QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Sun 28th February 2010, 1:29pm)
QUOTE(Cunningly Linguistic @ Sun 28th February 2010, 11:47am)
QUOTE(The Joy @ Sun 28th February 2010, 3:28am)
The sad thing is that the ultra-libertarian people on Wikipedia see no problem with pedophile editors as long as they are building the encyclopedia. (IMG:
smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif) (IMG:
smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)
The only problem I have with paedos is when they are molesting kids. I don't have any problem with them when they are editing WP.
The only reason pedos edit Wikipedia is to justify and normalise their view of themselves. They are incredibly persistent and tenacious and have a store of arguments that they will edit into any pedophilia-related subject. That pedophilia means simply liking children, not wanting to have sex with them. That violence committed by pedophiles is no different from violence committed in adult heterosexual relationships. That different cultures (ancient Greek, and Islam supposedly) have had a tolerant and benign attitude to pedophilia. That pedophilia is bad, but 'pederasty' is perfectly OK.
Anyone who tries to put in material that casts any negative light upon their practice, such as th idea
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=215154288 that "the production, possession, and distribution of child pornography are deeply interwoven in the activities of pedophiles, pederasts, and those involved in rings, sexual trafficking, child prostitution, and, more recently, the Internet" is instantly reverted
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=215206918 ("Inappropriate material removed to 'child abuse' page").
They combine and plot with others to get action from administrators
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=222250643 (now oversighted). This procures the removal of anyone who opposes their perverted and abnormal views
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...=User%3APhdarts . Or block anyone who complains about it ("harassment").
I like kids, I don't want to have sex with them (or anyone under 35 for that matter) does that make me a paedophile?
You give the kiddy-fiddling brigade too much credence, and Joe Public too little. They can make their little proclivities sound as positive as they like it's never going to become mainstream, it's never going to be accepted by the world at large. There is no danger whatsoever of their POV ever becoming accepted, and if you ask me, if they're busy typing then they aren't busy fiddling.
By all means bring in the NPOV squad when they try to twist things to their own advantage, but why worry if he/she is a pervert if he/she is editing a 'normal' article.
I still think that all this wailing and moaning and gnashing of teeth every time the "p" word is mentioned is overkill and will ultimately have more of a detrimental effect on society than the kiddy-fiddlers themselves.
Meanwhile, back on the farm, the erstwhile regulars of WR go into paroxysms of outrage every time someone edits a paedophile-related article and then accuses them of being at the very least a latent paedo or even a supporter. These threads are absolutely drenched in lynch-mob adrenalin, moral indignation and holier than thou attitudes.
It seems that these days over the top paedo outrage is as fashionable as lipstick lesbianism.