How is it possible for an organization such as NAMBLA to exist?

My take is that I’m mortified. Disgusted, appalled.

I’m not sure how they are able to exist, though. As much as I disagree with censorship… I feel this crosses a line.

I REALLY REALLY DONT KNOW. I just recently heard about it and was like HOLY SHIT SERIOUSLY? its fuckin crazy. i guess….people have…different interests?////dfl cough?!

The first amendment.

I thought it was made up by John from the Daily Show.

NAMBLA is hated by almost everyone other than pedophiles, but there are legal limits to what can be done about them. There has to be a specific complaint lodged against them before authorities can take any action.

I suspect (and hope) that it actually serves a useful function in that various law enforcement groups use it to identify and monitor individuals.

On a personal note: <<shudder>>

It’s sickening, do these people have any ethics, morals, or honor?

Paedophiles will find a way to exchange information and associate even if NAMBLA was declared a criminal organization and banned.

It’s purpose and existence offend me but unless members can be identified and convicted, their behaviours and the harm it causes will persist.

@syz They may now with the Patriot ACT. Before 9–11 you had to show cause to a judge to get permission to monitor an organization. This was because of the unauthorized FBI surveillance of Martin Luther King and several other Civil Rights leaders from the 60’s.

I don’t understand why it’s important to call large swaths of people idiots in the process of asking your question, but whatever. Maybe you’re not interested in an actual answer so much as emotional fits of condemnation.

There were pro-pedophile political movements in Europe and America from the 50s to the 90s based on the notion of an innate legitimacy within the spectrum of human sexuality of adult attraction to children and/or teens (as opposed to the idea that such sexual preferences were unnatural aberrations of society). One tenet of their collective argument was that adult-child relationships are not harmful if they are consensual, and their above-board political agenda was to “emancipate” these relationships through movements to lower the age of consent. Of course, that all gets obscured by de facto abuse, such as acts of child prostitution/exploitation and other illegal activity, much like NORML’s agenda to legalize marijuana for seemingly legitimate reasons might be obscured by their constituents’ tendencies to act unlawfully and indulgently.

Surely, this agenda was sort of amplified and given inertia with the momentum and cacophony of the sexual and countercultural revolution in the 60s and 70s and obviously didn’t receive full attention in the national debate until the 90s.

While gay rights groups have surely by now universally disavowed any association, affiliation or alliance with an organization that advocates adult relationships with minors, I suspect that NAMBLA has persisted in its existence because it has sort of been camouflaged over the years in the general push for gay rights and recognition, which obviously has only achieved legitimate political footholds in maybe the past decade or two.

What’s concerning for me about these pedophilia discussions is that, depending on what you believe, a lot of this shit goes on under our noses among people and families in entertainment and politics. Like child prostitution rings existing for the sole purpose of feeding the appetites of world leaders and their ilk. This isn’t to garner sympathy for the common slobs on “To Catch a Predator,” but just to point out the troubling phenomena that the same people who are so righteous that they would stone one of those guys without a second thought can’t even fathom that they’re supporting even more sophisticated systems of pedophilia in their worship of entertainers and politicians.

For the same reason that organizations like Westboro Baptist (Home of “God Hates Fags”) can exist, and @tinyfaery hit it on the nose.

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

This is pretty much why any group, hated or not, can exist. If we take it away for one group, no matter how distasteful, it endangers the freedom of everyone else to engage in free speech, assembly, religion, and lobbying efforts. (Yes, those lobbyists that everyone hates are also exercising their first amendment rights and cannot really be stopped, although they can, and are, monitored.)

You wouldn’t want to mess with the Constitution, would you? ;)

@laureth

But I’m confused. Yes, a group that supports this kind of thing can exist, but is this group engaging in statutory rape? Because then it wouldn’t be allowed…

It exists so that way people on TV and radio can act all holy and shocked when they have nothing else to talk about.

@DominicX – I believe that using your first amendment right to free speech is different from engaging in statutory rape. If they’re busted committing rape, of course individuals should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. To talk about it, though, is not a crime as far as I know. To be interested in kids that way, well, that seems wrong and like someone might need some help, but it’s still not a crime. Doing it, that is a crime. But does the group do it, or just talk about it? And if an individual does it, is it the group that needs busting, or just the bad guy?

I should have clarified my overly trite answer. Groups like this exist because in America, every group with every belief, exists, somewhere. Either in a building or on the internet. And overall, that’s a great thing. We shouldn’t start banning groups. They are only engaging in free speech. As soon as they engage in actions that are illegal and/or immoral, then at that point the law should maybe concentrate on them. But that’s what happens right now, and so the status quo is good. There are also racialist websites, suicide websites, and all sorts of even worse things. Putting up with this crap is what makes America greater, and I mean it. Because we all have the freedom to form or join a group that actually does some good in the world. We have that freedom because we tolerate the less desirable groups. This aspect of America, is one that I love and respect.

In other words, I agree with @laureth.

@laureth

But does the group do it, or just talk about it?

That’s what I don’t know and would need to know before giving a proper answer to this question. I’m sure they don’t on the surface considering they still exist, but I’d be surprised if it didn’t go on “behind the scnes”.

@kevbo
Yeah you’re right, why did I say idiots I must have been smoking something, or I personalized the question as I wrote it. Or maybe I’m pissed off at writing this question. I hate asking this. Guess there are some boys out there that are willing and into having sex with men, there would have to be. Odd. That seems like such a strange scene.

@DominicX – When stuff starts going on behind the scenes and law enforcement finds out about it, that’s when they investigate. That’s also why groups like the Branch Davidians, who totally had the right to practice whatever religion however they wanted, get busted and, well, smoked out for things like child abuse and illegal firearms.

I would be shocked to find out that NAMBLA hasn’t had its share of governmental investigation going on. In fact, they have.

On the plus side, wacky groups are what make sane groups look sane. Gay culture, once really taboo, has been helped into the mainstream by being able to point at NAMBLA and say, “We’re not them!”. Similarly, moderate Republicans like Dubya’s old speechwriter David Frum look moderate because we can compare them to the radical Righties. Personally, I think that the centrism of people like Obama would be better highlighted if we had some really Leftist wackos out there, because in their absence, people look at Olberman like he’s the left’s lunatic fringe.

It doesn’t exist, or at least it hasn’t since mid-90’s. There is a website, but no actual meetings or member files. The website allows for people to sign-up, but no records are kept due to the overwhelmingly high number of false entries… people signing-up their landlords and such. It’s more of an idea or scare tactic these days.

@kevbo, Would you put what you wrote in the simplest possible phrases, so those of us whose English/logic isn’t as good? Is its existance something that indicates that the world is closer to wonderful, or not so much?
@GladysMensch, thank you for providing that info, that is a relief.

@laureth Should our standard be “it is not a crime”?
It is imaginable to you the people who would form an organiozation, singing the praises of this activity, are people who would never do such a thing?

People believe that sex between adults and children/teens is natural.

They believe it is natural like homosexuality or heterosexuality or other types of sexuality.

They formed a group (NAMBLA) to build support for this belief.

The group tried to change laws to make these relationships legal. They tried to have the age of consent lowered in different countries.

They also acted illegally by having relationships with children and teens and by abusing them.

Later, society decided this was a very big problem and very harmful for children. Society decided people who think like that are sick monsters. Also, science supports that this is very harmful to children.

People who belong to NAMBLA still believe they are right. Or, they still feel the way they do even if it is wrong. They disagree with society. They still hope, I suppose, that society will recognize their beliefs. And, they surely still behave the same as before, but they do it in secret.

It’s existence doesn’t make the world closer to wonderful. It helps them hurt and enslave children. If they just shared a belief but did nothing illegal, that would be of less consequence.

@flo: When does thought become a crime? That starts a very famous slippery slope to other thoughts being crimes. Soon they come for your particular thoughts. Even if you haven’t necessarily done anything.

I’m not saying they haven’t done it. I don’t know. They probably have, but it’s the action that’s the crime, not the thought. Just like you can read High Times or 2600 Magazine, and the reading is not the crime – but growing pot and phone fraud generally are crimes.

So yes, the standard should be “it is not a crime.” If you don’t think like them, don’t join their group. And be glad that the groups you do join and the thoughts you have are not declared crimes simply because someone thinks environmental journalism is icky.

Weren;t there a couple of those guys here once? I never saw the thread but I remember jellies talking about them…

Personally, KKK and Nambla are pretty much the same for me. I don’t know what I’d do if one of them “introduced” himself to my son…

Wonder why this was the first “question for me” – hmmm.

Well, it’s time to write some topics so fluther doesn’t just guess what I like to discuss.

:-)

@kevbo “People believe sex between adults and children/teens is natural.” No, people don’t believe sex between adults and children/teens is natural. Is that supposed be a subliminal message?
“They believe it is natural like homosexuality or heterosexuality or other types of sexuality.”
“People believe that sex between adults and children/teens is natural.” Again the word “people”…

“They also acted illegally by having relationships…”. Notice the word “relashinship”…
”...change laws to make these relationships legal.” Again the word “relashinship”….
“Abusing” is the word. Children obviously can’t consent.

” If they just shared a belief but did nothing illegal, that would be of less consequence.” Except “share a believe”? It is more like promote the concept, make it less despicable, while most likely acting secretly. Sharing a belief, is just privately talking to each other, not creating an organization, to normallize the activity in other people’s eyes, by using “relashinship”, and “consent”, and “people”.

@laureth “icky”? that is the most accurate and strongest (edited )word that goes with this activity? I rest my case.

@flo, do you want help with English or do you want to argue?

@flo, dear, I’ve already given thoughts on NAMBLA. I didn’t need to belabor the point by introducing a bunch of words that would get me modded and banned. Yes, they have problems and need help and, if they rape kids, are intolerable. Is that what you wanted to hear? My point stands.

@kevbo
Whether we are exchanging ideas, or debating, some of us use the simplest terms as much as possible, so that those of us who can barely pass elementary school level English can debate, or as you call it, argue the point/s. Unless it is done purposefuly, so that will illicit, “see nobody is debating/arguing with me or him/her because they all agree”.

“There were pro-pedophile political movements in Europe and America from the 50s to the 90s based on the notion of an innate legitimacy within the spectrum of human sexuality of adult attraction to children and/or teens (as opposed to the idea that such sexual preferences were unnatural aberrations of society). One tenet of their collective argument was that adult-child relationships are not harmful if they are consensual, and their above-board political agenda was to “emancipate” these relationships through movements to lower the age of consent”. It almost makes it sound less despicable, even more respectable, doesn’t it just subliminaly? ” People won’t even check to see if it is a fact, just because it sounds scholarly.

Anyway needing and asking for help with English or any other language is not a shamefull thing.

“People believe that sex between adults and children/teens is natural.” That is something worth pointing out.

Last paragraph of your first answer:
”...they would stone one of those guys without a second thought can’t even fathom that they’re supporting even more sophisticated systems of pedophilia in their worship of entertainers and politicians.” Is this pointing at that in order to distract from this?

First, forming an organization is not thinking. It is an act. To quote someone above, “They formed a group (NAMBLA) to build support for this belief.” “The group tried to change laws to make these relationships legal. They tried to have the age of consent lowered in different countries.”
So, to say, “To be interested in kids that way, well, that seems wrong and like someone might need some help, but it’s still not a crime. Doing it, that is a crime. But does the group do it, or just talk about it?” They talk about it in order to, and until, they get to act it. If it were upto some people we would be thinking, “Oh, okay, are harmless people, just nice folks shooting the breeze…”

Some people just never have to worry about anyone looking at their thoughts.
Some people just never have to use the “slippery slope” arguement.
What do they all have in common? It is not that they are less intelligent about what is good for society.

@flo You seem very knowledgeable on the subject.

@flo, I think you need to either find another forum or do some more observing until you understand the norms of debate here. If you’re going to insist on elementary-level discourse, then you’re asking too much of everyone here.

You asked for a simple English translation and as a courtesy that’s what I gave you. Don’t mistake that for my opinion about whether this is right or wrong. Reread the original question. What I wrote is my answer for how it can possibly exist minus the kneejerking and teeth gnashing that even the questioner can’t seem to avoid.

I don’t give a fuck whether you believe or disbelieve what I’m saying, but you can read about the history of pedophile activism on Wikipedia, which pretty much says exactly what I said since that’s where I got the information.

As for my last point, there are tens of thousands of old, Catholic ladies who have given money to the Catholic Church for decades. They consider themselves moral people and they would agree that pedophiles are sick and evil and should be in jail. Yet they unwittingly and/or steadfastly support a religious institution that has maintained a system of pedophilia and abuse. So by making that point, do you think I am trying to distract you and nice, old Catholic ladies from the evils of common pedophiles?

@zen_ yes, you are right, if you mean how language is used to influence people

Yes, let me see if I can have everyone on my side by ” If you’re going to insist on elementary-level discourse, then you’re asking too much of everyone here.” Clever.
I don’t need to go any further.