Talk:North American Man/Boy Love Association
|
This sexuality related article has been assessed as SIGNIFICANTLY PROBLEMATIC in one or more ways. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information. |
| ||
| ||||
Topic[edit]
Typical of this worthless wiki. You guys are a joke 174.54.36.247 (talk) 22:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- We aim to please.
gnostic 23:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
- But this article does need a rewrite. What it says about the gay rights movement is cretinous. & The three sections that follow are pointless space-wasters. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ
Methinks it is a Weasel 07:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- Of course, those paragraphs can probably go. I'm not sure what is exactly "cretinous" about the gay rights mention. The organisation is "man/boy" love so inherently is of, what eBay listings would call, "gay interest". We'd probably have to find citations for NAMBLA piggy-backing on gay-rights issues (I assume the original author might know one or two, although I haven't spied at the history to see who it was) or campaigns for the sentence to be anything more than superfluous, but the mention isn't totally far-fetched and stupid as far as I can see. gnostic 07:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- But the assertion that "their existence has given the rest of the gay rights movement a bad name" is. As if it needs pointing out, the gay rights movement is actually quite well respected among tolerant progressive people. The fact that NAMBLA attempt (unsuccessfully) to leech off that credibility doesn't diminish it, since most people can recognise that the issue of same-sex relationships between consenting adults is rather different from the issue of adults' sexual relationships with minors. The people who oppose the gay rights movement (i.e. homophobes) would do so regardless of groups like NAMBLA - they just cite NAMBLA so often because it's a convenient example of something that most people would vehemently oppose, no matter how they feel about other LGBT movements. LGBT groups quite rightly want nothing to do with NAMBLA. So the only people asserting that there's a significant connection between NAMBLA and other gay rights movements (beyond both being same-sex related) are those who use an association fallacy for their political ends - NAMBLA themselves, who hope to legitimise their movement by associating it with gay rights, and opponents of gay rights, who seek to discredit mainstream LGBT movements by associating them with paedophiles. I find it very doubtful that anybody has significantly changed their mind about gay rights because of the existence of NAMBLA. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐMethinks it is a Weasel 12:49, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
- But the assertion that "their existence has given the rest of the gay rights movement a bad name" is. As if it needs pointing out, the gay rights movement is actually quite well respected among tolerant progressive people. The fact that NAMBLA attempt (unsuccessfully) to leech off that credibility doesn't diminish it, since most people can recognise that the issue of same-sex relationships between consenting adults is rather different from the issue of adults' sexual relationships with minors. The people who oppose the gay rights movement (i.e. homophobes) would do so regardless of groups like NAMBLA - they just cite NAMBLA so often because it's a convenient example of something that most people would vehemently oppose, no matter how they feel about other LGBT movements. LGBT groups quite rightly want nothing to do with NAMBLA. So the only people asserting that there's a significant connection between NAMBLA and other gay rights movements (beyond both being same-sex related) are those who use an association fallacy for their political ends - NAMBLA themselves, who hope to legitimise their movement by associating it with gay rights, and opponents of gay rights, who seek to discredit mainstream LGBT movements by associating them with paedophiles. I find it very doubtful that anybody has significantly changed their mind about gay rights because of the existence of NAMBLA. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ
- Of course, those paragraphs can probably go. I'm not sure what is exactly "cretinous" about the gay rights mention. The organisation is "man/boy" love so inherently is of, what eBay listings would call, "gay interest". We'd probably have to find citations for NAMBLA piggy-backing on gay-rights issues (I assume the original author might know one or two, although I haven't spied at the history to see who it was) or campaigns for the sentence to be anything more than superfluous, but the mention isn't totally far-fetched and stupid as far as I can see.
- But this article does need a rewrite. What it says about the gay rights movement is cretinous. & The three sections that follow are pointless space-wasters. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ
Does anyone have a source for the popular joke that every Presidential candidate includes in their campaign budget the cost of one postage stamp, to mail back the donation cheque from NAMBLA? I read it in a book a while back, but can't remember which one. 86.23.30.53 (talk) 02:06, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
South Park[edit]
For years I thought this group was a comic invention of said genius telly programme. I'm quite depressed to find otherwise... Scherben (talk) 22:47, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Citations Needed[edit]
This article has a grand total of two citations as it currently sits. This article needs to reflect noteworthy citations of credible sources that support the political suppositions being made. 71.91.178.54 (talk) 20:18, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Plagiarism[edit]
This articles plagiarizes Wikipedia;
the only two sources it has are lifted straight from Wikipedia, and it covers the same content as the Wikipedia. How does Conservapedia have a better sourced article than us? That being said, the orginization has a website with articles explaining their garbage views.—チーズバーガー • めん 
(talk • stalk) 23:11, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
- Does that make it plagiarized? Seems more like this is just Wikipedia's article but worse. --It's-a me,
🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 23:13, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
- Yes. If you are heavily reliant on a single source, it's plagarism. Here's a passage from the Wikipedia article:
- "Relying too heavily on other people's work, failing to bring original thought into the text."
- —チーズバーガー • めん
(talk • stalk)`
- Yes. If you are heavily reliant on a single source, it's plagarism. Here's a passage from the Wikipedia article:
Tidy up[edit]
Let's tidy this up. Its membership is like, what, 800? It would also be funny to point out how Camille Paglia, an icon among those on the right and who has been praised by Dennis Prager was a big supporter of NAMBLA back in the day and supported lowering the age of consent laws. --Debunky (talk) 11:57, 22 April 2020 (UTC)