I am not trying to be disagreeable, I am just confused, do ALL admins agree or each have their own personal opinion? May be I am too old and been around too long but when I see that some supposedly middle aged housewives have no problem with this kind of garbage, it just makes me wonder. I like you Annie but in this issue my opinion is closer to another editor that I think you know: If a person needs to think about if child molestation is right or wrong and tries to find justification for pedophiles sites, as far as I am concerned they can go f*ck themselves. May be those categories didn't have such "highly selective quality content" as pedophile sites and therefore not protected under "special" sites category.
gworld - I will try explaining this one more time (try to pay attention). The categories that had the highest probability of actually harming children have been removed. The ones that are left, whether we personally agree with what they say or not, do not pose much of an immediate threat to children. They are just expressing an "AFFIRMATIVE VIEW" (I'm not sure why this has to be in caps, but you like it that way, so there ya go ) in a more acedemic fashion. People have the right (at least in the US), and should have the right, to voice whether they are for or against something. That right stops if what you say is directly harming someone (like yelling "FIRE" in a theater). If you are not capable of understanding the concept of other people having opinions that differ from yours, then this is indeed hopeless. We are all welcome to disagree with the opinions of others, and in the case of pedophilia, we do. But they also have the right to disagree with us - just not to act on it (the pedophilia). The placement/acceptance of ALL pedophila sites are being discussed by the admins in private. So the "AFFIRMATIVE VIEW" sites might stay, or they might be removed. The important point is that the harmfull sites have been removed already. The purpose here is not to eradicate the topic of pedophilia from the ODP. The purpose is to remove sites that have a real possibility/intent of harming children. This is what the admins are discussing. Get that through your skull. I realize that you like to repeat the same accusations/questions over and over again for effect, but you have reached the saturation point and your statements are losing merit IMO. The admins are not just discussing the placement of a few sites. They are discussing/forming a policy that will address this issue now and in the future. At the same time, I am also a bit discouraged by how long it is taking...But, as I said, the really harmful sites have already been removed, so I can have the patience to wait and see what type of policy the admins will form. I have faith that what they come up with will properly address the issue. And if it doesn't, I (as well as most other editors who disagree with it) will not be afraid to voice their dissatisfaction (as you seem to think is the case).
I, as well as others, have been stating that these sites are not illegal since the beginning of this thread. It's not an excuse and it's nothing new. Try to keep up with the discussion...
All quotes in my latest post about how good it is for child to experience man love and having sex with 6 year old child are from the sites that are still listed in DMOZ. All the sites that have been removed are accessible through the first page link section of many of the sites that are still listed. Therefore, you are wrong: "harmful sites have NOT been removed" How many other category in DMOZ with real possibility/intent of harming children are you aware of since it seems to be such a big subject for Admins? If they can not form a simple policy to protect children during so many days, don't you think that it show a high degree of incompetence?
Put it to a test. Start a Category with “Affirmative Views on Terrorism†and see if it flies. ~VegasMack
Are you trying to sweet talk me? I think we all agree with the quoted editor. Some of us believe we must work within the system if we want a permanent change. I like you too gworld, but I also like watching a puppy chase his tail. Not entirely unrelated, I suppose.
I assume it is not against the law to be in favor of terrorism as long as you don't act on it. So legally I guess it would be ok. If it's not legal to be in favor of terrorism then I guess it wouldn't "fly". Morally? That's for each person to decide on their own, but I doubt the ODP would restrict the listing of websites that were legal and in favor of terrorism.
As someone who has spent many years working with both offenders and with victims, and conducting research into the dynamics of offenders and the long-term negative imnpact of their assaults on children, let me remove any doubt you might have about such sites: There is absolutely no question that the publication of any view that even indirectly might suggest to a pedophile that what he does might not be morally wrong or that might suggest sex with a child does not harm the child ABSOLUTELY AND UNQUESTIONABLY DOES SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASE THE RISK OF THAT PEDOPHILE ACTING OUT ON HIS URGES OR FANTASIES AND RESISTING TREATMENT. Believe me, the evidence does not allow any room for doubt on that question. None. Zero. For DMOZ to endorse and promote such sites contributes directly to the creation of new and additional victims. THIS IS NOT A MATTER OF DISPUTE. THIS IS ESTABLISHED FACT. Free speech ends where harm to others starts. And that sort of so-called "free speech" is harmful to children.
minstrel - on a personal level I agree with you 100%. I'd like to see all "AFFIRMATIVE VIEW" pedophilia sites removed from the ODP for the exact reasons you just posted. While I obviously don't have the experience that you have, I'm majoring in psychology and last semester took abnormal psych. We actually spent quite a bit of time on this topic and had a lot of in class debate. A few of the more idiotic students in the class (females surprisingly) started going on about how it's not fair to sex offenders to have to register and then go door to door in the area they live and tell everyone that they are a sex offender...I gave a pretty good speech about the rights of the children who would very likely never fully recover from what was done to them and the rights of the child who might be some sick bastards next victim...they shut up after that, lol. My main point was that the remaining sites "do not pose much of an immediate threat to children." The difference is that a site that has forums and chatrooms for pedophilias is going to allow for immediate reinforcement and encouragement, which could lead to a child being harmed more on an impulse... A site that just has an "AFFIRMATIVE VIEW", while definitely reinforcing to pedophiles, will most likely not work in the way of having an immediate effect. That doesn't make them any better really, but at least the ones that have a greater chance of doing immediate damage are removed (although still out there unforunately). However...I have serious doubts that all "AFFIRMATIVE VIEW" sites are going to be removed, unfortunately.
Always but in this case I was talking about other middle-age women that some how are very supportive of adult section. You saw yourself how sidjf was spanked when he moved the listings, do you really believe that any change would be possible without pressure from outside? Say Hi to that editor and tell him, he should post more, it is nice to hear some straight and from the heart talk some times. Just try it, if nothing else you can prove to yourself that you are wrong. You assume as usual wrong. People have already been arrested in USA because of their "free speech" was in favor of terrorism. I just find it amusing that a person who admits he is not very knowledgeable regarding the laws, can be so sure that pedophile sites are not illegal. Do you have any legal arguments for your opinion that these sites are not illegal or just wishful thinking and because you feel that you need to defend DMOZ?
Opening line from the news story gworld posted: He was not saying "terrorism is ok", he was saying "be a terrorist and act on it". Huge difference. Not even close, try again.
gworld - your arguments that these sites are illegal and that the ODP is also breaking the law by listing them are weak at best. If you really cared about protecting children you would get behind an arguement that actually has a chance of getting the sites removed (as minstrel has done). However, it's quite obvious that you care more about arguing with people and trying to make the ODP look bad than you do about stopping pedophiles from hurting people...good work mate.
The sites listed in DMOZ also say that adult should show some man love to children, so there is the same call to action in both cases. Are you agreeing now that not all speech are "FREE SPEECH" and there is a limitation? The reason I explain the legal side while minstrel more explains the moral side is that I don't want to give the editors a chance to come up with excuse, that we are against it but since it is not illegal, we "HAVE" to list it.
Wrong. They say that a man should be allowed to "show love" to children. If you find any listed that directly tell men to abuse children, please let us know ASAP. C'mon gworld, keep up...we've already covered this repeatedly. Do I need to write it on the chalk board or draw some charts or something?? I posted just a few posts back: Are you out of ideas? Is that why you have to ask questions that have already been answered? Get some new material.
Do you know something about what excuse the Admins are going to use? All this arguing about the wording, makes me wonder if "It is not illegal" going to be their excuse.
Thaaaaaaaaaat's right...just ignore anything that proves you wrong and it will aaaaaaall go away... Whenever someone posts anything that shows that your statements are false just resort to the old standby comments...no one will notice. Just keep repeating the same tired statements over and over and over again and eventually they will magically be true. No proof required! At least what your posts lack in quality is made up for in quantity...lol
How did you prove me wrong? You haven't given us any argument or case law that justifies your opinion, the only thing that you have done is just keep repeating, I know these sites are legal , I know these sites are legal,..... But don't ask me why. You have already agreed that keeping these sites is morally wrong, are you thinking now that DMOZ and it's admins can not differentiate between right and wrong and it is possible they will keep these listings?