Wikipedia, home of pedophiles?

[Makon]

This... is just... so... retarded....

I call ditto here.

 

[Akalistos]

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/06/25/exclusive-pedophiles-find-home-on-wikipedia/
Ok, I know it's Fox, and therefore less reliable than a drawing letters from a bag to get an accurate story, but what do you guys think, has Fox gone just a step too far in the direction of tabloid journalism?

For those too lazy to read the (very, very, very stupid) article, the first paragraph gives a brief summary:
"Wikipedia has become home base for a loose worldwide network of pedophiles who are campaigning to spin the popular online encyclopedia in their favor and are trying to lure more people into their world, an investigation by FoxNews.com confirms."

By confirmation, they mean the chat boards.

Edit: sorry, I accidentally posted this on the gaming board...

Really? Fox news is always right! Remember that Mass Effect is a porn simulator like Rapelay. They found it first!
[small]When will people pull the plug on FOX once and for all.[/small]

 

[Jack and Calumon]

Dear FOX news. Shut, the fuck up... you scuzzbags.

Actually thinking about it... Guys I believe I mentioned something about this a while ago in a different thread. Perhaps we should keep it away from the news starved FOX network.

Well I believe the Human body is beautiful, so Nudity is art, but Pornography is designed to stimulate the hormones in your body to make you want to... well you get it.

While we're on the subject, you guys know that Children can be nude in photos and you're allowed to show it to anyone you want (Providing it's on a Website that allows Nudity at all), no matter what is shown, just so long as they are not doing anything provocative or scandilous? You are allowed to pass it off as being Natural and expressing how beautiful the body is. A definite flaw is present.

Of course I'm not going to post anything here, or anywhere else, BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE ANY! I discovered this yesterday in an art gallery. Heck, An 8 year old is perfectly allowed to stand naked and pose for a painting! Major flaw! If it's on the internet, people will find it, and that is where problems occur.

Boom! Now all we need is the mocking smugness of Penny Arcade and Job done!

Calumon: I love the whole world, The future's pretty cool!

 

[XJ-0461]

This calls for something beyond the realm of face-palm... Yes, gentlemen (and women) this calls for... A face-desk!

Spoiler

I mean seriously? Must've been a really slow news day or a reporter wanted was being fired and wanted to go out with a bang.

Spoiler: Actually, I think it calls for a Cyberman toy facepalm!

It's like somebody thought "Peadophilia is bad. We can exploit people's hate of peadophilia!" then proceeded to throw darts at post-its with the name of popular websites and then wrote an article with a link between peadophilia and the resulting website.

 

[Mockingjay]

Lol Fox.

There are some needlessly graphic pictures on Wiki though. Check out the nipple torture page.

 

[Twilight.falls]

First Foxnews claims Mr. Rogers is Satan incarnate, then Wikipedia is home of pedos?

I mean come on, Wikipedia isn't perfect but I doubt their purpose is to encourage Pedophilia. Now if they said 4Chan or Encyclopedia Dramatica, maybe.

 

[aPod]

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.

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?

You got to be kidding me. You want to try and compare pedophilia with homosexuality? I don't think there is a decent homosexual person out there who would put up with such an analogy. My political correctness only goes so far for people before I just have to tell them to bugger off and I have zero tolerance for pedophiles or people who get off on the sexual exploitation of children.

Its all rainbows and butterfly's when we try to pat them on the back and say hey buddy you're just you and that's just how it is. Then those guys go online and look for child porn to get off on, because we all know pron is harmless right, it's just a guy "relieving" some pressure. Okay... but you know in doing so he is supporting the exploitation of that child and furthers the need for whoever is making that shit to make more. He is feeding into a disgusting sector of human behavior, desire and need.

Yes i suppose then if he just keeps it in his own little world its fine isnt it. Yea. Oh wait, he went online to see if there were other people like him. Then wikipedia links him to that chat room full of pedophiles and they explain how you can go to a foreign country and act out your fantasies and not get caught. Have i not said anything that outrages you yet?

Life hasn't treated them fairly... what about my friend who opened up to me about her grandpa molesting her and breaking down in tears. Did life treat her fairly? Should i feel pity for the grandpa and let him know i understand he's just a guy with a perversion. That it's okay?

By the way, I'm not saying every pedophile acts out on his desires but before any child molester touches a child don't you think he thought about it first? To let someone with that sort of perversion believe that what he is thinking is okay and acceptable, you don't think that leads to them acting out on something they now think is okay and acceptable?

Then once they get to that point they think children have a right to have sex with me if they want to. We need new consent laws because im normal and its love and it doesnt hurt anyone. What.... you gotta be kidding me, I dont have an ounce of pity for pedophiles.

Is that okay in your opinion? So long as he isnt physcially doing anything to that child? Would you let your child spend time with uncle touchy unsupervised? Would you want your child around anyone who gets sexually aroused at the thought of intercourse with children? If you believe they are upstanding citizens with full control over themselves... gah i dont know what else to say.

So in your opinion its okay to murder someone for an apple if you're starving because its survival instinct. So if homeless guy goes into someones house murders the whole family its okay because seeking shelter is a natural survival instinct you would sympathize with him?

Thats about all I can think of saying right now.

 

[Housebroken Lunatic]

You got to be kidding me.

Nope, im serious like a heartattack.

You want to try and compare pedophilia with homosexuality? I don't think there is a decent homosexual person out there who would put up with such an analogy.

Frankly, I don't give a shit if any homosexual person finds it offensive, sexual preferences are all developed in the same way. The only difference between them is that sometimes the development takes a turn towards destructive or unfulfillable paths.

A paedophile can't help he or she is a paedophile anymore than a homosexual can help that he or she is a homosexual. That's just the facts, and it doesn't matter how "offensive" you or any homosexual or heterosexual person might find it to be, the facts stay the same.

So I didn't "try" to compare paedophilia wih homosexualit, I DID compare the two, and with very sound and unbiased logic to boot.

My political correctness only goes so far for people before I just have to tell them to bugger off and I have zero tolerance for pedophiles or people who get off on the sexual exploitation of children.

Yes, we all have our neurotic little quirks, and for intolerant people like yourself it's flat out impossible to try to relate to someone whose thoughts and feelings regard such abominable deeds as child molestation.

However, discussing a subject like this and base opinions and statements on neurotic quirks might not be the most intellectual thing to do.

Its all rainbows and butterfly's when we try to pat them on the back and say hey buddy you're just you and that's just how it is.

Far from it. There's no "rainbows and buterflies" involved at all. It's just sa in the extreme that some people have to suffer from such a destructive development of their sexual preferences. Becuase ultimately there's really nothing anyone can do o help them.

A society can't relieve child molesters of their responsibility and accountibility when they commit such heinous crimes, and there's really nothing to do to help paedophiles who struggle with their desires either.

So I don't know where you're getting the "rainbows and butterflies" from.

Then those guys go online and look for child porn to get off on, because we all know pron is harmless right, it's just a guy "relieving" some pressure.

Who ever said that child pornography is "harmless"? I sure didn't. If I fundamentally don't believe that a child can give consent to sex, then I sure as hell couldn't approve of the production of kiddie porn where real children are being exploited and molested now could I?

That being said, I find it to be utterly ridiculous the way certain countries outlaw CARTOONED pornography depicting children. Sure I might find it tasteless and repulsive, but the people depicted in such works are cartooned characters, not real children, which means that no real people are being harmed during the production of such works. Hence there is no excuse what so ever outlawing it.

Okay... but you know in doing so he is supporting the exploitation of that child and furthers the need for whoever is making that shit to make more. He is feeding into a disgusting sector of human behavior, desire and need.

Yes, and he should be held accountable for it. Regardless of the paedophiles unfortunate condition, it's not okay to let him off the hook and let him continue to support the creation of works where children are getting molested.

Yes i suppose then if he just keeps it in his own little world its fine isnt it. Yea. Oh wait, he went online to see if there were other people like him. Then wikipedia links him to that chat room full of pedophiles and they explain how you can go to a foreign country and act out your fantasies and not get caught. Have i not said anything that outrages you yet?

Nope, not in the slighest. And that's because I don't participate in discussions letting my feelings influence the way I reason and think about the topic at hand. You should try it yourself sometime, it might give you a more balanced perspective on things.

Yes it's perfectly fine to let paedophiles get in contact with other paedophiles online. Who knows? Maybe the ones who genuinely understands that their sexuality would ultimately hurt children can help eachother and support eachother through the difficulty of resisting the temptation to get child pornography or going abrouda and pay crime syndicates that protsutite underaged children.

The basic fault of your argument is that you automatically conclude that all paedophiles who interact online are ultimately going to share child pornograph or help eachother out to "score", when there's no evidence to suggest it.

Yes, certain people do, and unfortunately certain countries are ill equipped to enforce laws regarding prostituion and child molestation. But that still doesn't make it right to put a stop to the opportunity to communicate just because some paranoid, family valuemongers are afraid what it MIGHT lead to in isolated situations.

The very idea of having a free society rests on the notion that the majority of the people are upstanding and law abiding citizens, despite whatever political views, diseases, sexual preferences or anything else they might have.

Quite simply, you can't call a society "free" if you intend to actively "crack down" on a website whose main function is to be of an informative and encyclopaedic nature, just because SOME people have used it to acquire knowledge of how to buy sexual favors from children.

If we do that, then we might as well ban violent videogames because SOME people claim that they got inspired to murder real people because they played such videogames.

It's not very reasonable to censor and stop something that serves a beneficient purpose just because it is being misappropriated by certain individuals. Deal with the misappropriating individuals instead of trying to deal with what gives them the opportunity to commit crime. Otherwise, "liberty" and "freedom" will be completely worthless.

Life hasn't treated them fairly... what about my friend who opened up to me about her grandpa molesting her and breaking down in tears. Did life treat her fairly? Should i feel pity for the grandpa and let him know i understand he's just a guy with a perversion. That it's okay?

It's pointless to try and tell someone what they should "feel". What im trying to do here is making you THINK, and let your THOUGHT govern your actions and opinions.

Because ultimately, feelings are irrational and downright stupid, and letting your intellectual opinions get contaminated by a bunch of feelings is the equivalent of intellectual suicide.

So if we THINK about it for awhile, and just THINK that WHAT IF that grandpa you're refering to DIDN'T HAVE said perversion in the first place, but had a more healthy and non-destructive sexual preference, then yout friend wouldn' likely have gotten molested in the first place, right?

Granted, that the grandfather in question should be held accountable for his actions, and he's clearly proven that he lacks the strength of character to keep his destructive perversion under control, and not only broken the law but also let his urges inflict a severely tramatic experience on another individual. There's no doubt about that.

But reducing oneself to a frenzied and zealous mob mentality governed by pure emotion and sympathy for the victim isn't very reasonable either. It doesn't solve any problems, and just serves to victimize the victim further and anti-intellectually turn the perpetrator into something that isn't human anymore. It's just plain stupid and degrading for everyone concerned.

By the way, I'm not saying every pedophile acts out on his desires but before any child molester touches a child don't you think he thought about it first? To let someone with that sort of perversion believe that what he is thinking is okay and acceptable, you don't think that leads to them acting out on something they now think is okay and acceptable?

That's just speculation, and it will NEVER be right to limit everyones freedom simply to minimize the "risk" of someone being afflicted by a thought that ultimately culminates in that person commiting a crime.

But if we're supposed to be talking about risks here, what do you think happens when you become stigmatized and hounded like an animal by pretty much everyone who finds out who you really are, and for something ythat you had no control over in the first place? Would you become particularly inclined to respect the laws of a society that treats you like human garbage when you haven't even commited a real crime yet?

I doubt you would. In fact, I doubt anyone would. So you're not really a part of any kind of solution by preaching and practising hatred against people suffering from something they have no control over, you're actually a part of the problem.

It's impossible to try to convince someone to act reasonably when you don't treat them reasonably, and the more you shun them, the less likely they are to care about the rules set by the very people who do all the shunning.

Then once they get to that point they think children have a right to have sex with me if they want to. We need new consent laws because im normal and its love and it doesnt hurt anyone. What.... you gotta be kidding me, I dont have an ounce of pity for pedophiles.

Well, we live in free societies where everyon are expected to be abtle to think whatever they want, so it is within every persons right to think that children should be allowed to have sex with adults legally. However, it is not within every persons right to act according to something that is currently illegal and with such well founded reasons.

That said, do you seriously believe that any paedophile would react reasonably when you confront him and his opinions by shouting: "No, you foul monster and abomination! You should be burned at the stake and sent to hell like the child raping demon you are! Shut your mouth before you corrupt anyone else with your deviant mindset!!!"

I mean really, would ANYONE react in a reasonable manner to that?

How about promoting discussion and come up with well founded and intellectual points instead and try to convince paedophiles not to act upon their unfortunate desires that way instead? And perhaps offer some kind of support in helping them to keep their hands away from children and child pornography?

My point is, if a society continues to treat certain people like monsters and teach them that they are monsters, then they will ultimately act like monsters.

Washing your hands of it and continue with anti-intellectual condemnation won't solve
anything. It will just perpetuate the status quo.

Is that okay in your opinion? So long as he isnt physcially doing anything to that child?

That, and as long as he (or she, you seem to forget the female paedophiles)also refrain from supporting and perpetuating the spread of child pornography where real children are being hurt. Then anything else is fine by me.

Would you let your child spend time with uncle touchy unsupervised? Would you want your child around anyone who gets sexually aroused at the thought of intercourse with children? If you believe they are upstanding citizens with full control over themselves... gah i dont know what else to say.

No I wouldn't. Then again, "uncle touchy" (or any other uncle for that matter) has any legal rights to my child. Any time spent by anyone with a child of mine will only occur with my consent and good faith, and it is well wihin my right as a paren to put a stop to any such interaction between my offspring and any outside factor if I deem it fit.

That still doesn't give me reason to hate and condemn someone for something that they haven't got any control over. And i still doesn't convince me that hunting them with torches and pitchforks would be the right way to keep children safe from being molested.

So in your opinion its okay to murder someone for an apple if you're starving because its survival instinct. So if homeless guy goes into someones house murders the whole family its okay because seeking shelter is a natural survival instinct you would sympathize with him?

Thats about all I can think of saying right now.

"Shelter" isn't necessary for anyone's survival. Our ancestors could live healthy lives under the bare sky as long as they made a decent fire to warm themselves with.

And even if shelter was such an important factor, any reasonably urban area has lots of shelters to seek refuge in wihout having to break into someones home and murder them to be able to stay indoors.

But when you're on the brink of death by starvation and with no means, resource or knowledge to gather your own food, your choice pretty much consist of either just laying down and die or taking food from someone else if they have it and refuse to give i to you.

And frankly, any society that lets people living in it to fall to such subhuman living standards have already failed those people miserably.

It doesn't make it "okay", but I for one can admit that I'd do the same thing if I had to choose between my own survival and someone elses survival. Laws and civilisation are nice, but if you can't afford to live by them (i.e actually DYING if you do) then you don't have much of a choice really...

 

[aPod]

Snip

You know what never mind, Im editing this... continuing this discussion isnt going to get us anywhere.

 

[similar.squirrel]

Kind of like Youtube being a 'depraved goth website'.
I never knew the internet was so full of moral pitfalls. Really glad the neo-cons are here to warn me =D

 

[Queen Michael]

Sigh... we have enough paranoid parents without wikipedophile worries...

 

[vallorn]

Why won't FoxNews die? Really, why won't it?

what would we make fun of then?

The British Royal Family?

you wouldnt DARE...[/fury]

hopfully Fox will stay alive so we can laugh at the american news networks.

 

[Wardnath]

http://www.foxnews.com

I found your problem.

Edit:

Fox News and Wikipedia have one thing in common.

How accurate their facts are.

Get it? They're both full of lies.

Yeah......... no.

 

[nick n stuff]

soooooo...the world's fucked.

 

[ShadowsofHope]

I.. jus-.. what?

"..an investigation by FoxNews.com confirms"

"..an investigation by FoxNews.com"

"..an investigation by FoxNews.com"

"investigation by FoxNews.com"

"by FoxNews.com"

"FoxNews.com"

..Ah, found the problem!

Now for the synonymous quote: "..an investigation by BULLSHIT.com confirms"

Thank you, and goodbye.

 

[zombiesinc]

All I can say is ridiculous!

Commence roll-eyes, laugh, move on.