My point should be obvious and it's pitiful that nobody has supported me.
Your point actually is very obvious. The brick wall you're running into is the fact that your paradigm is fundamentally different than that shared by many Perlmonks. Let me explain.
A paradigm is defined as
Many Perlmonks, including myself, tend to be very liberal and open in their attitudes towards ... well ... most things. The concept of personal accountability runs through the whole OpenSource movement, with which there is a lot of overlap into the "Perl community" (if there is such a thing).
The paradigm you appear to be espousing is one where a group of (usually) wiser members of the community choose what the community is (and is not) exposed to. This is a very conservative view, one that many Perlmonks may find very patronizing and paternalistic.
Let me illustrate with an example - the fact that O'Reilly is promoting a book on hacking that includes exploit code. Your reaction is that this is irresponsible and should be punished immediately. My reaction is one of gratitude. I have no desire to crack any system, but I also don't want the systems I'm responsible for to be cracked, either. So, I want to learn how to protect my systems. My question to you is "How can I verify my system is hardened against a certain exploit without testing my system with that exploit?" I don't have the desire to figure out exploits. I just want to stop them. So, I go to CERN, subscribe to security lists, and purchase this book.
Take a hard look at that argument. It is almost identical in form to the argument that the NRA uses in USA politics when opposing gun control. "We must arm ourselves to protect our families against the criminals who already have the guns." Most conservatives would agree with that argument ... If you do, think long and hard what the difference is between the NRA's argument and mine.
Please remember that I'm crufty and crochety. All opinions are purely mine and all code is untested, unless otherwise specified.