Difference between revisions of "Talk:North American Man/Boy Love Association"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Why we are not linking to NAMBLA: Question)
(Why we are not linking to NAMBLA)
Line 36: Line 36:
 
:''No sources advocating or supporting unlawful activity of any kind are allowed. ''
 
:''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?  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:34, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
 
::(a) Is the argument saying pedohilia is not unlawful, or (b) NAMBLA is not "advocating or supporting" pedophilia?  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:34, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
 +
:::NAMBLA supports changing legislation to lower the age of sexual consent.  That's a legal activity.  --[[User:JeffersonDarcy|JeffersonDarcy]] 13:37, 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.-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 13:33, 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.-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 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?  --[[User:JeffersonDarcy|JeffersonDarcy]] 13:37, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Revision as of 12:37, 27 April 2007

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 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)

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)