NAMBLA?

[Joes_So_Cool]

Is it real or whaaat? This isn't meant to be a joke, but if it's against the rules someone please lock it and I'll edit the title/post.

 

 

 

For those of you that don't know what it is Nambla stands for...

 

North

 

American

 

Man

 

Boy

 

Love

 

Association.

 

 

 

Again, I don't know if it's against the rules to post a link or something but.. http://nambla.org/ <

 

 

 

Discus, in all maturity please.

[Madmanpur3]

Love that episode of South Park.

[Joes_So_Cool]

Yeah, me too, with the Super Adventure club, but I think it might actually be real -.-

[l0rd]

Its real.

 

 

 

I don't believe pedophiles can help their sexuality. Having sex with a boy in today's society is indeed wrong. Pedophilia isn't something that should be made a group out of, or publicly displayed. Pedophiles should rid themselves of such desires, it only hurts others and themselves.

 

 

 

The group is just wrong, on a bunch of levels.

[Lateralus]

Yeah, me too, with the Super Adventure club, but I think it might actually be real -.-

 

 

 

There's an episode that's about NAMBLA, where the North American Marlon Brando Look Alikes are mistaken for the pedophiles. They are a real organisation.

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAMBLA

[l0rd]

Yeah, me too, with the Super Adventure club, but I think it might actually be real -.-

 

 

 

There's an episode that's about NAMBLA, where the North American Marlon Brando Look Alikes are mistaken for the pedophiles. They are a real organisation.

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAMBLA

 

 

 

Is your avatar from Les Miserables?

 

 

 

Oh and...

 

[Lateralus]

Yeah, me too, with the Super Adventure club, but I think it might actually be real -.-

 

 

 

There's an episode that's about NAMBLA, where the North American Marlon Brando Look Alikes are mistaken for the pedophiles. They are a real organisation.

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAMBLA

 

 

 

Is your avatar from Les Miserables?

 

 

 

It's Christopher Hitchens in his (slightly) younger days.

[ember3579]

What in the f***? I just have one question. Why isn't the US government going after these people for pedophilia?

[Laura]

What in the f***? I just have one question. Why isn't the US government going after these people for pedophilia?

They haven't committed a crime yet.

[BlackDawn]

What in the f***? I just have one question. Why isn't the US government going after these people for pedophilia?

 

Exactly my thoughts.

[Kiriyama]

What in the f***? I just have one question. Why isn't the US government going after these people for pedophilia?

They haven't committed a crime yet.

 

 

 

Who says they haven't?

 

 

 

Really, they should check all their computers for illicit images.

[llcoolguy972]

What in the f***? I just have one question. Why isn't the US government going after these people for pedophilia?

They haven't committed a crime yet.

 

 

 

Who says they haven't?

 

 

 

Really, they should check all their computers for illicit images.

 

Simply because some think that they've committed a crime, that doesn't warrant a violation of their constitutional rights.

[Kiriyama]

What in the f***? I just have one question. Why isn't the US government going after these people for pedophilia?

They haven't committed a crime yet.

 

 

 

Who says they haven't?

 

 

 

Really, they should check all their computers for illicit images.

 

Simply because some think that they've committed a crime, that doesn't warrant a violation of their constitutional rights.

 

 

 

Oh come on! They've pretty much just shouted that they're pedophiles, why the [bleep] wouldn't it warrent a search? (And do you know how old your precious constitution is?)

[Laura]

What in the f***? I just have one question. Why isn't the US government going after these people for pedophilia?

They haven't committed a crime yet.

 

 

 

Who says they haven't?

 

 

 

Really, they should check all their computers for illicit images.

 

Simply because some think that they've committed a crime, that doesn't warrant a violation of their constitutional rights.

 

 

 

Oh come on! They've pretty much just shouted that they're pedophiles, why the [bleep] wouldn't it warrent a search? (And do you know how old your precious constitution is?)

I have a friend who is a certain organization that dislikes people of different skin color. He's proud to show it too. On the top of his house is painted the Confederate flag. But he hasn't commited a hate crime, so he cannot be arrested. Doing so would break the constitutional right to expression. A search? No judge in his right mind would warrant a search. If he did, it would look bad upon him.

[Kiriyama]

Man, America seems pretty [bleep]ed up.

 

 

 

So tell me why the hell that if some guy threatens to blow up a school gets his house searched, while scum like these pedophiles don't?

[llcoolguy972]

What in the f***? I just have one question. Why isn't the US government going after these people for pedophilia?

They haven't committed a crime yet.

 

 

 

Who says they haven't?

 

 

 

Really, they should check all their computers for illicit images.

 

Simply because some think that they've committed a crime, that doesn't warrant a violation of their constitutional rights.

 

 

 

Oh come on! They've pretty much just shouted that they're pedophiles, why the [bleep] wouldn't it warrent a search? (And do you know how old your precious constitution is?)

 

I can say that I'd like to kill you, but that doesn't equate to me actually being a murderer. And why does it matter how old the Constitution is? It contains rights that every American is entitled to. Besides, once "future criminal's" rights start being violated, what's stopping the gov't from violating yours? You haven't given them any reason to think you'll commit a crime, but how about they search your house and computer, just in case?

[Kiriyama]

Well, for a fact, I haven't done anything to make it seem if I was doing anything illegal.

 

 

 

These guys on the other hand...

 

 

 

And the age of laws and such does matter, different times man.

[llcoolguy972]

Well, for a fact, I haven't done anything to make it seem if I was doing anything illegal.

 

 

 

These guys on the other hand...

 

 

 

And the age of laws and such does matter, different times man.

 

I never said you did, but give the gov't an inch, and they'll take a mile. Once we allow some people's rights to be violated, everyone else's will be next. And, yes, the age of laws does matter. If in the 1940's Congress passed a law saying that all cars had to get at least 10 mpg, that would be outdated by now. Rights, on the other hand, don't have an expiration date. In the 1800's, people's houses/belongings couldn't get searched for no reason, and that still applies today.

 

 

 

Edit: Also, these men haven't even implied that they will do something wrong. They simply have stated that they have a sexual interest in boys; they didn't state that they would act on those urges or that they ever will. A celibate priest can say he has sexual desires, but he won't act on them; it's just a statement.

[Kiriyama]

Ah yes, I mean, why have rights that applied in a different age more effectively still active now?

 

 

 

I mean yeah, you really do need a right to have a gun, when theres no reason for the average householder to have one now.

 

 

 

Really, with the whole problem of pedophiles and terrorists, I think its time that someone took a look at these goddamn rights that were made in the 1800s.

[l0rd]

I have a friend who is a certain organization that dislikes people of different skin color. He's proud to show it too. On the top of his house is painted the Confederate flag. But he hasn't commited a hate crime, so he cannot be arrested. Doing so would break the constitutional right to expression. A search? No judge in his right mind would warrant a search. If he did, it would look bad upon him.

 

 

 

I'd be disgusted to have any such friend. I'm not pro or against blacks, I just see those kinds of narrow-minded and labeling people as the intellectual-toddlers of the earth. I don't hate them, I just see them as the epitome of human conformism and stupidity.

[llcoolguy972]

Ah yes, I mean, why have rights that applied in a different age more effectively still active now?

 

 

 

I mean yeah, you really do need a right to have a gun, when theres no reason for the average householder to have one now.

 

 

 

Really, with the whole problem of pedophiles and terrorists, I think its time that someone took a look at these goddamn rights that were made in the 1800s.

 

So the freedom of religion/press/speech, the right to bear arms, the right to a trial, no illegal searches and seizures, no cruel or unusual punishment, etc should all be abolished because the right has gone 'bad?' If there is probable cause to search someone's belongings or arrest them, warrants can be obtained. Once the public allows some people's rights to be violated, everyone else's will be next. Does "first they came for the communists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a communist" ring a bell?

[RichieMcD]

Man, America seems pretty [bleep] up.

 

 

 

So tell me why the hell that if some guy threatens to blow up a school gets his house searched, while scum like these pedophiles don't?

 

 

 

That's the difference though. Until these pedophiles go up to a child and say "I'm going to rape you" no crime is committed. Threatening to blow up a school is essentially threatening to harm human life and will lead to disruption. Having pedophilia thoughts doesn't harm anyone till acted upon, just like having thoughts of blowing up a school doesn't but instead the guy acted upon them and threatened.

 

 

 

Until these guys commit crimes to the knowledge of the police, they are considered "clean" and innocent civilians by the state. I don't and never will condone pedophilia, but without actually acting out a crime they are still clean citizens according to the law and to take away that right from them would be unconstitutional.

 

 

 

There organization I find disgusting though, I can't believe people actually gather together, while thinking they're perfectly right to lower the age of consent for minors for sexual actions. Technically, they're breaking no crime but I still think it is essential the FBI or other elite security forces do keep an eye on them, valuable intelligence could probably be gained if infiltrated anyway such as pedophile sex rings or human trafficking.

[BlackDawn]

Somewhat off topic, but when I read this thread I looked at the old guy in your avatar joe, I lol'ed so hard..

[Kiriyama]

Ah yes, I mean, why have rights that applied in a different age more effectively still active now?

 

 

 

I mean yeah, you really do need a right to have a gun, when theres no reason for the average householder to have one now.

 

 

 

Really, with the whole problem of pedophiles and terrorists, I think its time that someone took a look at these goddamn rights that were made in the 1800s.

 

So the freedom of religion/press/speech, the right to bear arms, the right to a trial, no illegal searches and seizures, no cruel or unusual punishment, etc should all be abolished because the right has gone 'bad?' If there is probable cause to search someone's belongings or arrest them, warrants can be obtained. Once the public allows some people's rights to be violated, everyone else's will be next. Does "first they came for the communists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a communist" ring a bell?

 

 

 

Honestly, in the case of these guys, I don't see it as much of an illegal search. They have admitted they were pedophiles, albeit, prison might not be much safer if people find out why they were locked up.

 

 

 

Why the hell would you need a gun now anyway? Back then, it was needed for protection more, and to aquire food. Now, you don't need it for either.

 

 

 

I never said a disagreed with all of them, and you don't have absolute freedom of speech.

[Laura]

Ah yes, I mean, why have rights that applied in a different age more effectively still active now?

 

 

 

I mean yeah, you really do need a right to have a gun, when theres no reason for the average householder to have one now.

 

 

 

Really, with the whole problem of pedophiles and terrorists, I think its time that someone took a look at these goddamn rights that were made in the 1800s.

They have the ability to be appealed. And they have. Don't fix what isn't broken.

 

Why the hell would you need a gun now anyway? Back then, it was needed for protection more, and to aquire food. Now, you don't need it for either.

If you take away gun from those that need them, then the ones that do need them are criminals. Crime rates would rise exponentially if we made guns illegal. Criminals will always find a way to get guns.

I have a friend who is a certain organization that dislikes people of different skin color. He's proud to show it too. On the top of his house is painted the Confederate flag. But he hasn't commited a hate crime, so he cannot be arrested. Doing so would break the constitutional right to expression. A search? No judge in his right mind would warrant a search. If he did, it would look bad upon him.

 

 

 

I'd be disgusted to have any such friend. I'm not pro or against blacks, I just see those kinds of narrow-minded and labeling people as the intellectual-toddlers of the earth. I don't hate them, I just see them as the epitome of human conformism and stupidity.

Sorry you feel that way. But I'm not going to spoil ten years of a friendship over something such as that - even if I don't believe it's right. The only reason I know now is because I needed a place to stay when I was in Ohio.