# Should NAMBLA be treated different from other political groups **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 6, 2006, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-nambla-be-treated-different-from-other-political-groups/359677 "2006-06-06T22:18:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![vetbridge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b5e925/32.png) [@vetbridge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vetbridge)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2006, 12:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-nambla-be-treated-different-from-other-political-groups/359677/41 "2006-06-07T12:07:27Z")
> [@Jebus H. Christ](#): > > The Mafia has beeen shown to be directly involved in crimes. Cite? Using your prior stance, I would argue that people who happen to be members of the Mafia (if such a group even exists) have been tied to crimes, not the group itself. /sarcasm ---
**Author:** ![vetbridge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b5e925/32.png) [@vetbridge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vetbridge)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2006, 12:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-nambla-be-treated-different-from-other-political-groups/359677/42 "2006-06-07T12:12:58Z")
Given the choice between the house next to mine being sold to a member of the Mafia or a member of NAMBLA, I’d go with Vinnie any day. ---
**Author:** ![Excalibre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/898d66/32.png) [@Excalibre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Excalibre)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2006, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-nambla-be-treated-different-from-other-political-groups/359677/43 "2006-06-07T16:03:42Z")
> [@Jebus H. Christ](#): > > These indications have never panned out. > > As long as the group was not directly involved in any crimes, I would support them in the same way I support NAMBLA. I would disagree with their position, but still supoort them. See, that’s the kind of pseudo-intellectual stupidity that people begin to spout when they confuse people’s _legal_ rights to be free from government interference with some imagined _moral_ right to be free of the consequences of their actions. It’s the same with people who attempt to make arguments that posting on a message board is free speech and therefore their posts shouldn’t be subject to administrator approval (and as an administrator of a website sort of along those lines, I can tell you that people try to make that argument. Just because you have a Constitutional right to speak does not, by any stretch of the imagination, mean that you have some right not to face consequences from it. You can try to make an argument that they have a moral right to advocate a view that is, to anyone decent and normal, repugnant without facing others’ disapproval, but you have to make that argument if you want anyone else to believe it. It doesn’t logically follow that since an act is legal that everyone else doesn’t have the right to condemn it to whatever extent the law permits. In the same way that I wouldn’t visit a relative who espoused racist views, I wouldn’t associate with anyone who I knew was a member of NAMBLA. If I was an employer, and my employees were at will, I would fire them for espousing racist views, and I would fire them for being members of NAMBLA. You can hold whatever views you want, and you can express them - but you only have the right to be free from government interference. You don’t have the right to be free of social opprobrium - with all the unpleasant consequences that entails - for engaging in immoral conduct. ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2006, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-nambla-be-treated-different-from-other-political-groups/359677/44 "2006-06-07T16:18:08Z")
> [@Jebus H. Christ](#): > > I am not sure what you are asking. They are not advocating breaking the law. They are saying to do these things. They are just providing information about these things. You’re not sure what I’m asking? It’s a simple question: how is information on how to best break the law not advocating the breaking of said law? > [@](#): > > _And they no longer even provide this information. Check out their webiste._ Oh, really? > [@](#): > > NAMBLA Bulletin, Vol. 25 No. 3 found at site [http://216.220.97.17/B25-3.pdf](http://216.220.97.17/B25-3.pdf) > (PDF) > > Peter, > > I don’t have a lot of talent or a lot of money but I love to have friends. I don’t know how to talk to others about my feelings for boys but would like to find others who are lonely and want a friend. > Thanks > Chris > > Hi Chris, > > Your wanting to have friends who feel the way you do is understandable , but you must understand the problems this involves. We are living in dangerous times for boy-lovers. Our first responsibility is to not do anything that will endanger our members. Experience has shown that lonely people such as yourself can inadvertantly put themselves at risk because they do not fully understand the laws arrayed against them. > > At this point it may be best for you to acquaint yourself with the issues at stake. Our quarterly Bulletin is part of this education. Our Web site also contains much additional information. Have you thoroughly explored our site? We also point out publications other than the Bulletin. These and non-NAMBLA publications are available for purchase. A catalog and order form can be found on our site. > > As for talents, we do not require anything exceptional. You certainly know how to use the Internet. It has a vast amount of legitimate information which can be mined to benefit our cause. Your willingness to do research, or some other ability you have may come in handy in contributing to our work. Think about it! > All the best, > Peter Herman. And how about this? > [@](#): > > (same source as above) > LOVING STATISTICS > Time was, > Used to be, > that I gave 100% > Of my love. > And the boys flocked > To me. > > Then They busted me, > And They put The Fear in me. > And The Fear diminished > My Love > To about 10% > Of what it was. > > But, y’know, > The boys still come around. > Because 10% > Of a really good thing > Is better than > 100% of nothing > > S.G. Do you really expect anyone to believe that’s an innocent poem which has nothing to do with an illegal activity? ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2006, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-nambla-be-treated-different-from-other-political-groups/359677/45 "2006-06-07T16:26:17Z")
Thanks, Excalibre…I was trying to formulate a similar post in my mind, but you expressed it very well. These NAMBLA people may have every right to not have their speech stifled by the government. However, society itself has not just the right but the obligation to condemn that which they find morally unacceptable. ---
**Author:** ![Cliffy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/59ef9b/32.png) [@Cliffy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cliffy)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2006, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-nambla-be-treated-different-from-other-political-groups/359677/46 "2006-06-07T16:35:52Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > “Benign?” Do you mean “malign?” Sorry; my syntax was unclear. I mean that he/you/we is discriminating between organizations we feel are benign and those we think malicious. > [@](#): > > At any rate, how do you prove something is moral or immoral? It’s a completely subjective determination. Really? You really want to make this claim? Because if you do you’re definitely on the wrong side of this argument – if morality is “totally subjective,” then that means that you cannot have any valid reason to decry another’s moral views, whether those support pedophillia, bigotry, the re-institution of slavery, foot-binding, or what have you. No, I choose to believe that there are moral absolutes that exist outside of religion or cultural convenience, and because I feel this way, I can say that slavery is wrong. If you really think morality is subjective, all you can say is “I don’t like slavery.” Well, I know of people who don’t like the idea of two men having sex, or the idea of me being married to a woman of a different race. If you believe morality is both subjective but nonetheless somehow valid, you’re saying that your approbriation of NAMBLA is the exact same animal is that of Bob Jones III’s approbriation of queers and race-mixing. And since you will agree with me, I think, that Jones has his head up his ass, I once again say that you’re going to have to give me more than “I don’t like it.” –Cliffy ---
**Author:** ![Cliffy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/59ef9b/32.png) [@Cliffy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cliffy)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2006, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-nambla-be-treated-different-from-other-political-groups/359677/47 "2006-06-07T16:38:48Z")
> [@Thudlow Boink](#): > > The point is, if the only argument you can give for opposing NAMBLA is that they advocate something that’s immoral, what do you say to the person who opposes, say, a gay rights group because “it advocates something that’s immoral”? > [@Sarahfeena](#): > > It’s a totally different situation… In the center ring tonight! Watch as the amazing **Sarahfeena** eats her own tail! –Cliffy ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2006, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-nambla-be-treated-different-from-other-political-groups/359677/48 "2006-06-07T16:42:20Z")
> [@Jebus H. Christ](#): > > There have been NAMBLA members that have been arrested, but it was for things they did beyond the scope of being part of NAMBLA. : > [@](#): > > [Seven NAMBLA Members Busted in Sex Sting](http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,147645,00.html) (Associated Press via FOX news - February 15, 2005) > > Jeff Devore, 53, of Fullerton was arrested Saturday and charged with distributing child pornography as a result of the sting, Eimiller said. Devore, a minister at the Brea Congregational Church, in Orange County, was not accused of planning to go on the Mexico trip. > > Devore, who is also a chiropractor, first met an undercover FBI agent at a North American Man/Boy Love Association meeting. So much for being “beyond the scope of being part of NAMBLA.” ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2006, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-nambla-be-treated-different-from-other-political-groups/359677/49 "2006-06-07T16:51:45Z")
> [@Cliffy](#): > > In the center ring tonight! Watch as the amazing **Sarahfeena** eats her own tail! > > –Cliffy Geez, you are a rude little thing, aren’t you? The point is that you can call the two things comparable, but they are not. In one case, you are taking certain rights away from children. In the other, you are opposing granting certain rights to adults. Not even close to an apples to apples situation. And, in any case, I DO have the right to decide whether I think something is morally reprehensible or not. I happen to think that NAMBLA is morally reprehensible. This is MY freedom of speech, which I have just as much right to as they do. Likewise, the person who opposes gay rights legislation is just as much within THEIR rights to espouse this view, whether or not I agree with them or not. No one ever said they don’t have the right. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2006, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-nambla-be-treated-different-from-other-political-groups/359677/50 "2006-06-07T16:56:16Z")
> [@Sarahfeena](#): > > It’s a totally different situation, because one has to do with sex between consenting adults, and the other has to do with sex between an adult and a child, who cannot consent. So what, children can’t consent to many thing, their parents can consent for them. ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2006, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-nambla-be-treated-different-from-other-political-groups/359677/51 "2006-06-07T17:08:03Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > So what, children can’t consent to many thing, their parents can consent for them. A parent cannot consent to something on behalf of a child that is clearly harmful to the child. ---
**Author:** ![Excalibre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/898d66/32.png) [@Excalibre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Excalibre)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2006, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-nambla-be-treated-different-from-other-political-groups/359677/52 "2006-06-07T17:15:59Z")
> [@Sarahfeena](#): > > Geez, you are a rude little thing, aren’t you? He’s like that. He seems to think he’s clever. > [@kanicbird](#): > > So what, children can’t consent to many thing, their parents can consent for them. I fail to see the relevance. Unless you’re saying parents should have the right to consent to sex on their children’s behalf. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2006, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-nambla-be-treated-different-from-other-political-groups/359677/53 "2006-06-07T17:27:29Z")
> [@Cliffy](#): > > Really? You really want to make this claim? Because if you do you’re definitely on the wrong side of this argument – if morality is “totally subjective,” then that means that you cannot have any valid reason to decry another’s moral views, whether those support pedophillia, bigotry, the re-institution of slavery, foot-binding, or what have you. No, I choose to believe that there are moral absolutes that exist outside of religion or cultural convenience, and because I feel this way, I can say that slavery is wrong. If you really think morality is subjective, all you can say is “I don’t like slavery.” Well, I know of people who don’t like the idea of two men having sex, or the idea of me being married to a woman of a different race. If you believe morality is both subjective but nonetheless somehow valid, you’re saying that your approbriation of NAMBLA is the exact same animal is that of Bob Jones III’s approbriation of queers and race-mixing. And since you will agree with me, I think, that Jones has his head up his ass, I once again say that you’re going to have to give me more than “I don’t like it.” > > –Cliffy Yeah? Prove it. If morality is objective, there’s some way of showing, beyond argument, that something is moral or immoral. You feel slavery was wrong. Jefferson Davis disagreed. Prove that you are right, and he was wrong. If you can do that, it’s a great pity you weren’t born two hundred years earlier: you might have been able to avert a war. The fact is, morality is entirely subjective. It is, almost by definition, a point of view. However, just because something is subjective, does not mean one cannot argue effectively for or against it. As evidence, go poke around in Cafe Society for a while. Virtually every thread there is about something subjective, and there’s a lot more content than simply, “I liked this movie!” Generally speaking, though, if you want to argue against a particular policy or attitude, you’re going to make a lot more headway arguing with facts and numbers, and not morality. Most people are not going to change their morality through debate, particularly if that morality is religiously derived. You want to convince someone not to oppose gay rights, you’re going to make more headway arguing it on the ground of religious freedom than you will with arguing that God really doesn’t have a problem with gays. ---
**Author:** ![Birdmonster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/71e660/32.png) [@Birdmonster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Birdmonster)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2006, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-nambla-be-treated-different-from-other-political-groups/359677/54 "2006-06-07T18:02:51Z")
> [@Lute Skywatcher](#): > > … Do you really expect anyone to believe that’s an innocent poem which has nothing to do with an illegal activity? Both those snipets are inarguably advocating how best to get away with being a pedophile and in no way are addressing the supposed purpose of NAMBLA as stated by **Jebus**. I’d love to hear them explained away. Actually, no. No, I wouldn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Jebus\_H.Christ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Jebus\_H.Christ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jebus_H.Christ)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2006, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-nambla-be-treated-different-from-other-political-groups/359677/55 "2006-06-07T18:15:47Z")
> [@Lute Skywatcher](#): > > :So much for being “beyond the scope of being part of NAMBLA.” You missed this line: > [@](#): > > The association, which was formed in 1978 and advocates relationships with men and boys, was not charged in the case. ---
**Author:** ![Jebus\_H.Christ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Jebus\_H.Christ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jebus_H.Christ)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2006, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-nambla-be-treated-different-from-other-political-groups/359677/56 "2006-06-07T18:19:26Z")
> [@Birdmonster](#): > > Both those snipets are inarguably advocating how best to get away with being a pedophile and in no way are addressing the supposed purpose of NAMBLA as stated by **Jebus**. I’d love to hear them explained away. Actually, no. No, I wouldn’t. The first snipet in telling the letter writer to get to know the law so he can be sure not to break it. The second is poem that expresses the person’s feelings about the current state of the law. ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2006, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-nambla-be-treated-different-from-other-political-groups/359677/57 "2006-06-07T18:35:34Z")
> [@Jebus H. Christ](#): > > You missed this line: You missed the fact that the minister was arrested as a direct result of being at a NAMBLA meeting. If he weren’t there, he wouldn’t have been arrested. Simple as that. No comment on those Bulletin excerpts? ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2006, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-nambla-be-treated-different-from-other-political-groups/359677/58 "2006-06-07T18:39:44Z")
This wasn’t there when I posted: > [@Jebus H. Christ](#): > > The first snipet in telling the letter writer to get to know the law so he can be sure not to break it. Suuure it is. :dubious: > [@](#): > > _The second is poem that expresses the person’s feelings about the current state of the law._ And that’s _all_? :dubious: :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2006, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-nambla-be-treated-different-from-other-political-groups/359677/59 "2006-06-07T18:40:48Z")
Tell us, **Jeebus** , by any chance are _you_ a member of NAMBLA? ---
**Author:** ![Jebus\_H.Christ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Jebus\_H.Christ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jebus_H.Christ)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2006, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-nambla-be-treated-different-from-other-political-groups/359677/60 "2006-06-07T18:54:16Z")
> [@Lute Skywatcher](#): > > You missed the fact that the minister was arrested as a direct result of being at a NAMBLA meeting. If he weren’t there, he wouldn’t have been arrested. Simple as that. He was arrested for distributing child pornography. He was not arrested for being at a NAMBLA meeting. The article only says that the FBI agent met him at a NAMBLA meeting. There is nothing is the article that even says any illegal activity occurred at the NAMBLA meeting. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-nambla-be-treated-different-from-other-political-groups/359677.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-nambla-be-treated-different-from-other-political-groups/359677.md?page=4)