Difference between revisions of "Talk:Object sexuality"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
JamesWilson (talk | contribs) (Reply) |
|||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
:[[Bestiality]] is also not very family-friendly.--[[User:JoeyJ|JoeyJ]] 03:50, 25 May 2014 (EDT) | :[[Bestiality]] is also not very family-friendly.--[[User:JoeyJ|JoeyJ]] 03:50, 25 May 2014 (EDT) | ||
::I am inclined to agree with you. Nonetheless, there is a long-standing tradition that the edits of senior editors not be reverted. I do believe that ''Conservapedia'', as a resource for homeschooled children, does not need content on such vile subjects as human sexuality.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 18:36, 25 May 2014 (EDT) | ::I am inclined to agree with you. Nonetheless, there is a long-standing tradition that the edits of senior editors not be reverted. I do believe that ''Conservapedia'', as a resource for homeschooled children, does not need content on such vile subjects as human sexuality.--[[User:JamesWilson|James Wilson]] 18:36, 25 May 2014 (EDT) | ||
| + | :::*Then, we should ask the whole CP community about that. Lets discuss it [[Talk:Main Page|here]].--[[User:JoeyJ|JoeyJ]] 08:28, 27 May 2014 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 12:28, May 27, 2014
This isn't family-friendly. --James Wilson 16:28, 24 May 2014 (EDT)
- Bestiality is also not very family-friendly.--JoeyJ 03:50, 25 May 2014 (EDT)
- I am inclined to agree with you. Nonetheless, there is a long-standing tradition that the edits of senior editors not be reverted. I do believe that Conservapedia, as a resource for homeschooled children, does not need content on such vile subjects as human sexuality.--James Wilson 18:36, 25 May 2014 (EDT)