You must have misunderstood my comment - I don't think anywhere I mentioned that I was trying to stop my children from seeing naked parts of people's bodies.
I did however say right up the top that the violence was far far worse. My son does not appreciate stumbling upon the various gory things out there. He has told me so himself. Anything Wikipedia can do to reduce the chance of this happening, would be appreciated.
If I can decompose your response, your position seems to be that since I have not drawn a clear line between what I consider suitable and un-suitable, then my argument is invalid?
Or are you are saying that since there will inevitably be things children find unpleasnet (spiders), trying to protect them from ANY unpleasnt things is a futile exercise?
The latter. Wanting to protect your children does not excuse censorship. I mean, this is literally the rhetoric used by SOPA, PIPA, whatever the newer one is that I don't remember because there are too many damn acronyms. It's all "protect the innocent children".
If you want to hide the image behind a thumbnail or a black/white outlide and require an explicit click, fine. But I can't entertain this sort of discussion without a high level of discomfort.
"If you want to hide the image behind a thumbnail or a black/white outlide and require an explicit click, fine."
Fortunately, that is exactly what is being proposed [1]
I belive SOPA, PIPA, et al, were more about online piracy. However here in Austraila we reciently had to fight againt a proposal for manditory internet censorship, who's reason for being was precicly: "Think of the children!". But just because trying to protect children has been used as a cloak for some pretty unpalatable things does not mean that everything done in the name of protecting children is automatically bad. For example child labour laws were done with the express goal of protecting children and you would be hard pressed to find somebody that would argue they are a bad thing.
Instead we need to think about what is being proposed and evaluate each case it on its merits. Having a knee jerk reaction against filtering is almost as bad as having a knee jerk reaction against porn.
In this case:
* The filter is opt in, not opt out.
* No images would be permantly removed, only hidden
* The feature should be visible, clear and useable. Its not going to silently hide things.
* The principle of least astonishment for the reader would be applied.
I belive that this presents a quite acceptable trade off, between making all information avable to everybody and as you put it - censorship. The tool is there for anybody who wants to use it, and if you don't it has no impact on you.
Neither, I asked a question which you didn't answer and instead decided to respond with ad hominem. Ad hominem is the sign of a lost argument, so either answer the question or remain a loser in this debate.
I'm not having this discussion with you. Having principles and exerting your own beliefs of morality as censorship on the masses are not the same thing and you're a jackass for acting like it is and then spending half of your post trying to use debate rhetoric to "win". That was just embarrassing.
I did however say right up the top that the violence was far far worse. My son does not appreciate stumbling upon the various gory things out there. He has told me so himself. Anything Wikipedia can do to reduce the chance of this happening, would be appreciated.
[edited for grammar]