|
|
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| Good points. I'm also bothered by the fact that most people think "pedophile" and "child molester" mean the same thing. I have no pity whatsoever for child molesters, but I think non-child-molesting pedophiles get a bad rap.
| |
|
| |
|
| Side note: I thought "furry" meant someone who likes animal-esque people, not actual animals. Which is it? [[User:Wehpudicabok|Wehpudicabok]] 06:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| :Thanks! And you're right, furry indicates anthropomorphism. I'll change it. Thanks! :D [[User:MykalOfDefiance|MykalOfDefiance]] 08:11, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| I think "Poor Pedophiles" is a good title. Tolerance urges us not to discriminate people because they do something we don't like. But it doesn't mean we should regard all kinds of actions as equally acceptable.--[[User:Earthland|Earthland]] 08:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| :You seem to be imagining that no support system exists for pedophilia. Nonsense. Anyone who has these kinds of desires should discuss them with their doctor and get a referral for therapy. There might not be "support groups" - because not every condition is appropriate for group therapy, & because pedophiles seeking treatment probably want to stay anonymnous and have a lot of privacy in their therapy process - but that doesn't mean that society is not interested in helping them. {{User:Weaseloid/sigred}} 11:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| ::That was a lack of research on my part and I apologize, but that really wasn't the point of my article. It was more about addressing the accepted hatred against pedophiles. [[User:MykalOfDefiance|MykalOfDefiance]] 17:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| ::"Anyone who has these kinds of desires should discuss them with their doctor and get a referral for therapy." Is that good advice, from a legal standpoint? Normally, pedophilia is only diagnosed in forensic settings, in which the person has been convicted of a sex crime and now must see a court-ordered psychologist for an evaluation. But if the person goes to a psychologist of his own free will and gets diagnosed (e.g. so that the insurance will cover it, since usually a DSM code is required), he has now caused it to be established, officially, in writing, by a qualified professional, that he is pedophile.
| |
|
| |
| ::Suppose he is accused later of an offense (maybe sexual in nature, maybe not). Those records could then be subpoenaed, if not during the trial stage, during the sentencing stage if it gets that far, and his statements made to his therapist or psychologist can then be used against him as evidence of dangerousness. Concerns about generating a paper trail are relevant anytime, really, that one considers going to a psychologist. For example, if you get a depression diagnosis, that can later prevent you from being covered by certain insurers, if you are self-employed. [[User:Glideslope|Glideslope]] ([[User talk:Glideslope|talk]]) 22:31, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| ==Why this is shite and should be deleted==
| |
| You begin from an assumption that paedophilia is a state present from birth, over which the subject has no control. Cleverly, you make analogies with skin color and homosexuality. But you ignore the fact that paedophilia is actually an ''assumed'' abnormal paraphilia: there is no paedophile gene, it is a ''learned'' psychosexual behaviour, most commonly arising in adolescence, most commonly among males, most commonly among those who find that the ability to dominate small children for the purpose of sexual gratification is far easier than the angst-ridden processes of getting laid that the rest of us have to go through.
| |
|
| |
| You also make some big deal about how "the masses love having a minority bitch to hate on and blame everything on" and give us the old boo hoo. But your user page tells us that you think its okay to have a prejudice against Christians and homeschoolers... Given the choice between having new Christian, homeschooling neighbours move in, or a guy who looks at my 5 year old and thinks, "Damn! She's hawt!!", I'm sure I don't have to explain which I would choose. Or which would end up being - at best - hospitalised for putting their child-care philosophies into practice.
| |
|
| |
| There exist a plethora of organisations and routes to help for people who find children the objects of their sexual fantasies and/or desires. They are anonymous and non-judgemental. [http://www.stopitnow.org.uk/ Stop it Now] was one of the first, and is probably one of the best known. To claim otherwise is mere apologetics, and insulting to the rest of society who are actually trying to help people with deviant sexual behaviour from crossing the line into criminal sexual behaviour.
| |
|
| |
| Let's cut to the car chase. People who fuck (and to cover it up usually then have to kill) kids are the dross of society. Worse than rape, worse than believing the world is only 6000 years old, worse than any other example of human behaviour. Don't try to dress it up in socio- or psycho-babble. I'm sure many people have briefly fantasised that they could eliminate en masse their boogey-men, but let's not pretend that equates to "Poor Hitler" or "Ickle Wickle Pol Pot." You, sirrah, are talking shite. Of the hot, runny kind least favoured when experienced by one's hoop.
| |
|
| |
| Delete this shite. Now.
| |
|
| |
| And remember, future educators of the UK, the [[Independent Safeguarding Authority]] is watching your response... [[User:Fox|Fox]] 14:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| :Agree with Fox, although not quite so vehemently. I'd stick [[Template:Drive-by]] on it but MofD isn't really driving by. {{User:Toast/Zag}} 14:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| ::If you ''ever'' demonstrated my vehemence, I would lose faith in humanity ;) [[User:Fox|Fox]] 14:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| :::a long time ago the was an anti-feminist hit-piece of an essay that nobody wanted to delete for fear of being called censors, or "just like Conservapedia". We shouldn't let our free-speech values make us dumping ground for hate sites, or apologias for child rape. There are limits. [[User:Totnesmartin|Totnesmartin]] 15:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| ::::^ What TM said. Come on, you peeps are supposed to be the smart ones. Why leave it to the Jewish fundies to tell it as it is?? [[User:Fox|Fox]] 15:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| :A few points. How do you know pedophilia is assumed? Sure, there is no "pedophilia gene", but neither is there s "homosexual gene" a "height gene" or any such thing. I have no idea where pedophilia comes from, but if someone has a fetish for children, but never acts on it, I can hardly consider the person evil (when they do act on it, that's a different story). Furthermore, to say this site is prejudiced against Christians and homeschoolers is a bit unfair. I, personally, have no problem with either, I just have a problem with people like Andy who try to indoctrinate others with their beliefs, and disparage everyone who isn't Christian or homeschooled. Homeschooling has its advanatges and disadvantages. The proper parent will likely do an excellent job (although any one person able to teach all subjects at a high school level is a rare thing indeed). Andy's insistence that any parent is way better than any public school is certainly a concept worthy of ridicule, as is Andy's class.
| |
| :Good point on the organizations to help pedophiles from become molesters; I figured such groups existed, but had no idea what they were. [[User:DickTurpis|DickTurpis]] 15:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| ::I'm not going to waste my time or yours on a [[PRATT]] such as "Is RW prejudiced against Christians and homeschoolers"... We know it is. As for paedophilia as learned vs inherent, psychologists currently present a variety of different theories but the consensus is that it is a result of psychosocial factors rather than biological characteristics. Specifically, paedophilia can be the the result of having been sexually abused as a child; can derive from the person's interactions with parents during their early years of life; can be attributed to arrested emotional development; that is, the pedophile is attracted to children because he or she has never matured psychologically; can be the result of a distorted need to dominate a sexual partner; since children are smaller and usually weaker than adults, they may be regarded as nonthreatening potential partners. [[User:Fox|Fox]] 15:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| :::Many of the causes which you quote are beyond the control of the individual. I'm somewhat uneasy about the article myself, but blaming people for something over which they have no control would seem to be a little unfair. Secondly, as others have said, if the individual does not act on these thoughts then there would seem to be no obvious harm to third parties. It is possible that some heterosexual men fantasise over rape - but that does not make them rapists.--[[User:Bob_M|Bob]][[User_Talk:Bob_M|<sup>Not Jim</sup>]] 15:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| ::::I propose a RW "Law of harm" then, which shall be applied to all articles allowing people freedon of thought and philosophy, no matter how deviant. So long as there is no proof of kiddy fucking, we're OK. [[User:Fox|Fox]] 15:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| :::::Surely people should be able to think and believe whatever they like as long as they don't harm others - whether the "others" be children or not. Indeed, I'm not sure how the thought police would be able to prevent it. I rather think that it's deeds and actions that count.--[[User:Bob_M|Bob]][[User_Talk:Bob_M|<sup>Not Jim</sup>]] 15:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| ::::::Load of old shite. Do you use that same intelligence in daily life?? If so, good grief, I'm surprised you learned how to use a PC let alone connect it to the tubes. [[User:Fox|Fox]] 15:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| :::::::I guess that I just muddle through somehow. :-) Good luck with you new article by the way.--[[User:Bob_M|Bob]][[User_Talk:Bob_M|<sup>Not Jim</sup>]] 15:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| ::::::::You see? You wiill all defend to the death an article critical of Christianity (of which I am NOT a follower) or CP, but its ok to fuck my 5 year old daughter. What a bunch of wankers you prove to be. Shame on you. [[User:Fox|Fox]] 15:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| :::::::::I don't think anybody said that Fox. I rather think you need to step away from the keyboard for a while.--[[User:Bob_M|Bob]][[User_Talk:Bob_M|<sup>Not Jim</sup>]] 15:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| ::::::::::So step away, shitferbrains. Why the necessity to pretend I care what you think? [[User:Fox|Fox]] 16:00, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| :::::::::::Yeah, Fox, no one said anything even remotely close to that. Are your reading skills suddenly becoming those of RobS? I'd be concerned. [[User:DickTurpis|DickTurpis]] 16:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| ::::::::::::Don't worry, your desire to penetrate 5 year olds has been preserved as policy. Its ok, "Dick". Your secret is safe. [[Special:Contributions/86.171.62.230|86.171.62.230]] 16:11, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| :::::::::::::Fox. Please, please, please try to calm down for a moment. If you re-read the comments above, you will see that almost everyone agrees with you. {{User:Tetronian/sig|}} 16:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| :::::::::::::Funny, Fox. Now you're starting to sound like Rob as well. I'll tell you what I tell him. Take your meds. [[User:DickTurpis|DickTurpis]] 16:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| ::::::::::::::Funny Dick how dissenting voices are banned. Would love to discuss it with you, but the RW State decided I was an Unperson. [[Special:Contributions/86.171.62.230|86.171.62.230]] 16:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| :::::::::::::::Yeah, heterosexuality isn't a gene, but you can't control the fact that you're gay, and no where on my page do I agree with prejudice against homeschoolers and Christian, except maybe in my userboxen, which are obviously to be taken with a pinch of salt. [[User:MykalOfDefiance|MykalOfDefiance]] 17:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| ===Two coins===
| |
| I disagree with this essay, and disagree with the statement that raping a kid just because you feel like raping one is just a natural impulse. However, we run into a bumpy issue on RW where essays that we don't like do have to stick around. See [[Essay:Women|This lovely one by Fall Down]] or [[Essay:On Illegal Immigrants|my early rant against illegal immigration]]. People disagreed on both, but the ''essay stood despite that disagreement''. {{User:Javascap/sig|}} 16:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| :Where has anybody justified raping Children? That's one of Fox's fantasies. (That somebody said it.)--[[User:Bob_M|Bob]][[User_Talk:Bob_M|<sup>Not Jim</sup>]] 16:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| ::Like I said to Fox, if you look at all of our comments you will see that no one has justified it. {{User:Tetronian/sig|}} 16:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| :::Fox has the military mindset: shoot first & then you don't need to talk. {{User:Toast/Zag}} 16:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| ::::Personally I think he's on a bender.--[[User:Bob_M|Bob]][[User_Talk:Bob_M|<sup>Not Jim</sup>]] 16:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| :::::Whatever it is, he's not himself today. {{User:Tetronian/sig|}} 16:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| ::::::The trouble with Fox's attitude is that it diverts us from the original subject: If he'd been reasonable, I suspect the "Essay" would have been vanished by now but as it is ... {{User:Toast/Zag}} 17:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| ::::::::Not himself? He's exhibited just this pattern a half dozen times in the past, at least. Show up, act just like everyone else, have some good conversations, and then when he bumps against something he doesn't like demands everyone snap to and follow his orders. When they don't, he acts out in a way a 4-year-old would be shamed by and leaves in a huff after insulting all and sundry. Pretty normal, really. --[[User:Kels|Kels]] 17:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| ===Slight aside===
| |
|
| |
| I don't think even the essay justifies it, it's talking about people's reactions to paedophila. Where this whole "condoning" thing comes from, I fail to see. However, there are some very important points that the essay could have gone on to make but didn't, namely that research into it is practically impossible. Like with the recent Nutt Sack debacle, policy comes before reality. So when some psychologist does some studies that say child sexual abuse isn't as harmful as, say, bringing them up with the fear of hell (Dawkins makes this point in the God Delusion and I recall reading in article in either in ''Times Higher Education'' or ''Science'' that I'll need to look up again) they get ostracized because they don't immediately go "paedophilia is WRONG BAD BAD BAD BAD!!!" and chant it like some mantra. And that is the issue, which the essay touches upon but I think the adverse affect the attitude has on us actually studying it to see if it really is a condition or not that can be or needs to be treated is a far more interesting angle. While the essay makes statements like "it is in no way their fault" and "No one chooses to be a pedophile. It just... happens" but ''how do you know this''? Research into is stifled by the fact that when anyone brings it up you hear "You don't hate child molesters?!!!!?!?!?!?!? YOU SICK FIEND!!". So basically, good points but they certainly done condone anything except in the minds of some people who can't see this for their knees jerking all over the place. {{:User:Armondikov/sig}} 17:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| :I don't think this essay makes many good points, other than the somewhat obvious ones (about widespread hysteria against pedophiles & the need for supportive treatment). The comparison to homosexuality in the last paragraph is troubling, as the two things are really not equivalent. {{User:Weaseloid/sigred}} 18:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| :Exactly, comments above are discussing whether the essay was distancing itself from child molesting, but obviously I abhor child molesting. It's ridiculous, but obviously I abhor child molesting. If one doesn't say every other sentence, "but obviously I abhor child molesting", you are a criminal suddenly, but obviously I abhor child molesting. I came to read the talk page and expected people largely to agree, but obviously I abhor child molesting. Instead one finds discussions whether the essay must be deleted or kept... that's even more ridiculous, but obviously I abhor child molesting. It's a fairly well-written essay that if you are completely honest can't be insult you, but obviously I abhor child molesting. It's basic premise is that pedophilia is the same as homosexuality. You can agree or disagree on that, but it's neither an immoral nor an irrational premise. Oh, but obviously I abhor child molesting. [[User:Pietrow|Pietrow]] 13:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC) <sub>(sorry, couldn't resist parodying other comments)</sub>
| |
|
| |
| ==Ummm...==
| |
|
| |
| We do have a template just for this: {{buried}}
| |
|
| |
| We have a precedent for using it, see Fall Down's essay. Let's use it. I'm tired of this shit. --{{User:Theemperor/Sig|}} 22:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| :Yeah, that's a bit better overall than the driveby one. I vote yes. --[[User:Kels|Kels]] 22:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| ::Three "yeas" and done? [[User:TheoryOfPractice|TheoryOfPractice]] 22:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| :::heh. [[User:Ace McWicked|Ace]][[User_Talk:Ace McWicked|<sup>McWicked</sup>]] 22:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| ::::And where the fuck did Raoul go? [[User:Ace McWicked|Ace]][[User_Talk:Ace McWicked|<sup>McWicked</sup>]] 22:45, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| :::::Off having sex with 12 year olds, if Fox is to be believed. --[[User:Kels|Kels]] 22:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| ::::::Raoul blocked himself to work on papers, but the fact of the matter is that I'm lonely, bored, and frustrated doing so--and I couldn't resist sticking my nose into stuff. [[User:TheoryOfPractice|TheoryOfPractice]] 22:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| :::::::"I'm lonely, bored, and frustrated" Perhaps you should have a wank? [[User:Ace McWicked|Ace]][[User_Talk:Ace McWicked|<sup>McWicked</sup>]] 22:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| ::::::::That is so not cool... But I'm sure if you circulate those pics I was asking for it'd help him dramatically! [[image:Evilgrin0005.gif]][[image:Evilgrin0005.gif]] {{:User:Armondikov/sig}} 23:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| :::::::::Whats not cool about it? I am wanking right now and it's awesome. [[User:Ace McWicked|Ace]][[User_Talk:Ace McWicked|<sup>McWicked</sup>]] 23:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| Buried? What for? The other two essays that template was used on were hate-filled essays we wouldn't want to be associated with. {{User:Phantom Hoover/sig}} 16:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| :I don't want to get too involved in this becasue anybody who says anything in support of the essay immediately looks like they support paedophilia. But it seems to me that nobody has actually given a logical reason for burying the essay. The only reason that I can see is the the essay doesn't say "All paedophiles are horrible people".
| |
| :While it may (or may not) be true that "All paedophiles are horrible people" the fact that the essay doesn't say it would not seem to be sufficient reason to bury it. If it says something which is obviously wrong then I would have thought that - smart people that we are - we should be able to point out the error and refute it. --[[User:Bob_M|Bob]][[User_Talk:Bob_M|<sup>Not Jim</sup>]] 17:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| ::It could be misconstrued as support of pedophilia, which frankly, is not something RW should be seen endorsing in the least. This way, people can still read it, it is not being 'censored' per se, but it is clear that we do not approve. --{{User:Theemperor/Sig|}} 18:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| :::(EC) I don't think much of this essay, but I think it had good intentions & doesn't warrant deletion or burial. That's really for essays that are outright objectionable. If an essay was actually advocating child-molestation, then yeah, it ought to be buried, but that isn't what this is saying. Drive-by template or equivalent would be enough. {{User:Weaseloid/sigred}} 18:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| ::: May I add that the keyword in that statement is misconstrued. Just because someone could strawman my thoughts into something they're not doesn't mean my thoughts should be buried (censored). [[User:MykalOfDefiance|MykalOfDefiance]] 07:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| ::::If I remember correctly, one of the reasons for the creation of essay space was to allow the creation of articles which did not fit into any existing consensus. The objective was to avoid - or reduce - [[groupthink]]. There are many things which we would not want to be associated with - but if they are wrong then we shouldn't be afraid of facing them as saying explicitly why they are wrong. As far as I can see nobody has done so in this case. I would have thought that a template saying that the essay does not represent a majority view (or that it represents a personal view) would be better than a burial template.--[[User:Bob_M|Bob]][[User_Talk:Bob_M|<sup>Not Jim</sup>]] 18:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| ::::::Mykal is decidedly not a "drive-by" editor. [[Special:Contributions/76.226.188.204|76.226.188.204]] 18:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| :::::::No, but most of what the template says is true: we decided not to delete the essay, but we don't really care much for it, & the talk page is more interesting than the essay itself. {{User:Weaseloid/sigred}} 18:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| ::::::::I think that I've argued against the both the "drive by" and the "burial" template before. (If not I should have.) I know I did in the case of Fall Down's essay. If we can refute these ideas then let's refute them - if we can't then we've learnt something. If the talk page is more interesting than the essay that's great, but we shouldn't simply bury something becasue it doesn't fit nicely with our preconceptions. If the idea is really wacky then those who object should write an article explaining where the logic is wrong and we can see where the consensus lies.--[[User:Bob_M|Bob]][[User_Talk:Bob_M|<sup>Not Jim</sup>]] 18:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| ::::::::::Is there a "controversial subject matter" template that could be used instead? or perhaps a "disclaimer" that we may not agree with the editor's viewpoint? [[User:Refugee|<font color="#000066">Refugee</font>]][[User_Talk:Refugee|<font color = "#00F0A20"><sup>talk page</sup></font>]] 19:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| :::::::::::No there isn't - but there should be. Ideally with a link to the article where we present the consensus position. That might be a good thing to do with Earthland's essay for example.--[[User:Bob_M|Bob]][[User_Talk:Bob_M|<sup>Not Jim</sup>]] 19:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| :::::::::::Why not just edit the Essay template to say that we don't necessarily agree with the content? {{User:Phantom Hoover/sig}} 19:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| :::::::::::::(EC)What about something along the lines of "This is an essay by a single user and all opinions expressed therin are those of the individual and are not representative of RationalWiki as a group"? That could be added to ''all'' essays by default. {{User:Crundy/Sig|}} 19:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| ::::::::::::::That would be another good solution. But would people be prepared to "unbury" essays they did not like on that basis?--[[User:Bob_M|Bob]][[User_Talk:Bob_M|<sup>Not Jim</sup>]] 19:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| :::::::::::::::I definitely would. I find the "burying" of articles a euphemism for censorship many of us use so we can say, "At least we don't censor ideas we disagree with like those Orwellian conservatives." [[User:MykalOfDefiance|MykalOfDefiance]] 07:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| (UI) If he individual who wrote the essay wants to restore it, then they can go ahead. {{User:Crundy/Sig|}} 19:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
| :The individual wants to restore it. [[User:MykalOfDefiance|MykalOfDefiance]] 06:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| == Cultivating a healthy defeatism ==
| |
|
| |
| Pedophiles may want to cultivate a healthy defeatism with respect to their wishes to gain acceptance or tolerance. If they don't learn from what has happened to others, they will find out for themselves the virtues of that defeatism. It shouldn't take long.
| |
|
| |
| The line between sexual orientation and sexual preference is probably arbitrary because like most desires (with the exception of, say, desire for mother's milk; and even the wish for milk over formula might be an acquired taste, who knows), sexual desires arise through a mix of nature and nurture. A person may acquire a fetish when the idea of doing something pops into his head (obviously someone had to be the first pedophile, or the first gay, or the first person to want to take a dump on someone's chest) or he may encounter propaganda or porn related to that fetish, or a sexual partner initiates him into it. It just happens that "orientation" is a more respectable term than "preference" which is still more respectable than "fetish" but they all boil down to the same concepts. Why does one person, exposed to the same pedophilic ideas, materials or behaviors, as well as the same anti-pedophilic teachings and taboos, become a pedophile while another person doesn't? That's probably the "nature" component of the equation.
| |
|
| |
| Regardless, pedophiles will learn to be quiet and stay closeted. Some may say it sullies the terminology applied to gays to use it with reference to pedophiles. It doesn't matter; it's accurate, and there's no reason to arbitrarily invent new terms that make a distinction without a difference, so I'll use the ones that exist. It's not saying it's bad that they have to stay closeted, to refer to it by that term. The fact of the matter is that the more mainstream parts of the Internet do not allow people to identify themselves as pedophiles without being banned, and there is no reason, given what we've seen happen in all such cases in the past, to believe that this is likely to change. We do not see "pedophile/teleiophile alliances" the way we saw "gay/straight alliances" and we won't. [[User:Glideslope|Glideslope]] ([[User talk:Glideslope|talk]]) 19:49, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| == Vote to delete ==
| |
|
| |
| You've got to be kidding me. This should not be on the site because it doesn't fit the mission statement:
| |
|
| |
| # The essay does not make Rational points. It is poorly structured and presented, irrational, ridiculous and offensive.
| |
| # It makes RationalWiki look like we are condoning this viewpoint by hosting the essay.
| |
| # Its presence on site makes at least one RW editor (me) less inclined to want to be associated with the site or contribute here.
| |
|
| |
| This essay is advocating for acceptance of a harmful behavior directed at a helpless segment of society with no power: children. Let's have frank and open-minded discussions about worthy topics. This isn't one. [[User:Refugee|<font color="#000066">Refugee</font>]][[User_Talk:Refugee|<font color = "#00F0A20"><sup>talk page</sup></font>]] 00:32, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| :Nothing of value would be lost. --[[User:Kels|Kels]] ([[User talk:Kels|talk]]) 00:35, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
| |
| ::Take it out back and shoot it, and then send the author a bill for the bullet. [[User:PowderSmokeAndLeather|PowderSmokeAndLeather:]] [[User talk:PowderSmokeAndLeather|Say something once, why say it again?.]][[File:silverbrain.png|Moderator|link=RationalWiki:Moderators|18px]] 00:42, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| :::Kels and PowderSmokeAndLeather, I seriously love you guys. [[User:Refugee|<font color="#000066">Refugee</font>]][[User_Talk:Refugee|<font color = "#00F0A20"><sup>talk page</sup></font>]] 00:57, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| ::::Aww, that's sweet. I love me too. --[[User:Kels|Kels]] ([[User talk:Kels|talk]]) 01:49, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
| |
