Annie, see Techniques of Neutralization for links to several sites and papers about the topic. See especially The indignant page: techniques of neutralization in the publications of pedophile organizations: It would appear that the people this paper talks about have infiltrated DMOZ. See also http://www.google.com/search?source...&q=techniques+of+neutralization+in+pedophiles. I don't want this thread to be about my forum or any of my websites but the forum certainly includes discussions with plenty of information about the extensive, enduring, pervasive damage suffered by victims of child sex abuse, just in case anyone outside of DMOZ Adult actually believes any of the crap posted on those sites.
Thank you for the information and links minstrel. This issue has certainly not been resolved. We're still awaiting a statement from the Admins before we can move forward. While I wait for their statement I'd like to research the topic as much as possible so I can help make it better when the time comes to start work on it. I hope I'm not alone in this desire. You know this has nothing to do with smoking or cigarettes. Please try to stay on topic so this important issue doesn't get lost in the noise.
I don't think you need to worry about anyone else "believing" such BS, except pro pedophilia DMOZ editors and others with "AFFIRMATIVE VIEWS". In the mean time when Admins are debating if pedophilia is good or bad, if even 1 child is molested as a result of these listings in DMOZ, will you and other DMOZ editors take the moral responsibility for what has happened?
I don't think you could expect any editor, or indeed Admin, who wants to get rid of these sites as quickly as possible to take any responsibility - it is down to those blocking quick removal. You could argue that remaining part of DMOZ confers some responsibility but there is equally a responsibility to stay on and fight the blockers. Do I have a responsibility because I have chosen to stay on the outside and not return as an editor and join in the efforts internally?
I understand that editors do not have the power to stop the ongoing abuse in DMOZ but I think it is reasonable that people who are volunteering their time for an organization should demand from Admins that they should take actions about this subject in a reasonable time. If the inability to make a decision is based on one or few admin do not agree with removal of pedophile sites then editors should have the right to know who these pro pedophilia admins are. You have decided, the way you want to show your resistance to what is happening in DMOZ is by resignation as editor, I am asking the ones who stayed, take up the fight and demand from DMOZ and it's admins to take personal responsibility for their resistance to removal of such sites. If an Admin/Staff/Meta or anyone else honestly believes that there is a justification for keeping such listings, they will not be afraid to let other editors know their DMOZ identity.
More Gems from DMOZ; if children are not your cup of tea then how about a dog or a horse? Another category for "highly selective" and "quality content" sites is located at: http://dmoz.org/Adult/Society/Sexuality/Activities_and_Practices/Bestiality/ The first site in that category has the following description: Zoophile Guides - Articles and guides on how to have safe sex with animals. This is such important subject for DMOZ that they also provide users with many "highly selective quality content" sites in their image galleries with such descriptions: Animal Movies - Video clips of two women su*king a horse off and a lady being mou*ted by a medium-sized dog. Since DMOZ editors usual excuse is that they want to list everything legal and they are not Internet police, let's look at the law and specifically the California law (DMOZ location) regarding bestiality: Beastiality is a Misdemeanor (Penal Code Section 286.5) in California and it is also illegal in following states: Minnesota (Minn. Stat. @609.294, (1993): Either fine of not more than $3,000 or sentence of not more than 1 year) New York (NY CLS Penal @130.20 (1994): Class A misdemeanor) Utah (Bestiality 76-9-301.8: Class B Misdemeanor) Bestiality is a confirmed felony in: Delaware (11 Del. C. @777 (1993): Class D Criminal felony) Georgia (O.C.G.A. @16-6-6 (1994): 1-5 yr. jail sentence) Idaho (Idaho Code @18-6605 (1994): "length of imprisonment in excess of 5 years is in discretion of court.") Kansas (K.S.A. @2103506 (1993): Aggravated crime, sodomy, security level 2 felony) Maine (17-A M.R.S. @ 251 (1994): Class C Crime; 3-5 yrs) Maryland (Unnatural/Perverted Sexual Acts Article 27, Section 553: Up to $1,000 fine, max of 10 years prison) Massachusetts (Mass. Ann. Laws ch. 272 @34 (1994): Jail sentence of not more than 20 years - this is currently out of date) Michigan (MCL @750.185 (1992): Jail sentence not more than 15 years) Mississippi (Miss. Code. Ann, @97-29-59: Sentence of not more than 10 years) Montana (Mont. Code. Ann, @45-5-505 (1994): 10 year sentence and/or $50,000 fine) North Carolina (N.C. Gen. Stat. @14-177 (1994): Class I felony. 3-10 yrs) Oklahoma (21 Okl. St. @886 (1994): "imprisonment not to exceed 10 years") Rhode Island (R.I. Gen. Laws @11-10-1 (1993): 7-20 years) South Carolina (S.C. Code Ann. @16-15-120 (1993): 5 yrs jail and/or fine of at least $500) Virginia (Va. Code. Ann. @18.2-361 (1994): Class 6 Felony) Washington D.C. (DC Code @22-3502 (1994) ("Sexual Psychopath" chapter): Fine not more than $1000 and/or sentence of not more than 10 yrs) Bestiality is otherwise illegal in: Alabama (Code of Ala. @13A-6-63 (1994): "sodomy in 1st degree"; criminal offense) Arkansas (Ark. Stat. Ann. @13A-6-63 (1994): "sodomy in 1st degree"; criminal offense) Illinois (720 ILCS 5/12-12 (1994): Crime) Indiana (Burn Ind. Code. Ann. @35-42-4-2 (1994)) North Dakota (N.D. Cent. Code @12.1-20-03, 12.1-20-07, 12.1-20-12 (1993): Various penalties; can be considered either "gross sexual imposition", "sexual assault" or "deviate sexual act") Pennsylvania (18 Pa. C. S. @3101, 3123 and 3124 (1994)) Tennessee (Tenn. Code. Ann. @39-13-501 (1994)) Wisconsin (Wis. State. @944.17 (1993)) Even states that do not have specific law for this crime, will use the law for cruelty against animals to prosecute such criminals. Let's hope now that DMOZ removes such sites based on it's illegality and some DMOZ editors will not claim that dogs and horses are consenting adults and they will not remove sites based on morality.
Every time someone turns over one rock in that fetid little hole, it seems to expose another one just as slimy...
I noticed my home state of Louisiana did not make gworld's list of places beastiality is illegal, but they do prosecute people for it, just charge them with other crimes. Recently a man in my town was arrested for having sex with one of his pigs. Uh, you know that was a nasty lay...
May be you should call him and see if he has pictures, you only need to make one page with those pictures to qualify for DMOZ listing; under DMOZ policy for "highly selective, unique quality content" web sites.
Annie; What is your opinion, do you think that DMOZ will remove the the links to illegal web sites or they will claim it is an "accepted practice" to list sites that promote illegal activity under "Adult Guideline" which makes it "norm" and therefore it is not illegal?
gworld, maybe I'm naive but I have complete faith in the Admins. I believe they'll do the right thing. The listings will be removed and they will change the guidelines to prevent this type of thing from ever happening again and the categories will be gone. Of course this is just my opinion.
The guidelines are hardly what is at fault here. It's the people reviewing/accepting the entries in to DMOZ - something in their head is a-miss. Either they have a chip on their shoulder against society, are paedophiles or are of some other warped persuasion. It comes down to questionable individuals, that's all. Changing the guidelines however would make it impossible for these questionable individuals to accept the sites, so that would be a good thing.. but that isn't really the problem here in my opinion. Pete
GADOOD, I won't disagree with you, but those editors are gone. The current guidelines prevent us from removing most of these listings. They also allowed those sick individuals to list them in the first place without violating the guidelines. This is where we are right now. The Admins are in the process of revising the policies that allowed this to happen.
This is not exactly true. These sites are clearly illegal, so under present guidelines any admin/meta/cat/editall or any editor with right to edit in those categories should be able to delete these listings. The question is how many dare to do it?
Um, sidjf did it. We were told to wait for the Admins to complete their discussions. What I wrote is exactly true, like it or not.
Sidjf moved the pedophile web sites to test and he was punished for that but I am talking about bestiality sites right now, there is no Admin discussion about that, is it? Those sites are clearly promoting illegal activity, so any editor should be able to delete those sites.
What are they going to discuss? How to make pedophilia, bestiality or rape legal in California? As long as bestiality is illegal in California, their discussion is irrelevant since sites that promote illegal activity can not be listed. May be DMOZ Admins have finally gone totally mad and started to believe that they are a higher authority than government.