Talk:NAMBLA/archive 1

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Are there any links to help find out who these people are and where they are? Is this a legal organization?--JoyousOne 14:56, 26 April 2007 (EDT) Yes, they are a legal group--it just happens that their proposed legislation is illegal right now. Flippin 14:58, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

  • There was a South Park episode about them a few years ago. DanH 15:04, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
I'm not sure South Park is a citable source, Dan. --JeffersonDarcy 15:05, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm not saying it should be cited. I'm just pointing that out. DanH 15:06, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

It depends on the context. It was important to Scientology because of how that church attacked the show. Of course, if NAMBLA wants to attack the show, they aren't going to find me joining the ACLU any time soon.
There's nothing contextual about it. Just because Scientologists flipped over their portrayal on the show doesn't make South Park a citable source on Scientology. Thank you Dan, however, for the insight on that one. --JeffersonDarcy 15:09, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
Thanks for the clarification. I guess I didn't mean "citable" but more of a cultural reference. It would need the proper context, and perhaps does not add to the article. If we could find legal action references to this group...--JoyousOne 15:11, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
It seems like this group is another example of how lack of religious morals can lead just about anywhere.-JoyousOne 15:13, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
I hate to make a Catholic Priest reference here, but ... --JeffersonDarcy 15:23, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
That's not nice. Remember we cannot condemn all believers because of the actions of a few. The Church handled it horribly though.--JoyousOne 15:37, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
Nor all non believers because of the actions of a few. DrSandstone 16:30, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

The Daily Show used to joke about them, but I had no idea until recently that they were real. Czolgolz 15:38, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Religion

Does religion really have to be a part of this article too? C'mon. Flippin 15:21, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Links

http://web.archive.org/web/20060503181953/http://216.220.97.17/ginsberg.htm for the ginsburg thing Flippin 15:29, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Why we are not linking to NAMBLA

http://www.conservapedia.com/Rules#Notes DanH 00:05, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Those notes have NOTHING to say about linking to NAMBLA's site on the NAMBLA entry. --JeffersonDarcy 13:30, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
No sources advocating or supporting unlawful activity of any kind are allowed.
(a) Is the argument saying pedohilia is not unlawful, or (b) NAMBLA is not "advocating or supporting" pedophilia? RobS 13:34, 27 --JeffersonDarcy 13:50, 27 April 2007 (EDT)April 2007 (EDT)
NAMBLA supports changing legislation to lower the age of sexual consent. That's a legal activity. --JeffersonDarcy 13:37, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
This source, The American Spectator Special Report, When Nancy Met Harry, Jeffrey Lord, 10/5/2006, exrtracted reads as follows,
"Harry Hay was a fierce advocate of man/boy love. While The Chronicle simply ignored Harry's views, the North American Man/Boy Love Association was only too delighted to put up a collection of Harry's views on the need for young boys to have older men as sexual partners. Here's just a sample taken from a talk at a New York University forum sponsored by a campus gay group in 1983.
Said Harry: "Because if the parents and friends of gays are truly friends of gays, they would know from their gay kids that the relationship with an older man is precisely what thirteen-, fourteen-, and fifteen-year-old kids need more than anything else in the world."
The text of this conference speech in full is available on NAMBLA's website. I'd say this goes beyond issue advocacy. RobS 13:47, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
I agree with Rob. DanH 13:48, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
Dan, I'm sure you've got more to say than that. Please, enlighten us with your wisdom. --JeffersonDarcy 13:50, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
That's just a story and a comment. Nothing in your cite mentions official policy anywhere. NAMBLA is an organization bound by rules and directives. They are not to be held accountable for every view of every member, such as Conservapedia is not to be held accountable for the views of Ames and his like. --JeffersonDarcy 13:50, 27 April 2007 (EDT)


Dudes, the link doesn't even work. At least it didn't when I tried to go to it to see what all the fuss was about.-AmesGyo! 13:33, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Google tells me that www.nambla.org is their official site. I'm not suck enough to actually check out the site, so I'm just trusting Google. Maybe you can help us with the edit, Ames? --JeffersonDarcy 13:37, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Darcy, I was with you until I saw Rob's quote from the rules. In any event, I don't think this is a war worth waging. Save your energy & don't get banned, for something more important.-AmesGyo! 13:52, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Personal tools