Nathan Larson

Leucosticte (aka Tisane aka Nathan Larson) is a Wikipedophile, and while he hasn't been v& for it yet, is pretty sympathetic to actual pedophilia as well.

He is currently b& from ever editing Wikipedia again due to causing lots of drama that resulted in Arbcom applying the banhammer indefinitely, but can still be found on other Wikimedia websites, sperging endless about MediaWiki. When he's not doing that, he's either championing the joys of libertarianism, saving information that isn't notable, and child porn.

So, who is this guy, anyway

Well, why don't we go over the basics: (as summarized from his own memoirs)

His maternal uncle was a schizo named Frank who was sent to a crossbar apartment for forcible sodomy. His mother was stressed the fuck out while having him, which resulted in him being born with a fucked up version of ambidextrous hands that has been linked to pedophilia.

As a young child, he was known for being overly friendly with random strangers, which may or may not have resulted in a few offers of candy in the back of a van. A reliable source also told Nathan that his mother died that his daddy drove off a cliff, and all Nathan could do was cry, wondering who would pick him up from preschool.

Later on, despite him being declared "mentally ill" later in life, he somehow wound up in a class for gifted students, where he spent a lot of time doing ignorant shit that pissed people off and whining about how life wasn't fair when things went wrong. He also was proud of sperging out over a few things he did right in sixth grade while he otherwise spent most of his time bitching about get bullied, and that's when he wasn't pissed to find out electoral politics was a meaningless circlejerk.

He soon whined enough to his parents to get a BBS set up, and not longer after discovered the joys of fapping to really shitty porn.

In his adolescent years, he made friends with a suicide attemptee, discovered yet again politics sucked when he was butthurt over having lost a student election for a meaningless position, and was eventually kicked out of high school after doing some crazy shit while high on drugs.

He was sent to the loony bin a few years later after another drug OD, discovered the joys of libertarianism, and was again butthurt at the shittness of politics when an attempt to decriminalize pot failed miserably.

He later ran for public office in Virginia of 2008, found that he was losing badly, and finally gave into frustrations and shared his desire to Timothy McVeigh his opposition on the tubes. His mother was soon told The Man was planning to arrest him, but he avoided that by being sent to a nut house, where they declared he was fucking crazy, but he managed to weasel out of that by voluntarily admitting himself, then checking out when they started dragging their heels during an attempt to shrink his brain and also weaseled out of an emergency detention order by fooling the court into believing he wasn't a danger to anyone.

Not long after, he got a gun, enrolled in a NRA firearms course, wrote a short note to be found on his body in the event of death or capture, and prepared to take out a US Senator. This plan fell through thanks to his mother running interference before he could complete his firearms lessons.

He then later decided to troll the US government by sending a lulzy (and very well written) letter of intent to kill the President comments[at]whitehouse[dot]gov. His hopes were to be arrested and imprisoned, so he could go on a fatal hunger strike and have his corpse shown to the world as an example of how fucked up the US Government is (clearly not bearing in mind that it might never get any serious press play). The Secret Service was forced to arrest him, he was detained, and after ten months of watching black people beat the shit out of each other, he was evaluated as fucking crazy.

He attempted his hunger strike, but was eventually convinced that was an idiotic thing to do. He then used the rest of his time preparing to legally defend himself, getting more disillusioned with the legal system in the process. He did manage to troll the fuck out of the prosecutor and even more importantly a Secret Service agent by refusing to back down on his beliefs, but eventually pleaded guilty anyway.

After some more time getting countertrolled by the court and the Secret Service and being too much of a pussy to continue fighting back, he was eventually released from prison, and all he got was a very brief and very minor article on his trolling attempt out of the entire attempt.

He soon contemplated suicide as release from the pain of butthurt, but eventually sucked it up because wanted to create a site to sperg about shit nobody cares about and was hoping to found a secessionist movement away from the US.

Of course, he couldn't resist doing stupid shit again and was resent to prison because he hated the terms of his supervised release. Well, and that and being unable to piss properly for drug tests.

Once back in prison, he tried to troll the prison authorities numerous times, failing every time. He was the cell mate of a black guy who considered him a child rapist, and it was around this time he admitted he had become a hardcore believer in legalization of child-child/adult-child sexual relations.

He eventually got out after another ten months, and barely managed to escape having the government putting tracer cookies and spyware on his computer to see if he is indeed a child molesting predator (effectively meaningless, since he doesn't bother to hide his feelings on the issue from the public), and at present is currently still trying to make a wiki for unnotable shit and writing about his support for child molestation.

Nathan and his MediaWiki obsession in general

Whatever else can be said about Nathan Larson, the man does know his way around MediaWiki. In fact, it's probably his most useful contribution to this world and his least fucked up obsession. He has Wikimedia gerrit access and has contributed a ton of useful edits to Wikipedia and most other wikis he can be found at (even if you strip out the stuff related to pedophilia). He has written or helped write several extensions for MediaWiki, is still quite active on all other WMF projects except for Wikipedia, and is, in short, a shameless Wikisperg of the highest order.

However, if that was his only quirk, this article would not even exist, but for people who give a shit, despite being banned from Wikipedia, he clearly misses the place, and his wikis have tons of shit shamelessly copied from WMF wikis, including templates and especially gadgets. In fact, even if you somehow managed to miss one of his easily identifiable aliases or his horribly predictable editing style, you could just look at the gadgets pages of all the wikis he manages and see they are copypasta of stuff from other WMF wikis, even if the gadgets are utterly worthless to the wiki itself.

However, that is not nearly as important as the content of the wikis documented below, all of which are lulzy to one extent or another, but if his only notable obsession was with the very software that powers Wikipedia and ED, this article would never have been written, as that's his most boring interest.

Nathan the Wikipedian

Nathan (as Leucosticte) had a fairly brief but colorful tenure on Wikipedia in which he mostly made an ass of himself by not wanting to delete anything, making a ton of retarded redirects, and haunting pages in which he had a lot of experience (child porn, prison, threateing the President, etc.)

Once his IRL faggotry combined with numerous reports of his wiki bullshit came to ArbCom's attention, the told him to go the fuck away from Wikipedia and never come back.

Of course, being the Wikipedophile he is, he had little self control and came back under a few aliases that were all easily traced back to him, mostly because he did the exact same shit that got his ass noticed the first time over and over again. He eventually got the hint and stays away from Wikipedia, but still can edit on the other wikis of the WMF, where he tirelessly shits out edits like a diarretic sperg to this day.

A side project he came up with was Wikipedians in Exile, basically a permabanned pantshitters club for banhammered Wikipedos. The idea was soundly rejected, mostly because no one wanted to be seen in the same company as a lunatic who threatened the President's life and white knighted for pedophiles.

Nathan on Rational Wiki

Nathan set up shop on the wiki that jizzes to Richard Dawkins at one point, hoping he could find a rational place to discuss why adult-child sex should be legalized.

This drama bomb aroused the community into anger so much they quit furiously masturbating to copies of The God Delusion as RW user Theory of Practice threw the down the gauntlet, demanding Tisane be thrown out of RationalWiki for being a pedo apologist.

This set off a lulzy firestorm of wiki drama that resulted in nearly tearing the RW community part as most of the community came to the conclusion they didn't want a sick fuck spewing his "child molestation should be legal" faggotry on RW, and so his ass was permabanned from RationalWiki.

Below is the baleeted essay he wrote on RW trying to rationalize why child rape needed to be legalized:

Essay:There is a lack of strong evidence and sound logic for concluding that there is a high likelihood of severe harm from child-adult sex
{{essay|Tisane}}
There is a lack of strong evidence and sound logic for concluding that there is a high likelihood of severe harm from child-adult sex.

==Preface==
===Clarification of what is meant by "child-adult sex"===
"Child" is a nebulous term, but for the sake of this essay, let us assume that it refers to those, completely or mostly prepubescent, of approximately ages 12 or below. It can be assumed that "child-adult sex," without any other qualifiers, refers to child-adult sex in which the child did not express dissent in any manner, or (if you prefer) the child expressed consent in some manner. (Even among adults, consensual sex typically does not involve an explicit request and granting of permission in the form of "Do you want to have sex?") This essay is not about situations in which the child pulled away, said "No," or otherwise made it evident that he did not consent.

This would be similar to how, if we were discussing the pros and cons of cannabis use, we would assume that the cannabis use was consensual; we would not lump into that discussion, say, an asthmatic who is forced to smoke cannabis. Even those who support legalizing consensual cannabis use, or child-adult sex, agree that forcing people to engage in such activities should be outlawed; therefore, such cases are not what is up for debate. We are talking about the harms of child-adult sex, not the harms of coerced behavior, unless it can be shown that ''all'' child-adult sex is necessarily coerced.

Child-adult sex can cover the same wide array of sexual activity that occurs in child-child sex or adult-adult sex, with the exception, when applicable, of those that activities that are physiologically impossible for children, e.g. ejaculation.

===Burden of proof===
In a culture that respects freedom, the [[burden of proof]] should be on those who favor prohibiting an activity to demonstrate that the costs of that activity outweigh the costs of prohibition. If the burden of proof were on those who ''oppose'' prohibition of an activity, then people could go around all day saying "Let's prohibit your doing x until you can prove that the benefits of being allowed to do x outweigh the harms from not being allowed to do it." We would constantly be having our right to engage in various behaviors challenged, and we would be having to invest effort in providing evidence that what we want to do is, in fact, okay.

As a practical matter, people need not offer any logic or evidence in order to ban an activity. They can simply say, "We choose to prohibit this, and are voting accordingly." Although there are costs (e.g. time and effort) involved in debating a topic, there are also costs involved in prohibition. When those costs are high, it is often worth examining the evidence and logic to see whether they justify the prohibition.

===Costs of debating the topic===
There seem to be some people who believe that discussion of this topic would be harmful. For example, [[wikipedia:Wikipedia:Child protection|Wikipedia's child protection policy]] states that those who express "the view that inappropriate relationships are not harmful to children" are to be indefinitely blocked from the project. In addition to concerns about harm to a project's reputation for allowing such views to be aired on its pages, some people may worry that voiced condonation of child-adult sex will encourage people to engage in it.

This has always been a concern when people have debated legalization of an activity deemed harmful. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis observed in ''Whitney v. California'' {{ussc|274|357|1927}}, "Every denunciation of existing law tends in some measure to increase the probability that there will be violation of it. Condonation of a breach enhances the probability. Expressions of approval add to the probability . . . Advocacy of lawbreaking heightens it still further. But even advocacy of violation, however reprehensible morally, is not a justification for denying free speech where the advocacy falls short of incitement and there is nothing to indicate that the advocacy would be immediately acted on." Brandeis is here speaking of government policy with regard to free speech; individual websites and users can adopt more restrictive policies of what they want to allow to be debated, or to participate in debating.

But we may do well to remember another Brandeis quote from that same concurrence, "If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence." Anyone who believes there ''is'' strong evidence and sound logic for concluding that there is a high likelihood of severe harm from child-adult sex can write their own essay, or comment on this one.

===Fallacies to be avoided===
It is hoped that in discussing this topic, people will avoid these fallacies:
*[[Argumentum ad populum|Appeal to popularity]], e.g. "Almost all reasonable people agree that child-adult sex is very harmful." What most people think is irrelevant to the strength of the evidence or the soundness of the logic.
*[[Appeal to authority]], e.g. "Most of the large and respected child protection organizations believe that child-adult sex is harmful." Those organizations got to be large and respected by agreeing with the mainstream sentiments of the general public and their elected officials. There are strong incentives for those intellectuals to say what people want to hear. Therefore, this is not much different than appeal to popularity. What matters are the strength of the evidence and the soundness of the logic those organizations are able to put forth. Policy is democratically determined; truth is not.
*[[Appeal to emotion|Wisdom of repugnance]], e.g. "This topic is yucky, therefore you're wrong!" This topic is also important, and we will be able to think more clearly about it if we make an effort to discuss it dispassionately, without letting emotion cloud our judgment.
*[[Anecdotal evidence|Hasty generalization]], e.g. "My uncle had sex with me when I was five, and I was greatly traumatized; therefore, all children who have sex with adults are greatly traumatized." Such proofs by [[induction]] can be disproven by a single counterexample, much as the statement "That swan is white, so is that swan, and so's that other swan over there; therefore all swans are white" can be disproven by pointing to a single nonwhite swan. Nonetheless, it would be interesting to explore the nature and causes of your trauma, and analyze how exactly the behavior led to the trauma occurring, and ponder whether, given the nature of the exact cause-and-effect relationships involved, severe trauma would necessarily occur in every case (or even most cases) of child-adult sex.
*''[[Argumentum ad lapidem]]'', e.g. "Your arguments are offensive/ridiculous." This does not state ''why'' they are offensive/ridiculous. Unless you are willing to give a good reason for why you should be offended, or why you should find those arguments ridiculous, then your argument fails. Why take offense, or dismiss opposing arguments so summarily, anyway? Why not simply refute the arguments, if you can, without getting your hackles up? You'll seem like a much more rational person if you can do that. But if you can't refute the arguments, then you have all the less reason to get offended or to dismiss the arguments summarily.

===Costs of criminalizing child-adult sex===
The costs of criminalization child-adult sex are similar to those involved in prohibiting any other conduct:
*Taxpayer funds being spent on investigations, prosecutions, and incarcerations of these offenders
*Removing offenders who were productive workers from the workplace
*Removing offenders who had not, and would not, have victimized their families, from their families
*Removing an option for behavior that both parties would have preferred to the alternative of not engaging in that behavior (in the case of consensual activities, we can presume that both parties thought that the activity would put them in a better position, e.g. a happier or more satisfied state, than if they had not engaged in it)

If the behavior is victimless, then we may, perhaps, add another possible cost, that of further converting the culture of "live-and-let-live" individual freedom into one in which people are accustomed to accept arbitrary, needless laws enforced by an [[authoritarian]] regime.

==What is not, or not necessarily, aggression==
===Receiving sex in exchange for gifts, affection, etc.===
In some cases, a child learns to trade sex for gifts, affection, etc. We may say that it would be better if the child could get those things without trading sex for them, because it would make the child happier. It might also make the child happier if he could have a pink unicorn. That does not mean that the desired option is available in the given situation. Since we cannot compel parents to offer the gifts and affection without asking anything in return, the alternative, if we want the child to have those things, is to permit him to trade for them. If the child chooses to trade, then it is reasonable to presume that he values what he gets more than what he gives up (e.g. time, effort, etc. involved in acquiescing to what is requested of him).

===An adult engaging in an activity with a child===
It is commonly said that children do not consent to activities they engage in with adults, because they trust adults and are used to obeying them. If that were true, then it would mean that if I were to buy lemonade from a child's lemonade stand, I were forcing him to sell it to me. After all, I am the adult and he is the child! If I say, "I'll pay you five cents for a glass of lemonade," how can he know that it's not in his best interests to sell at that price, since he has been trained to trust adults to say and do what is best? In reality, the child will weigh the costs and benefits to himself and tell you to shove it if he thinks the transaction is going to put him in a worse position than before. Kids are not always as stupid and gullible as people sometimes think.

Aside from issues of trust and power, what makes it any different for an adult to have sex with a child than for two children to have sex? Even if two children are both prepubescent, the child initiating the sexual activity is probably more experienced, and possibly older. How are the motives of an adult that much different than those of the sexually experienced child? In both cases, someone knows from experience or other sources of information that a given activity will give him physical pleasure, and he initiates an inexperienced child into it. It's apples to apples.

===Having sex with, or engaging in other activities, with a person over whom one is in a position of authority===
There are some cases in which two people, one of whom has authority over the other, have sex, in which the authority was not the deciding factor in agreeing to it. For example, suppose I have an attractive boss who sexually propositions me. That person could very well be someone I would have had sex with even if she hadn't been my boss. It would be false, then, to say that she necessarily coerced me. It could even be that in some cases, one would have been ''disinclined'', all other things equal, to have sex with an authority figure — i.e. one deemed the advantages to be gleaned from currying favor with such a person to not be worth the implications/complications of turning such a relationship sexual — but deemed the person so desirable that one threw caution to the wind.

To use another example, suppose I have a kid, and I say, "Let's go get some ice cream." And he jumps in the car and we go get ice cream, and he enjoys it. Have I taken advantage of him, just because I was the one who initiated the activity, and I was in the position of parental authority? No. He wanted the ice cream; he would have consented even if I had been, say, a friend his own age offering him ice cream rather than his parent.

===Engaging in an activity with a child who does not yet fully understand that activity===
Everyone starts out as a virgin with no knowledge about or experience with sex. At some point, if they are ever going to have an enjoyable sex life, they will need to get in touch with their sexuality. Research shows that children as young as infants stimulate their own genitals, and that children often engage in sex play with one another. Their curiosity and sexual awakening can begin well before puberty, and before they have had much instruction in what sex is. Please present evidence, if you have any, that this produces psychological trauma; given how common such behavior is, there should be a lot more traumatized people walking around if it is traumatic.

Suppose I say to my child, "Let's play ''Candyland''." She might say, "What's that?" I could explain the game mechanics in detail, and she may or may not grasp from that description whether or not she'd be likely to enjoy it. Or I could simply say, "You'll see. C'mon; you won't know if you like it until you try it." Have I committed aggression, or taken advantage of her, by inducing her to try an activity before she fully understood it? I doubt it. And, having played it with me once, she will then know in the future whether she's interested in playing it with me at any given moment. Sometimes experience is the best teacher.

==Harms, and alleged harms, from child-adult sex==
===Physical harm===
====Pregnancy====
A physical "harm" from, say, father-daughter or mother-son incest might be that a child could be born with genetic defects. This concern is irrelevant in cases in which one of the partners is not of reproductive age or is otherwise incapable of reproduction (e.g. due to vasectomy). Likewise, the concern that a pregnancy could result that a child is not ready for is obviously irrelevant in most/all cases of prepubescents. Since this essay concerns adult-child sex, that consequence of pregnancy need not be dealt with further here. However, some people may have a mental habit of automatically thinking "all incest is bad" or "all sex with minors is bad" without stopping to ponder the implications of the fact that this particular consequence need not always occur. Therefore, it has been briefly addressed.

====Sexually transmitted disease====
It could be argued that children are not as capable as adults of understand all the risks of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). However, this is an irrelevant consideration in those situations in which there is no such risk. Some sexual activities pose an extremely low risk of STD transmission for one or both partners. For example, a person is extremely unlikely to contract an STD by receiving oral sex.

====Damage to orifi====
There have been cases in which children suffered anal or vaginal damage due to objects (e.g. body parts) being placed in those orifi. The vaginal orifice measures 4–5 mm in girls until the age of 5 and remains under 10mm until the beginning of puberty. It measures 5 cm in length.<ref>http://www.health.am/gyneco/more/gynecological-examination-of-a-prepubertal-child/</ref> Although there is wide anatomical variation, the length of the unaroused vagina of a woman of child-bearing age is approximately 6 to 7.5 cm (2.5 to 3 in) across the anterior wall (front), and 9 cm (3.5 in) long across the posterior wall (rear). Significant changes in vagina size occur during sexual arousal; I have no idea at what stage of childhood or adolescent development that sort of response to arousing stimuli becomes possible.

This concern is irrelevant when the sexual activity in question, e.g. oral sex, does not involve those orifi. The concerns about damage to such orifi are not exclusive to situations involving children; adults too can suffer injury from sex that occurs without adequate lubrication or conditioning. E.g., a virginal 25-year-old woman could suffer vaginal trauma from being subjected to rough sex involving an oversized phallus. Prudence and care have to be used to prevent such harm.

===Psychological harm===
David Finkelhor's model of child-adult sex describes four means by which it causes harm. These are traumatic sexualization, betrayal, powerlessness, and stigmatization. Unless someone wants to put forth another means by which child-adult sex causes harm, we will assume these are the means by which harm can occur from child-adult sex.

====Traumatic sexualization====
Traumatic sexualization is a process in which a child’s sexuality (including both sexual feelings and sexual attitudes) is shaped in a developmentally inappropriate and interpersonally dysfunctional fashion as a result of sexual abuse. This immediately raises the question of what is the standard of developmental appropriateness and proper interpersonal functioning. What principles and logic does one use to arrive at such standards? If the acceptable standards of thinking and behaving are deemed to be only whatever society accepts, then we are caught in a catch-22, in which individuals agree (or at least abide by) what society dictates; and society, being composed of those individuals, thinks and does as they think and do. The only way any change can occur in societal standards is when individuals, dissenting from those standards, go their own way, and form either the new mainstream or an accepted alternative school of thinking or behavior.

Some children who are sexualized at an early age learn to use sexual stimulation to relieve stress. Is this any more harmful than using other activities, e.g. eating, fidgeting, retreating into fantasy, etc., to relieve stress? Perhaps the assumption that it is wrong is due to a moral judgment, rather than by any judgment that has a basis related to pleasure or pain not caused by dismay or punishments resulting from arbitrary moral distinctions.

It is often said that sex traumatizes children because they are not ready for it yet. What exactly makes a person ready for sex? In adults, the criterion, or the sign, is that the person feels willing to engage in it. Billions of adults have consensual sex every year without being traumatized by it. What is it that would make it different for children? And what makes sex with an adult any more traumatic of an experience for a child than masturbation or sex with a person the child's own age?

Traumatic sexualization can take the form of a phobia resulting from unpleasant sexual experiences causing sexual behavior (or other stimuli) to be subconsciously associated with physical or psychological pain. For example, child who have been forced to have sex can learn not to be able to stand certain sexual comments, or certain smells (e.g. the offender's cologne), that were present at the time of abusive behavior. If the child does not experience such pain at the time of the sexual experience, it is unclear how exactly such conditioning could occur. Pavlov did not condition his dogs to salivate at the sound of a bell by ringing a bell and then feeding them a week later.

====Betrayal====
Betrayal occurs when children discover that someone on whom they are vitally dependent has caused them harm. A child might feel a sense of betrayal, for example, at a mother who fails to stop the father from sexually abusing her. Whether one perceives oneself to have been betrayed or not depends on what one thought the appropriate behavior would have been, and how that differed from what the person actually did. If the child does not perceive anyone to have done anything wrong, then there would be no sense of betrayal. Is there evidence to suggest that children feel betrayed by adults who have sex with them, without any physical or psychological pain occurring at the time, without any force or fraud having been used to coerce the sex, and without society telling the child that it was wrong regardless of how it felt or whether the child agreed to it? Please present the evidence, if you have it, or a plausible chain of cause and effect by which such a sense of betrayal could logically be expected to arise.

====Powerlessness====
Powerlessness occurs when the child’s will, desires, and sense of efficacy are continually contravened. This occurs, for example, when child’s territory and body space are repeatedly invaded against the child’s will.

====Stigmatization====
Stigmatization occurs when negative connotations – for example, badness, shame, and guilt – are communicated to the child about the experiences and that then become incorporated into the child’s self image.

==References==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Essays]]

Nathan, Advocate of the Austrian School

The Austrian School of Economics is a retarded economic theory that states people do shit for reasons that lead to goals and this drives the economy....and that's basically it. They advise sitting on one's ass and letting people do what they want with the economy, and when things go to shit, just dissolve the economy and let everyone else pick up the pieces and fix things.

This idiocy was what made the Great Depression so fucking terrible, so you'd have to wonder what fucking dumbass would believe this horseshit, right?

Nathan Larson is that man.

In fact, he's an administrator on the Mises Wiki, awiki dedicated to fellating the corpse of this bullshit's founder and trumpeting this retardation as a good idea.

Nathan the Libertarian

Like most libertarians, our friend Nathan hates the gubmint fucking with it's own people and being oppressive, lulz killing assholes.

However, most SANE libertarians realize we need to have SOME government, otherwise all sort of bad shit happens. Hell, if the sysops of ED leave this place to its own devices for too long, tons of butthurt vandals show up to blank pages and spammers try to pimp their faggy shit all over the place, so it is necessary they impose some sort of order, and since bestiality and child porn are illegal as fuck across most of the known world, ED just can't allow displays of either (as lulzy as the drama surrounding it might be) because doing so would kill the flow of lulz to the world, so as much as that might piss off some people, most libertarians that aren't batshit crazy would accept why ED would have to do that.

However, Nathan is a lunatic who seriously believes it is perfectly acceptable to kill elected officials or make lulzy if stupid threats on their lives if you don't like what they are doing, as admitted in his own memoirs. He also truly believes suicide and pedophilia are basic human rights, and he's genuinely pissed that arbritrary things called "laws" prevent people from an heroing on their own terms or fucking children, and even worse, he doesn't seem to understand why people think such arguments are so batshit even most libertarians want nothing to do with him.

Ironically, at Libertapedia, the wiki for libertarianism, the wiki has a very clear hierarchy of leadership and responsibility, and on his Inclupedia pipe dream he also believes the leadership of the wiki should have another hierarchy of leaders with varying responsibilities over other editors, even though he thinks the laws that restrict the rights of other people like himself should be abolished when they are inconvenient, both on the internet and IRL.

Nathan the Inclupedian

One of the things that gives our friend Nathan a massive boner is shit nobody cares about. Pissed Wikipedophilia has that shitty "notability" requirement, he has been trying to create a wiki called "Inclupedia", which would include all the crap usually baleeted for not being notable enough for Jimbo's monument to autism.

Here is the planning wiki for this festering pile of shit. Needless to say, no one cares, and that should give you a good idea when this project will finally be finished.

Nathan the Child Liberationist

Child Wiki is Nathan's tl;dr wiki about how "children should be free from restraint to do what they want".

If you guessed one of those restraints was against kids not being able to have sex with each other and adults, then whoop de shit, no prizes for figuring that one out.

In all seriousness, the wiki is gold mine of whiny bullshit about why children should be free to do whatever the fuck they want and while social conventions against them eating, sleeping, shitting, and fucking in whatever manner they choose are great evils that need to be abolished.

Some of the more lulzy articles are:

• Why Child Porn is good for kids
• Why a wiki dedicated to documenting child raping perverts is harmful to children
• Why giving children lethal firearms is a great idea
• About a day when child molestors of young boys can celebrate their perversions

Nathan the Blikist

Unlike like most people who shit out their personal lives from the goatsed anus of Livejournal or Facebook, Nathan prefer to spew his personal faggotry on a wiki, which is basically his blog or "bliki".

Here is where you can find the personal ramblings of a very fucked up SOBs.

Some of his greatest hits include:

• Nathan describes his love of fucking hambeasts
• A pedophile apologist interviews a convicted child rapist
• Shit Nobody Cares About:The Religion
• Oldschool pedophile BS
• The Personal Slogans of Pedophiles
• Nathan Larson, admin of a pedophile wiki
• The not so disgusting essay on child rape
  • The highly NSFW version, though you won't get arrested for looking at it - Still, grab a barf bag before clicking this link.
• Nathan Larson, member of NAMBLA

Nathan Larson: Advocate For Killing Yourself

On the Suicide Wiki, you can discuss how to end it all.

Well, that's putting it too vaguely. Specifically, you can discuss suicide methods, reasons, and anything related to the topic, and the wiki doesn't bother to strive for a "neutral point of view". It's mostly edited by Leucosticte, but allows anyone to edit, and most of the content is basically either explaining ways you can kill yourself, explaining why suicide is such a good idea, explaining why it should be legal and advocating it as a human right, and is basically a massive propaganda mill for ending one's own life.

While this is rather lulzy, since such an idea horrifies practically all NORPs, it's owner and biggest supporter refuses to put theory into practice.

Reaction To This Article

Upon learning of the original author of this article's intentions to write this article, he did NOT get epically butthurt and act like a lolcow like most people do when they find out they have earned an article on ED. He also did not try to renounce his beliefs nor attempt to stop the creation of this article, nor has any plans of vandalizing the article. In fact, he has even said if he took the time to look it over (he wasn't going to go out of his way to do so), he might even add content to it.

While he might advocate children having sex with other and adults should be legal, takes libertarianism to some crazy extremes and is a massive MediaWiki sperg, he at least stands by his opinions, hasn't gotten incredibly butthurt, realizes advocating that sort of shit on the tubes has the consequence of being put up on this website, and most of all, isn't planning on deleting everything or engaging in butthurt vandalism.

For that, while he might hold some fucked up viewpoints concerning politics, sexuality, suicide, and really, really needs to be kept away from any sort of weapon and quite possibly children and the Internet, if only for his own safety, he is the anti-lolcow when it comes to finding out he earned himself an ED article, and dramawhores around the internet should seriously emulate his example of not having a shit fit over getting talked about on this website.

External Links

• Wikipedia Review discussing how much of a crazy fuck Nathan is
• Nathan whining about why people automatically assume adults fucking children being so horrible - Because it is.

Nathan Larson is part of a series on Wikipedia Visit the Wikipedia Portal for complete coverage.