SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
3,266
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 68:
Line 68: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Disturbed character (view source)
Revision as of 02:10, December 20, 2013
, 02:10, December 20, 2013→Still problems: Whatever. I guess my end-of-year vacation time is having a disturbing effect on my activities. Sorry. I'll stop.
::Note: I removed your note on evolutionists which was: "Many of these people were "evolutionists" in the pre-Darwin sense of the word, in that they believed in a "tree of life" or "Great Chain of Being", without claiming to know how that chain came into existence." Reason: While it is true that these evolutionists were pre-Darwinian, the description that follows does not make them different from Darwinians who also believed in tree of life [which was by the way the only drawing in Darwin's 'On origins of species...'] and also did not claim to know how that chain [sometimes starting at so called first replicant] came into existence. That's why such a note is irrelevant, a fortiori since the article does not name these evolutionists 'Darwinian'. Description of these people is supported by sources hence pls. just read them and do not change something that is sourced.
::Note: I removed your note on evolutionists which was: "Many of these people were "evolutionists" in the pre-Darwin sense of the word, in that they believed in a "tree of life" or "Great Chain of Being", without claiming to know how that chain came into existence." Reason: While it is true that these evolutionists were pre-Darwinian, the description that follows does not make them different from Darwinians who also believed in tree of life [which was by the way the only drawing in Darwin's 'On origins of species...'] and also did not claim to know how that chain [sometimes starting at so called first replicant] came into existence. That's why such a note is irrelevant, a fortiori since the article does not name these evolutionists 'Darwinian'. Description of these people is supported by sources hence pls. just read them and do not change something that is sourced.
I hope this helps.--[[User:AK|AK]] 18:27, 19 December 2013 (EST)
I hope this helps.--[[User:AK|AK]] 18:27, 19 December 2013 (EST)
I give up. Your article should be moved to essay space, and I suggested as much on the main talk page, though Iduan disagrees. I would like to know what he thinks about all this.
''I suggest that you read the books in sources first''
::No, I'm not an expert on this subject, and have not read ''In Sheep's Clothing'' or ''Character Disturbances'', though I suspect they are good books for laypeople. Your article should stand on its own merits, without first requiring the reader to read some book. By the way, I notice that the first URL you gave, to ''In Sheep's Clothing'', does not use the phrase "disturbed character" at all, and your second URL was not directly to Dr. Simon's web page, but had a ''tag search'' for the page, selecting the phrase "Disturbed Character".
''You however claim these details are not important''
::What I meant was that I didn't want to quibble over exactly who should be on the list. I presented a list of people that I considered notorious murderers. The details of their crimes were not important. I claim, though you obviously disagree, that most people would consider them "disturbed". I suspect Dr. Simon would also, but didn't write about them in his books because murderers were not the kinds of people that he was addressing when he wrote about people that are manipulative in one's everyday life. I doubt that he was writing about Clemenceau either, though I haven't read his books.
''You have to first show me the source which defines who 'everyone' is''
::No, I haven't scoured the planet for everyone's definition. Have you? I assume that people have a general, if only in "psychobabble" terms, perception of what "disturbed" means. If you reject that, I can't argue.
''To name all disturbed characters in the world would make the list uncomfortably long and unrealistic''
::Yes. So you write an article that seems to imply that there is only '''one''' such person?
''you choose one or few instances to represent certain phenomena''
::Yes. Do you think that Clemenceau adequately represents the class to which Timothy McVeigh belonged?
''While it is true that these evolutionists were pre-Darwinian, the description that follows ...''
::There is '''no''' description that follows. You say that people opposed Pasteur's theory refuting spontaneous generation, and then, without naming such people or saying anything about them, call them evolutionists. Darwinian or Lamarckian, you give no evidence that the people opposing Pasteur were evolutionists of any kind.
''Supported by sources?''
::Well, maybe the Debre book cites people other than Clemenceau; I haven't read it. Tell us who some of these other people were, and what the Debre book says about their Lamarckian/Darwinian beliefs, and whether they were "disturbed".
[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 21:10, 19 December 2013 (EST)