-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Jon wrote:
There are very few views that are viewed as so taboo
as paedophilia. And let's be honest here - you wouldn't ask either of those two
users to babysit for you, so let's stop the nonsense about
"open-mindedness". I'm not open-minded about grown men wanting to have sex
with pre-pubescent girls - and I imagine that goes for 99%+ of the population.
As far as you asking me not to be emotive about it - that's silly - who wouldn't
be emotive about it (and I'm not even a parent)!
Let me ask the question again - is Wikipedia a haven for paedophiles? If so, I can see
many parents banning their children from using it - to the detriment of us all.
(your reply appeared very messed up - what email client are you using?)
No, I wouldn't want them to babysit my children, but then again, that's
not Wikipedia is about!
Let me be clear - I am totally against all kinds of paedophilia and
child-molesting, I find it abhorrent and anyone who commits an act of
this kind deserves to face trial. But that's not what we're talking
about here!
Wikipedia is not a "paedophile haven", that comment is absolutely
ludicrous. Wikipedia is/should be a neutral source of information on all
things, including paedophilia. It's not our role to tell people what to
believe, it's to give others the information in a fair and unbiased way
so they can make up their own minds what to believe. I think it's wrong
- - but Wikipedia is not a platform for my beliefs. If these people are
using Wikipedia as a soapbox, that is not on. But if they are adding in
encyclopediac content, that is absolutely fine by me.
Chris
- --
Chris Jenkinson
chris(a)starglade.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird -
http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFC0BHBEq6+ijeBrJ8RAmovAJ9ha3WdqqePKfUDGFBB/nkmTlxcFgCeNv3R
gHpWbYQvq8M7riqqF+cG6HA=
=XAgN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----