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

[Peter Damian]

This is one mis-citation (someone else's writing about Lakoff, misread as a quote from Lakoff himself). It got immediately corrected at the time (at least one mention, not sure about the other), and I've openly said "yes, it was a citing error". It's rare.

The error I am talking about was not immediately 'corrected at the time'. Do you remember this page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Art...deling/Evidence

which you created when I nominated one of your NLP articles for deletion. You said the AFD had been 'created by a user with little knowledge and minimal research, who has recently been proxy editing for a banned user who used to virulently sock war on this topic', and that there were plenty of independent and reliable sources that would prove me wrong. You then proceeded to list all the sources that proved that 'Damian has not done his work'. Among 'serious users of NLP'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Neuro-li...r_serious_users

you cite Lakoff. When I first saw that I reacted with shock. Perhaps my whole campaign about NLP had been a mistake, and perhaps we should take it seriously? The other citations were piffle (self-published sources, other forms of miscitation) but if anyone of the stature of Lakoff was endorsing NLP, then we should really be thinking again.

I wondered about this for a few days then decided to do some further research. In fact it was not Lakoff at all.

The other 'citations' about NLP were mostly selective sourcing, usually from self-published non-independent sources. A substantial number of the sources did not mention NLP at all, i.e. were blatant miscitation. If I had not had the charge of harrassment against me I would have taken this to RFC. Persistent and wilful misuse of sources is far worse than any of the bad things we are talking about here (at least, if it is encyclopedias we are talking about).

No comment on any of the rest of it ....

La la la la Lar can't hear you.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Sun 25th January 2009, 8:48am

[Peter Damian]

This is an interesting discussion. I just noticed PD's participation on Talk:Pedophilia, where he made a clear distinction between the act (which would be abusive--covered at child abuse or something similar) and the desire, which [[Pedophilia]] is apparently about. I guess he thinks that Zoophilia should have a similar structure.

Given that, I guess he would ask you whether [[Child sexual abuse]] should be likewise merged into pedophilia.

[Sorry to butt in here, but I literally looked at Talk:Pedophilia two minutes ago.]

Pedophiles and their apologists justify the splitting of child sexual abuse from pederasty/pedophilia because they claim sexual activity with children is not inherently abusive. See FT2's remark above that 'it's not all about anal sex' (referring to homosexuality).

Similarly zoophiles (of which Zetawoof is certainly one) distinguish between consensual and caring sexual relations with animals (zoophilia proper), and animal sexual abuse, which is forked out to the article 'Zoosadism'.

I'm not sure about this. First, some forms of sexual activity with animals is invariably harmful indeed fatal to the animal. Sex with birds or reptiles. There is some evidence that even with dogs it is harmful (more later, if anyone has the stomach). Animals have a defined breeding cycle unlike humans.

And I'm not sure about this claim about the caring nature of zoophilies. I'm sure some are, but look at the quote below (from a site since taken down). That suggests that there is a considerable amount of abuse out there, directly attributable to the internet:

We became disgusted with the " ZooCons " and other gatherings a long time ago and have since boiled with anger over the treatment of the animals and the horrid ways some so-called " zoos " and other " bestialists " threatening anyone who dared questioned there behavior. Such as man handleing, fence hopping, swapping and other abuses. Such as discarding animals like " wore out toys " when no longer wanted or needed. Or our favorite, "THE WEEKEND POUND ADOPTION". Yet these very people still profess to care about and love the animals. We wanted none of this.

Our group began back in December of 1999 when " Mr Ex, whY and Mr Zee ", three animal loving (in every way) people gathered over drinks at The Dragon's Lair. Decided they had enough with the state of things among the so-called "online zoo community" and decided that an alternative was needed. What we wanted was a fresh start and a place for others who felt as we did to gather and share ideas. A place, with rules of proper conduct, a philosophy of safe and kind behavior, and a resource for those out there who did not want to play head games or trick others needed to be established.

This suggests (coming from people who have every reason to defend the practice) that there is a considerable amount of abuse taking place within the zoophile 'community'.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Sun 25th January 2009, 9:03am

[Bottled_Spider]

BLA BLA BLA BLA...MORE BLA BLA BLA BLA ...

Your needle's stuck.

From his website, All about Zetawoof.

Holy shit. And he and FT2 are pals. What do you do with these people?

Edit : Weird. These were two separate replies which somehow got welded together. Never mind.


This post has been edited by Bottled_Spider: Sun 25th January 2009, 12:56pm

[Peter Damian]

Holy shit. And he and FT2 are pals. What do you do with these people?

Indeed

"Thanks for the support on RfA!" "As a friend and also as an editor, you wrote. As both those - thanks. I hope to live up to the best of 'em all."
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=100412113

"Just a quick note" [about a sockpuppet] "Hope your stress and busy stuff calms down soon, and look forward to catching up when it does. Feel free to delete this message when you're done. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&oldid=29130627

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Sun 25th January 2009, 1:28pm

[dogbiscuit]

I'd have more sympathy with "You don't Understand How To Edit" FT2 if he was as vigilant on getting unsourced favourable material out of the article as he was in supporting his supposedly sourced but ultimately suspect viewpoint in. If he was serious, he himself would have deleted the lifestyle section under half a dozen policies. Oddly, he stands by instead.

Ultimately, it is his inability to deal fairly with the topic shows how hollow his words sound as he lectures on the appropriate approach.

[Obesity]

Dogbiscuit, I was trying to think of a low-blow "zoo" joke about your user name or avatar, but came up blank.

[dogbiscuit]

Dogbiscuit, I was trying to think of a low-blow "zoo" joke about your user name or avatar, but came up blank.

It's far too depressing knowing that these days you can't admit to being an animal lover without someone checking up what it means on Wikipedia and getting you arrested.

[One]

Dogbiscuit, I was trying to think of a low-blow "zoo" joke about your user name or avatar, but came up blank.

It's far too depressing knowing that these days you can't admit to being an animal lover without someone checking up what it means on Wikipedia and getting you arrested.

I know! And I don't think I'm ever going to be able to jump over a fence again.

[dtobias]

I know! And I don't think I'm ever going to be able to jump over a fence again.

Miss Mary Mack, in the old children's rhyme,

asked her mother mother mother
for 50 cents cents cents
to see the elephants elephants elephants
jump over the fence fence fence

It's unstated what she would do with the elephants after they jumped the fence.

[wikiwhistle]

I know! And I don't think I'm ever going to be able to jump over a fence again.

Miss Mary Mack, in the old children's rhyme,

asked her mother mother mother
for 50 cents cents cents
to see the elephants elephants elephants
jump over the fence fence fence

It's unstated what she would do with the elephants after they jumped the fence.

Clearly, going by the logic of the rest of the Zooph article, this is more evidence for the acceptance of zoophilia throughout human history.

[Bottled_Spider]

Dogbiscuit, I was trying to think of a low-blow "zoo" joke about your user name or avatar, but came up blank.

Me too. So I decided to think of a low-blow "zoo" joke about FT2's performance in this thread. Bereft of both inspiration and talent, all I could come up with was shaggy dog story.

The Wiki article is relevant - see the sections on War story :-

in which the narrator presents his audience with insurmountable odds, and as the antagonistic forces close in, ends the story. When the audience clamors to know what happened next, the narrator simply responds, "I died."

...... and Lengthy :-

A shaggy dog story derives its humor from the fact that the joke-teller held (sic) the attention of the listeners for a long time (such jokes can take five minutes or more to tell) for no reason at all (an anticlimax)

Well ....... it's quite low.

[victim of censorship]

BLA BLA BLA BLA...MORE BLA BLA BLA BLA ...

Your needle's stuck.

From his website, All about Zetawoof.

Holy shit. And he and FT2 are pals. What do you do with these people?

Edit : Weird. These were two separate replies which somehow got welded together. Never mind.

Bla Bla Bla <insert wiki drama> Bla Bla Bla <insert more wiki drama> bla bla bal... ad nauseam .

This post has been edited by victim of censorship: Mon 26th January 2009, 8:18pm

[Peter Damian]

La zoophilie, du Grec ancien ζωον (zôon, « animal ») et φιλία (philia, « amitié » ou « amour »), est l'attirance sexuelle d'un être humain pour un ou plusieurs animaux[1]. Elle est éventuellement affective, étymologiquement parlant.

Généralement considérée comme une déviance ou une perversion sexuelle, elle devient véritablement une paraphilie si elle remplit ces critères ; bien qu'elle ne soit plus listée depuis 1980 dans le Manuel diagnostic et statistique des troubles mentaux (DSM), la référence américaine et mondiale psychiatrique en matière de pathologies mentales.

Apparu au XIXe siècle, le mot zoophilie provient de racines grecques. Il était autrefois connu sous le nom de « bestialité ». Aujourd'hui ce terme est souvent utilisé pour désigner le passage à l'acte sexuel effectif qui peut découler d'une attirance zoophile. On parle aussi d' « actes zoophiles ».

En France, depuis 2004[2], la zoophilie est réprimée. La Cour de Cassation a confirmé, le 4 septembre 2007, un arrêt de la Chambre correctionnelle de la Cour d'Appel de Dijon du 27 janvier 2006, condamnant un individu à un an d'emprisonnement avec sursis ainsi que d'une interdiction définitive de détenir un animal.[3]Voir la décision
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilie

[Dzonatas]

Yes but then I reverted some of it back and changed the intro and he has kept to the etiquette and presented a reasonable argument and defence on his talk page. He also provided a useful link to the Kraft-Ebing.

And what am I supposed to do?

My advice would be to engage in serious and thorough research before touching a subject like this. Knowing the basic definition of the subject and avoiding treating your own personal views as fact, would help:

• Merriam Webster - "an erotic fixation on animals that may result in sexual excitement through real or fancied contact"
• Campbells Psychiatric Dictionary 6th ed. - "Sexual excitement caused by the stroking and fondling of animals; zoolagnia (qv). It does not [emphasis added] refer to sexual intercourse with animals, which Krafft-Ebing termed zooerasty (qv)"
• DSM III, American Psychological Association - "The act or fantasy of engaging in sexual activity with animals is repeatedly preferred, or the exclusive method of achieving, sexual excitement." (DMS III-R and DSM-IV didn't contain a detailed definition)

Your definition (roughly: "it just means sex with animals") is incorrect both clinically and by dictionary. In fact, if you can find an authoritative source in the clinical world in the last 10 years and evidence this is mainstream, let me know. You had to actually degrade a more accurate definition (removing "or being aroused by") to create it.

There is much more to bestiality than that... but I guess it really is determined but what "animal" means.

For example:

NSFW: http://thumbs.bc.jncdn.com/4b0585eaccacf07...721540e8_lm.jpg

and

NSFW: http://na.mo.free.fr/gaza2008/16-01/IMG_1963.jpg

Which some sick mind attempt justify on what exactly are animals. The fact here, before you go off and say I went to far with it, is there is a religion out there that actually does classify those outside their race as animals. (I'll save details to avoid a conflict here.)

Images found here: NSFW: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12012

Those event related to those picture sure do put a new meaning to zoophilia, as one that likes caged animals for exhibition. Uhm.... walled city.


Oh, and the thought that Vegans would naturally think such ways about love.... oh my!

This post has been edited by Dzonatas: Mon 26th January 2009, 10:29pm

[EricBarbour]

Those event related to those picture sure do put a new meaning to zoophilia, as one that likes caged animals for exhibition. Uhm.... walled city.
Oh, and the thought that Vegans would naturally think such ways about love.... oh my!

Um, are you trying to drive this thread off into Israelis-killing-babies-in-Gaza territory?

.....well......okay, go ahead.

[Milton Roe]

La zoophilie, du Grec ancien ζωον (zôon, « animal ») et φιλία (philia, « amitié » ou « amour »), est l'attirance sexuelle d'un être humain pour un ou plusieurs animaux[1]. Elle est éventuellement affective, étymologiquement parlant.

Généralement considérée comme une déviance ou une perversion sexuelle, elle devient véritablement une paraphilie si elle remplit ces critères ; bien qu'elle ne soit plus listée depuis 1980 dans le Manuel diagnostic et statistique des troubles mentaux (DSM), la référence américaine et mondiale psychiatrique en matière de pathologies mentales.

Apparu au XIXe siècle, le mot zoophilie provient de racines grecques. Il était autrefois connu sous le nom de « bestialité ». Aujourd'hui ce terme est souvent utilisé pour désigner le passage à l'acte sexuel effectif qui peut découler d'une attirance zoophile. On parle aussi d' « actes zoophiles ».

En France, depuis 2004[2], la zoophilie est réprimée. La Cour de Cassation a confirmé, le 4 septembre 2007, un arrêt de la Chambre correctionnelle de la Cour d'Appel de Dijon du 27 janvier 2006, condamnant un individu à un an d'emprisonnement avec sursis ainsi que d'une interdiction définitive de détenir un animal.[3]Voir la décision
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilie

The zoophile, from the old Greek ζωον (zôon, “animal”) and φιλία (philia, “friendship” or “love”), is the sexual attraction a human being for one or more animals [1]. Etymologically speaking, it is possibly an emotional attraction.

Generally regarded as a deviance or a sexual perversion, it becomes truly a paraphilia if it fulfills these criteria; although it has not been listed since 1980 in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), the American and world psychiatric reference regarding mental pathologies.

First appearing in the 19th century, the word zoophilia comes from Greek roots. It was formerly known under the name of “bestiality”. In the modern day this term is often used to indicate the actually sexual act which can arise from a zoophilic attraction. One can also speaks “acts of zoophilia.”

In France, since 2004 [2], zoophilia has been legally surpressed. On September 4, 2007, the Court of Appeal confirmed a stay? of the Criminal Court of the District? Court of Dijon of January 27, 2006, condemning an individual to one year of suspended sentence comprising a total ban on keeping an animal. [3] See the decision http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilie

Ain't Babelfish wunerful? But the last sentence is not intelligable to me. The count of appeal confirmed a stop/stay in a suspended sentence consisting of a one-year ban on keeping an animal? Was the suspended sentence stayed or not, and who cares, if it was suspended?

[Dzonatas]

Um, are you trying to drive this thread off into Israelis-killing-babies-in-Gaza territory?

.....well......okay, go ahead.

No, I won't try. Just seems like someone wanted to push the limits on what is acceptable, and well, all things considered then.

This post has been edited by Dzonatas: Tue 27th January 2009, 2:07am

[Bottled_Spider]

In France, since 2004 [2], zoophilia has been legally surpressed. On September 4, 2007, the Court of Appeal confirmed a stay? of the Criminal Court of the District? Court of Dijon of January 27, 2006, condemning an individual to one year of suspended sentence comprising a total ban on keeping an animal.

Ain't Babelfish wunerful? But the last sentence is not intelligable to me. The count of appeal confirmed a stop/stay in a suspended sentence consisting of a one-year ban on keeping an animal? Was the suspended sentence stayed or not, and who cares, if it was suspended?

Google's translation facility repaces all instances of "zoophilia" with "bestiality". Its version of the final paragraph is :-

In France, since 2004 [2], bestiality is suppressed. The Court of Cassation confirmed on 4 September 2007, a decision of the Criminal Chamber of the Court of Appeal of Dijon, 27 January 2006, condemning a person to one year suspended prison sentence and a permanent ban on hold an animal.

No mention of "staying" at all.
A permanent ban on "hold an animal"?! I should bloody well think so.

[groody]

En France, depuis 2004[2], la zoophilie est réprimée. La Cour de Cassation a confirmé, le 4 septembre 2007, un arrêt de la Chambre correctionnelle de la Cour d'Appel de Dijon du 27 janvier 2006, condamnant un individu à un an d'emprisonnement avec sursis ainsi que d'une interdiction définitive de détenir un animal.[3]Voir la décision
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilie

Ain't Babelfish wunerful? But the last sentence is not intelligable to me. The count of appeal confirmed a stop/stay in a suspended sentence consisting of a one-year ban on keeping an animal? Was the suspended sentence stayed or not, and who cares, if it was suspended?

Bablfish is taking "arret" as meaning "stay" or "stop", rather than, as intended, a decree. It's also buggering up the difference between the cour de cassation (high court), and the district court of appeals. A better translation (well, I hope so, I'm not a native speaker) is something like this:

On the 4 September 2007, the French high court confirmed the 27 Jan 2006 decison by the correctional chamber of the Dijon court of appeals, which condemned an individual to a one year suspended sentence combined with a total and permanent ban on him/her keeping any animal.

"keeping" is not as funny as "holding", though.

f.

This post has been edited by groody: Tue 27th January 2009, 4:57pm

[Moulton]

I'd hate to hazard a guess what Babelfish does with "Animal Husbandry".