Hoi,
One of the points that I made is exactly that liberalism equates to
conservatism. This may be not how you understand it, but for me it is a
given. Associating specific political philosophies like liberalism with
paedophilia is a travesty. If this is beyond your linguistic ability to
appreciate, then I am really eager not to discuss this with you because your
blinkers and probably mine will prevent any meaningful exchange of points of
view.
Thanks,
GerardM
2008/12/8 DESLIPPE, MICHAEL CIV DCMA CIV DFAS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> No sir, the level of discussion, by definition, means this is
> questionable. Had I said it is obviously pornography, then you'd have
> had a point, but I didn't and you don't. It is obviously questionable as
> evidenced by all the questions (questionable - questions).
>
> As to what a person wants to do, it's up to them until it affects me.
> Once it affects me, it is no longer choice, other considerations are
> necessary. Then you have the concept of "legally responsible". A person
> who is not mentally capable of making responsible decisions cannot be
> expected to make correct decisions without help. Thus, minor children,
> mentally disabled, incapacitated humans etc need an advocate so they are
> not exploited for their lack of capacity. So, certain laws apply without
> regard to things not in control of the victim. In this case, a minor
> child was exploited for money. Someone should have protected the child
> from such a consequence as this.
>
> Now we can get into all kinds of decisions about cultures, laws, morals,
> etc., but that wasn't the point of my post - nor a good idea for this
> forum. Feel free to come over to any of the email lists to which I
> subscribe that talk to that topic and I'll carry on with you as long as
> you like. In this case, in the country under scrutiny, there are laws
> about what is and isn't decent. There are mechanisms for making the
> laws, defining them and prosecuting them. Whatever, you, me or anyone
> else thinks, in the country of interest, this either is or isn't against
> the law. If it's against the law, it shouldn't be there. If is isn't
> against the law, it should be allowed without question. If it is one of
> those things and someone thinks it ought to be the other, then they
> should take it through the process used by that country to change their
> laws.
>
> As far as position, I gave three: you're against it, your for it, or
> your in the middle and haven't decided. If you know of another position,
> I'm all ears. We aren't talk esoteric things here. We have one picture,
> you are for it, against it or deciding. It's pretty well established
> beyond my linguistic ability that permissiveness and liberalism is
> synonymous and associated with what the media calls the "left".
> Conservatism and restraint and synonymous and associated with what the
> media calls the "right". Words mean things. You want to be called
> something else, change your views. A rose by any other name would smell
> as sweet? You have a view, it's associated with a position - why do you
> have a problem with that?
>
>
> ---Mike
>
>
> P.s. sorry folks - I promise, that's my last post in this forum on that
> subject.
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gerard
> Meijssen
> Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 2:41 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] UK Censorship
>
> Hoi,
> What is obvious to you is not obvious at all. To me, if a person wants
> to be
> nude on a beach, it is a choice that is up to him or her. Good looks are
> not
> needed because this is none of anyone else's business. The parameters of
> what somebody looks like are dependent on gender, age and well being.
> There
> are people who are sexually stimulated by any demography therefore it
> cannot
> be a consideration as it would inhibit the freedom to savour the
> pleasures
> of the beach, the sun, the surf.
>
> The notion of what is acceptable or not is very much based on culture,
> within our projects we have people from many backgrounds and cultures
> who
> have many different points of view. In this my POV is good and valid as
> any
> other. I object however to the notion that "far left" can be associated
> with
> paedophiles. This attitude makes people that have an other opinion
> enemies
> and it prevents any possibility of a neutral point of view or a more
> common
> understanding.
>
> What is relevant is that the cover of this album was created in a
> different
> time when different morales prevailed. People object to what happened in
> the
> past, they want to remove this from the present and in effect create a
> history of the world in their image. Sadly perfection is not had in this
> way
> because the freedom of others who do not share this POV is forcefully
> denied.
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
>
> 2008/12/8 DESLIPPE, MICHAEL CIV DCMA CIV DFAS
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > You can't censor what you don't know about. This picture got attention
> > because it was noticed. When someone notices the other stuff, they'll
> > make an issue of that. The picture is obviously of questionable taste,
> > where and how people draw lines seems to be very arbitrary. I am a far
> > right wing conservative. To me, a picture that exposes anything above
> a
> > woman's knee, elbow, lower then her neck, etc. is pornography. On the
> > far left side we have active pedophiles that see nothing wrong with
> > using a child for any purpose that brings them sexual stimulus. Then
> you
> > have the middle people who seem to change every day and every year.
> They
> > don't have values and they follow the Supreme Court Justice remarks
> who
> > sad, "I can't define pornography with words, but I know it when I see
> > it."
> >
> > Certainly someone should have objected to the photo when it was first
> > placed on the album cover; questioned the photographer, printer, music
> > label and girl's parents. Apparently that didn't happen, so now they
> > resort to this.
> >
> > ---Mike
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Isabell
> > Long
> > Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 12:56 PM
> > To: [email protected]
> > Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] UK Censorship
> >
> > I do see why they have censored it, it could have been offensive in
> > some way to certain people, but I think that there are many more
> > potentially offensive things on en.wikipedia than that. Fair enough, I
> > possibly shouldn't argue this because I haven't heard the full story,
> > but that is just my view.
> >
> > Isabell.
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> > Isabell Long. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > OpenPGP Key ID: C395CE07
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikipedia-l mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia-l mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
