Even if prison will not heal pedophiles, if they can't control themselves, it is better to have them in prison than out free. Surely you wouldn't suggest that they should walk free no matter what they do.

But there's a huge important distinction you and many other people aren't aware of: pedophilia vs. ephebophilia. Pedophilia (prepubescent) is a very serious mental disorder. However, ephebophilia (mid-to-late adolescents) is extremely common, especially in men. Most all heterosexual men know that some teens 15-17 can be attractive. But the "age of consent" combined with insufficient understanding of psycholology by the media, combined with extremely gross public perception of pedophilia, combined with the law, has completely blended these groups together. An 18 year old with a 17 year old girlfriend can be branded as a sex offender for life should the law happen to be unsympathetic. The law, and the public, need to understand that maturation happens gradually, and that the acceptable activities increase gradually as one grows older, and that everything should not become instantly acceptable because of attaining the arbitrary age of 18.

What you said about GOOOH's stance on the ACLU is very related to the problems with a potential national campaign, in some other thread. GOOOH can't fight a non-partisan campaign very easily, and also shouldn't arbitrarily exclude people with certain beliefs. As you said, we're supposed to be "non-partisan." Does anyone else have any input on this?

I'll try to make a parallel between retards and racists/pedos. All three are intellectually disadvantaged; all three have their beliefs (and resultingly, their life) skewed drastically because of some unfortunate mental quality. None of them consciously chose to be disadvantaged. Retards probably have always been retarded; racists were probably brought up in a small Southern town or something. They didn't make a conscious decision "Hey, how about I become an irrationally hating racist?" Same for pedos; they never made a conscious decision "Hey, how about instead of liking people my own age I'll start liking people 1/2 and 1/3 of my age?" Surely none of them would have supported their transformation had they been actually aware. Although society finds them offensive, they are not people to be shunned and imprisoned. They're already in extreme mental torture; do you REALLY think prison would help them overcome their mental "disabilities?" No, if anything, it would probably make them worse, possibly even creating entirely new mental disabilities as a result of prison. They are irrational and messed up inside; but I think that instead of deliberately messing them up even further, we should try to help them overcome themselves, to become rational, normal members of society again. To do that, some people would "protect" them.

Now, even though the ACLU is protecting them, that is certainly not their main ethical goal. Their main goal is either to protect the constitution, or it is whatever else you think their diabolical plan is. There is a possibility that their net contributions to society is negative.

I know that you aren't interested in persuading me, but it might be useful for you to understand the extreme internal torture a pedo feels; look up "Uncle Anon." It's a little disturbing (although nothing really bad happens), but it shows how he is feeling like a slave to his instincts; he hates them, and wants to become a normal member of society, and attempts to overcome himself. Someone like that deserves sympathy and help, but also of course legal justice should he take illegal actions. Before saying that a certain group always deserves to have the book thrown at them at all costs, you should first at least try to understand it from their perspective.

Here's a pragmatic answer first....
I just think that a non-partisan organization whose focus is on evicting corrupt politicians shouldn't take a stance on a seemingly unrelated controversial issue. Of course the participants in the process would indirectly choose what they thought of it, based on who they vote for to go to the next level; that's where the controversial political issues are supposed to be debated, not in pre-determined standards. You expressed it perfectly yourself that you refuse to support the ACLU (or its supporters) in any way; that voice should then be expressed in the local meetings through discussions and votes (but not through the system's foundation). If the GOOOH members AT LARGE have the power to disqualify people because of their political beliefs, including their beliefs in the ACLU, then you've created a very slippery slope which would contradict GOOOH's ultimate purpose, which is to have congressmen fairly represent their constituents. I'm sure that MANY congressional districts would gladly elect congressmen who support the ACLU. I guess I see what you're doing here as parallel to, for instance, the Blue Dog democrats supporting the switch to digital TV. (a made up example) Sure, maybe they're right that a switch would be good for the nation, but it's completely unrelated to their main goals of accountability and fiscal conservatism. Just like the situation here, it's not the right place to be taking up the issue. If you want GOOOH have the most members possible, so it can succeed, you should consider allowing the organization to be more inclusive.

About the Constitution. It was a document created more than 200 years ago, and it has been added to every so often since then. There are basically 2 possibilities: either the Constitution is flawed, or the Constitution is not flawed (is perfect). If the Constitution was perfect, though, we would be living in an ideal state, being based on perfect ideals; however, we aren't, therefore the Constitution is flawed. Now, it HAS been a great guide for us in general, and has served us very well; it's helped us to survive for hundreds of years. However, although it is very good, it is not necessarily flawless. By the way, the Constitution actually does say something about separating church and state, in the form of the First Amendment; the government is prevented from giving special preference to a religion, or to religion in general.

Of course the Constitution doesn't say to defend pedos and racists, but what does that have to do with anything? The constitution also doesn't say anything about taking special efforts to protect vulnerable women and children, nor does it say anything about protecting retards or any other specific group of the general population. Does that mean it's implying that the intellectually disadvantaged, etc do not deserve to be helped? Of course not. If the Constitution doesn't specifically support something, that does not mean that it opposes that something (which would make it unconstitutional). Cmon, man, this is basic logic of necessary and sufficient conditions.

I am not interested in trying to pursuade you. You and I both know already that I will not. I simply believe what I believe and started with what I felt was needed to effect change. The Constitution is not flawed, but I do not see any words about separating church and state, nor do I see where it suggests anyone should defend pedophiles or racists. Let them defend themselves.

If I believed for even one second the ACLU was interested in defending the Constitution I would admit I'm wrong. But I don't believe that. They have an obvious agenda. Their founder put it in writing and their followers practice it every day. I refuse to support that effort in any way. If the members of GOOOH choose to overrule me as they have done on the exclusion of lawyers and "the wealthy" that is fine, but right now the vast majority are in favor of excluding ACLU supporters.

You can access almost any book for free at the Library.

GOOOH is not for everyone. Perhaps it is not for you. Good luck.

That's the thing, I heard others were having problems with the word limit, so I made sure to go well under it. It worked at first, and the post appeared, and my next post appeared as well, and it was up for at least 5 minutes, but then it disappeared. From that I concluded censorship.

Do you by any chance have Microsoft Word 2007? Try typing something up and then copy-pasting it from Word into the forum, see what happens.

I'll try to repost it.

Bob,  we don't censor any posts that don't violate the Terms of Use, we just have a buggy forum application that cuts long posts off or deletes them.  Please re-post, but break the post up into smaller back-to-back posts.

We apologize for the poor user experience - we have been struggling to fix the forum for months and have tried 5 different versions, but as of yet have not been able to find one that integrates seamlessly into the functionality of the rest of the site.  This remains one of our top priorities and we are committed to fixing the issue.

- Eric, GOOOH Co-Founder

Huh, I wrote up about 3 pages, but you appear to have deleted my post.

Don't you just LOVE censorship?? It's a one of the GREATEST tools to silence dissenting opinions!!