Topic on User talk:Max Sinister

This is a permanent link to the first version of this post. You can view later versions on the post history page.

Let's be clear on something. Our position is one of moral neutrality, so long as it's not illegal by it's very nature to discuss the content due to the mere fact of it's existence.

For example, absent any moral position on the subject, live-action child pornography or even animated versions explicitly based on real children are completely off the table to discuss for obvious legal reasons.

That involving completely fictional children, well, I won't lie, I share your moral revulsion to such like I would the IRL version. That said, discussing it is not, formally speaking, illegal under the law, though viewing may be depending on location. And fact of the matter is, it exists.

Just to use your given example, Boku no Pico, it would definitely be IRL child porn if it was live action and/or depicted children known to exist in the real world. It's mere existence is vile enough from a moral standpoint (and I speak based on my own personal knowledge of the media in question only), but we strive to keep our moral opinions in check and simply give objective information, and as stated before, that includes strict rules against bashing something and being overly defensive, we simply want to state what the work is, without losing our objectivity.

I don't know if you are aware of the works of the Marquis de Sade (the man who gave his name to Sadism), but they are morally vile in every sense and that was the point, by his own admission. However, I'm not going to shutter discussion of his work because, much like your example, academic discussion of it's content does not break the law, and so long as it's legal, we will NOT ban discussion of such content until such time as it is illegal.

As for using a technological solution to gate certain content, we have no interest nor desire to do so. Our position has always been transparency of our discussions and aside from certain administrative actions that must remain secret for the legal protection of others (such as reporting certain legal offenses in cooperation with proper laws regarding confidentially of certain information related to various crimes), we believe our content should be public access as it is our desire to entertain and inform.

If you find certain content morally repugnant, then you can do as we do, and simply not concern yourself with it and work on less offensive material that you find more palatable to your interests. Besides, if something is truly vile, the objective truth will make that plain without us playing intellectual and moral hall monitor.

Again, on this topic, we are not budging. We as individuals have our own likes and dislikes and your are entitled to retain them. That said, just because you may not like some of the content we cover, well, we are like a public library, you are not allowed to deface any of the books you don't approve of no matter how indignant you may feel. If you can edit our content, on whatever topic, with a cool head and a willingness to tolerate or at least ignore discussion of what offends you, we welcome further contributions. If not, we ask you politely depart with all due haste, we will not hold that against you should you do so.