[Foundation-l] Wikipedia is not the Karma Sutra, was Re: commons and freely licensed sexual imagery

[Thomas Dalton]

2009/5/14 Fred Bauder <fredbaud at fairpoint.net>:
>> 2009/5/14 Fred Bauder <fredbaud at fairpoint.net>:
>>> I suggest that Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not include Wikipedia is not
>>> a
>>> manual of sexual practices. It could be phrased Wikipedia is not the
>>> Karma Sutra.
>>
>> What about pictures of Muhammad? Descriptions of Chinese human rights
>> violations? Articles about evolution? etc. etc. etc.
>>
>> The reason that Wikipedia is not censored is because we cannot censor
>> one thing and maintain neutrality without censoring everything else
>> that might offend somebody and we would end up without anything left.
>>
>
> I'm sure there is a name for this logical fallacy, but I'm not going to
> spend hours looking for it.

There is no name for it because it is not false.

> I assume that when you appear in public you cover your private parts. It
> does not follow that you need to cover every part of yourself.

When I appear in public I wear clothing in keeping with the local
cultural norms. That is not neutral. I am not neutral. I have never
claimed to be and never will (except in very specific contexts). I,
however, am not Wikipedia.