[WikiEN-l] Re: Writing about sexual topics responsibly is not censorship

Mon Feb 14 03:24:47 UTC 2005

Nicholas Knight wrote:
> Chad Perrin wrote:
> 
>> Nicholas Knight wrote:
>>
>>> I continue to see no usefulness in it, and the "why not" is because 
>>> people _will not use wikipedia_, and quite likely, existing editors 
>>> would leave. I certainly would if this became an accepted part of 
>>> Wikipedia. It would be a final demonstration that the people here are 
>>> not the least bit interested in constructing a useful educational 
>>> resource, but seek only to shove a social agenda down other's throats.
>>
>>
>>
>> Now you've really lost me.  Who seeks "only to shove a social agenda 
>> down other's [sic] throats"?  What social agenda do you mean?  This 
>> isn't some kind of moral objection to the act of autofellatio, is it?
> 
> 
> No, it's an objection to shoving explicit and disgusting images in what 
> is supposed to be an encyclopedia for the purpose of trying to force the 
> world to somehow "de-prudify" itself.

Who exactly is trying to push that agenda?  Do you mean to suggest that 
everyone that opposes your interpretation is pushing that agenda?

Personally, I am not trying to "de-prudify" the world in any way.  I'm 
merely interested in an informative encyclopedia whose effectiveness is 
not limited by prudishness.  Making the encyclopedia effective by 
"de-prudifying" its policies and trying to "de-prudify" the world aren't 
even marginally equivalent.  If you aren't referring to me some class of 
people including me, though, I'd like to know what you mean.

--
Chad