Talk:Brongersma: Difference between revisions

Talk:Brongersma (edit)

Revision as of 04:54, 1 October 2021

25 bytes removed , 1 October 2021

m

Bureaucrats, checkuser, Interface administrators, interwiki, Administrators (Semantic MediaWiki), Curators (Semantic MediaWiki), Editors (Semantic MediaWiki), staff, Suppressors, Administrators

83,693

edits

@@ Line 14: / Line 14: @@
 On the one hand, Leucosticte has been trolling for this response. On the other, WikiIndex has a mission. I suggest we follow the mission. I linked to the Wikipedia article because it is ''relatively neutral.'' I avoided adding clarification because I do not want to create a debate here over the definition of pedophilia. RationalWiki was nearly torn apart by that debate, stimulated by Leucosticte, between many who wanted to stand for free speech, and others who could not tolerate the presence of a "child rapist," even though Leucosticte has never been charged with any child-sexual offense, is clearly not a pedophile (from extensive writing about his own sexuality), but described fantasies, fantasies that, from objective research in the field, are not uncommon. (Which does not establish norms. It might be common to fantasize murdering your boss, it would not make it right!) --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 16:18, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
-:Don't forget what [[wp:Louis Brandeis|Louis Brandeis]] [http://www.Law.Cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/274/357 wrote], "Every denunciation of existing law tends in some measure to increase the probability that there will be violation of it." If you say "This law is wrong, because the behavior it proscribes is harmless and ethically acceptable" then it could make people think, "Why shouldn't I violate it, then, if I think I can find a way to get away with it?" Denouncing a law tends to make that law less popular, and there's often less stigma attached to breaking an unpopular law. Where there's less stigma for lawbreaking, there may be more lawbreaking. [[User:Leucosticte|Leucosticte]] ([[User talk:Leucosticte|talk]]) 20:51, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
+:Don't forget what {{Wp|Louis Brandeis}} [http://www.Law.Cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/274/357 wrote], "Every denunciation of existing law tends in some measure to increase the probability that there will be violation of it." If you say "This law is wrong, because the behavior it proscribes is harmless and ethically acceptable" then it could make people think, "Why shouldn't I violate it, then, if I think I can find a way to get away with it?" Denouncing a law tends to make that law less popular, and there's often less stigma attached to breaking an unpopular law. Where there's less stigma for lawbreaking, there may be more lawbreaking. [[User:Leucosticte|Leucosticte]] ([[User talk:Leucosticte|talk]]) 20:51, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 ::Bankrupt arguments. Brandeis would be correct. His argument is worth reading. However, Brandies's opinion, which was brilliant, applied here, would clearly allow advocacy of legalization. So? Leudosticte is here presenting arguments that he personally rejects. It's ''debate.'' The argument presented is not about the topic here, which is on keeping or deleting this index listing. It does not establish a violation of the proposed policy. At all. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 21:09, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
@@ Line 40: / Line 40: @@
 :Is it a revert war if you cite a different deletion reason the second time around? I dunno, maybe it's a gray area. Wikimedia Commons does not host child pornography; there are no images there of children exhibiting their genitals lasciviously. [[User:Leucosticte|Leucosticte]] ([[User talk:Leucosticte|talk]]) 21:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 :#It's tendentious editing if you already know the edit is opposed, which you did. Whether it's a "revert war" or not is another issue. I use the term to mean repeatedly asserting the same or similar content. Time is also involved. The only change in the second assertion was a reason that was false on the face, and you know it. You are advocating reasons that you know might be advocated by those you seek to expose or humiliate. The real disruptive violation is WP:POINT, not WP:3RR (which does cover reversions lower than four, four is a "bright line.")
-:#As to "child pornography," Leucosticte is playing with varying definitions. In common usage, the word has varying meanings. There is coverage of this on [[wp:Child pornography#Terminology|Wikipedia]]. When he created his [[Nathania]] page, trolling for outrage, Nathan presented images in categories 1-3. Sometimes these can be used as supporting evidence in a prosecution for a violation of law, but, in themselves, they are not illegal. The Commons images do not present "children exhibiting their genitals lasciviously." As I recall, the children are clothed. The adults are exposed. I'd interpret them -- these are drawings from long ago -- as Category 8 or 9, "Assault," or "Gross Assault."
+:#As to "child pornography," Leucosticte is playing with varying definitions. In common usage, the word has varying meanings. There is coverage of this on {{Wp|Child pornography#Terminology|Wikipedia}}. When he created his [[Nathania]] page, trolling for outrage, Nathan presented images in categories 1-3. Sometimes these can be used as supporting evidence in a prosecution for a violation of law, but, in themselves, they are not illegal. The Commons images do not present "children exhibiting their genitals lasciviously." As I recall, the children are clothed. The adults are exposed. I'd interpret them -- these are drawings from long ago -- as Category 8 or 9, "Assault," or "Gross Assault."
 ::Brongersma does not even get close to any of this, as far as I've seen.
-::When considering offensiveness, the legal definition of child pornography can be irrelevant. Legally, there is the [[wp:Miller test|Miller test]]. By that test, the Commons images are legal. As Leucosticte knows, the issues are far more complex than most realize. There is a second issue besides the Miller test, which is realism. The drawings are clearly not photographs or produced in imitation of photographs. They are "realistic," but are clearly drawings, they are not "photorealistic."
+::When considering offensiveness, the legal definition of child pornography can be irrelevant. Legally, there is the {{Wp|Miller test}}. By that test, the Commons images are legal. As Leucosticte knows, the issues are far more complex than most realize. There is a second issue besides the Miller test, which is realism. The drawings are clearly not photographs or produced in imitation of photographs. They are "realistic," but are clearly drawings, they are not "photorealistic."
 ::And all this is irrelevant to Brongersma. Leucosticte knows better, much better. Hence he is trolling. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 21:50, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
-:::The ''Miller'' test doesn't apply to child pornography. See {{w|New York v. Ferber#The Court's decision}}. There are other types of child pornography besides the kind I mentioned; more broadly it [http://www.Law.Cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2256 involves] "a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct" which can involve "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person". [[User:Leucosticte|Leucosticte]] ([[User talk:Leucosticte|talk]]) 22:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
+:::The ''Miller'' test doesn't apply to child pornography. See {{Wp|New York v. Ferber#The Court's decision}}. There are other types of child pornography besides the kind I mentioned; more broadly it [https://www.Law.Cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2256 involves] "a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct" which can involve "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person". [[User:Leucosticte|Leucosticte]] ([[User talk:Leucosticte|talk]]) 22:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 ::::Frankly, DGAF. This has nothing to do with Brongersma. It seems to me to be an excuse to repeat phrases that make people go ballistic. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] ([[User talk:Abd|talk]]) 23:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)