Wikipedia Distributing Child Porn, Co-Founder Tells FBI - FOXNews Options

[Newsfeed]

Wikipedia Distributing Child Porn, Co-Founder Tells FBI
FOXNews

The parent company of Wikipedia is knowingly distributing child pornography, the co-founder of the online encyclopedia says...

View the article

[Peter Damian]

My God. And they haven't even got onto his edits on the bestiality article yet (some of the stranger edits my emphasis).

Zoophilia is defined as sexual attraction to non-human animals. Human/animal sexual interaction is referred to as bestiality, sodomy or simply animal sex. In the context of pornography, the term "farmsex" is also sometimes used.

Zoophilia is widely considered unnatural and human/animal sex has been condemned as animal abuse. Some advocates such as Peter Singer argue that this is not inherently the case. Sodomy is illegal in many jurisdictions, while in others, such as in Germany, mistreatment of animals in general is outlawed but bestiality is not specifically mentioned.

The extent to which human/animal sexual interaction occurs is controversial. Zoophilia advocates also claim that the human/animal relationship goes far beyond sexuality, and that they are capable of forming a loving relationship with an animal that can frequently last several years and that they do not consider functionally different from any other love/sex relationship.

Bestiality has been a frequent subject in art, literature, and fantasy. In Greek mythology, Zeus appeared to Leda in the form of a swan (resulting in the birth of Helen and Polydeuces), and the Minotaur was the offspring of Queen Pasiphae and a white bull. The God Pan has also been frequently associated with animal sex.

[Eva Destruction]

My God. And they haven't even got onto his edits on the bestiality article yet (some of the stranger edits my emphasis).

Zoophilia is defined as sexual attraction to non-human animals. Human/animal sexual interaction is referred to as bestiality, sodomy or simply animal sex. In the context of pornography, the term "farmsex" is also sometimes used.

Zoophilia is widely considered unnatural and human/animal sex has been condemned as animal abuse. Some advocates such as Peter Singer argue that this is not inherently the case. Sodomy is illegal in many jurisdictions, while in others, such as in Germany, mistreatment of animals in general is outlawed but bestiality is not specifically mentioned.

The extent to which human/animal sexual interaction occurs is controversial. Zoophilia advocates also claim that the human/animal relationship goes far beyond sexuality, and that they are capable of forming a loving relationship with an animal that can frequently last several years and that they do not consider functionally different from any other love/sex relationship.

Bestiality has been a frequent subject in art, literature, and fantasy. In Greek mythology, Zeus appeared to Leda in the form of a swan (resulting in the birth of Helen and Polydeuces), and the Minotaur was the offspring of Queen Pasiphae and a white bull. The God Pan has also been frequently associated with animal sex.

Personally, I can't see an issue with those. He's not saying people are actually capable of forming stable (sic) relationships with animals; he's quite carefully worded it to say that they claim it. Since the psychopathology of "why on earth would anyone want to?" is such a fundamental point in all these sexual-deviancy topics, I don't see "this is how they justify it to themselves" equating to condoning it.

[Peter Damian]

Personally, I can't see an issue with those. He's not saying people are actually capable of forming stable (sic) relationships with animals; he's quite carefully worded it to say that they claim it. Since the psychopathology of "why on earth would anyone want to?" is such a fundamental point in all these sexual-deviancy topics, I don't see "this is how they justify it to themselves" equating to condoning it.

Zoophilia Pedophilia advocates also claim that the human/animal adult-child relationship goes far beyond sexuality, and that they are capable of forming a loving relationship with an animal a child that can frequently last several years and that they do not consider functionally different from any other love/sex relationship.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[dogbiscuit]

Personally, I can't see an issue with those. He's not saying people are actually capable of forming stable (sic) relationships with animals; he's quite carefully worded it to say that they claim it. Since the psychopathology of "why on earth would anyone want to?" is such a fundamental point in all these sexual-deviancy topics, I don't see "this is how they justify it to themselves" equating to condoning it.

Zoophilia Pedophilia advocates also claim that the human/animal adult-child relationship goes far beyond sexuality, and that they are capable of forming a loving relationship with an animal a child that can frequently last several years and that they do not consider functionally different from any other love/sex relationship.

It is a very difficult area: in claiming to put forward a neutral point of view, Wikipedia style, you potentially put forward arguments that are not substantiated, but have the basis of "claim" - wisdom of the crowds.

90% of people will read that Captain Pugwash had a character Roger the Cabin Boy when there was never any such thing. However, the claim gets repeated so frequently that it has become very close to fact in most people's minds. Is it appropriate to repeat false claims in a factual article, or should it be sufficient to say "these are the facts" and leave people to work out for themselves that the false characters are not mentioned.

The problem is by constant presentation of a claim, you give the claim credence. So explaining the self-justification has the difficulty that in reporting it, Wikipedia is in danger of appearing to accept the justification.

Scientists claim global warming is a reality (and have research to prove it, though it is disputed).
Bestialists claim that sticking willies up the bums of dogs is very satisfying for the animal (and have few bite marks to prove it).

Repeating a claim without analysis has the danger of implicitly endorsing that claim. Oh, and why did Teh Community accept the self-assigned neologism of zoophilia over bestiality - another implicit endorsement of the animal abuse community.

[Eva Destruction]

Oh, and why did Teh Community accept the self-assigned neologism of zoophilia over bestiality - another implicit endorsement of the animal abuse community.

"Zoophilia" = "feels attracted to animals", "Bestiality" = "actually having sex with animals", I'd say. I could imagine that a lot of people attracted to animals (or children, or car tailpipes, or their neighbor's garden hose) have enough self-control not actually to carry them out, and thus bestialists & child molesters are relatively small subsets of zoophiles/pedophiles.

I imagine a Poetsock will be along shortly to make the same point in more detail. (No, don't bother emailing me to explain how stealing identities from the staff of a Haringey tranny-parlor as part of a deranged fantasy is totally different.)

[dogbiscuit]

Oh, and why did Teh Community accept the self-assigned neologism of zoophilia over bestiality - another implicit endorsement of the animal abuse community.

"Zoophilia" = "feels attracted to animals", "Bestiality" = "actually having sex with animals", I'd say. I could imagine that a lot of people attracted to animals (or children, or car tailpipes, or their neighbor's garden hose) have enough self-control not actually to carry them out, and thus bestialists & child molesters are relatively small subsets of zoophiles/pedophiles.

I imagine a Poetsock will be along shortly to make the same point in more detail. (No, don't bother emailing me to explain how stealing identities from the staff of a Haringey tranny-parlor as part of a deranged fantasy is totally different.)

The trouble with that is that when you are reasonable, others who are not reasonable seek to take advantage.

While I don't disagree with your definitions, the reality is that there are people who want to deliberately conflate the two groups with the purpose of confusing opinion and suggesting that having a sexual interest in animals or children is a right and proper thing, and therefore those who act on that interest are really being the honest ones (much as others want to conflate the two groups, perhaps because they do not believe that there is a significant difference between someone with an interest who has not yet acted on it and someone who has acted on it).

So, no harm in paedophiles liking children, a perfectly healthy and normal human response, actually no harm in them engaging in sexual acts with consenting children, a perfectly normal response, it is just the couple of guys who go too far giving the whole paedophile thing a bad name, but we know that there are bad people in every walk of life - which seems to be the Erik argument which he believes is a mature, educated position. My problem with that is that by suggesting that the principle is OK, you are actually validating those who believe that the action is OK.