Wikipedia, home of pedophiles?
- Thread starter thethingthatlurks
- Start date
Recommended Videos
It's pretty much the "boy who cried wolf" approach to assessing the veracity of their reporting. The article is without a doubt oversensationalized (that's a word, right?), and wikipedia deals with all kinds of crap on a regular basis, so they a) are aware of a problem, and b) have already addressed it. Plus assuming that something is wrong is perfectly valid, unless you get some evidence.BloodSquirrel said:
You can't use the words "Fox" and "journalism" in the same sentence, even with the "tabloid" modifier. It's like a matter/anti-matter collision - the world will now end.thethingthatlurks said:
However, you'll always be right when you say "Fox has gone ... too far", so maybe there's hope for the world afterall.
And to answer your question - yes, Fox has gone too far.
FOX is just pissed because Wikipedia has a section on their FOX News article that mentions the accusations of bias in their reporting. Much like a drug addict, FOX will never actually admit that it has a problem and responds to all accusations of bias with (surprise!) even more biased coverage and sensationalism.
Yeah, only got through the first two paragraphs before the sheer stupidity of the article lowered my IQ. Fox needs to die in a fire...like, now.
In my opinion, paedophiles can't help the way they are, and I for one feel rather sorry for them and their misfortune of having helplessly developed such a divergent sexuality that they have, which a normal society can never allow to be made manifest due to the fact that children can't be considered to give a legal consent to having sex with an adult.aPod said:
You have to remember that, besides your subjective disgust of the notion of getting sexually aroused by the thought of having intercourse with children, all paedophiles aren't child molesters. In fact, many paedophiles do restrain themselves from enacting upon their sexual desires though their reasons for doing so may vary (some simply do it because they are afraid of getting caught and thrown in jail, others do it because they genuinely understand that children can't give consent to sex, and thus, despite the fact that they really would like to, refrain from trying to seduce and molest children of non-legal age).
But regardless of the facts of why certain paedophiles refrain from molesting children I think that people wih your mindset are being extremely unfair against people that life has treated rather unfairly already, and it isn't exactly far from the same kind of bigot intolerance that gay people have had to suffer for decades (and still do in many parts of the world).
Now I don't disagree with the idea that child molesters (i.e paedophiles who actually act upon their sexual preferences) should be held accountable for their actions, and I for one find it to be quite abominable to abuse a child simply for the fact that you feel horny (in my opinion, it's no different than raping a woman just because you haven't managed to get laid with women as much as you'd like to have).
Quite simply, it isn't right to hurt and take advantage of someone simply in order to give outlet to certain primitive urges that your very survival is far from dependant upon. For instance, if a person is starving to death then I could certainly sympathize with that person if he or she had to kill another person in order to steal that persons apple in order to survive. However, no human being has ever been recorded to actually die from "sexual starvation", hence killing or hurting another human being just to "scratch an itch" that your survival doesn't depend upon can't ever be a reasonable thing to do.
In any case, those are my views on the problem at hand, and I find it rather unecessary to hate people simply for having commited the "sin" of THINKING about children in a sexual context, due o reasons that they have no power over. Life has already put these people on the ass-end of things, so there's no reason what so ever to dump a shitload of disgust and hatred on them simply for existing. They're human just like you and me, the only diference is the fact that the relevant parts of their brains and psyche have evolved in a rather peculiar manner which in turn gives rise to a sexual preference that society can never allow to be made manifest.
But regardless of your or my own personal opinions of their sexuality, paedophiles are in fact harmless as long as they don't commit the crime of child molestation, and I for one completely approve of paedophiles trying to put a stop to the zealous hatred that they have to suffer everywhere they go, because frankly they haven't committed any crime simply by being born different. And there are very few countries in the world that have actually OUTLAWED the phenomena of feeling sexually attracted to children, even though they have outlawed the practice of trying to have sex with children.
Also, even if you get turned on by the notion of having sex with children, you still have the right to freedom of speech in most countries of the world (apart from the supressive dictatorships out there). So how could you possibly justify raping the freedom of speech, by "cracking down" on sites like wikipedia, just because you feel the need to making sexually divergent people to shut up?
You can say and think whatever you like as long as you are of a "normal" sexuality. Otherwise you should be censored from saying anything. Is that what you're trying to preach here?
I stopped reading at the begining this is probaly the biggest pile of bullsh*t I ever read! the only real home of pedophiles is 4chan! this only shows that its a slow news week
EDIT: whats next Youtube as a homing beacon for necrofiliacs?
EDIT: whats next Youtube as a homing beacon for necrofiliacs?
Ah Fox news the epiphany of new news journalism......the more news is spun the more its entertainment and not news.... hell the last hard news place on TV is The news hour on PBS...... its the end of a era.....
Also liking well built 15-17 year olds also makes you a pedo in this day and age so it Nazi and liberal/conservative are highly over used terms that are nearly meaningless these days........
Also liking well built 15-17 year olds also makes you a pedo in this day and age so it Nazi and liberal/conservative are highly over used terms that are nearly meaningless these days........
Also,
This just in! relevant humorous satire related to the topic at hand: http://sendables.jibjab.com/originals/what_we_call_the_news
This just in! relevant humorous satire related to the topic at hand: http://sendables.jibjab.com/originals/what_we_call_the_news
So, no, you didn't read the article and have no actual answer to it. Don't worry, I'm used to the irony of people accusing Fox of not checking their facts before actually checking the facts themselves first.Lightslei said:
That's called a "kneejerk reaction".thethingthatlurks said:
Seriously, this article is about people abusing Wikipedia's edibility to push an agenda. That's practically old news. Hell, you're the one crying wolf here.
