|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | Are there any links to help find out who these people are and where they are? Is this a legal organization?--[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 14:56, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
| + | Earlier there was a user who tried several times to add a link to NAMBLA's website in the article of that name, and this user was given tacit support and approval by others for his actions. There are people in Conservapedia, including Andy, who '''WILL NEVER TOLERATE''' any site that advocates child molesting, and I don't want to hear the excuses as to NAMBLA's so-called intentions. If I see anyone post a link to a child-molesting site, I will assume they support child molesting and they will never be allowed in this website again. If I see direct evidence that such an editor may be more involved in child molesting then providing a link, then Andy will be notified as well as federal and state law enforcement. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:12, 28 April 2007 (EDT) |
| − | Yes, they are a legal group--it just happens that their proposed legislation is illegal right now. [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 14:58, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
| + | |
| − | *There was a South Park episode about them a few years ago. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 15:04, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | :I'm not sure South Park is a citable source, Dan. --[[User:JeffersonDarcy|JeffersonDarcy]] 15:05, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | I'm not saying it should be cited. I'm just pointing that out. [[User:DanH|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. --[[User:JeffersonDarcy|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...--[[User:JoyousOne|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.-[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 15:13, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
| + | |
| − | ::I hate to make a Catholic Priest reference here, but ... --[[User:JeffersonDarcy|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.--[[User:JoyousOne|JoyousOne]] 15:37, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
| + | |
| − | ::Nor all non believers because of the actions of a few. [[User:DrSandstone|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. [[User:Czolgolz|Czolgolz]] 15:38, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | == Religion ==
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Does religion really have to be a part of this article too? C'mon. [[User:Flippin|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 [[User:Flippin|Flippin]] 15:29, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ==Why we are not linking to NAMBLA==
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | http://www.conservapedia.com/Rules#Notes [[User:DanH|DanH]] 00:05, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | :Those notes have NOTHING to say about linking to NAMBLA's site on the NAMBLA entry. --[[User:JeffersonDarcy|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? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:34, 27 --[[User:JeffersonDarcy|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. --[[User:JeffersonDarcy|JeffersonDarcy]] 13:37, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ::::This source, ''The American Spectator'' Special Report, [http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=10450 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. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:47, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | :::I agree with Rob. [[User:DanH|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. --[[User:JeffersonDarcy|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. --[[User:JeffersonDarcy|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.-'''<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)
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | 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.-'''<font color="#007FFF">Ames</font><font color="#FF0000">G</font>'''<sub>[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo!]</sub> 13:52, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
| + | |
Earlier there was a user who tried several times to add a link to NAMBLA's website in the article of that name, and this user was given tacit support and approval by others for his actions. There are people in Conservapedia, including Andy, who WILL NEVER TOLERATE any site that advocates child molesting, and I don't want to hear the excuses as to NAMBLA's so-called intentions. If I see anyone post a link to a child-molesting site, I will assume they support child molesting and they will never be allowed in this website again. If I see direct evidence that such an editor may be more involved in child molesting then providing a link, then Andy will be notified as well as federal and state law enforcement. Karajou 00:12, 28 April 2007 (EDT)
