They get called "child molestors" and such but they also get discriminated against solely on the basis of openly being pedophiles, without necessarily being called any other names.
When they get kicked out of places like Wikipedia, systemic bias is introduced into those sites' content.
Perpetuating that bias is in fact part of the stated goal of kicking those editors out.
People don't want them editing articles in ways that will produce a neutral point of view.
17 comments
"discriminated against solely on the basis of openly being pedophiles"
I'm curious. Is anyone 'open' about their being a pedophile EXCEPT for those who got caught molesting a child/children?
I'd think I'd rather self-identify as a Nazi than release that information, esp. if there's no court order involved...
"Is anyone 'open' about their being a pedophile EXCEPT for those who got caught molesting a child/children?"
Well, those that decide to castrate because of their pedophilia definitely are.
A "neutral point of view"? From paedophiles ? I'm sorry, that's a bit like a "neutral point of view" from MGTOWs; i.e., it isn't neutral at all.
Besides, paedophiles are in need of psychological help. Paedophilia is a disorder, a dangerous one that harms children. (And no, kids cannot give informed consent.)
We have defined some things as crimes and as harmful, malicious acts toward children. There is no such thing as a "neutral" point of view regarding crimes. There may be apologetics but neither Wikipedia not society in general is required to give "equal treatment" to the side of view of both the victim and the perpetrator.
I hate to say it but this sort of sounds like someone I know. They're sort of... intellectually supportive of his own struggles. He's very brittle and salty about fine graduations in terminology. It seems like all the overt, open and intellectual folks like this get wordy and naggy about being called things they are.
Jimmy Savile .
Just he alone has ensured that nonces have no rights.
...incidentally: 'Nonces'. There. I've annihilated your entire argument.
And even that had no right to exist in the first place. Therefore there is only one view allowed: anti -kiddy diddler.
See? There's another one. Shall I use more names for these inferior subhumans, or have I sufficiently obliterated your argument?
"Editing" meaning such ridiculous comments about:
How it doesn't hurt a child?
You know the apologetics, that's what your selling here.
Berating people for committing crimes is not discrimination or bias, it's just common sense.
There IS no neutral point of view when it comes to crimes such as child molestations.
You must be one of those assholes that thinks NPOV means giving every kook and nutjob equal say regardless of how fringe their opinions are or how poorly sourced their edits tend to be. Usually said loons are pushing an agenda rather than having an interest in presenting their views in a manner consistent with the rules of the wiki, and are usually the types to edit in favor of their agenda, calling anything critical out as not NPOV while demanding more space for their preferred information.
In other words, quit whining that your side isn't dominating the conversation, especially if they're that kind of screwed up. The NAMBLA crowd doesn't need to be presented in a positive light for the articles on their type to be neutral.
They are called other names. Perverts, for example. The neutral position on pedophilia is don't you dare. The extreme position is don't even try, you fuck head, we'll imprison your ass if you dare.
Years from now, historians may regard the 2008 election of Barack Obama as an inscrutable and phenomenon, the result of a baffling breed of mass hysteria akin perhaps to the witch craze of the Middle Ages. How, they will wonder, did a man so devoid of professional accomplishment beguile so many into thinking he could manage the world's largest economy, direct the world's most powerful military, execute the world's most consequential job?
Imagine a future historian examining Obama's pre-presidential life:
You'll be unsurprised to know that Landmartian was booted soon after he was discovered to be a returning sockpuppet of Nathan Larsen, the first person ever to get hellbanned from RationalWiki after he posted a paedophilia apologia and we all went "urgh, bye."
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
