Troll, I do not see how you can say they clearly support it. What do you 'do about it' in regards to someone writing an essay a while ago? How is one editor's opinion on a matter, uninvolved in editing an encyclopedia, relevant to the position on the enyclopedia?

fedbait: I'd have to read the piece, but my german is rusty. That said, yeah, I'm not going to jump to conclusions without reading it nor should anyone. Troll saying that to you doesn't make sense, being a pervert apologist doesn't mean you're in NAMBLA.

Bornean, according to your disclaimer, people should not be neutral in regards to taboos because of slippery slope? That kind of reasoning has been defeated a lot these days. That said, the minority which is legal minors are kind of a common group to stick up for. Oh dear, the unintentional innuendo...

WilliamMarkFelt: I would agree with what you are intending to say, that co-operating with sexual advances does not make them fine. Sometimes, people are pressured or manipulated or exploited into co-operation. This is why only allowing informed individuals to copulate is important. That said, 'informed' is a mind thing, not an age thing. There's more accurate ways than your birth certificate to evaluate it. Accusations of witch hunting are hardly specious, they happen. I have witnessed it on the net a lot. If not witch hunting than trolling, regardless it is unwarranted emotional harassment.

Your reasoning of 'even felons find them beneath them' is idiotic. Murderers in prison find everyone to be beneath them, that is why they kill people. That is why they steal from or rape people. That you care about the opinions of monsters who hurt other people in evaluating people says loads. The reason they go after pedophiles is because they are perceived as easy targets, that is all. Any perceived moral high ground is mainly an excuse for everyone to use so people will look the other way or applaud them. To indluge them that is cavemanish. My instinct tells me that Wikipedians are, on average, of higher moral character than felons, on average, so I think I'll defer to their judgement on this, thank you. Our justice system reflects this by having murder have the longest sentence, as it should, as life is the most precious thing we have.

tyciol

Their version of keeping Wikipedia an objective compilation of varying views now makes me less credulous of a source I had once hoped would prove completely fair and unbiased. Silly me. Diogenes died frustrated and things haven't changed.

FatTires

I actually agree with your point. However fedbait didn't take your tone, and came out with both barrels blazing, so I take a certain amount of pleasure in deflecting their vitriol and pouring it down their throats. For such a supposedly "peaceful" and "loving" environment, which is the image of Wikipedia, fedbait reflects what the reality is behind the hippyesque hype.

WilliamMarkFelt

For me, it's easier to hate the guy simply because he has a retarded face. I don't need any evidence for that :D

exeprime

At least 23,000 views and counting.
Again, thanks!

WilliamMarkFelt

Thanks to the both of you, I'm afforded the opportunity to show what Wikipedia is really all about - a world where the intolerable is not only tolerated, it's condoned, and where reasoned argument that contradicts the "consensus" of teenagers and early twenty something, will meet with hostility, and maintaining erroneous information on Wikipedia articles.

This piece is pretty viral, which means it's getting emailed, then there's word of mouth. So you two, thanks for helping spread the word about the real Wikipedia.

WilliamMarkFelt

Oh and I read the entire translation yes, and I personally find it strange that unless someone is showing pictures of say their baby getting a bath, I don't know why anyone would ever have pictures of naked children.
Experts have determined, not 20 year old kids with agendas, experts have determined that most people who view pictures of naked children do so with prurient interest.

You say this is a witch-hunt against Moller, while he accuses the German government of witch-hunting people with pictures of naked children. It seems to me that "witch-hunt" is a specious, default argument given to people who disagree with someone.

Given Erik's keen interest in pedophilia, his numerous edits on the "child sexual abuse" article, and numerous other examples enumerated here, it seems to me that Erik is kinda fixated on a topic that is one of the last things people consider shocking, immoral and reprehensible.
And you fedbait, seem bent on defending him.

It's common knowledge that amongst rapists, murderers, and thieves, the lowliest of the low on the criminal totem pole are pedophiles. Pedophiles generally have to spend their time in solitary confinement, otherwise they're killed by other convicted felons. Moral of the story? Even felons find pedophilia beneath them.

Yet many Wikipedians, many, including you, seem to think it's just fine.

Pathetic.

WilliamMarkFelt

As for the "Children are pornography" article, it seems obvious that you and Owen and the Troll are so busy getting your torches lit for the Moller witch-hunt that you can't be bothered to read past the headline.

Unlike you, I spent some time trying to make my way through a bad translation from German and actually understand what he was writing, and it's clear to me that the phrase "children are pornography" was Moller's characterization of the approach taken by the German officials he describes in the article -- who are talking about somehow indexing and regulating *all* photos of naked children just in case they might be used by pedophiles.

That helps support your case about as much as that ridiculous WorldNetDaily article Owen has linked to. Pathetic.

fedbait

It's not like they haven't done it before.

corva

BTW, get your subject/verb agreement correct, which is 3rd grade type of stuff, before you go off calling people names.

WilliamMarkFelt

Trust me, with those sort of Obectivist ideas, you'd find that Wikipedia is a bunch of mealy mouthed CombieLibTards (Thanks, Marsden).

Troll_2.0

You know, one more thing I wonder about is this - let's just say that fedbait's hypothetical scenario of sexual contact between an 18/15 year old are true, isn't it incumbent upon Moller *to make that clear*? It's far far from clear. A 15 year old is by psychological definition not a child, but an adolescent.

I don't know troll, maybe I'm a moron for wanting such a distinction clearly spelled out - what do you think?

WilliamMarkFelt

Stick that in your neutral POV pipe and smoke it.

Troll_2.0

"since you seem more than capable of demonstrating it without my help'

How exactly? And not just me, but everyone else here as well. Remember,we're talking about Wikipedia and Wikipedians here, it's all about consensus.

"Yes, Moller's piece leaves the door open for consenting adult-child sexual contact, which could be nothing more than allowing for the possibility of an 18-year-old (i.e. adult) and a 15-year-old (child) having a sexual relationship. Is that the end of society as we know it? Hardly."

You obviously haven't read this entire piece, or the Owen Thomas's other post which continues to demonstrate Moller's defense of pedophilia. And not just the 18/15 year old scenario either.

So Fedbait, please read this:

[valleywag.com]

Will you be so quick to defend Moller, and attack Owen Thomas, and the rest of the members of this discussion, when you read an article entitled "Children are Pornography?"

Oh and about the three names. You can do better than that, can't you? Then again, I should not expect so much from someone who uses the same playground insults I heard in the 3rd grade.

So fedbait, if this were a Wikipedia article, your edit would get reverted.

WilliamMarkFelt

Troll_2.0

Troll_2.0

Troll_2.0

Yes, Moller's piece leaves the door open for consenting adult-child sexual contact, which could be nothing more than allowing for the possibility of an 18-year-old (i.e. adult) and a 15-year-old (child) having a sexual relationship. Is that the end of society as we know it? Hardly.

Unlike @Ltic, I haven't done an exhaustive analysis of Moller's oeuvre, so I don't know whether he promotes sex between old people and actual children. If he does then that's clearly reprehensible, but no one has shown any conclusive evidence that he believes that.

fedbait

WilliamMarkFelt

MrDo

Troll_2.0

Mr. Moller would call the above link "hysteria." I call it protecting children from people like Mr. Moller who offer moral justifications for child sexual predation. In these links you'll read that often times children co-operate with adult sexual advances, which makes the behavior just fine, in the mind of Mr. Moller.

I say that we need protection from people like Moller, and Wales, who has thus far been conspicuously silent about all this.

WilliamMarkFelt

Troll_2.0

WilliamMarkFelt

Troll_2.0

Troll_2.0

WilliamMarkFelt

Showing neutrality to taboos is the first step in trying to justify and liberalize them.

There are many other minority views as a Wikipedian this guy can stickup for. This guy chooses to justify something that satisfies his own sick fantasies.

Bornean

Rick

An interesting case study involving by Wikipedia content and Wikia is documented in the thread "Boy Scouts are for spanking" at the Wikipedia Review site : [wikipediareview.com]

A Wikia site devoted to spanking fetish art copied photos of actual underaged children and boyscouts from Wikimedia commons and Wikipedia. The images were freely licensed, but there was no indication that the children (or the parents of the children) had given permission for these images to be used in a sexual context. Furthermore, the photographer (who mistakenly thought that he was simply providing photos for the "boy scout" article and not porn) was not pleased to find his photos used in this context, although he could do nothing about it, since they were licensed for "all use".

...This is ONE case out of many...

Thefieryangel

[en.wikipedia.org]

JasonCalacanis

Troll_2.0

Ltic

"What is my position on pedophilia, then? It's really simple. If the child doesn't want it, is neutral or ambigious, it's inappropriate. This excludes most adult/child sexual contact, but only little child/child contact."

So, you're saying that if a child wants to have sex with an adult, it's appropriate? And he goes on to say *most* adult/child sexual contact, as if *any* adult child sexual contact, is appropriate?

@fedbait, I contend that either a) you didn't read this b) you are a wikipedia defender and you see a story which just may sink this already troubled ship c) you work for Wikipedia or d) you don't have problems with adult/child sexual contact.

I'd say with any of these scenarios, especially d), it's you who have the problem.

Now I'm going to love to see how Gardner, Wales, Moeller, et. al. spin their way out of this one. If I were Richard Branson, Bono, Roger McNamee, Larry Lessig, I'd slowly, quietly back away from this mess.

WilliamMarkFelt

Rachel Marsden + child rights advocate Bill O'Reilly = You're fucked

Wikipedophile

Troll_2.0

fedbait

Troll_2.0

Ltic

dannyisme

Let's just say this: You're not missing much. It's disgusting.

corva

terran