Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site bbncca.ARPA
Path: utzoo!linus!bbncca!sdyer
From: sdyer@bbncca.ARPA (Steve Dyer)
Newsgroups: net.motss
Subject: Re: NAMBLA RESOLUTION
Message-ID: <486@bbncca.ARPA>
Date: Sun, 15-Jan-84 21:43:35 EST
Article-I.D.: bbncca.486
Posted: Sun Jan 15 21:43:35 1984
Date-Received: Mon, 16-Jan-84 01:49:14 EST
References: <485@bbncca.ARPA>
Organization: Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Cambridge, Ma.
Lines: 36

Will, I really have got to hear your own opinions about the NAMBLA
resolution you posted.  I have a hard time taking it seriously because it
seems so incredibly naive about the nature of children and their place in
our society.  If one accepts the implicit assumption buried within the
NAMBLA resolution, namely, that children are simply smaller adults, then
all of the assumptions in the document logically follow.  But, if one
cannot (as I cannot) accept this, the statements read as simply bizarre.

Perhaps this is because we haven't defined what a "child" is for the
purposes of this resolution.  If you talk about self-determination for 16
or 17 year olds, I am less likely to gasp than if we are discussing food
co-ops run by 4 year olds.  Marty's flame, though it had more emotion than
substance, did bring up a few good points.  Children (notwithstanding the
fact that we don't have a definition here) are "weaker" than adults, both
physically and emotionally, and as such deserve some kind of protection
against exploitation.  Society and the family have structures set up
which attempt to provide this.  (Whether they succeed is another issue,
certainly not one which arises out of this NAMBLA resolution.)

The resolution presented here looks surprisingly like the typical USENET
reductio-ad-absurdum argument, but with a large amount of self-interest
added:

	1.) As a self-determining being, I can choose to have sex with
	    others capable of self-determination who agree to have
	    sex with me.
	2.) Children are self-determining beings.
	3.) Therefore, I can have sex with children who agree to have
	    sex with me.

Where does NAMBLA get off assuming proposition #2 is true?  I think
a little explanation is in order.
-- 
/Steve Dyer
decvax!bbncca!sdyer
sdyer@bbncca