Talk:Sexually explicit

From BoyWiki
Revision as of 17:54, 7 April 2016 by User4 (talk | contribs)

Etenne--how come in the following phrase in the article:

referred to as a "nude photo" or a sexually explicit photo

the "sexually explicit" is in bold rather than being a link? User4 (talk) 14:38, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are asking. I looked at it and I was still not able to see a formatting problem. However my comment is that this is not a definition as much as it is an explanation and it is not written in a way that is anything close resembling a neutral POV. --Etenne BLSmileyface.png 16:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
The "bolding" thing disappeared. Strange. Must be a software bug.
As for a "neutral POV", Wouldn't a (so-called) "neutral" POV in an article about the (pseudoscience) of astrology require that astrology not be referred to as a pseudoscience?
Wouldn't a (so-called) "neutral" POV in an article about the (pseudoscience) of divining through reading tea leaves require that divining through reading tea leaves not be referred to as a pseudoscience?
Wouldn't the above be a huge disservice to the public by furthering the myths of the (in fact, false) efficacy of astrology and tea-leaf reading? User4 (talk) 16:17, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
No because you could find an authoritative reference to support that position. that it is not simply your opinion but it is supported by the facts. --Etenne BLSmileyface.png 16:22, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
You can find "an authoritative reference" to support anything at all. "The facts" are those things which may be empirically established using valid scientific methods.
That which has been empirically established using valid scientific methods DOES NOT support the hypothesis that astrology (and other pseudosciences) are genuine phenomenon. User4 (talk) 16:51, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Another way of looking at is that our interpretation of the facts better represents the reality then theirs. Facts are indisputable, however how you describe those facts are not. For example, someone might describe a 12 and 14 YO boy engaged in a sexual relationship as the 14 yo abusing the 12 yo.. where you might describe them as two boys in love... they only "fact" here is the boys have a relationship. --Etenne BLSmileyface.png 17:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Actually, I'd phrase that a little differently. I would say that, based on what has already been empirically established using valid scientific methods, that intergenerational (or age-disparate) relationships--though they may sometimes be abusive--generally speaking, most of the time, usually do not involve any real "abuse". Of course, I would be using the "classical" definition of "abuse" (the historical one) rather than the "modern" definition (which is so broad as to essentially be meaningless). User4 (talk) 17:11, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
OT: It's time for lunch. I've got to go shopping. Be back later. User4 (talk) 17:15, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Well that is one way to go but it is my opinion that 80 percent of the readers will one be lost and therefore disengage after the first sentence.--Etenne BLSmileyface.png 17:34, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Could that be because 80% of BoyLovers have been thoroughly (and very successfully!) brainwashed by those espousing the pedophile narrative? And that, though there is the risk of alienating those BoyLovers by challenging their preconceptions (read: their indoctrination with the myths about BoyLove) that doing so is essential for their achieving "liberation" from their oppressive Masters (read:those in control of the child-abuse industry)? User4 (talk) 17:49, 7 April 2016 (UTC)