See USER:Squeakbox try to fight against people who want to use Wikipedia to have SEX with CHILDREN.
See other Users come out to tell him to stop.
See User Squeakbox point out that SEX with CHILDREN is wrong
See other Wikipediots try to ban User Squeakbox.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ped...ip#Recent_Edits

See Colscott fix link?

*Here is the link Colscott probably meant to post.
*The talk page for Pro-pedophile_activism, which I must say I am shocked to discover even exists, is where some of the brouhaha is happening.

Other than this, I have not investigated.

(Edit -- I was wrong, and Colscott has fixed his post above, so use that link. I'll leave these here because they may also be useful).

I love squeaky's edits on these topics- there really are some people involved in those articles who want to justify their perversions or even acts, and squeaky stands up for what most normal people think about 'nonces' IMHO

SB is on very dangerous grounds here. It is OK to make a blatantly pro-paedo edit such as this:



since it is in the article.

But on the other hand, Jimbo recently ruled that it is not OK to ‘identify’ as a paedophile, and nor to accuse someone of self-identifying. But making a pro-paedo edit is self-identification, ergo be careful of challenging such edits. Someone was recently blocked on just these grounds.

ColScott was being a wind-up merchant on there again, though he amused me this time.

Squeaky's been accused of sock-puppetry and cleared per Check User.

He claims that he's being "trolled" by pro-pedo activitists...and I believe him....

[Moderator's note: Topics merged - gomi]

Yeah, it's don't ask, don't tell all over again....

SqueakBox is a good editor that does good work that gets fed up very quickly. He edits a tough section of WP and because he runs into dramas a lot, he gets fed up and making mistakes. He has a very good eye for deleting BLP articles. I wish he'd spell a little better though. I think he's mildly dyslexic or something, because he misspells something in nearly every edit summary.

Having sex with children is intolerable. Trying to justify it is equally disgusting. Trying to make it legal is simply absurd.

Now, with all that out of the way, I dont see how an encyclopedia article ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-pedophile_activism ) documenting that there are some whacko organizations in the world equates to people using wikipedia to have sex with children.

Is the organization notable enough to be included in wikipedia? if so then what needs to be done is to document that organization with reliable references. It doesnt matter how vile and disgusting the organization is.

wikipedia isnt a battle ground even for something as obviously wrong as an organization that promotes sex with children.

Then why is Wikipedia a battle ground even for something as obviously wrong as an organization that promotes sex with children?

You say it isn't.

But it clearly is.

There is another crime here which is the crime of bad writing. The whole introduction has the telltale signs of a battleground - nests of footnotes, every claim balanced by a counter-claim. At the end of the paragraph there is the wik-esque "Opposition to pro-pedophile activism is known as anti-pedophile activism." Fancy that.

I'm not sure what your point is (except that the activity is wrong, but that is a given). You say at the end "wikipedia isnt a battle ground even for something as obviously wrong as an organization that promotes sex with children. Surely you mean shouldn't be?

What is needed is a strict policy about 'contentious articles'. They should be dealt with briefly, in a factual and totally neutral way, and that's it.

[edit] Echoing what Kato says. It clearly is a battleground. And just look at the length of the article. It shows just how far you can go by selectively taking any "academic" reference you can find, festooning it with footnotes, and conferring a spurious justification or excuse for the activity in question.

[edit] And look at the article on Edward Brongersma. Everywhere you look you find all this stuff. The reason: all this stuff has been lovingly tended for years by these groups of people on Wikipedia. There is on counterbalancing force that limits this activity. If you challenge it, you are 'judgemental' or, worse, you are accusing a Wikipedia editor of 'self-identifying'.

Have you not missed Wiki Cult Rule #1? What I tell you three times (or 10 or more times) is true. Repetition, even repetition of stunningly obviously false, converts it into truth.

Wikipedia is not a democracy. A. Well, it's not a very good democracy. But that's not the same as saying it's not one at all. Of course it is one.

Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. A. NOT? When verifiable is defined later as likely to be reliable? What the hell do they think "reliable" means?

Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view. Which if true, would result in no original text at all. Of course this is nonsense. A truly neutral point of view, as Awbrey reminds us, is called "death." Or non-life. Rocks have a neutral point of view, but they don't write much.

And so on, and so on.

You know you have a cult when you tell people things which are demonstrably false, easily seen to be false, and they believe it anyway. And go about trying to find clever ways to prove you right. Wacko.

Hey that's my line. I think I even started a thread on it somewhere.

Could be, but I warn you, it's very old in the history of cult-detection and deprogramming. It was already old when they started aiming it at Ayn Rand. Bertrand Russell, for instance, used it to good effect in Why I'm Not A Christian.

I suppose by that definition, Law and Order is a cult.

sorry folks, i dont believe it as much as you dont believe it. my comment was more of a summary of policy than a statement of fact. (OMG i quoted myself)

" They should be dealt with briefly" seems like a great idea.

Of course, I was being flippant. Going further back, Tertullian says: 'certum est, quia impossibile' - it is certain, because it is impossible. Meaning the Apostles, being rational people, would not have believed something as incredible as the resurrection of Jesus Christ had they not seen it firsthand.

Well, a lot of society is cultish. I mean, we all have a lot of stuff we're told in all cultures which is manifestly bonkers on the face of it, but we're required to think of it in some nonstandard way, and ignore the contradiction.

Easy example: Auntie Fluff dies in an auto accident at the age of 50. Nobody at the funeral or anywhere else does anybody talk about how horrible death is, in general, or her death is, in particular. But when we're busy in the US preparing to execute Prisoner X at age 50 for some heinous murder, we do it because it's the worst penalty we can impose (that's why they call it CAPITAL punishment). And there's lots and lots of talk about how horrible it is to make this happen. Well, why is it horrible in one case but not the other? No good reason. It's simply that we've agreed that it "should" be. Even if Auntie Fluff had spent the same number of years exactly dying of (say) breast cancer as prisoner X spends on death row, with exactly the same mental states all the way, we'd still deny that one thing was a bad a thing for the dead person in one case, as the other. It offends our sense of justice otherwise.

Off the top, a few more: Why are guards allowed to shoot escaping prisoners from prisons where the worst crime is some kind of non-violent embezzlement? Why, when a cop shoots at a suspect, even if he doesn't need to, and accidentally hits a civilian, do we charge the suspect with the murder? If a prison guard shot at an escapting embezzler and hit a civilian, we could formally charge that as a murder to the ciminal, too. Does this really make moral sense?

How about the fact that you're charged with a different crime if the doctors save your victim, than if the doctors screw up and don't? Why should it matter? Isn't it the thought that counts?

Why are the rules of war different than the rules of criminal conduct? Shouldn't treatment of criminals and POWs all be the same, no matter what they are? Does it matter who is winning the war? Should it?

I live in a country where men have to pay more health insurance because they are less healthy then women. But even though they don't live as long to collect retirement, they must pay the same retirement tax (social security) as women. Why is that? Does the exact same principle not operate in both cases?

Why is a girl judged of age to consent to an abortion without her parents' approval, at a younger age then she is judged to be able to consent to engage in sexual intercourse in the first place?

A lot of this stuff probably accounts to why, when children reach near-adulthood and begin to think about these things for themselves, they come to the conclusion that society is insane.

Yes, but that's a bad argument. Mainly because have no first hand account or good reason to think that any of them did believe it. We have accounts from who-knows-who, from texts a hundred years after the fact, claiming they did. But these are not personal letters, diaries, or even newspapers, let alone video. They're much more like JFK and Elvis sightings. Which happened even though we know very well what happened to THOSE guys.

The difference is that when you point these things out, people recognise they are strange, or false, or morally wrong. But most people recognise it's difficult to do anything about it, particularly where changing the law is concerned. That's what pressure groups, political parties are for.

With a cult, on the other hand, it's not that they think these things are wrong, or feel disempowered. It's that they really believe it is true, and no argument will convince them otherwise.

ok, now i am truly outraged!!!

...and why do they sterilize the injection area before giving a lethal injection?

Is there any evidence and reasoning to support the thesis that society is sane?


By that definition, every political party is a cult.

am i allowed to be my own cult or do i need to convince other people to join me? if i have multiple personalities would they count? I may have trouble getting some of them to join me.

I was just gonna ask, is there a special name for a cult consisting of only one person?

A Lone Nut?

Sometimes I wonder if Socrates, Jesus, Becket, Galileo, Darwin, Einstein, Feynman, and Thich Nhat Hanh were thought of as lone nuts.

Diffi-cult!

Of course not. I'ts a legal abomination amounting to false witness. "It's okay to charge someone with something they didn't do, so long as he/she is a bad person anyway."

This is governed by treaty; you cannot charge enemy soldiers with crimes just for fighting. More fundamentally, a state has the right to belligerence; you cannot condemn a state merely for going to war. It's completely legal and orthodox to hold enemy combatants indefinitely until the end of hostilities. It it unorthodox to try them for various crimes, even if this process would result in a shorter period of internment.

Please supply diffs.

---

The overall policy is not about morality, it's about legal liability. You really, really don't want to falsely accuse someone of being a pedophile. I'm trying to think of a more textbook example of libel and I'm drawing a blank. If it were policy that all pedos can be banned AND it's OK to call people out as pedos, you'd get constant false accusations. If an agent of the Wikimedia foundation were to act on those accusations...yeah.

Instead, they just conduct secret trials.

Do they? Probably force of habit, if they do. Though the disinfection (you can never sterilize skin) does also act as a wash and give you the prep field looking like that which you're used to. Which counts, since they obviously get nurses and paramedics and people from the medical field who always learned on live people, after prep.


Most of the stuff I cited is believed to be perfectly okay by most people in my country. The laws exist democratically. The War on Drugs is a classic cult mod. If you try to argue with people that marijauna is less harmful to society IN EVERY WAY than alcohol, so why should it not be legal, they'll come up with the most god-awful reasoning. It's completely cultish. Because there's really no defending a jurisdiction where it's completely illegal to use a hallucinogen in your living room, but perfectly fine if you want to skydive naked with one parachute (they'll probably arrest you for nudity if you land anywhere in public), or strap on some scuba tanks and dive as deep as you like--into the nitrogen narcosis levels if that's what turns you on. (All society does is give you a Darwin Award, if you don't come up. )

But if you talk about the Darwin Award for people who harm themselves with drugs (other than quietly drinking themselves to death, of course), you get all kinds of stuff about messages to children, responsilbity to families, who's going to pay for the healthcare, blah, blah, blah. Yeah and tell it to the guys who pay to get guided up Mr. Everest. It really does not make sense.

But apparently you can charge their commanders, just for fighting. "Belligerance" is defined in these matters by the winner, as "starting a war of aggression." That is, Germany and the USSR were guilty of aggression with Poland, and Japan with the US, but the US is not with Iraq. See? The US thought that one day the Iraqies would help terrorists attack us. But a lot of invading countries have had that excuse. How come no trials of US people for war crimes? Or, for that matter, terrorism?

As for "treaty," I don't like it as a word-- in the case of a peace treaty signed by a lost side under threat of continuing genocide (as the VE and VJ treaties at the end of WW II were), to me they have much the same moral standing as a legal contract signed by a man with a gun at his head. Why they don't have the same international legal standing, as such a coerced contract has in normal legal standing, I fail to see. It's just one more wacko thing You wouldn't in normal law, expect to come up later to the man who'd signed with the gun at his head and say: "Look, buddy, YOU signed the agreement giving us the right to try you for murder and hang you." (i.e., "You SIGNED the confession...")

But yes, this was the very legistic argument used by the occupying powers in both Germany and Japan. I blush. Few others do. But it's pretty clear that the signers of these documents, as individual men, had no idea what they were doing. Nor probably their governments, what there was of them. Suppose The Ghost of Nuremburg Future had come to Generals Keitel and Jodl before they signed the instruments of surrender to the respective Allied powers in Europe, and said "Er, you do realize that you're signing away here, any objection to having these powers try you personally after the end of the war, for "war crimes", and hang you?" If they believed the look into their futures (where they are indeed destined to get hanged under these treaties), don't you think they might have headed for the tall-timber, ala Bormann and Himmler? And in that case, don't you imagine that the allies would have "invented" somebody with the "authority" to sign, on behalf of the occupied countries, and then gone on to do what they did, just the same? What then is the point in this charade, other than pure hypocrisy and self-delusion?

Modern war is so horrible, and so potentially indiscriminate, that having the prosecutors of war (the professional commanding soldiers as well as the political adventurists) be made responsible for their actions should they lose with their lives - no matter how "properly" they personally conduct themselves, is one of the few constraints that society has. I happen to have an interest in WWII matters, and there was pretty little that Keital or Jodl did "wrong" (the Waffen SS was Himmlers baby, the lack of application of the Geneva Convention in Russia was a direct political order from Hitler, and individual outrages happen in any army) except not to have disagreed with Adolf as soon as they had some authority. Of course, when they got to their command peaks (forgetting all that concept of "military service to the Fatherland" that they were raised in) the Germans were generally doing pretty well and there was the possibility of victory/peace/armistice in the West while they got around to destroying Bolshevism.

It isn't when the Generals signed the articles of surrender (which were "unconditional" - so they were aware that they had no rights as soon as they signed) that they should have realised what they were letting themselves in for - it was when they signed (up for) the Articles of War. Each one should have the caveat; "Remember, the victors decide on what is justice - and you may just not be on the winning side!" It may not stop the madmen, but it might give their enablers some pause for thought.

I dont think they'll find it that easy to ban me. And thanks for the spirited on wikipedia defence, an honour to be defended by the Col



Actually quite the opposite, I was always an excellent speller but I am an impatient typist and the machete blow to the head a few years ago hasn't helped as it has affected my vision, albeit marginally

Yeah, I never got round to apologizing for that did I, Squeaky? Sorry mate.

Lol.
He is dead as it happens, and because he went around pissing lots of people off, and if you do that in the country in which I live someone will get to you eventually