[WikiEN-l] So, why do we provide porn?

[geni]

On 01/03/2008, Oskar Sigvardsson <oskarsigvardsson at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 1, 2008 at 4:45 PM, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>  >  > I didn't say it did, my comment was mostly directed at the fact that
>  >  >  Steve compared female masturbation with decapitation, something I
>  >  >  found patently offensive.
>  >
>  >  Why? Both are natural and both have been aproved and opposed by
>  >  various societies throughout history.
>
>
> I'm sorry, but you don't find the comparison offensive? You do think
>  murder and masturbation are comparable offenses?

Murder is unlawful killing. Decapitation can be lawful under many situations.

> You're lawyering, and doing it badly. Of course our goal should be to
>  tell the truth, but we can't do that without verifiability, but that
>  doesn't mean that knowledge and truth shouldn't be our goal.
>
>  Also, I believe my claim was that masturbation was both healthy and
>  pleasurable, both of are ridiculously verifiable (indeed, we have an
>  article about it with loads of sources), so this is the wrong place to
>  start debating the whole philosophical debate over verifiability
>  versus truth. In this case, both of them are on my side.

Not remotely. Sources exist that state it is unhealthy. then of course
we have the annoying arguments about the definition of health. You
might think it means absence of illness. I might think that is a
reasonable definition but apparently certain groups think otherwise.

> You're so missing my point with these irrelevant little philosophical
>  asides. First of all, I didn't say "morality is crap", I said that
>  some moral lessons that people are being taught are crap, and they
>  are, anyone can agree with that. Things like "Don't eat shellfish, or
>  you will be stoned", "Don't make pictures of people", or indeed "Women
>  are by nature sinful creatures, and if they find pleasures with their
>  own bodies they will go to hell!"

"anyone can agree with that". Quite a number of people would agree
that those are morally reasonable positions.


>  You're trying to make it sound like I want Wikipedia to get rid of
>  old-school Judeo-Christian morality and substitute it with my own
>  sexually deviant one,

I didn't say your position was sexually deviant. Your "If we are able
to teach the message..." statement however made it clear you want to
push a POV.

> but that's not what I said. I said that
>  wikipedia shouldn't ascribe to any moral system what so ever, it
>  should just try and present the truth (or verifiable facts, if you're
>  going to continue to complain about that point)

You've just contradicted yourself again.

> I'm not saying we should keep them to teach my message of sexual
>  revolution! I'm saying that the reasons people want to delete them are
>  entirely based on arbitrarily chosen moral standards.

As are the reasons you presented to keep them "If we are able to teach
the message..."

> Like I posted
>  long, long ago, why should this category be treated any different than
>  Category:Dogs in clothing? Can you tell me a single good reason?

Dogs don't have personality rights and while it isn't generally
possible to copyright clothing under US law I'm not sure that is
totally universal. A dog in a Darth Vader mask could be a problem I'm
not sure. Well you did ask.


-- 
geni