[Foundation-l] Pedophilia and the Non discrimination policy

[stevertigo]

Fred Bauder <fredbaud at fairpoint.net> wrote:
> Actually, I think the better argument is that pedophilia activism on
> Wikipedia harms the project.

The issue isn't that "[a certain kind of] activism harms the project."
 Most POV "activism" by definition is "harmful" from an
objective/neutral point of view. And what constitutes "harm" is
subjective, or in need of clear explanation.

Fred Bauder <fredbaud at fairpoint.net> wrote:
> What they have in common is seductive power which may be
> combined with illegal activity. This is reflected in the public
> opprobrium which results.

Note that the ambiguity in age of consent laws limits the
applicability of a term like "illegal" here. For example, often times
the term "pedophilia" is misapplied to cases of "ephebophila."
Pedophilia more correctly refers to the attraction that repressed and
diminished people have toward small and bright young people.
Ephebophilia on the other hand remains the law in many countries (and
high schools) around the world. Canada is a notable example, even
though it recently raised its age of consent to 16 - apparently
overturning over 100 years of tradition there - before 2008 it was 14
(before ~1900, it was 12).

So, if there were any value to discussions like these at all, it would
at least help if people could avoid using terms like "illegal" and
"underage" that are subject to legal and cultural ambiguity, and
"paedo-" which can be too general. This problematic terminology was
present in (and thus weakened) even the original premise of this
thread - "pedophilia activism" is largely a misnomer for those promote
molestation and rape. The concept of "public opprobrium" thus needs to
be put into the context of this ambiguity, along with the typical
modern neuroses - safety panics, protectionist parenting, and mass
media in particular.  Also bearing are the popular political
objections toward the development of truly international concepts of
law.

-Stevertigo