Goatse on WP Options

[ThurstonHowell3rd]

There is a link to the famous goatse image in the goatse.cx article. There has been a multi-year discussion and a currently in progress RFC on whether or not the article should directly include the actual goatse image.

The identity of the person in the image has been removed from the article because of BLP rules.

This post has been edited by ThurstonHowell3rd: Wed 25th June 2008, 3:21am

[wikieyeay]

Old disputes never die, they just get reborn

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Med...01-12/Goatse.cx

[GlassBeadGame]

Old disputes never die, they just get reborn

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Med...01-12/Goatse.cx

More from the Toyota of Encyclopedias (gas petal sticks and breaks don't work). Another round of wack-a-mole with the WP:Notcensored folks. Voluntary restraint, taste and discretion is impossible with atomized content creation and open licensing. Add a pinch of internet meme obsession and the immature nerds are good to go.

[Tarc]

Old disputes never die, they just get reborn

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Med...01-12/Goatse.cx

More from the Toyota of Encyclopedias (gas petal sticks and breaks don't work). Another round of wack-a-mole with the WP:Notcensored folks. Voluntary restraint, taste and discretion is impossible with atomized content creation and open licensing. Add a pinch of internet meme obsession and the immature nerds are good to go.

Having an article about an offensive image without actually showing what the image is is simply nonsensical. You're retreading your tired "think of the children" shtick. Again.

[GlassBeadGame]

Old disputes never die, they just get reborn

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Med...01-12/Goatse.cx

More from the Toyota of Encyclopedias (gas petal sticks and breaks don't work). Another round of wack-a-mole with the WP:Notcensored folks. Voluntary restraint, taste and discretion is impossible with atomized content creation and open licensing. Add a pinch of internet meme obsession and the immature nerds are good to go.

Having an article about an offensive image without actually showing what the image is is simply nonsensical. You're retreading your tired "think of the children" shtick. Again.

Oh? Are you going to delete the article or fill it up with "relevant" pics? Clueless as ever.

[Sceptre]

Old disputes never die, they just get reborn

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Med...01-12/Goatse.cx

More from the Toyota of Encyclopedias (gas petal sticks and breaks don't work). Another round of wack-a-mole with the WP:Notcensored folks. Voluntary restraint, taste and discretion is impossible with atomized content creation and open licensing. Add a pinch of internet meme obsession and the immature nerds are good to go.

Having an article about an offensive image without actually showing what the image is is simply nonsensical. You're retreading your tired "think of the children" shtick. Again.

Oh? Are you going to delete the article or fill it up with "relevant" pics? Clueless as ever.

Child pornography is illegal. I doubt Goatse is; whether it's illegal under obscenity laws is probably related to whether (adult) pornography is, and I don't think that much normal pornography (for sufficiently flexible values of "normal) is.

[GlassBeadGame]

Old disputes never die, they just get reborn

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Med...01-12/Goatse.cx

More from the Toyota of Encyclopedias (gas petal sticks and breaks don't work). Another round of wack-a-mole with the WP:Notcensored folks. Voluntary restraint, taste and discretion is impossible with atomized content creation and open licensing. Add a pinch of internet meme obsession and the immature nerds are good to go.

Having an article about an offensive image without actually showing what the image is is simply nonsensical. You're retreading your tired "think of the children" shtick. Again.

Oh? Are you going to delete the article or fill it up with "relevant" pics? Clueless as ever.

Child pornography is illegal. I doubt Goatse is; whether it's illegal under obscenity laws is probably related to whether (adult) pornography is, and I don't think that much normal pornography (for sufficiently flexible values of "normal) is.

You have no idea how non-responsive that is to the argument of the post, do you? Under "Tarc's claim an article about images "without actually showing the image" is "nonsensical." Child pornography cannot legally be displayed. Therefore, following his reasoning, there should be no article on child pornography.

[Tarc]

Old disputes never die, they just get reborn

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Med...01-12/Goatse.cx

More from the Toyota of Encyclopedias (gas petal sticks and breaks don't work). Another round of wack-a-mole with the WP:Notcensored folks. Voluntary restraint, taste and discretion is impossible with atomized content creation and open licensing. Add a pinch of internet meme obsession and the immature nerds are good to go.

Having an article about an offensive image without actually showing what the image is is simply nonsensical. You're retreading your tired "think of the children" shtick. Again.

Oh? Are you going to delete the article or fill it up with "relevant" pics? Clueless as ever.

Child pornography is illegal. I doubt Goatse is; whether it's illegal under obscenity laws is probably related to whether (adult) pornography is, and I don't think that much normal pornography (for sufficiently flexible values of "normal) is.

You have no idea how non-responsive that is to the argument of the post, do you? Under "Tarc's claim an article about images "without actually showing the image" is "nonsensical." Child pornography cannot legally be displayed. Therefore, following his reasoning, there should be no article on child pornography.

"Goatse" is the name of a specific image. "Child pornography" is a general term for explicitly illegal sexual images of minors.

Do I need to poke your Analogy Balloon a bit further, or is it sufficiently deflated?

[GlassBeadGame]

"Goatse" is the name of a specific image. "Child pornography" is a general term for explicitly illegal sexual images of minors.

Do I need to poke your Analogy Balloon a bit further, or is it sufficiently deflated?

Weak.

[Tarc]

"Goatse" is the name of a specific image. "Child pornography" is a general term for explicitly illegal sexual images of minors.

Do I need to poke your Analogy Balloon a bit further, or is it sufficiently deflated?

Weak.

Nice dodge, but one really has nothing to do with the other. If someone goes to the goatse article, they should expect to see what the fuss is all about. But child porn? No, I don't believe an image is necessary there any more than an actual dead body in the article for Murder (T-H-L-K-D) to understand the concept.

[taiwopanfob]

"Goatse" is the name of a specific image. "Child pornography" is a general term for explicitly illegal sexual images of minors.

Do I need to poke your Analogy Balloon a bit further, or is it sufficiently deflated?

Weak.

Nice dodge, but one really has nothing to do with the other. If someone goes to the goatse article, they should expect to see what the fuss is all about. But child porn? No, I don't believe an image is necessary there any more than an actual dead body in the article for Murder (T-H-L-K-D) to understand the concept.

I'll add to GBG's "weak", with "completely irrelevant". Stick to the point, perhaps?

Such as it is, at least: yours is an indefensible position. The Project has a number of articles about famous libel cases that manage to communicate what "the fuss is all about", without actually presenting the video (Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto), or a scan of a newspaper article (New York Times Co. v. Sullivan) containing the actual libels.

Note how this sort of thing works for Child Pornography. And most other subjects, be they specific or general.

The only difference here is that videos of a lawyer speaking to a bunch of journalists, or some yellowing newspaper copy aren't going to upset old laides in Iowa, are they? Once again, the fucktards at the project would rather shock readers ... "because we can!" It's the drama! More and more of it!