Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utcsrgv.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsrgv!dave
From: dave@utcsrgv.UUCP (Dave Sherman)
Newsgroups: net.motss
Subject: Re: NAMBLA RESOLUTION
Message-ID: <3140@utcsrgv.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 17-Jan-84 13:34:51 EST
Article-I.D.: utcsrgv.3140
Posted: Tue Jan 17 13:34:51 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 17-Jan-84 14:39:27 EST
References: <485@bbncca.ARPA>, <1197@mit-eddie.UUCP>
Organization: The Law Society of Upper Canada, Toronto
Lines: 16

It's quite clear that the NAMBLA resolution is simply aimed
at redefining the age of adulthood. All this "children should
have rights" stuff is rather meaningless, since they don't define
at what age the rights should start. Surely they don't want to
give two-year-olds the right to vote, and day-old babies the
right to move out of the house.

The object of NAMBLA appears to be (for their own purposes, of
course) to redefine the age of adulthood to something lower than
18. What, I don't know. 16? 12? 8? At least if they came out and
picked, say 14 or 16, their arguments would make sense. (I would
still disagree with the arguments, however.)

Dave Sherman
-- 
 {allegra,cornell,decvax,ihnp4,linus,utzoo}!utcsrgv!dave