is the parent's property.

kuraimen
Theoretically yes, but in reality that will never happen. Allowing your children to be raped contradicts any self-preservation instinct that even an irrational parent would have, the same instinct that lead them to producing children. For the rational man who has children for rational purposes rather than instinct, he would not allow his children to be raped because that would be irrational. So really it is a non-issue.

How can a person that mentions the world rational so many times be so irrational. Parents selling their kids for sex has happened, happens and will happen in the real world. Stop living in Rand's irrational world.

No it does not happen. I have known many people in my life and nothing like that has ever happened to them. That is just stuff people put in tabloids and msnbc documentaries. Rational thinking is the foundation of Objectivism so I do not see where you are going with implying that Ayn Rand was irrational.
#53 Posted by Laihendi (5834 posts) -
[QUOTE="k2theswiss"][QUOTE="Laihendi"] Even if it does happen it has to be so rare that it is statistically negligible. It is some bizarre anomaly, and laws of nations should not be based on senseless exceptions to the laws of nature and objective reality. That would just legitimize and encourage the behaviour.mattbbpl
You sir is CLEARLY blind... I have hear countless times from news, articles and other places about the shit went on

Lai has a habit of ignoring information/events from reality as he professes others to be ignorant about "objective reality." It's like he tries to shoehorn the information he receives into his predefined worldview rather than form his worldview around that information.

I do not have a pre-defined worldview. Objectivism is based on the objective axiom that A is A. My worldview is defined only by the world that I am viewing. Rape is completely contradictory to parenting. The thought of a parent being a rapist is absurd and irrational.
#54 Posted by kuraimen (28078 posts) -
[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="Laihendi"] Theoretically yes, but in reality that will never happen. Allowing your children to be raped contradicts any self-preservation instinct that even an irrational parent would have, the same instinct that lead them to producing children. For the rational man who has children for rational purposes rather than instinct, he would not allow his children to be raped because that would be irrational. So really it is a non-issue.

How can a person that mentions the world rational so many times be so irrational. Parents selling their kids for sex has happened, happens and will happen in the real world. Stop living in Rand's irrational world.

No it does not happen. I have known many people in my life and nothing like that has ever happened to them. That is just stuff people put in tabloids and msnbc documentaries. Rational thinking is the foundation of Objectivism so I do not see where you are going with implying that Ayn Rand was irrational.

It's irrational because it ignores facts to support a delusional agenda. Exactly like you're doing right now.
#55 Posted by Ace6301 (21389 posts) -
[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="mattbbpl"][QUOTE="k2theswiss"] You sir is CLEARLY blind... I have hear countless times from news, articles and other places about the shit went on

Lai has a habit of ignoring information/events from reality as he professes others to be ignorant about "objective reality." It's like he tries to shoehorn the information he receives into his predefined worldview rather than form his worldview around that information.

I do not have a pre-defined worldview. Objectivism is based on the objective axiom that A is A. My worldview is defined only by the world that I am viewing. Rape is completely contradictory to parenting. The thought of a parent being a rapist is absurd and irrational.

Yet it happens. We live in a crazy world, not a sane one.
#56 Posted by PannicAtack (21040 posts) -
ITT: A person who talks about "objective reality"... ignores objective reality.
#57 Posted by Capitan_Kid (6628 posts) -
Will you people please ignore him?! He's fvcking up my topic!
#58 Posted by Laihendi (5834 posts) -
Will you people please ignore him?! He's fvcking up my topic!Capitan_Kid
If you did not want to know why NAMBLA should be allowed to exist then why did you ask? You are being ignorant. Kuraimen please give me an example of a parent raping a child. I have never heard of anything like that happening.
#59 Posted by Capitan_Kid (6628 posts) -
[QUOTE="Capitan_Kid"]Will you people please ignore him?! He's fvcking up my topic!Laihendi
If you did not want to know why NAMBLA should be allowed to exist then why did you ask? You are being ignorant. Kuraimen please give me an example of a parent raping a child. I have never heard of anything like that happening.

I did ask for your opinion on NAMBLAs existence but I did not ask for you to talk about irrelevant things like family rape. Stop raping my topic please
#60 Posted by Laihendi (5834 posts) -

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="Capitan_Kid"]Will you people please ignore him?! He's fvcking up my topic!PannicAtack

If you did not want to know why NAMBLA should be allowed to exist then why did you ask? You are being ignorant. Kuraimen please give me an example of a parent raping a child. I have never heard of anything like that happening.

I linked you to an article about a case quite a while ago. You very flatly ignored it.

Are you familiar with To Kill a Mockingbird?

I have read it. How is that relevant?
#61 Posted by PannicAtack (21040 posts) -
[QUOTE="PannicAtack"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] If you did not want to know why NAMBLA should be allowed to exist then why did you ask? You are being ignorant. Kuraimen please give me an example of a parent raping a child. I have never heard of anything like that happening.Laihendi

I linked you to an article about a case quite a while ago. You very flatly ignored it.

Are you familiar with To Kill a Mockingbird?

I have read it. How is that relevant?

You recall how a major implication in the book was that Mayella was raped by her father?
#62 Posted by Laihendi (5834 posts) -
[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="PannicAtack"]I linked you to an article about a case quite a while ago. You very flatly ignored it.

Are you familiar with To Kill a Mockingbird?

PannicAtack
I have read it. How is that relevant?

You recall how a major implication in the book was that Mayella was raped by her father?

No, she was raped by Tom Robinson. She said so and he was found guilty. He tried to run away rather than appeal, which he would not have done if he was innocent.
#63 Posted by Laihendi (5834 posts) -
[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="PannicAtack"]I linked you to an article about a case quite a while ago. You very flatly ignored it.

Are you familiar with To Kill a Mockingbird?

PannicAtack
I have read it. How is that relevant?

You recall how a major implication in the book was that Mayella was raped by her father?

That is just fiction anyways, so it does not matter even if it was implied that Mayella was raped by her father.
#64 Posted by Laihendi (5834 posts) -

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="PannicAtack"] You recall how a major implication in the book was that Mayella was raped by her father?PannicAtack

That is just fiction anyways, so it does not matter even if it was implied that Mayella was raped by her father.

Moving away from your hilarious interpretation of To Kill a Mockingbird, let's back up for a second...

You say that this is irrelevant because it's a work of fiction. But a while ago when you are on a tear about how the poor are all lazy moochers, you drop a name, but the name is that of a fictional character from a book.

So... it's alright when you do it?

Atlas Shrugged is an objective representation of the real world in the form of a novel. To Kill a Mockingbird is told from the perspective of a specific character, which is subjective by default and therefore not a representation of objective reality. Atlas Shrugged has relevance to real-world socio-economic/political problems, whereas To Kill a Mockingbird does not.
#65 Posted by THE_DRUGGIE (24976 posts) -

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] That is just fiction anyways, so it does not matter even if it was implied that Mayella was raped by her father.Laihendi

Moving away from your hilarious interpretation of To Kill a Mockingbird, let's back up for a second...

You say that this is irrelevant because it's a work of fiction. But a while ago when you are on a tear about how the poor are all lazy moochers, you drop a name, but the name is that of a fictional character from a book.

So... it's alright when you do it?

Atlas Shrugged is an objective representation of the real world in the form of a novel. To Kill a Mockingbird is told from the perspective of a specific character, which is subjective by default and therefore not a representation of objective reality. Atlas Shrugged has relevance to real-world socio-economic/political problems, whereas To Kill a Mockingbird does not.

Also, water is dry and books are made completely of Russian saliva.

#66 Posted by Laihendi (5834 posts) -

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="PannicAtack"]Moving away from your hilarious interpretation of To Kill a Mockingbird, let's back up for a second...

You say that this is irrelevant because it's a work of fiction. But a while ago when you are on a tear about how the poor are all lazy moochers, you drop a name, but the name is that of a fictional character from a book.

So... it's alright when you do it?

THE_DRUGGIE

Atlas Shrugged is an objective representation of the real world in the form of a novel. To Kill a Mockingbird is told from the perspective of a specific character, which is subjective by default and therefore not a representation of objective reality. Atlas Shrugged has relevance to real-world socio-economic/political problems, whereas To Kill a Mockingbird does not.

Also, water is dry and books are made completely of Russian saliva.

That does not make any sense.
#67 Posted by THE_DRUGGIE (24976 posts) -

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]Atlas Shrugged is an objective representation of the real world in the form of a novel. To Kill a Mockingbird is told from the perspective of a specific character, which is subjective by default and therefore not a representation of objective reality. Atlas Shrugged has relevance to real-world socio-economic/political problems, whereas To Kill a Mockingbird does not.Laihendi

That does not make any sense.

Fixed for ease of understanding.

#68 Posted by Ace6301 (21389 posts) -
[QUOTE="PannicAtack"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] That is just fiction anyways, so it does not matter even if it was implied that Mayella was raped by her father.Laihendi

Moving away from your hilarious interpretation of To Kill a Mockingbird, let's back up for a second...

You say that this is irrelevant because it's a work of fiction. But a while ago when you are on a tear about how the poor are all lazy moochers, you drop a name, but the name is that of a fictional character from a book.

So... it's alright when you do it?

Atlas Shrugged is an objective representation of the real world in the form of a novel. To Kill a Mockingbird is told from the perspective of a specific character, which is subjective by default and therefore not a representation of objective reality. Atlas Shrugged has relevance to real-world socio-economic/political problems, whereas To Kill a Mockingbird does not.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_j56IiLqZ9U
#69 Posted by PannicAtack (21040 posts) -
[QUOTE="PannicAtack"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] That is just fiction anyways, so it does not matter even if it was implied that Mayella was raped by her father.Laihendi

Moving away from your hilarious interpretation of To Kill a Mockingbird, let's back up for a second...

You say that this is irrelevant because it's a work of fiction. But a while ago when you are on a tear about how the poor are all lazy moochers, you drop a name, but the name is that of a fictional character from a book.

So... it's alright when you do it?

Atlas Shrugged is an objective representation of the real world in the form of a novel. To Kill a Mockingbird is told from the perspective of a specific character, which is subjective by default and therefore not a representation of objective reality. Atlas Shrugged has relevance to real-world socio-economic/political problems, whereas To Kill a Mockingbird does not.

No, Atlas Shrugged is a fantasy devised for the express purpose of promoting an ideology. Its setting is a dystopia that doesn't exist (nor has it ever), and its characters are representations and abstractions of ideas rather than actual human beings. Quite frankly, To Kill a Mockingbird is much more realistic, being a representation of America as it was, based on the author's own experiences. Furthermore, your hypothesis that Tom Robinson was the real rapist all along runs extremely contrary to the story's core themes. And Atlas Shrugged has more social relevance than To Kill a Mockingbird. Oh, my sides.
#70 Posted by Ace6301 (21389 posts) -
[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="PannicAtack"]Moving away from your hilarious interpretation of To Kill a Mockingbird, let's back up for a second...

You say that this is irrelevant because it's a work of fiction. But a while ago when you are on a tear about how the poor are all lazy moochers, you drop a name, but the name is that of a fictional character from a book.

So... it's alright when you do it?

PannicAtack
Atlas Shrugged is an objective representation of the real world in the form of a novel. To Kill a Mockingbird is told from the perspective of a specific character, which is subjective by default and therefore not a representation of objective reality. Atlas Shrugged has relevance to real-world socio-economic/political problems, whereas To Kill a Mockingbird does not.

No, Atlas Shrugged is a fantasy devised for the express purpose of promoting an ideology. Its setting is a dystopia that doesn't exist (nor has it ever), and its characters are representations and abstractions of ideas rather than actual human beings. Quite frankly, To Kill a Mockingbird is much more realistic, being a representation of America as it was, based on the author's own experiences. Furthermore, your hypothesis that Tom Robinson was the real rapist all along runs extremely contrary to the story's core themes. And Atlas Shrugged has more social relevance than To Kill a Mockingbird. Oh, my sides.

Not to mention that the solution devised in Atlas Shrugged is a physical impossibility. As for the society Rand saw as perfect well...it's a pipe dream to say the least. As for forms of entertainment that get that message across Bioshock does it well enough for what it is.
#71 Posted by surrealnumber5 (23044 posts) -
south park
#72 Posted by Stesilaus (3520 posts) -

... please give me an example of a parent raping a child. I have never heard of anything like that happening.

Laihendi

googlefrd_zps2c950df0.jpg

#73 Posted by kuraimen (28078 posts) -
[QUOTE="Capitan_Kid"]Will you people please ignore him?! He's fvcking up my topic!Laihendi
If you did not want to know why NAMBLA should be allowed to exist then why did you ask? You are being ignorant. Kuraimen please give me an example of a parent raping a child. I have never heard of anything like that happening.

http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Wife-catches-husband-raping-daughter-20130306 Just one example of thousands. I'm starting to think you're not serious. If you truly never heard of such a thing you either are 10 years old or a basement dweller who needs to get out and look at the world he lives in.
#74 Posted by worlock77 (22547 posts) -

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="Laihendi"] Theoretically yes, but in reality that will never happen. Allowing your children to be raped contradicts any self-preservation instinct that even an irrational parent would have, the same instinct that lead them to producing children. For the rational man who has children for rational purposes rather than instinct, he would not allow his children to be raped because that would be irrational. So really it is a non-issue.Laihendi
How can a person that mentions the world rational so many times be so irrational. Parents selling their kids for sex has happened, happens and will happen in the real world. Stop living in Rand's irrational world.

No it does not happen. I have known many people in my life and nothing like that has ever happened to them. That is just stuff people put in tabloids and msnbc documentaries. Rational thinking is the foundation of Objectivism so I do not see where you are going with implying that Ayn Rand was irrational.

I've known many people in my life and none of them have ever been murdered. So murder doesn't happen in objective reality.

#75 Posted by Aljosa23 (25887 posts) -

Atlas Shrugged is an objective representation of the real world in the form of a novel. To Kill a Mockingbird is told from the perspective of a specific character, which is subjective by default and therefore not a representation of objective reality. Atlas Shrugged has relevance to real-world socio-economic/political problems, whereas To Kill a Mockingbird does not.Laihendi
This is the single most hilarious post I have ever read on here LOL

Harper Lee's single novel influenced the world while Ayn Rand's body of work creates braindead politicians and teens with 0 critical thinking, like Laihendi.

#76 Posted by whipassmt (14400 posts) -

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"][QUOTE="Laihendi"] Atlas Shrugged is an objective representation of the real world in the form of a novel. To Kill a Mockingbird is told from the perspective of a specific character, which is subjective by default and therefore not a representation of objective reality. Atlas Shrugged has relevance to real-world socio-economic/political problems, whereas To Kill a Mockingbird does not.Ace6301
No, Atlas Shrugged is a fantasy devised for the express purpose of promoting an ideology. Its setting is a dystopia that doesn't exist (nor has it ever), and its characters are representations and abstractions of ideas rather than actual human beings. Quite frankly, To Kill a Mockingbird is much more realistic, being a representation of America as it was, based on the author's own experiences. Furthermore, your hypothesis that Tom Robinson was the real rapist all along runs extremely contrary to the story's core themes. And Atlas Shrugged has more social relevance than To Kill a Mockingbird. Oh, my sides.

Not to mention that the solution devised in Atlas Shrugged is a physical impossibility. As for the society Rand saw as perfect well...it's a pipe dream to say the least. As for forms of entertainment that get that message across Bioshock does it well enough for what it is.

My cousin just got Bioshock a couple weeks ago. We were playing it yesterday.

#77 Posted by heeweesRus (5492 posts) -

Lai owns OT once again :cool:

#78 Posted by Serraph105 (28528 posts) -

The first amendment guarantees the right to free speech. The members of NAMBLA, as disgusting as they are, should not all be treated like they are on the verge of being law breakers. That would only be punishing many innocent people simply because a few of them actually acted upon their natural tendencies.

Furthermore if we did banish a group like this from existence we would be giving up a small bit of freedom for the safety of our children. Not only would we neither deserve freedom nor safety after having done so these types of people would still exist, and sexually abuse our children. It doesn't matter if we could lower the rate at which this terrible sort of thing happens because freedom is more important than our children going unmollested.

#79 Posted by mrbojangles25 (31998 posts) -

because, contrary to what the media, hipster libertarians, and constitutional hypochondriacs want you to believe, America is still a very safe, very free place to live and express your beliefs.