DMOZ cleanup: Next phase

A nonsense? I only said that I do not know whether a site promoting pedophilia is illegal or not. I am not a lawyer and simply do not know such things. I know that child pornography is illegal, but that is something different.

 

Part of the difference between your viewpoint and mine is that mine is based on actual work in the field over almost 30 years, whereas yours is based (clearly) on ignorance.

I am not "making" anyone do anything. I am not a DMOZ editor and do not wish to be one. I admire and applaud compostannie and others for the efforts they have made and are making. I don't believe Annie feels that I am "making" her do anything, or even that she objects to my efforts here. Why don't you ask her instead of making additional uninformed assumptions?

Thank you for understanding. I look forward eagerly to your absence from this thread.

 

They may be immoral to you, minstrel, and brizzie, but that doesn't mean they are immoral to everyone. I think the Alternative Health category is immoral. That doesn't mean the sites shouldn't be listed. ODP was not made to be the moral guardian of the Internet. It was made to index the Internet. (Views on how well that is accomplished is debatable.)

 

I suppose you're right about that. Pedophiles don't find pro-pedophilia and child pornography sharing chat rooms immoral. Pedophiles don't find child rape immoral.

So what are you saying? Are you a pedophile, ishfish? Are you someone who thinks that pro-pedophilia and pro-life-threatening-acts should be promoted, endorsed, and given additional free publicity?

Help me understand this "position", ishfish...

 

On the anorexia category - I looked at a couple of these sites. IMO, if my daughter was anorexic, I would want to be able to look at these sites. The ones I saw gave me a better understanding of why people do this to themselves, they also showed me how it can be accomplished from their point of view. I found the sites informative and helpful, even though their purpose is promotion of anorexia.

Here is one of the direct quotes

 

Nicely selective, lmocr.

Now examine some of these:

Would you want your daughter to be visiting those sites?

 

I looked at some of those sites as well - I still think they provide helpful information to parents, even though that is not their purpose. If my daughter was anorexic - I would want to be able to find anything and everything. How would I know that one of the tricks is to throw away a fast food wrapper in full view of a person? I read it on one of those sites - so now I'm armed with the info.

If those sites weren't listed in DMOZ, they would be readily available through a network of anorexic kids - but parents probably wouldn't be able to find them.

There isn't only a downside for this type of site - like there was for the pedophile chat rooms (I couldn't find anything positive about those).

 

Big surprise! Someone disagrees with minstrel so he accuses them of being a pedophile (in a round about fashion).

Are your arguements really so weak that you have to resort to such nonsense to get anywhere?

 

Then how about instead of wasting your time here and defending pedophile listings in DMOZ, you try to educate yourself by reading the original thread in this forum and many other documents available on line and offline?

Unless you believe that purposeful ignorance is the best way of defending some DMOZ editors actions.

 

Mine is based on ignorance, while yours is based on arogance.
Do you know how many people followed the link from DMOZ (or clone) to a bad site? Do you know how many of them did something bad, because of what they found on that site? No, you don't. Don't talk to me as if your opinion is based on anything better than mine. It is not.

Say whatever you want, but I see what actually happened. If you believe, the problem is that serious, then overcome your pride or whatever it is that keeps you from being an editor and become one, or at least try. That will demonstrate to me, you really mean, what you said and I will apologize to you. What is more important to you? Your pride or removing references to pro-xxx sites from DMOZ?

Sorry, I could not resist bashing you. I might need a psychiatric help.

 

either a pedophile or they have small penises... your letting this porn thing rent way too much space in your head.

 

How can you people be so ridiculous? I am not saying delist these sites because minstrel, brizzie, and myself find them offensive. For example, I hate cats (I'm a dog person), but I think DMOZ should have a category about cats. I could find a hundred categories with DMOZ that include topics or views I find offensive, but should be listed.

We are talking about DMOZ listing sites that promote harmful and potentially life-threatening lifestyles. DMOZ listing pro-pedophilia sites, pro-anorexia sites, pro-suicide sites, pro illegal narcotic sites, and sites discussing methods of making illegal narcotics should not be listed. Ninety-nine percent of sane, rational people would agree. The ones that don't ARE the ones with pedophilia tendencies, eating disorders, drug problems, etc. And even to these folks, you are doing a disservice to them providing them with such information.

PS. I know I'm going to get the typical response, so please...don't respond with such BS as "They can find all this information on Google or Yahoo."

 

Did you know that suicide is legal in Oregon? If 99% of sane, rational people agree that suicide is wrong - how did that get voted in (and it wasn't a legislative decision)?

I don't have pedophilia tendencies, an eating disorder, a drug problem, a desire to end my life, or a desire to hurt myself. I also don't have an issue with listing certain pro-pedophilia sites or the pro-anorexia sites that I've visited as a result of this discussion. I would rather know how people with problems are thinking and I don't believe I'm alone in this regard. But if you'd rather sweep the problems under the carpet - don't visit those categories (or sites) that offend you.

 

Well, now I have heard it all!

Please clarify one thing here. If suicide was illegal, how do you prosecute a dead guy?

 

You forgot to also mention your lack of sympathy, feelings or concerns for humans or animals.

 

Please don't project your feelings onto me

 

So, a quick question. Yes or no, do you think DMOZ listing such garbage is, in fact, helping expose these problems and utimately will help eradicate them?


PS. If you answer YES you are drinking some serious Kool-Aid.

 

Both our postings are in this forum, I will gladly let others to be the judge.

 

Besides that some people brought up this thing about legality versus illegality, this is not and was never the point here, brizzie put it in much better words than I would be able to do myself, so let me quote him here:

From what I was reading in this thread, I am somewhat astonished about the technocratic understanding some of my fellow editors obviously have, when it comes to defending highly questionable listings. Like always it would help, talking to normal people and listen what they think and how they feel about problems of that nature. This evening my girlfriend has an inhouse meeting with all her friends, leaving me alone on my computer. So I used this rare chance, an audience of nine down-to-earth ladies and asked them for their opinion. The amazing thing, it was me describing the situation and on purpose almost defending these listings, the clear outcome of my small poll: Even if legal, don't list. There is such a thing as social responsibility, personally, I feel sorry for anyone who can't see that.

 

Even for you, lmocr, that post is quite incredible - that you have manages so completely and consistently to utterly miss the point. How many times do I have to say this is not about legality but about responsibility?

Should suicide be a crime anywhere? No. Should self-injury or anorexia be acrime anywhere? No. Of course not. Should schizophrenia be a crime? Again, obviously not. Neither should cancer, diabetes, heart disease, AIDS, etc., etc.

Should sites that provide information about bthese disorders be listed in DMOZ? Absolutely.

Should sites that encourage others to harm themselves or others be listed in DMOZ? Absolutely NOT.

You just told us you don't have a problem listing pro-pedophelia and pro-anorexia sites in DMOZ, lmocr. That speaks volumes.

Do you still wonder why you have virtually zero credibility here?

It's certainly not beyond the realm of probability.