Difference between revisions of "User talk:VargasMilan"

(263 intermediate revisions by 25 users not shown)

Line 156:

==Inserting false information==

−

When you banned me you put as the reason for my ban, "inserting false information", what was the false information I inserted? I just want to know so that I'm more careful and do not do the same thing again this time. --[[User:Burke39|Burke39]] 23:53, 11 May 2015 (EDT)

+

When you banned me you put as the reason for my ban, "inserting false information", what was the false information I inserted? I just want to know so that I'm more careful and do not do the same thing again this time. [[User:Burke39|Burke39]] 23:53, 11 May 2015 (EDT)

−

:::Also, what was my bad behavior in general? I want to make sure I know what mistakes to avoid in the future.--[[User:Burke39|Burke39]] 00:17, 12 May 2015 (EDT)

+

:::Also, what was my bad behavior in general? I want to make sure I know what mistakes to avoid in the future.[[User:Burke39|Burke39]] 00:17, 12 May 2015 (EDT)

:Well the CNN article was one. I just remember there being a number of problems. I believe I noted the problems in the edit summaries.

Line 164:

::But thank you for your positive contributions. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 00:44, 12 May 2015 (EDT)

−

:::Was a feeling that my editing was "liberal" part of the reason I was banned, or was it more so for poorly sourcing what I wrote? Because when I saw the "creepy bizarre/liberal sex topic quota" I thought that comment was odd because I'm actually far right politically on most other issues, although I guess I might be less conservative than this site in that one area. --[[User:Burke39|Burke39]] 00:53, 12 May 2015 (EDT)

+

:::Was a feeling that my editing was "liberal" part of the reason I was banned, or was it more so for poorly sourcing what I wrote? Because when I saw the "creepy bizarre/liberal sex topic quota" I thought that comment was odd because I'm actually far right politically on most other issues, although I guess I might be less conservative than this site in that one area. [[User:Burke39|Burke39]] 00:53, 12 May 2015 (EDT)

:You were behaving like a liberal spammer. The results of the edits being somewhat liberal made them seem more deliberate.

:As for the comment, I'd just be speculating. It was User:Conservative who said it. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 01:06, 12 May 2015 (EDT)

−

:::I think it might have been because of edits like this,[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Pedophilia&action=historysubmit&diff=1144550&oldid=1144544], I was making a positive statement in this edit, not a normative one. A positive statement is a neutral statement of fact that is not related to issues of right or wrong, while a normative statement refers to statements of fact that involve moral judgements. I was not saying pedophilia was ok in that edit, I was saying that I did not agree all religions condemned it, because numerous sources have said that Mohammad married a child and that the Talmud (which is a book some Jewish denominations use as a supplement to the Bible) allowed child marriage, I was not saying that what Mohammad allegedly did was right or that what the Talmud allegedly said was right, I was saying that because numerous sources have said that, the statement that all religions condemn pedophilia is questionable. That's not the same thing as saying pedophilia is ok, that's not what I was saying. And when I removed the part about homosexuals being connected to the pedophile advocates from the article, the reason was because homosexuality isn't the same thing as pedophilia, and because the advocates I saw mentioned looked like they were more so advocating a slight reduction in the legal age for sex, not legalizing pedophilia. I was not saying that I approved of homosexuality or that I agreed with their proposals. In the Alfred Kinsey article, when I removed the part saying he advocated adult sexual abuse of children, I did not remove it because it was not true, but because it did not have a source [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Alfred_Kinsey&action=historysubmit&diff=1144742&oldid=1144681]. I was not saying the statement was incorrect or defending Kinsey in any way. In the ephebophilia article,when I said that was not a problem [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Ephebophilia&action=historysubmit&diff=1145014&oldid=1144906], I was going by what the reliable sources says, that attraction includes attraction to legal adults, 18-19 year olds, so it isn't the same thing as pedophilia, saying its not a sexual perversion is not the same thing as saying it would be appropriate to act on it. So I think some of my edits were misinterpreted. --[[User:Burke39|Burke39]] 01:25, 12 May 2015 (EDT)

+

:::I think it might have been because of edits like this,[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Pedophilia&action=historysubmit&diff=1144550&oldid=1144544], I was making a positive statement in this edit, not a normative one. A positive statement is a neutral statement of fact that is not related to issues of right or wrong, while a normative statement refers to statements of fact that involve moral judgements. I was not saying pedophilia was ok in that edit, I was saying that I did not agree all religions condemned it, because numerous sources have said that Mohammad married a child and that the Talmud (which is a book some Jewish denominations use as a supplement to the Bible) allowed child marriage, I was not saying that what Mohammad allegedly did was right or that what the Talmud allegedly said was right, I was saying that because numerous sources have said that, the statement that all religions condemn pedophilia is questionable. That's not the same thing as saying pedophilia is ok, that's not what I was saying. And when I removed the part about homosexuals being connected to the pedophile advocates from the article, the reason was because homosexuality isn't the same thing as pedophilia, and because the advocates I saw mentioned looked like they were more so advocating a slight reduction in the legal age for sex, not legalizing pedophilia. I was not saying that I approved of homosexuality or that I agreed with their proposals. In the Alfred Kinsey article, when I removed the part saying he advocated adult sexual abuse of children, I did not remove it because it was not true, but because it did not have a source [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Alfred_Kinsey&action=historysubmit&diff=1144742&oldid=1144681]. I was not saying the statement was incorrect or defending Kinsey in any way. In the ephebophilia article,when I said that was not a problem [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Ephebophilia&action=historysubmit&diff=1145014&oldid=1144906], I was going by what the reliable sources says, that attraction includes attraction to legal adults, 18-19 year olds, so it isn't the same thing as pedophilia, saying its not a sexual perversion is not the same thing as saying it would be appropriate to act on it. So I think some of my edits were misinterpreted. [[User:Burke39|Burke39]] 01:25, 12 May 2015 (EDT)

:Like I said, they, perhaps incidentally, lined up on the side of liberalization. Because...treating human sexuality positively rather than normatively is in itself a liberal red flag. Beginning with Havelock Ellis. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 01:39, 12 May 2015 (EDT)

−

:::Ok, that is true. I remember Sigmund Freud, another advocate of sexual perversion whose writings I find highly disturbing, saying that he was not concerned with value judgements, and I think that is disgusting to ignore a normative role completely, because then things as heinous as pedophilia or sadism become acceptable. But when I made that statement about my statement about religious views on pedophilia being positive not normative, I was not saying I would treat the subject in general positively. It should be treated normatively because pedophilic acts are heinous and the attraction is disordered. I was just making the positive statement that some religions seemed to condone it, I was not advocating treating the topic in general in a positive way, in fact I maybe even should have followed making that statement by making clear with a normative statement that if a religion condones something that heinous, it is doing something morally repugnant and wrong. --[[User:Burke39|Burke39]] 01:47, 12 May 2015 (EDT)

+

:::Ok, that is true. I remember Sigmund Freud, another advocate of sexual perversion whose writings I find highly disturbing, saying that he was not concerned with value judgements, and I think that is disgusting to ignore a normative role completely, because then things as heinous as pedophilia or sadism become acceptable. But when I made that statement about my statement about religious views on pedophilia being positive not normative, I was not saying I would treat the subject in general positively. It should be treated normatively because pedophilic acts are heinous and the attraction is disordered. I was just making the positive statement that some religions seemed to condone it, I was not advocating treating the topic in general in a positive way, in fact I maybe even should have followed making that statement by making clear with a normative statement that if a religion condones something that heinous, it is doing something morally repugnant and wrong. [[User:Burke39|Burke39]] 01:47, 12 May 2015 (EDT)

==Christian Science==

−

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christian_Science&type=revision&diff=657309022&oldid=657229724] Wikipedia begins its article about Christian Science with the statement, "It was developed in 19th-century New England by Mary Baker Eddy" without saying "or as her adherents would prefer to say, discovered." I'm not going to edit war about this, but adding the second statement seems redundant and unencyclopedic to me. Saying that she founded does not imply that its a false religion, it just says that she is the person who started the religion in this world. --[[User:Burke39|Burke39]] 01:32, 12 May 2015 (EDT)

+

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christian_Science&type=revision&diff=657309022&oldid=657229724] Wikipedia begins its article about Christian Science with the statement, "It was developed in 19th-century New England by Mary Baker Eddy" without saying "or as her adherents would prefer to say, discovered." I'm not going to edit war about this, but adding the second statement seems redundant and unencyclopedic to me. Saying that she founded does not imply that its a false religion, it just says that she is the person who started the religion in this world. [[User:Burke39|Burke39]] 01:32, 12 May 2015 (EDT)

:Did you read my edit summary? She is presented by the sect as discovering the laws of spiritual forces rather than as treating symptoms. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 01:39, 12 May 2015 (EDT)

−

:::I did read it, I just don't agree that its necessary to put that in the lead. I don't think saying she started the religion in this world, implies that her claims that she discovered spiritual laws are false. And I think its less redundant. --[[User:Burke39|Burke39]] 01:49, 12 May 2015 (EDT)

+

:::I did read it, I just don't agree that its necessary to put that in the lead. I don't think saying she started the religion in this world, implies that her claims that she discovered spiritual laws are false. And I think its less redundant. [[User:B

@@ Line 156: / Line 156: @@
 ==Inserting false information==
-When you banned me you put as the reason for my ban, "inserting false information", what was the false information I inserted? I just want to know so that I'm more careful and do not do the same thing again this time. --[[User:Burke39|Burke39]] 23:53, 11 May 2015 (EDT)
+When you banned me you put as the reason for my ban, "inserting false information", what was the false information I inserted? I just want to know so that I'm more careful and do not do the same thing again this time. [[User:Burke39|Burke39]] 23:53, 11 May 2015 (EDT)
-:::Also, what was my bad behavior in general? I want to make sure I know what mistakes to avoid in the future.--[[User:Burke39|Burke39]] 00:17, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
+:::Also, what was my bad behavior in general? I want to make sure I know what mistakes to avoid in the future.[[User:Burke39|Burke39]] 00:17, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
 :Well the CNN article was one.  I just remember there being a number of problems.  I believe I noted the problems in the edit summaries.
@@ Line 164: / Line 164: @@
 ::But thank you for your positive contributions.  [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 00:44, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
-:::Was a feeling that my editing was "liberal" part of the reason I was banned, or was it more so for poorly sourcing what I wrote? Because when I saw the "creepy bizarre/liberal sex topic quota" I thought that comment was odd because I'm actually far right politically on most other issues, although I guess I might be less conservative than this site in that one area. --[[User:Burke39|Burke39]] 00:53, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
+:::Was a feeling that my editing was "liberal" part of the reason I was banned, or was it more so for poorly sourcing what I wrote? Because when I saw the "creepy bizarre/liberal sex topic quota" I thought that comment was odd because I'm actually far right politically on most other issues, although I guess I might be less conservative than this site in that one area. [[User:Burke39|Burke39]] 00:53, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
 :You were behaving like a liberal spammer.  The results of the edits being somewhat liberal made them seem more deliberate.
 :As for the comment, I'd just be speculating.  It was User:Conservative who said it.  [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 01:06, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
-:::I think it might have been because of edits like this,[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Pedophilia&action=historysubmit&diff=1144550&oldid=1144544], I was making a positive statement in this edit, not a normative one. A positive statement is a neutral statement of fact that is not related to issues of right or wrong, while a normative statement refers to statements of fact that involve moral judgements. I was not saying pedophilia was ok in that edit, I was saying that I did not agree all religions condemned it, because numerous sources have said that Mohammad married a child and that the Talmud (which is a book some Jewish denominations use as a supplement to the Bible) allowed child marriage, I was not saying that what Mohammad allegedly did was right or that what the Talmud allegedly said was right, I was saying that because numerous sources have said that, the statement that all religions condemn pedophilia is questionable. That's not the same thing as saying pedophilia is ok, that's  not what I was saying. And when I removed the part about homosexuals being connected to the pedophile advocates from the article, the reason was because homosexuality isn't the same thing as pedophilia, and because the advocates I saw mentioned looked like they were more so advocating a slight reduction in the legal age for sex, not legalizing pedophilia. I was not saying that I approved of homosexuality or that I agreed with their proposals. In the Alfred Kinsey article, when I removed the part saying he advocated adult sexual abuse of children, I did not remove it because it was not true, but because it did not have a source [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Alfred_Kinsey&action=historysubmit&diff=1144742&oldid=1144681]. I was not saying the statement was incorrect or defending Kinsey in any way. In the ephebophilia article,when I said that was not a problem [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Ephebophilia&action=historysubmit&diff=1145014&oldid=1144906], I was going by what the reliable sources says, that attraction includes attraction to legal adults, 18-19 year olds, so it isn't the same thing as pedophilia, saying its not a sexual perversion is not the same thing as saying it would be appropriate to act on it. So I think some of my edits were misinterpreted. --[[User:Burke39|Burke39]] 01:25, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
+:::I think it might have been because of edits like this,[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Pedophilia&action=historysubmit&diff=1144550&oldid=1144544], I was making a positive statement in this edit, not a normative one. A positive statement is a neutral statement of fact that is not related to issues of right or wrong, while a normative statement refers to statements of fact that involve moral judgements. I was not saying pedophilia was ok in that edit, I was saying that I did not agree all religions condemned it, because numerous sources have said that Mohammad married a child and that the Talmud (which is a book some Jewish denominations use as a supplement to the Bible) allowed child marriage, I was not saying that what Mohammad allegedly did was right or that what the Talmud allegedly said was right, I was saying that because numerous sources have said that, the statement that all religions condemn pedophilia is questionable. That's not the same thing as saying pedophilia is ok, that's  not what I was saying. And when I removed the part about homosexuals being connected to the pedophile advocates from the article, the reason was because homosexuality isn't the same thing as pedophilia, and because the advocates I saw mentioned looked like they were more so advocating a slight reduction in the legal age for sex, not legalizing pedophilia. I was not saying that I approved of homosexuality or that I agreed with their proposals. In the Alfred Kinsey article, when I removed the part saying he advocated adult sexual abuse of children, I did not remove it because it was not true, but because it did not have a source [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Alfred_Kinsey&action=historysubmit&diff=1144742&oldid=1144681]. I was not saying the statement was incorrect or defending Kinsey in any way. In the ephebophilia article,when I said that was not a problem [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Ephebophilia&action=historysubmit&diff=1145014&oldid=1144906], I was going by what the reliable sources says, that attraction includes attraction to legal adults, 18-19 year olds, so it isn't the same thing as pedophilia, saying its not a sexual perversion is not the same thing as saying it would be appropriate to act on it. So I think some of my edits were misinterpreted. [[User:Burke39|Burke39]] 01:25, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
 :Like I said, they, perhaps incidentally, lined up on the side of liberalization.  Because...treating human sexuality positively rather than normatively is in itself a liberal red flag.  Beginning with Havelock Ellis.  [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 01:39, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
-:::Ok, that is true. I remember Sigmund Freud, another advocate of sexual perversion whose writings I find highly disturbing, saying that he was not concerned with value judgements, and I think that is disgusting to ignore a normative role completely, because then things as heinous as pedophilia or sadism become acceptable. But when I made that statement about my statement about religious views on pedophilia being positive not normative, I was not saying I would treat the subject in general positively. It should be treated normatively because pedophilic acts are heinous and the attraction is disordered. I was just making the positive statement that some religions seemed to condone it, I was not advocating treating the topic in general in a positive way, in fact I maybe even should have followed making that statement by making clear with a normative statement that if a religion condones something that heinous, it is doing something morally repugnant and wrong. --[[User:Burke39|Burke39]] 01:47, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
+:::Ok, that is true. I remember Sigmund Freud, another advocate of sexual perversion whose writings I find highly disturbing, saying that he was not concerned with value judgements, and I think that is disgusting to ignore a normative role completely, because then things as heinous as pedophilia or sadism become acceptable. But when I made that statement about my statement about religious views on pedophilia being positive not normative, I was not saying I would treat the subject in general positively. It should be treated normatively because pedophilic acts are heinous and the attraction is disordered. I was just making the positive statement that some religions seemed to condone it, I was not advocating treating the topic in general in a positive way, in fact I maybe even should have followed making that statement by making clear with a normative statement that if a religion condones something that heinous, it is doing something morally repugnant and wrong. [[User:Burke39|Burke39]] 01:47, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
 ==Christian Science==
-[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christian_Science&type=revision&diff=657309022&oldid=657229724] Wikipedia begins its article about Christian Science with the statement, "It was developed in 19th-century New England by Mary Baker Eddy" without saying "or as her adherents would prefer to say, discovered." I'm not going to edit war about this, but adding the second statement seems redundant and unencyclopedic to me. Saying that she founded does not imply that its a false religion, it just says that she is the person who started the religion in this world. --[[User:Burke39|Burke39]] 01:32, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
+[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christian_Science&type=revision&diff=657309022&oldid=657229724] Wikipedia begins its article about Christian Science with the statement, "It was developed in 19th-century New England by Mary Baker Eddy" without saying "or as her adherents would prefer to say, discovered." I'm not going to edit war about this, but adding the second statement seems redundant and unencyclopedic to me. Saying that she founded does not imply that its a false religion, it just says that she is the person who started the religion in this world. [[User:Burke39|Burke39]] 01:32, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
 :Did you read my edit summary?  She is presented by the sect as discovering the laws of spiritual forces rather than as treating symptoms. [[User:VargasMilan|VargasMilan]] 01:39, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
-:::I did read it, I just don't agree that its necessary to put that in the lead. I don't think saying she started the religion in this world, implies that her claims that she discovered spiritual laws are false. And I think its less redundant. --[[User:Burke39|Burke39]] 01:49, 12 May 2015 (EDT)
+:::I did read it, I just don't agree that its necessary to put that in the lead. I don't think saying she started the religion in this world, implies that her claims that she discovered spiritual laws are false. And I think its less redundant. [[User:B