How does this make you feel?

[scythe]

As the most liberal person in history, I'm sure you all know what I have to say about this already.
I'm curious: if someone admits to being a pedophile, are they really that dangerous to children? I mean, when I was ten, if someone told me they were a pedophile, I didn't get in their van. I just didn't!

[Condog]

Unless these self-confessed pedophiles allow their 'lifestyle choice' to influence the way they edit articles, I see no reason to forbid them from editting articles.

EDIT: To answer your question, yes, they are still dangerous, but perhaps to a lesser degree, simple because people can be wary of them.

[blue_tetris]

As the most liberal person in history, I'm sure you all know what I have to say about this already.
I'm curious: if someone admits to being a pedophile, are they really that dangerous to children? I mean, when I was ten, if someone told me they were a pedophile, I didn't get in their van. I just didn't!

If people on Wikipedia want to block a certain group of people, they're entitled to. Wikipedia is a private organization and the people doing the blocking are actually just members--like you and I--of Wikipedia. Why shouldn't they have the right to block each other?

I don't know how this concerns us (being that we are not the populist fellowship of Wikipedia) and I don't understand anyone who's outraged at this.

If this outrages you, try putting "I <3 Satan" or "Former Al Qaeda member" on a resume. You might just not get hired for being so bold with those affiliations when applying for work with a private organization.



EDIT:

Aaaaand, in fully reading it, it's also looks to be just a bit of Wikipedian trollery. Oh, those kids.

[乳头的早餐谷物]

Aaaaand, in fully reading it, it's also looks to be just a bit of Wikipedian trollery. Oh, those kids.

From '06.

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

Extremes are generally bad news bears, and extreme tolerance is no exception. I frequently get the feeling that too many liberals are unconditionally tolerant simply because they feel that that's the high moral ground, and not for any reason involving actual fairness. I don't think pedophilia should be tolerated in any context, and I think cultural differences account for jack in the case of pedophilia. I have absolutely nothing against Wikipedia, or any other private organization, refusing to deal with NAMBLA. In fact, I like them all the better.
It's not an issue of them posting misleading information that might convince my children to go to bed with them or anything, either. I fully recognize that pedophiles can be intelligent, insightful people. But I refuse to react to them respectfully or casually. Apparently, Wikipedia feels the same. If they didn't, I wouldn't petition them to ban pedophiles, but I'd still do my best to minimize my dealings with them; but they do, so it makes my life all the more convenient. I really don't think the loss is significant.

Let's say we're having a discussion about, I don't know, tug boats or something, when someone pipes in with, "excuse me, I feel I can contribute to this conversation. By the way, I'm a serial rapist." I don't know about you, but for me, tugboats are now the least of my interests, regardless of any wisdom the rapist may impart on that subject. I don't care if he's the foremost authority on anything, because something far more important has come up.

[Twistkill]

Let's say we're having a discussion about, I don't know, tug boats or something, when someone pipes in with, "excuse me, I feel I can contribute to this conversation. By the way, I'm a serial rapist." I don't know about you, but for me, tugboats are now the least of my interests, regardless of any wisdom the rapist may impart on that subject. I don't care if he's the foremost authority on anything, because something far more important has come up.

More analogies... you remind me of House every time these come up. Yes, that's a good thing, because comparing anyone to House instantly puts you up a few notches on the ladder of win.

That's an interesting thought, although I'm against the idea of dismissing anyone's insight or wisdom on a subject if they're experts based on bad events in their past that are completely unrelated. Yes, I think this man is now scum for being a rapist, but that doesn't affect his knowledge of a subject. Now if this man lost an appendage in a tugboat accident based on his negligence and then wished to provide you with knowledge on tugboats, I think we'd safely assume that he's not a good source of information on tugboats.

PS. I don't think I have ever used the word tugboats this many times in one post before. Or ever, for that matter. :O

[Manifest]

I personally don't see any problem with pedophiles if they opt not to give in to their desires. I don't think Wikipedia should have done this, but it was probably a beneficial business decision.

Tsukatu, you seem to be extremely averse to pedophilia (understandable). Since I take you for someone who would come to this conclusion thoughtfully as opposed to a yuck reaction, do you believe that children cannot give consent? Why?

[wolfgang]

It doesn't bother me, although at the same time, it seems pointless when they can just as easily not go around announcing themselves as pedophiles.

Tsukatu, you seem to be extremely averse to pedophilia (understandable). Since I take you for someone who would come to this conclusion thoughtfully as opposed to a yuck reaction, do you believe that children cannot give consent? Why?

They don't have the emotional or mental maturity to give informed consent.

[Manifest]

They don't have the emotional or mental maturity to give informed consent.

Are you saying they are unable to comprehend sex, and it's ramifications? I think that's rather silly.

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

That's an interesting thought, although I'm against the idea of dismissing anyone's insight or wisdom on a subject if they're experts based on bad events in their past that are completely unrelated. Yes, I think this man is now scum for being a rapist, but that doesn't affect his knowledge of a subject. Now if this man lost an appendage in a tugboat accident based on his negligence and then wished to provide you with knowledge on tugboats, I think we'd safely assume that he's not a good source of information on tugboats.

Well sure, obviously if you had reason to find any insight they give more important than the fact that they've committed rape (e.g. you're stuck in a garbage chute in the Death Star and only the pedo has a working commlink), but in any casual circumstance, that's a conversation-stopper. If I'm looking at a rapist, that means I know that this person has restrained someone and proceeded to violate that person to get off, robbing them of their dignity, sense of security, and potential emotional health for the rest of their lives; I see someone I want to hurt very, very badly, and if you don't feel angry as well, you're one cold sonofabitch.

Tsukatu, you seem to be extremely averse to pedophilia (understandable). Since I take you for someone who would come to this conclusion thoughtfully as opposed to a yuck reaction, do you believe that children cannot give consent? Why?

The same reason we don't let kids vote or sign binding contracts until they're 18, or why you'd hire a babysitter if you want to have a night of quiet. Children consistently do all sorts of irrational crap... they put appendages into fire, color on the walls, stick pointy things in their noses, derive enjoyment out of movies like Twilight... and if you're older than 16, you'd damned well know that life before about that age was one long, shameful ride of regrets. Young'uns are simply incapable of meaningfully comprehending the serious issues an adult would face, and sexuality isn't anywhere near the simplest of those issues. Saying that children are capable of understanding sex and making informed decisions is a pedophile pipedream, and about as likely as the same child earning a PhD in Quantum Physics; it's not going to happen, and it's laughable that someone might think it could actually happen. So sure, they could give their consent, but it's about as well thought out as their opinion that the red power ranger is the best because he wears red, and therefore not meaningful in the slightest. You'd be taking advantage, and grossly at that.

[Twistkill]

That's an interesting thought, although I'm against the idea of dismissing anyone's insight or wisdom on a subject if they're experts based on bad events in their past that are completely unrelated. Yes, I think this man is now scum for being a rapist, but that doesn't affect his knowledge of a subject. Now if this man lost an appendage in a tugboat accident based on his negligence and then wished to provide you with knowledge on tugboats, I think we'd safely assume that he's not a good source of information on tugboats.

Well sure, obviously if you had reason to find any insight they give more important than the fact that they've committed rape (e.g. you're stuck in a garbage chute in the Death Star and only the pedo has a working commlink), but in any casual circumstance, that's a conversation-stopper. If I'm looking at a rapist, that means I know that this person has restrained someone and proceeded to violate that person to get off, robbing them of their dignity, sense of security, and potential emotional health for the rest of their lives; I see someone I want to hurt very, very badly, and if you don't feel angry as well, you're one cold sonofabitch.

Oh no, I'm not saying the man does not deserve a personal beatdown of epic proportions, it just seems that the two topics are completely unrelated and don't affect each other, hence why I think that he still deserves to be listened to, assuming his knowledge was authoritative, despite his ridiculous acts.

But even then, would someone openly admit, in casual conversation no less, committing multiple serious felonies/disgustingly immoral acts? It just sounds a little outlandish even if hypothetical.

[Manifest]

I think I should note right now that neither I, nor anyone I know, are pedophiles. Physically mature female humans for me. I just like exploring people's opinions, and have found that this subject in particular gets really interesting.

The same reason we don't let kids vote or sign binding contracts until they're 18, or why you'd hire a babysitter if you want to have a night of quiet. Children consistently do all sorts of irrational crap... they put appendages into fire, color on the walls, stick pointy things in their noses, derive enjoyment out of movies like Twilight... and if you're older than 16, you'd damned well know that life before about that age was one long, shameful ride of regrets.

Yes indeed. Life up to (and past) 16 is full of mistakes. We learn from these mistakes, and often avoid repeating them. Vital parts of the developmental process! How does sex not fall under this category?

Young'uns are simply incapable of meaningfully comprehending the serious issues an adult would face, and sexuality isn't anywhere near the simplest of those issues. Saying that children are capable of understanding sex and making informed decisions is a pedophile pipedream, and about as likely as the same child earning a PhD in Quantum Physics; it's not going to happen, and it's laughable that someone might think it could actually happen. So sure, they could give their consent, but it's about as well thought out as their opinion that the red power ranger is the best because he wears red, and therefore not meaningful in the slightest. You'd be taking advantage, and grossly at that.

Sex is of comparable complexity to quantum physics? "People derive pleasure from friction applied to genitals. Often, people kill two birds with one stone, and generate friction with each other's gentitals. If latex is not applied, disease or pregnancy may ensue." Gee whiz, I'm off to get a quantum physics degree!

(PS: The blue power ranger is the best.)

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

The mistakes you make and learn from as a child are things like "telling Amy you like her" and "don't drink paint thinner even if Tommy triple-doggy-dares you." Sex is not among the things you want to be making mistakes and learning from at that age. Besides which, you're basically saying that there isn't much more complex to sex than rubbing genitals, which is so far outside of reality that I'm gonna go ahead and make the logical leap that you're still pretty young and/or a virgin. Or a sociopath. I mean, take your pic, really. Everything relevant to romance, the meaning of sex, all the little nuances in the foreplay, trust issues, commitment, what it means to you and about you to have sex with someone you're not willing to commit to, the reality of STD's and pregnancy... love, if you believe in it... I'd argue that sex is much more complicated than something like marriage, and you wouldn't give kids the option to marry, would you?
There is no way a child is going to be able to grasp all that. To delude yourself into thinking one can just so you can feel better about molesting one is just that -- delusion.

[scythe]

Incidentally, most children I know who drank paint thinner died.
I, personally, at 17, regret not being more social and having sex in my high school years. In general, I've found that human beings are pretty damn resilient things, and nobody's chances at ever loving were ruined by having sex in high school.
Though, this isn't and wasn't an age of consent thread, so let's go back to that first rant.

Extremes are generally bad news bears, and extreme tolerance is no exception. I frequently get the feeling that too many liberals are unconditionally tolerant simply because they feel that that's the high moral ground, and not for any reason involving actual fairness.

Ooh, generalize me some more, baby.

I don't think pedophilia should be tolerated in any context

Why?
I mean, "because it's bad" isn't really a reason. This isn't about child rapists, this is about people who are attracted to children and may or may not whack it to lolicon/shotacon.

Something you're not too unfamiliar with, considering:

Cuz I'm a total /b/tard.

http://metanet.2.forumer.com/index.php? ... ntry138157

It's not an issue of them posting misleading information that might convince my children to go to bed with them or anything, either. I fully recognize that pedophiles can be intelligent, insightful people. But I refuse to react to them respectfully or casually.

Well, that's not very nice.

Let's say we're having a discussion about, I don't know, tug boats or something, when someone pipes in with, "excuse me, I feel I can contribute to this conversation. By the way, I'm a serial rapist." I don't know about you, but for me, tugboats are now the least of my interests, regardless of any wisdom the rapist may impart on that subject. I don't care if he's the foremost authority on anything, because something far more important has come up.

The difference here is that being a pedophile - attracted to children - and being a rapist (presumably active) - who rapes people at night - is somewhat of a different thing. In almost every historical instance where someone was prosecuted simply for their thoughts, it turned out not to be such a good idea - by contrast, rape is an action, with real consequences.

If people on Wikipedia want to block a certain group of people, they're entitled to. Wikipedia is a private organization and the people doing the blocking are actually just members--like you and I--of Wikipedia. Why shouldn't they have the right to block each other?

Yeah. Of course, as members of Wikipedia ourselves we have every reason to discuss Wikipedia policy as we do US policy as citizens of the US. True, Wikipedia is not a democracy, but it is community-led.

From '06.

Oh, well, there's that. I tend to post these things as I run across them.
Also, you can ignore my dramatic moments, I'm used to writing reddit headlines that have to be hyper-sensational to get people to RTFA.

[blue_tetris]

I don't think pedophilia should be tolerated in any context

Why?
I mean, "because it's bad" isn't really a reason. This isn't about child rapists, this is about people who are attracted to children and may or may not whack it to lolicon/shotacon.

Well, for largely the same reason it's not right for the cigarette companies to advetise to children. Maybe partly because it's not okay to take advantage of people who can't consent to activities. I suppose liking boning toddlers is perfectly fine, as long as you don't do it? Maybe prospective murderers should announce themselves before their activities and expect to be taken seriously, also.

I don't think it's necessary for me to tolerate someone who prides themselves in prospecting what is (rightfully) a crime.

Ooh, generalize me some more, baby.

I don't know if Suki's statement was intended to jab you like that. It really is an increasing trend within the left to assume that different means good and that it's wrong to be morally offended--you're only allowed to be intellectually offended.

I like being a liberal that can still think certain activities are absolutely retarded, even where they are legally allowed.

It's not an issue of them posting misleading information that might convince my children to go to bed with them or anything, either. I fully recognize that pedophiles can be intelligent, insightful people. But I refuse to react to them respectfully or casually.

Well, that's not very nice.

Yep. I'd also be a big meanie if I just got up and left a party with a renowned orphan puncher attending. There's something to say for wisdom and civility, beyond the realms of "Well, they can participate in an intellectual discussion with me!" So could Hitler. C'mon. Hitler.

Let's say we're having a discussion about, I don't know, tug boats or something, when someone pipes in with, "excuse me, I feel I can contribute to this conversation. By the way, I'm a serial rapist." I don't know about you, but for me, tugboats are now the least of my interests, regardless of any wisdom the rapist may impart on that subject. I don't care if he's the foremost authority on anything, because something far more important has come up.

The difference here is that being a pedophile - attracted to children - and being a rapist (presumably active) - who rapes people at night - is somewhat of a different thing. In almost every historical instance where someone was prosecuted simply for their thoughts, it turned out not to be such a good idea - by contrast, rape is an action, with real consequences.

Right. And if a guy goes around thinking about raping people, talks about raping people, and discusses his intentions of raping people, we can't arrest him. But we can choose not to tolerate his behavior and we can ask him to leave our home without raping anything on the way out.

And there's no difference between a pedophile and a rapist if you consider the definition of "child" and "rape" in the eyes of the law. Legally, a child cannot consent. And, legally, nonconsensual sex is rape. Granted, being a pedophile and being a rapist are two perfectly legal things. But should either of those groups act upon what they've confessed to be their behavior, a crime has taken place.

If people on Wikipedia want to block a certain group of people, they're entitled to. Wikipedia is a private organization and the people doing the blocking are actually just members--like you and I--of Wikipedia. Why shouldn't they have the right to block each other?

Yeah. Of course, as members of Wikipedia ourselves we have every reason to discuss Wikipedia policy as we do US policy as citizens of the US. True, Wikipedia is not a democracy, but it is community-led.

And any community has norms and sensibilities which they rely upon.

From '06.

Oh, well, there's that. I tend to post these things as I run across them.
Also, you can ignore my dramatic moments, I'm used to writing reddit headlines that have to be hyper-sensational to get people to RTFA.

I watch Fox News for the same reason.

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

I don't think pedophilia should be tolerated in any context

Why?
I mean, "because it's bad" isn't really a reason. This isn't about child rapists, this is about people who are attracted to children and may or may not whack it to lolicon/shotacon.

Well, for largely the same reason it's not right for the cigarette companies to advetise to children. Maybe partly because it's not okay to take advantage of people who can't consent to activities. I suppose liking boning toddlers is perfectly fine, as long as you don't do it? Maybe prospective murderers should announce themselves before their activities and expect to be taken seriously, also.

I don't think it's necessary for me to tolerate someone who prides themselves in prospecting what is (rightfully) a crime.

Ooh, generalize me some more, baby.

I don't know if my statement was intended to jab you like that. It really is an increasing trend within the left to assume that different means good and that it's wrong to be morally offended--you're only allowed to be intellectually offended.

I like being a liberal that can still think certain activities are absolutely retarded, even where they are legally allowed.

It's not an issue of them posting misleading information that might convince my children to go to bed with them or anything, either. I fully recognize that pedophiles can be intelligent, insightful people. But I refuse to react to them respectfully or casually.

Well, that's not very nice.

Yep. I'd also be a big meanie if I just got up and left a party with a renowned orphan puncher attending. There's something to say for wisdom and civility, beyond the realms of "Well, they can participate in an intellectual discussion with me!" So could Hitler. C'mon. Hitler.

Let's say we're having a discussion about, I don't know, tug boats or something, when someone pipes in with, "excuse me, I feel I can contribute to this conversation. By the way, I'm a serial rapist." I don't know about you, but for me, tugboats are now the least of my interests, regardless of any wisdom the rapist may impart on that subject. I don't care if he's the foremost authority on anything, because something far more important has come up.

The difference here is that being a pedophile - attracted to children - and being a rapist (presumably active) - who rapes people at night - is somewhat of a different thing. In almost every historical instance where someone was prosecuted simply for their thoughts, it turned out not to be such a good idea - by contrast, rape is an action, with real consequences.

Right. And if a guy goes around thinking about raping people, talks about raping people, and discusses his intentions of raping people, we can't arrest him. But we can choose not to tolerate his behavior and we can ask him to leave our home without raping anything on the way out.

And there's no difference between a pedophile and a rapist if you consider the definition of "child" and "rape" in the eyes of the law. Legally, a child cannot consent. And, legally, nonconsensual sex is rape. Granted, being a pedophile and being a rapist are two perfectly legal things. But should either of those groups act upon what they've confessed to be their behavior, a crime has taken place.

If people on Wikipedia want to block a certain group of people, they're entitled to. Wikipedia is a private organization and the people doing the blocking are actually just members--like you and I--of Wikipedia. Why shouldn't they have the right to block each other?

Yeah. Of course, as members of Wikipedia ourselves we have every reason to discuss Wikipedia policy as we do US policy as citizens of the US. True, Wikipedia is not a democracy, but it is community-led.

And any community has norms and sensibilities which they rely upon.

From '06.

Oh, well, there's that. I tend to post these things as I run across them.
Also, you can ignore my dramatic moments, I'm used to writing reddit headlines that have to be hyper-sensational to get people to RTFA.

I watch Fox News for the same reason.


(post inspired by blue_tetris)

[scythe]

I, uh, still get the feeling we're talking about different things.
I mean someone with no intention - though they would probably enjoy it - of having sex with children.
Suki, you implied that this person actually does intend to have sex with kids, which isn't what the Wikipedia discussion was about.
I don't support the childlove movement, Suki, if that's the impression you're getting. My opinion was this:

Am I concerned enough to notify the police? If yes, then don't issue a ban, contact the police, a ban may disturb a police investigation. If no, don't issue a block, your concerns are probably groundless; otherwise you would have notified the police.

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

I, uh, still get the feeling we're talking about different things.
I mean someone with no intention - though they would probably enjoy it - of having sex with children.
Suki, you implied that this person actually does intend to have sex with kids, which isn't what the Wikipedia discussion was about.
I don't support the childlove movement, Suki, if that's the impression you're getting. My opinion was this:

Am I concerned enough to notify the police? If yes, then don't issue a ban, contact the police, a ban may disturb a police investigation. If no, don't issue a block, your concerns are probably groundless; otherwise you would have notified the police.

My bias is against someone who would engage in the act if given the chance to do so without repercussion. Identifying yourself with a "pedophile" user group, I feel, is more than minimally sufficient to assume that this person would.
Would he engage in sex acts with a minor? If yes, then he deserves our scorn. If no, and his feelings aren't that serious, then why does he feel it's important enough to identify himself with? Otherwise he wouldn't have chosen to join the usergroup, and so it's clearly enough of an issue to him that he deserves our scorn.

[Turiski]

@ (Tsukatu) My bias is against someone who would engage in the act if given the chance to do so without repercussion:

Without any repercussion? Or without any repercussion to them? Those are pretty different things, and I'm curious.

[blue_tetris]

We're at the classic confusion between law and morality. And I think scythe is the one confused. Wikipedia's staff can hate, disparage, distrust, and be generally annoyed at pedophiles. The law is not involved here. There are people that genuinely believe that raping children is wrong and would discriminate against child rapers on the basis of morality--not law. The law certainly exists to reflect this rightist agenda, scythe, but disparage not. On the Internet, you can get away with not only saying that you wanna rape kids, but even confessing to actually having raped kids.

However, because Wikipedia isn't law, it doesn't matter at all. And we still go back to the intent of the law--because we genuinely distrust people who are confessed and unrepentent rapists. I can understand why a confessed and unrepentent rapist might be cool to have around for you, but you need to understand the right and imperative of individuals who have the liberty to maintain their own webiste not to keep rapists as contributers and sponsors to their website.

[t̷s͢uk̕a͡t͜ư]

@ (Tsukatu) My bias is against someone who would engage in the act if given the chance to do so without repercussion:

Without any repercussion? Or without any repercussion to them? Those are pretty different things, and I'm curious.

Without any repercussions to the rapist. If there were none to the child, then there'd obviously be little reason to be against it.

[MattKestrel]

Pedophiles are like shotguns. If you don't know he has one and you go in for a melee attack, you're screwed. If he's definitely got one, he's still going to blast your head off unless you're quick on your feet. That said, revealing you have a shotgun is never the smartest of strategies unless you're also good at grenade tagging.

Yes, I've just started playing Halo 3 and am repeatedly getting whooped by shotgun/melee combos.

Converting this all into relevant speak, even if you know someone's a pedophile whilst you're meeting, there's still a lot of complex stuff you'll need to go through, such as completely disconnecting him if you're at the online stage, or running like hell if he's got a shotgun in a railway station.

[scythe]

Pedophiles are like shotguns. If you don't know he has one and you go in for a melee attack, you're screwed. If he's definitely got one, he's still going to blast your head off unless you're quick on your feet. That said, revealing you have a shotgun is never the smartest of strategies unless you're also good at grenade tagging.

Yes, I've just started playing Halo 3 and am repeatedly getting whooped by shotgun/melee combos.

Converting this all into relevant speak, even if you know someone's a pedophile whilst you're meeting, there's still a lot of complex stuff you'll need to go through, such as completely disconnecting him if you're at the online stage, or running like hell if he's got a shotgun in a railway station.

what
I'm so goddamn confused here.
A shotgun is an ability, sorta. Pedophilia is a fetish, and a particularly damaging one at that. Also, in general, people aren't trying to kill each other.

[Rose]

Also, in general, people aren't trying to kill each other.

Actually, it's a pretty good simile, because pedophiles kill children on the inside just like shotguns kill people on the outside.

[smartalco]

Actually, it's a pretty good simile, because pedophiles kill children on the inside just like shotguns kill people on the outside.

Actually, it is a horrible analogy, but it is the best got damn analogy I have ever heard

I agree with Suki/Dave on this, if you are openly admitting to liking the idea of sex with minors, you deserve to be shunned by everyone (including wiki)