geni said:
Indeed. But
here you're simply flipping to a mischaracterization of
the present state of Wikipedia as "pornographic", which is clearly
nonsense.
And you are charactering what your oponets want as bowderised
It is a fact that you propose a bowdlerization.
You wrongly accused me earlier of proposing to
speak for the human
race. This is what you are doing as a matter of fact.
What makes you think that the majority of the human race is revolted
by Kate Winslet's naked left breast? If it's such a problem, why was
there not rioting in the streets at the prospect of children being
exposed to this heinous sight?
Check out the recent history of bollywood
Ms Winslet does not act in Indian movies. You're dodging the question.
Why did Titanic receive a PG13 certificate in the USA, allowing children
of all ages to attend the movie legally, unaccompanied by adults?
There was a lot of opersition to the banning of fox hunting in the UK.
I don't notice much in the way of rioting in the street
There was quite a lot, actually, although the majority of the UK
population either didn't care or strongly supported abolition. I think
you're clutching at straws but if you seriously question this we can
discuss it off-list and summarise.
A fork wouldn't be a bad idea in this
instance, because probably
people offended by the sight of a breast would have pretty firm ideas
about our textual content. But a mirror would be adequate for
imposing the kind of grundyism you are defending.
So you view all those with to keep the level of nudity in wikipedia
down to a minium as stupid?
Non-sequitur. I decry the rush to eliminate perfectly useful,
encyclopedic, esthetically beautiful illustrations from Wikipedia out of
what appear to me to be wildly overstated fears about the acceptability of
such images. I recognise that those proposing this removal are
intelligent people, and thus I hope to persuade them that they are wrong.