Bishonen indef-blocks FT2, Holy crap, he hasn't been desysopped by Jimbo Options

[Moulton]

Wikipedia is a double bind, FT2. You're damned if you do, and damned if you don't.

And I don't just mean you, personally, FT2.

Wikipedia generally puts everyone in an outrageous, crazy-making double bind.

The outcome, unsurprisingly, is lunatic social drama.

[tarantino]

Go and complain that an encyclopedia children can read is providing "scholastic coverage" of disturbing topics (would you prefer non-scholastic coverage?).

There is a great deal non-scholastic coverage of sexuality, poorly written bios of porn stars, and material that is seemingly there only to pander. For example is it really necessary for an encyclopedia any child can read have an illustrated article on Gokkun, "a genre of Japanese adult video in which a woman consumes copious amounts of semen"? (The illustration was removed just today after being in place for nearly 5 months, but the related article Bukkake (T-H-L-K-D) is still adorned.)

Do you think there should be no age limit on viewing any article or image currently available on Wikipedia? How about editing or administering (and I've seen editors as young as 8 and twelve year old administers) those articles?

The having a no age limit opinion must be the popular one, but I find it untenable. If WP and WMF doesn't change itself, I predict it will be forced to change.

[Bottled_Spider]

This thread's become mental masturbation, and at least in Master's hands you'll be safe - he knows how to spank a monkey properly.

Oh. Bloody hell. He said ............ he said ..............

[GlassBeadGame]

Go and complain that an encyclopedia children can read is providing "scholastic coverage" of disturbing topics (would you prefer non-scholastic coverage?).

There is a great deal non-scholastic coverage of sexuality, poorly written bios of porn stars, and material that is seemingly there only to pander. For example is it really necessary for an encyclopedia any child can read have an illustrated article on Gokkun, "a genre of Japanese adult video in which a woman consumes copious amounts of semen"? (The illustration was removed just today after being in place for nearly 5 months, but the related article Bukkake (T-H-L-K-D) is still adorned.)

Do you think there should be no age limit on viewing any article or image currently available on Wikipedia? How about editing or administering (and I've seen editors as young as 8 and twelve year old administers) those articles?

The having a no age limit opinion must be the popular one, but I find it untenable. If WP and WMF doesn't change itself, I predict it will be forced to change.

What FT2 is incapable of understanding in the concept of editorial restraint. I have never looked up "sex with animal" articles on Britannica, but I am certain if I did I would find either nothing or short definitional pieces without advocacy of any position whatsoever. This is because Britannica is capable of decorum and editorial restraint. Wikipedia would open the floodgates to fringe editors and admins incapable of evaluating the sources that underlie the articles. It then invites children into the discussion. FT2 is comfortable that young people with issues relating to these matters can now turn to his sound scholarship for answers. That is the most outrageous claim of all.

FT2 disengenously, and completely inaccurately lumps me into the ilk of "Conservapedia" and repressive right wing attitudes toward sexuality. Nothing could be further from the truth. What he, and many "libertarians" of Wikipedia fail to understand is that there exists a wide social consensus in which they are simply have no part. Right-wingers might at election time mis-characterize liberals as wanting to usurp parents in their relationships with their children. But it is simply not true. Respect for the parental role in providing guidance to children in matters of education, sexuality, individual relationships and community participation cut across such a wide spectrum it cannot be characterized "right" nor "left" but belong what can be better described as the sane and caring adult community. Liberals might be more willing to provide assistance from qualified educators under the guidance of community oversight of school boards but this is meant to help not usurp. A nut job encyclopedia is not better positioned to provide this guidance.

[wikiwhistle]

What FT2 is incapable of understanding in the concept of editorial restraint. I have never looked up "sex with animal" articles on Britannica, but I am certain if I did I would find either nothing or short definitional pieces without advocacy of any position whatsoever. This is because Britannica is capable of decorum and editorial restraint. Wikipedia would open the floodgates to fringe editors and admins incapable of evaluating the sources that underlie the articles. It then invites children into the discussion. FT2 is comfortable that young people with issues relating to these matters can now turn to his sound scholarship for answers. That is the most outrageous claim of all.

FT2 disengenously, and completely inaccurately lumps me into the ilk of "Conservapedia" and repressive right wing attitudes toward sexuality. Nothing could be further from the truth. What he, and many "libertarians" of Wikipedia fail to understand is that there exists a wide social consensus in which they are simply have no part. Right-wingers might at election time mis-characterize liberals as wanting to usurp parents in their relationships with their children. But it is simply not true. Respect for the parental role in providing guidance to children in matters of education, sexuality, individual relationships and community participation cut across such a wide spectrum it cannot be characterized "right" nor "left" but belong what can be better described as the sane and caring adult community. Liberals might be more willing to provide assistance from qualified educators under the guidance of community oversight of school boards but this is meant to help not usurp. A nut job encyclopedia is not better positioned to provide this guidance.

The thing is that wikipedia is supposed to represent consensus reality, as you say. The medium of an encyclopedia should be intrinsically conservative in the sense of not a polemic trying to encourage people to believe things they currently don't. Describe the reality that there are fringe views, but not overemphasize their validity/ prevalence. It's not about right or left wing, but consensus reality vs people who chat too much solely within their own subculture, or read things that confirms their view so much that they think those views are the standard ones. And people are being intimidated into not NPOVing those articles due to others having been blocked.

If both Headley Down and Peter Damian have seen a problem with the zoophilia and NLP articles, and so are most of us here, could it be that instead of us or even PD following the lead of Headley Down for reasons of stupidity, desire to pick on FT, or psychological need for a Master, there actually is a problem? Seems the likeliest thing to me, PD is not thick after all.

This post has been edited by wikiwhistle: Tue 20th January 2009, 11:59pm

[Kato]

I prefer a quiet backwater life.

Clearly not.

You worked your way into a leading political position on one of the biggest sites on the internet - and self styled "sum of all human knowledge".

Wikipedios that prefer a quiet backwater life tend to poke around on articles creating content - without incident for the most part.

That doesn't mean you deserve to be accused of things you didn't do or didn't intend to do, but it means you bit off way more than you could chew.

The best course of action is to come to terms with the unsavory beast that is Wikipedia, and stay well away in future. Go away and lead a genuinely quiet backwater life, one that doesn't find you facing accusations published in the Tech Media for starters.

[FT2]

Wikipedia is a double bind, FT2. You're damned if you do, and damned if you don't. And I don't just mean you, personally, FT2.
(Snip)

I don't think it's Wikipedia so much as human nature. It mirrors society, and we can easily imagine if you brought representatives of all society into one confined area with requirements to co-exist. Racists and idealists, capitalists and communists, Tutsis and Hutus, Gazans and Israel military, Muslim extremists and Neocon extremists, ... and a lot of people who belong to no extreme and just have their own stuff, ideals, altruism, or fantasies.

It's society, Moulton. No mystery about it at all.

(Snip)
Do you think there should be no age limit on viewing any article or image currently available on Wikipedia? How about editing or administering (and I've seen editors as young as 8 and twelve year old administers) those articles?
(Snip)

I can see in future, some kind of "age tagging" of articles, possibly linked to parental advisory or net limitation services. That might be sensible, people could have the choice. I'd hate to see that extend to the point where just because a child could read Wikipedia, topics must be deleted or dumbed down. I can think of a few good reasons, and some I find compelling.

The easy reason is the argument from some principle, such as "People should have access to knowledge" or "It's being presented in an adult factual way". It's valid but I'd go for a more pragmatic reason.

20 years ago, people grew up and either didn't hear of adult topics, or their hearing was limited to hearsay from other children or instruction from parents, for the most part anyhow. A topic like sexual fetishes would be a bedroom fantasy, a rumor, a few magazines, or whatever. Not so today. Now the geni's well out of the bottle. I don't believe we'll see censorship on the scale to put it in. That kid who gets told something will go home (or a friends) and look it up, find others, and talk about it. In that environment a different response is needed -- genuine information. Take that away and all they'll find is porn sites, misinformation, others who do it, and polemic "for/against" sites of varying weight and credibility. These days honest openness on knowledge is better.

In the opposite context, a kid who does have some sexual fantasy or private-life crisis and looks it up online may be desperate for actual knowledge. What they will do with it nobody knows (there's probably been people who went on gun rampages after seeing "Bambi"!) but I'm guessing the good done by having valid information is more often than not better than festering self-hate caused through misinformation or censored information. Most teenagers and adults won't go to Bukkake for their anxieties. But they might go to bondage, transvestitism, and any number of other "philias".

For those reasons, Tarantino, I'd say the times have changed. The geni's out of the bottle. If it's not on Wikipedia they won't go back to MTV. They'll click the next Google hit instead... whatever that might be.


Last, Wikipedia's admin standard is simple and egalitarian. I'm broadly happy. If an age limit was introduced and the whole thing tightened up, thats a possibility too. Perennial debate; the acid test is can they do the task responsibly. Obviously some can, most can't. Embarrassed about being told to behave by a competent 12 year old? If they're competent then fine. RFA is a hell of a barrier to pass these days.

This post has been edited by FT2: Wed 21st January 2009, 12:52am

[Moulton]

Wikipedia is a double bind, FT2. You're damned if you do, and damned if you don't. And I don't just mean you, personally, FT2.

I don't think it's Wikipedia so much as human nature. It mirrors society, and we can easily imagine if you brought representatives of all society into one confined area with requirements to co-exist. Racists and idealists, capitalists and communists, Tutsis and Hutus, Gazans and Israel military, Muslim extremists and Neocon extremists, ... and a lot of people who belong to no extreme and just have their own stuff, ideals, altruism, or fantasies.

It's society, Moulton. No mystery about it at all.

It's a dysfunctional society, to be sure.

But it's not inevitable in an organization with visionary leadership.

I had proposed that WMF-sponsored projects operate under the umbrella of a 21st Century Social Contract, adopting Ethical Best Practices as outlined, for example, by Peter Senge in The Fifth Discipline: The Theory and Practice of the Learning Organiztion.

Other large Open Systems Projects have operated under the Social Contract Model with remarkable success.

[Hell Freezes Over]

Oh dear god, Glass Bead, your argument is that I "advocate", and that it "parallels" Erik Moeller? And of course "OMG THE CHILDREN"! And that's your concern?

Hi FT2, I'd decided not to comment on your resignation here, because you deserve to be allowed to get on with your life, but I'm concerned that you're describing the situation as though none of it was your fault.

First, it's worth stressing that you weren't asked to resign because people believe you have sex with animals, but because you lied twice onwiki about when you first learned about the oversighting, then obfuscated for weeks when people asked you to clarify. The backdrop to it was the OM case, your desire to be finance director of Wikimedia UK without telling the membership anything about yourself, including that you were FT2, and some of the other issues you've been criticized for.

That aside, as you're raising the zoophilia issue yourself, look at the edit of yours that Peter Damian first highlighted, replacing "zoophile" with "pedophile," "animal" with "child," and "human" with "adult." http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...5&oldid=4555850

"Lifestyle pedophiles often share some or all of the following common traits: ... Belief that children and adults are not so different in many ways ...</li><li>A sense that adults can be deceptive and manipulative (even if only white lies), such people respect children and their company is sought for not having this trait and for not requiring protective social barriers.</li><li>A "romantic" nature, the desire to have a bond for life, and a partner to devote oneself to fully. (Relationships of this quality are hard to depend upon with adults, as adult partners often come to demand heavy compromise of the romantic relationship over time)</li><li>Above average awareness of feelings ([[empathy]]). This may be cause or effect, it isn't clear which. In other words, they may be close to children because they empathize well, or have developed empathic skills because of intimate closeness with children. Either way, pedophiles are often described by those who do not realise their sexuality as being caring individuals aware of others feelings.</li><li>Loneliness, insofar as others of like kind are hard to find. ..."

And so on.

This is close to the way a pedophile might describe his attraction to children. It's not how a researcher would describe it. There's a degree of empathy or sympathy there, it seems. There's no mention of the human-animal relationship being almost necessarily abusive; no mention of mental illness, personality disturbness, or problems in childhood, issues that (so far as I know) researchers into bestiality would agree (rightly or wrongly) are traits that zoophiles might be expected to exhibit.

I'm not saying this means you're engaged in anything yourself, and maybe you did make those points in other edits. All I'm saying that you can surely understand why someone might be concerned, especially given that these were your very first edits to WP, and that you went on to make 753 edits to the article, and 574 to the talk page. This is more than a passing interest, and it's therefore a legitimate issue to raise when the writer stands for ArbCom. It's unlikely that someone who made that kind of edit to [[Pedophilia]] would be elected. To respond with comments like "OMG, THE CHILDREN!", as you did above, suggests you don't realize just how far outside the norm bestiality is, and why. That's not Peter Damian's fault.

[Kato]

To respond with comments like "OMG, THE CHILDREN!", as you did above, suggests you don't realize just how far outside the norm bestiality is, and why. That's not Peter Damian's fault.

"OMG, THE CHILDREN" is the stock response when a Wikipedio gets called on any matter of social responsibility.

FT2 says that "Wikipedia mirrors society" - show me the society where leading elected figures - when questioned about the publication of gross illegal sexual acts - sarcastically reply "OMG, THE CHILDREN"?

[Cedric]

I don't think it's Wikipedia so much as human nature. It mirrors society, and we can easily imagine if you brought representatives of all society into one confined area with requirements to co-exist. Racists and idealists, capitalists and communists, Tutsis and Hutus, Gazans and Israel military, Muslim extremists and Neocon extremists, ... and a lot of people who belong to no extreme and just have their own stuff, ideals, altruism, or fantasies.

" . . . and yet, I blame society. Society made me what I am today."

Yeah, right. Whatever, dude.

[Docknell]

I don't look first at whether someone was banned by you or by a cadre of yours.
(Snip)
Flavius was a fine editor. I have been through practically all his edits, including the ones prompting the blocks that you reference.

"Mussttt... please.... Masterrr!" goes Damian

The idea of WooHoo and Katefan (whom you probably never knew) being a "cadre" of any kind, much less of an unknown non-admin, is ludicrous. That, and Flavius being this sort of user.... that refrain of yours is sounding eerily familiar:

"I have made a careful study of all "Headley's" edits and I have made my own independent conclusions"

Yes, and they usually seem to involve allegations of fetishism and scanty clad males with whips and string vests, don't they? I to have serious doubts whenever you try and say you have "thoroughly studied" someone's edits. I doubt your "independent conclusions" took into account that every other editor who "looked" at Headley in depth -- even those strongly into "science" -- decided he was dishonest in the extreme. As indeed you yourself are. Dishonest apologies, dishonest self-defense, dishonest hiding that you knew Headley was your co-editor, dishonest representation of the extent of your defamation, dishonest description how many sites and bodies you contacted, dishonest denial of your allegations, and dishonesty in claiming you'd stopped making them and now regretted it. Your "evidence" when challenged is a post or two by a banned proxy of Docknells and two POV warriors.

Go back to Docknell. This thread's become mental masturbation, and at least in Master's hands you'll be safe - he knows how to spank a monkey properly.

......

Excuse me FT2!

I presented you with some diffs showing your use of sockpuppetry to POV push zoophilia and the psychocult of neuro linguistic programming.

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=151955

You have evaded the question again.

I know it must make you very upset and angry that you have been found out, especially in the light of you being identified as incompetent, discredited, and untrustworthy, in the eyes of so many wikipedians:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vil.../ACFeedback#FT2

But spanking the monkey? I'm not the one writing promotional things about the "lifestyle" of bestiality.

I am just asking you to clarify some of your diffs. The reason you are so discredited is likely due to people seeing through the sort of self-serving manipulations you presented before you were on arbcom:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lon...use/HeadleyDown

And I repeat, I could be any one of the people on that list you conflated, or I could be none of them. You wrote the above list as globally encompassing and vague as possible so that you could protect your own POV interests. I am certainly a skeptic; a skeptic of anything you say or do.

One reason some editors (including sockchecker related editors) seem to have distanced themselves from you is probably because they feel you have tried to con them and they see through your nonsense. They know they can expect more of the same from you because it seems to be a very stable trait you cannot seem to shift. A more pseudoscientific view would say you jinx or have bad spirits that make this your fate.

I find it incredible that some people still involve themselves with you in your current sockpuppetry whitewash effort here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=265151566

In light of your own obvious sockpuppetry, your self-serving abuse of the sockpuppetry recommendations, and your repeated use of “virulent sockpuppet” in arguing against people you don’t like, it would seem that you will likely bring discredit to any genuine long term anti-sockpuppetry work.

Some would say you bring general discredit to Wikipedia. If some say you curse it, I'd be inclined to agree.

Docknell

This post has been edited by Docknell: Wed 21st January 2009, 3:15am

[Somey]

This strikes me as being the crux of the issue:

I'm sorry that research doesn't tally with your personal preconceptions. It didn't tally with mine. You think I expected to find that? But I checked - apparently a damn sight more carefully than you choose to. Go off and complain to the researchers and authorities in the field if their view doesn't work for you. Go and complain that an encyclopedia children can read is providing "scholastic coverage" of disturbing topics (would you prefer non-scholastic coverage?). There are papers that emphasize well the connection of animal and human abuse, to a shocking standard. But the view of the field is that their research for various reasons is not authoritative, nor well informed, about the topic of zoophilia generally, as opposed to abuse. If for you those are the same, then rest assured for most of the authoritative voices on the topic within science, they usually aren't. The voices of the field are not "fringe", nor minimal, but as best I can tell, the voice of every serious research in the topic since proper research started in the mid 90's. It surprised me, and I checked that out for myself. But if that's how it stands, then that's how it stands. I dealt with it. You might have to.

The question is, are you, and indeed are any of us, really qualified to determine if reputable scientific research on the subject is genuinely sympathetic towards the view that zoophilia can be (in some cases) a reasonably healthy practice, or is it just possible that you're mistaking the fundamentally non-moralizing and "aloof" nature of most scientific writing as a form of sympathy?

Bear in mind that "sexology" isn't something that people would put on a par with, say, chemistry and biology, either.

[FT2]

It's not how a researcher would describe it... There's no mention of the human-animal relationship being almost necessarily abusive; no mention of mental illness, personality disturbness, or problems in childhood, issues that (so far as I know) researchers into bestiality would agree (rightly or wrongly) are traits that zoophiles might be expected to exhibit.

That's exactly the problem. Your "so far as I know" is about 180 degrees from the consistent mainstream of research. Which wasn't what I had expected either. Mainstream researchers into zoophilia itself (as opposed to studies on pre-selected criminal, delinquent or known abuser populations) do not seem to generally conclude it is necessarily or even mostly abusive; they do not tend to conclude it shows illness or mental health issues (though it often does). Go do some research, if you care to. Here's a quote for you:

"It's important to make the distinction [between animal sexual abusers and zoophiles]... There is no evidence yet that zoophilia leads to sexual deviation, but that's not to say that's not the case... I would go on to say that someone who is sexually violent [emphasis added] with an animal ... is a predator and might very well do that toward people."

Who was it, who said that zoophilia doesn't necessarily imply sexual abuse, and emphasized the importance of distinguishing the two? It was the ASPCA's Director of Counseling. Also involved with the NY correctional system. And for what it's worth, female. Can you think of anyone less likely to be a gooshy apologist? That quote's still on the internet, for what it's worth. Your credentials, Hell? Apart from assumption and ignorance?

Here's another:

"Zoophiles appear to be extremely caring and concerned for their animal(s) and people who know them would be hard put to claim abuse. Implicit in [the bill] is that sex with an animal in itself constitutes abuse."

That's a fairly renowned professor of 30 years standing at the Kinsey Institute, presenting to the Missouri House. Think these are cherry-picked exceptions? Think again. This is the mainstream view of serious research in the field, best I can tell. There's many more of the same, from people of high authority and standing in the field of sexology (human sexuality), ethology (animal behavior), and similar. I dropped this topic ages ago, in wiki-terms, but the research on it is still as it was.

Both quotes I noted as seeming to be authoritative voices, and cited as a result. I wish you would for once, get off your ass, do the legwork, and speak to professionals on a complex and controversial topic before telling the world how you, John Q. Pulpreader, are "sure" it has to be. I'm not sure at all, so I asked, and what came up is what came up.

All I'm saying that you can surely understand why someone might be concerned, especially given that these were your very first edits to WP, and that you went on to make 753 edits to the article, and 574 to the talk page. This is more than a passing interest, and it's therefore a legitimate issue to raise when the writer stands for ArbCom.

Understandable yes. Legitimate to raise yes. But it was raised in full, the community took a hard look -- and decided not an issue. Want to see the communal view? They rejected it almost completely, and continued to do so while Damian's blog was up (including the oversighted edits), before it was up, and after Damian himself removed it. Even Damian (according to Thatcher) now concedes this was unlikely to have affected the election. Communal responses: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. Some childish, some perceptive. Either way Damian couldn't handle lack of traction, and began offsite defamation instead. That's what was not legitimate. You agree?

This post has been edited by FT2: Wed 21st January 2009, 3:54am

[GlassBeadGame]

Some childish, some perceptive. Either way Damian couldn't handle lack of traction, and began offsite defamation instead. That's what was not legitimate. You agree?

If you feel discussion on this forum is somehow beneath the dignity of Wikipedians I assume you can find the door.

...and the horse you rode in on for that matter.

[Somey]

Well, let's not be so hasty...

Understandable yes. Legitimate to raise yes. But it was raised in full, the community took a hard look -- and decided not an issue. Want to see the communal view? They rejected it almost completely, and continued to do so while Damian's blog was up (including the oversighted edits), before it was up, and after Damian himself removed it. Even Damian (according to Thatcher) now concedes this was unlikely to have affected the election. Communal responses: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. Some childish, some perceptive....

Is it fair to your fellow Wikipedians to suggest that their support for you in the 2007 ArbCom election was tantamount to "community" acceptance of the content you added to the NLP and Zoophilia articles? (I'm not saying it wasn't, but well, let's face it...)

The specific Oppose-vote statement by Dbuckner (T-C-L-K-R-D) , aka Mr. Damian, as referenced in many of the numbered links above, was this:

Strongly oppose Contributions to WP mostly content-free and pseudo-scientific, and some are very strange indeed. Has shown himself incapable of dealing with obvious trolls by his mistaken conception of 'even handedness'. edward (buckner) 08:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

That statement doesn't include a word about those two subjects...

[FT2]

The question is, are you, and indeed are any of us, really qualified to determine if reputable scientific research on the subject is genuinely sympathetic towards the view that zoophilia can be (in some cases) a reasonably healthy practice, or is it just possible that you're mistaking the fundamentally non-moralizing and "aloof" nature of most scientific writing as a form of sympathy?

When anyone on a few hours research and phone conversations (much less a few months and the intent of a book) can identify all major researchers in the field and their works within a couple of days, and read their writings and others' views on them, and yet on a hugely controversial subject historically linked closely to abuse, they all say very similar, then I'd say so.

Is it fair to your fellow Wikipedians to suggest that their support for you in the 2007 ArbCom election was tantamount to "community" acceptance of the content you added to the NLP and Zoophilia articles? (I'm not saying it wasn't, but well, let's face it...)

It wasn't a vote on edits but on editors. The question was raised "does this person edit war on a topic? Weirdly? Obsessively? In a way that someone on Arbcom shouldn't?" Damian posted a long coat-rack (one film from many, one clinical article from many etc) to try and make his case, cited the number of edits, one person agreed with him, the rest - nobody really cared.

Was it seen? Very much so. It was linked, it was discussed, it was on the talk page where all voters check if there is a question, it was in my questions page (in full), I had listed it on my "articles worked on" and linked to that... and nobody is scrutinized as much as the leading candidates (of which Newyorkbrad was #1 and I was #2 with everyone else some way behind).

Was it checked out by the community in light of arbcom suitability/candidacy? Hell yes it was. Could anyone have voted against? Hell yes. Did they find it a problem. Go check (=no, only a tiniest minority).

NLP is Docknell's hobby-horse; Damian never mentioned it outside a couple of questions on the Q&A page, so the election couldn't have been a comment on it.

This post has been edited by FT2: Wed 21st January 2009, 4:11am

[dtobias]

To respond with comments like "OMG, THE CHILDREN!", as you did above, suggests you don't realize just how far outside the norm bestiality is, and why. That's not Peter Damian's fault.

"OMG, THE CHILDREN" is the stock response when a Wikipedio gets called on any matter of social responsibility.

FT2 says that "Wikipedia mirrors society" - show me the society where leading elected figures - when questioned about the publication of gross illegal sexual acts - sarcastically reply "OMG, THE CHILDREN"?

For the children (politics)

The phrase "for the children", or "think of the children," is an appeal to emotion and can be used to support an irrelevant conclusion (both logical fallacies) when used in an argument. The phrase may also be seen as a valid appeal to a moral value that may be the basis for logical argument or action.

[FT2]

(quoted:) The phrase "for the children", or "think of the children," is an appeal to emotion and can be used to support an irrelevant conclusion (both logical fallacies) when used in an argument. The phrase may also be seen as a valid appeal to a moral value that may be the basis for logical argument or action.

Thinking of children, or any vulnerable group, is extremely important. But using it as an excuse to hide "scholastic encyclopedic material" as Glass Bead was urging is very serious and I answered to Tarantino, why I feel it would be a very bad idea in this instance.

[Hell Freezes Over]

That's exactly the problem. Your "so far as I know" is about 180 degrees from the consistent mainstream of research. Which wasn't what I had expected either. Mainstream researchers into zoophilia itself (as opposed to studies on pre-selected criminal, delinquent or known abuser populations) do not seem to generally conclude it is necessarily or even mostly abusive; they do not tend to conclude it shows illness or mental health issues (though it often does).

I think you misunderstood me. I wrote that it was almost "necessarily" abusive, which simply means "by definition." I wasn't referring to the use of violence, but to the fact that an animal's not able to give consent, and that the human being might not be able to tell to what extent the animal is enjoying it, if at all.

To give an example, when this issue of your edits to Zoophilia first came up, I took a look at the article and at some of the sources. A couple of them were written by people who'd engaged in it, and they talked about ways of persuading a dog to engage in oral sex. One of them suggested smearing the genitals with food, and this was part of a long tract about the subject written by someone who was clearly very familiar with it. Now, that doesn't sound to me as though the dog wants oral sex. It wants to eat, and it is being tricked.

The point here is not that the dog is being hurt -- it probably doesn't care -- but that it's an unequal and bizarre relationship, which for a variety of very good reasons is regarded as an absolute taboo. WP is not there to present things that people find abhorrent as though they're just a little unusual.

Do you have a professional source, preferably online, that writes about zoophilia without mentioning the preponderance of mental illness and personality issues?

Understandable yes. Legitimate to raise yes. But it was raised in full, the community took a hard look -- and decided not an issue. Want to see the communal view? They rejected it almost completely, and continued to do so while Damian's blog was up (including the oversighted edits), before it was up, and after Damian himself removed it. Even Damian (according to Thatcher) now concedes this was unlikely to have affected the election. Communal responses: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. Some childish, some perceptive. Either way Damian couldn't handle lack of traction, and began offsite defamation instead. That's what was not legitimate. You agree?

I didn't see Peter's blog, or if I did I don't recall what it said, so I can't comment on whether it was defamation. I do agree that it wasn't legitimate to threaten to contact animal advocacy groups, though you would know, given that you've done research into zoophilia, that animal rights groups (e.g. ALF) would have little interest, because they don't necessarily object to it, and animal welfare groups (e.g. RSPCA) would be unlikely to try to cause you a problem, because they operate entirely within the law. And no one has your name anyway. So while I agree that Peter was wrong to threaten it, it was a threat that was never going to deliver much.