On Sat, Mar 1, 2008 at 4:45 PM, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I didn't
say it did, my comment was mostly directed at the fact that
Steve compared female masturbation with decapitation, something I
found patently offensive.
Why? Both are natural and both have been aproved and opposed by
various societies throughout history.
I'm sorry, but you don't find the comparison offensive? You do think
murder and masturbation are comparable offenses?
We point is,
we shouldn't censor either Commons or Wikipedia based on
arbitrarily chosen moral guidelines. The goal of Wikipedia,
especially, should be to give people the truth,
Ah the truth<sup>tm</sup>. But Quid est veritas? (and no Est vir qui
adest is not a useful answer in this context).
Let just say your claim is disputed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability/truth
You're lawyering, and doing it badly. Of course our goal should be to
tell the truth, but we can't do that without verifiability, but that
doesn't mean that knowledge and truth shouldn't be our goal.
Also, I believe my claim was that masturbation was both healthy and
pleasurable, both of are ridiculously verifiable (indeed, we have an
article about it with loads of sources), so this is the wrong place to
start debating the whole philosophical debate over verifiability
versus truth. In this case, both of them are on my side.
to cut through
all the
moral crap that we inherit from culture and just give people the
information.
Morality is crap? Well that is certainly a POV although one I doubt
you hold going by some of your early comments. By rejecting the
comparison between masturbation with decapitation you in turn reject
the endpoint of moral relativism and thus your position becomes
internally inconsistent.
You're so missing my point with these irrelevant little philosophical
asides. First of all, I didn't say "morality is crap", I said that
some moral lessons that people are being taught are crap, and they
are, anyone can agree with that. Things like "Don't eat shellfish, or
you will be stoned", "Don't make pictures of people", or indeed
"Women
are by nature sinful creatures, and if they find pleasures with their
own bodies they will go to hell!"
You're trying to make it sound like I want Wikipedia to get rid of
old-school Judeo-Christian morality and substitute it with my own
sexually deviant one, but that's not what I said. I said that
wikipedia shouldn't ascribe to any moral system what so ever, it
should just try and present the truth (or verifiable facts, if you're
going to continue to complain about that point)
It's absurd
for such a project to say "We should delete
all the pictures of women touching their cooches, because masturbation
is dirty and sinful!".
No more absurd than saying that we should keep them because it allows
commons to tech some message that you want to transmit.
I'm not saying we should keep them to teach my message of sexual
revolution! I'm saying that the reasons people want to delete them are
entirely based on arbitrarily chosen moral standards. Like I posted
long, long ago, why should this category be treated any different than
Category:Dogs in clothing? Can you tell me a single good reason?
Neither actually show decapitation. Problem is that
decapitation isn't
something normally done during dissection so it won't show up there
and Category:Butchers isn't that complete yet.
They show people being executed, which was the point. If you want
pictures of actual decapitations, look no further than the articles on
the Guillotine and the French Revolution.
Strangely no. Most artists show just before hand and the photos don't
even show the person on the guillotine.
The bible inspired
Image:Judith Beheading Holofernes by Caravaggio.jpg
Would appear to be the first actual decapitation pic that comes to
hand and Image:Beheadingchina2.jpg the closest we have to a photo.
Eh, whatever, not really the central focus of this discussion, is it :)
--Oskar