i removed the mention of chris pooles initials being the same as for child pornography. the mention of "pedobear" is unsourced. since CP is illegal, any mention of it being tolerated at 4chan is potentially libelous for whoever maintains it. I am utterly new to this article, and to 4chan, but i thought i should mention this. unless someone can provide references to this material in the start of the article, it should probably be removed.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
pedo kids cp zip
Debate aside, I would like to introduce a sentence in the introductory paragraph that reads: "Pedobear is a popular meme on 4chan. A cartoon pedophile bear, its origin and meaning are controversial, but it is sometimes posted in child pornography threads on /b/."Penneth (talk) 21:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I post the link to that 4chan thread only to demonstrate that there are many permutations of Pedobear on the /b/ boards, and further that pedobear is sometimes posted alongside hard-core pornography and hard-core gore. I could not locate any other recurring meme in that thread besides Pedobear and MOAR or MOARPLZ. I will post screenshots of the thread in question. But as of this writing the link is still active: it contains hard-core Japanese cartoon pornography involving insect impregnation, several pictures of real Japanese women with snakes going up their vaginas, several dead bodies and severed limbs, and at least 18 renditions of Pedobear.68.153.199.181 (talk) 18:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To be precise, here is what Gpia7r demanded on Aug. 10: "How about you go to /b/ for a week and report EVERY SINGLE posting of Pedobear, as well as what type of thread it was in." That is obviously impossible, unless you want to pay me to take off an entire week and spend 24 hours a day scrolling through 15 pages of constantly shifting threads. But I did find a thread with over 18 pedobear postings in it. And it was a pornography/gore thread. I was told by Gpia7r that this didn't count as evidence because I could've either posted the dozens of images in the thread myself (impossible; there is flood control), or otherwise recruited my friends to do so for me. This debate is like something out of Catch-22.68.153.199.181 (talk) 19:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Try an undent. Please enlighten me as to how you intend to twist that light-hearted ad for a stuffed animal into pedobear's 'inherent notability' for being a demonic symbol of our society's sexualization of children. --King ÖÖmie III 19:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure, there are lots of pedobear threads on 4chan, and there are lots of places on the internet where it's mentioned that pedobear is a 4chan meme. The intersection between those sources and the sources we try to use here is very, very small. The best place to document Internet memes is ED; you must already know this. Go make their pedobear article excellent. When pedobear is talked about in the New York Times and BBC, and when some historian of the Internet writes about him, then bring that to Wikipedia.
Yes, the bar is higher for subjects such as this one. That can't be changed by any of us, so we work with reality. Write about pedobear on ED, and write from high quality, reputable published sources on Wikipedia. Go get a degree in history, write a History of Internet Memes, and then come back and cite it. Do your homework. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Gpia and King. My source meets reliability requirements. The blog is an employer with an editor and staff of professional journalists. Above I have posted a link to Wikipedia's reliability requirements for a weblog. Read it, and show me where my source is not in conformance. It is in conformance -- not to mention, my source has ample precedence, as there are three other citations of blogs in the 4chan article, including a citation of a lengthy entry explaining "what is 4chan and /b/". I am adding a line about pedobear today. I will post it in here first, to avoid a war and to allow input from other users. I have played by the rules. Sincerely yours, 74.233.42.141 (talk) 17:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I propose adding the following sentence somewhere in the article (exactly where can be determined later): "Pedobear is a 4chan meme that is widely merchandised on the Internet [2] [3][4]. A cartoon pedophile bear, it was mysteriously pictured with Obama in a column by former Republican presidential candidate Pat Buchanan."[5][6][7] 68.153.199.181 (talk) 21:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will not as of now agree to mediation when I have so clearly demonstrated my case. "King" has called my source "fine." Gpia's last reason for not including pedobear is that it's not 4chan-exclusive - even though every meme already in the article is also not 4chan-exclusive. Mediation is not, at this point, necessary. Thanks, 68.153.199.181 (talk) 21:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All registered sex offenders, are not pedophiles, I think people need to look up what can get a person on a sex offender registry. A tuck driver or any person with a weak bladder can drive down a deserted country road in the middle of the night and take a leak in the seclusion of darkness and the absent of others, but should a cop happen by and although he did not see the act, but sees a wet spot, he can and probably will arrest that person and charge them with indecent public exposure, which is now a sex crime!
There is a huge difference between pedophilia (being attracted to children) and being a child molester (acting on those attraction). The vast majority of those who are attracted to children understand that to act on those desires would be incredibly wrong.
I never said that homosexuality and pedophilia anywhere near the same thing. I only said that they shared similarities in that they are both sexual attractions. Do you disagree? Do you think that one is not a sexual attraction?
But Charles, 30 years ago, that is what we were taught. That gay guys are pedophiles. Look at the #@!#$ Boy Scouts! They still think that! Untrue entirely, I agree. But, that WAS what kids were taught for a very long time.
But, BUT, why choose same-sex attraction as the anaolgy? Why not choose another? Can you not see how choosing someone being gay to compare to pedophilia would be offensive? When making any anology you run the risk of the two being compared in the same light.
correction: I re-read the post above mine after posting my comment. It seems there are no company picnics with kids so my comment would speak to his behaviour on Take Your Kids to Work Day. Sorry for not reading throughly. There are just so many comments on this post understandably.
I personally believe discrimination based on criminal records should be illegal in every state. Unless the conviction has to do with the job duties (an embezzler being hired for a banking job, a pedophile being hired to run a day care), the conviction should have no bearing on the job offer. If a company excludes all convicted felons, the exclusion will have a disparate impact on minorities and men and would be illegal in any event.
As unbelievable as these stories seem, they are all real. Although many sex-offenders deserve what they get and more, there are also many who, in my opinion, do not. Just because a person is a registered child sex offender does not mean they are a pedophile, a predator, or even did anything sexual against children. The laws regarding registry are too broad and do not differentiate.
Ok the start of this thread makes me wonder if you even know what the laws, as for I do learned the hard way, if you know a sex offender is working where you do and you bring your kid into that enviroment then you in fact are committing child endangerment to your own kids, how dare you blame it on someone who did their time already, if your not a sex offender you have no damn say to what its like to be us or what we can do, reading half the bs on here makes me out to believe most you are hipercrites, you know nothing about what its like to go through any of that shit
Every convicted sex offender is classified with identity. Both a personal and a consequential collective identity. Whether or not a sex offender is a pedophile or not, he/she inherits by consequence of his/her conviction ( whether merit or void) a collective identity of a pedophile. That on top of his/her personal public registration.
i work for a cleaning comp. we have 5 sites and 9 people at each site the owner only comes to my site once a week. and one of his other workers transfered to my site. at each site we work in difrent places but the owner makes us all meet for are lunches so we have to talk with each other so we became friends and only 2 of them have not been in my house. one day he brought a hat he made for one of the others i liked itso asked him if he could make one for my little girl for 30$ on my birth day he came over to show me what he has done and drink some beers and watch some movies my daughter was a sleep on the couch when i looked back to talk to him i saw him have his hand under the blanket tikleing her feet not eleagle but not rite so i got her to go to her room after the movies i had him leave me and the wife wanted to do a check so on monday i asked my boss what his last name was she told me and asked if i knew he was on a pedophile web site i told her no she said she just found out the last friday when i got home the wife and i looked min up and was stuned to see him on it so we called the police to see if he was still on prob. and he was so he was not to be around kids and he never told me i just wanted the hat for my girl so now he is back in jail and now the cops think i was in on it with him. it makes me sick. the owner never told any body not even my boss where we clean there are some other people where we have the contract that have hep and tb so we have to where gloves all the time we dont know who they are but we now they are there. and if i did know i would not have let him know where i lived. or in my house i want to hurt him so bad. 2ff7e9595c
Comments