Content deleted Content added
RichardWeiss (talk | contribs) |
RichardWeiss (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 374:
::Squeakbox said ''Child sexual abuse is illeagal and most human being s really hate child sexual abuse which is why we punish perpetatrors harshly. This needs to be reflected in this set of articles....'' In many parts of the West up until the 1970s, the same thing was said of homosexuals. It still is in some countries. My point is that illegality and social unacceptance do not necessarily match what they should in a perfect world. Now, should Wikipedia try to match the world as it is, or should it try to match the world as the editors of this article think the world should be? If it is the latter, how do we handle differences of opinion? To put it another way, if this were 1950, and this was an article about homosexuality, should we strive for an article that accurately reflected the 1950 opinion of homosexuality, or should we give "undue weight" to minority-opinion valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence, evidence that is widely accepted 57 years later? This is not an easy question and has no right answer. Perhaps other controversial topics have dealt with this very issue and we can follow Wiki-precedent. [[User:Dfpc|Dfpc]] 03:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
:Black
:::We should follow the facts, the majority of the population in the world do not beleive in evolution, should we follow their opinion or facts? [[User:Voice of Britain|V.☢.B]] 03:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
::::Absolute rubbish though wikipedia does give ample space to creationism which is far more mainstream than either pedophilia or wanting to kill people (whioch some people glorify, eg [[Mara Salvatrucha]], [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 03:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
|