In article <3im3ot$skc@clarknet.clark.net> jcblal@clark.net (J C Blalock) writes:

yankee (yankee@quasar.net3.io.org) wrote: : > : Before the Civil War, it was illegal : to teach slaves to read in many South- : ern states. See a parallel here? [...] : As I stated earlier, children are now : going through the same thing that : black people in the American South, : and women the world over, used to. This is absolutely the most reprehensible argument I have ever heard. How DARE you make such a loathsome comparison?

This "loathsome comparison" is precisely accurate.

Black people were "not people" in the pre-Civil War South. And children are "not people" in the present environment. Mr. Blalock is totally blind if he does not see this.

Stick to your feeble arguments about "legalizing consensual sex amongst young people" (just a smokescreen to allow predatory adults to manipulate children). But DO NOT

We are not advocating the "manipula- tion" of children. NAMBLA and NAMBLA's defenders are seeking to EMPOWER child- ren: to allow them to be entitled to make their own decisions.

The only smokescreen here is Mr. Blalock's, trying to pretend that he really has the welfare of the child at heart, exactly as did the slave-owners their "happy carefree" slaves' welfare.

equate the horrible pain and torture, and the GENUINE loss of personal freedom, that Black people by the millions endured for centuries in this country, with the pathetic and evil mission to turn children into objects of lust.

Again... this equation bears repeating. It is quite accurate. Children to this day are losing personal freedom. We do not seek to "turn children into objects of lust" but rather to allow them to make their own decisions. If Mr. Blalock cannot see it, he is stupid. Or, more likely, he is interested in binding some child or children to HIS ideas about what they are capable of doing, and therefore needs to obfuscate the issue. Nice going, Mr. Blalock... or should we call you Mr. Legree?