User talk:ElectricRay/Archive2

Impartiality

Fear and loathing...well, anyone who likes Hunter S. Thompson is OK by me. Anyway, getting back to your one question on impartiality. Berumen says that impartiality is what give morality its wheels, for it is what extends our common sense principles or rational prohibitions (don't harm oneself without a reason) to other people without prejudice (as would be the case if we grounded it in, say, compassion, for, falling short of the few Mother Theresas of the world, most of us don't have compassion towards everyone. Reason and rationality do not require impartiality, neither do they prohibit it. Impartiality is not a moral concept, by itself, for one could imparitally administer the rules of a concentration camp or any number of horrible venues. Impartiality simply means (according to him) that we do not apply the rules or principles by which any particular circumstance is being judged (e.g., a coin toss, a legal proceeding, a game, an athletic event, etc.) in a manner that favors one outcome over another, even when that outcome would favor or penalize ourselves or someone about whome we cared. It does not mean we are without a personal bias, only that we must set any bias aside in judging the rules. Thus, if we apply our rational prohibitions to others, impartially, we do not do so in a manner that favors one outcome over another, even when doing so would be to our disadvantage. He contends that fairness, a related concept, is not an intrinsically moral concept without having considered other principles. Fairness, as in fairly judging darts, simply means we apply the rules consistently, equally, and without bias. But we can also apply a set of rules for ritual sacrifice fairly, so in and of itself, fairness is not a moral principle. Berumen therefore argues that impartiality, or fairness, becomes a moral principle only when we combine the concept with other ideas, such as our rational requirements not to do harm to ourselves. So, if impartiality is not required by reason or rationality (reason does not dictate our ends, and there is nothing irrational about being partial), why be impartial? Berumen says at bottome one must take the Humean position, because it comports with our passions to do well by others, etc., and perhaps because of Sidgwick's intuition that the unviverse, after all, does not seem to "prefer" one person's interests over another's, a kind of cosmic impartiality (he meant this as a simile of course, not that the universe has feelings or perspectives). Anyway, I trust this finds you well and that this, whether convincing or not, at least helps explains his idea. icut4u

• definitely helps explain the idea, and definitely finds me well. I note with alarm you've left the building (anyone who likes Elvis is ok by me!) and hope it is only to catch an breath of fresh air, and that you'll be back for an encore of "An American Trilogy" soon. Safe travels ElectricRay 14:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Re: blocking and protecting

Don't worry -- has nothing to do with you. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:04, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure he's shaking in his boots. --Zephram Stark 18:49, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

File:LaughterTears.gif

Wikisuicide

Thanks for making me ruin another keyboard. You shouldn't put things like that on your user page without a disclaimer about trying to drink coffee while reading it.

Please weigh in on whether or not the Wikisuicide article should be deleted. I know your opinion may be different, but I consider it valuable. To delete or not to delete?

By way of background, Uncle Ed referenced "Wikistalking" on User:Jayjg's talk page. Wikistalking references Wikisuicide. --Zephram Stark 19:19, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Political Compass

Hey, I remember you put some data in on the talk page of Political Compass and I was wondering if I could borrow it/you could give it to my user subproject on the political perspectives of Wikipedians. karmafist 22:13, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Anarchism / political compass

I suppose you meant to say +10/-10? -10/+10 would mean the authoritarian left. Anarchism, in the traditional sense, sees people restrained by capitalist economic systems and bureaucracy, which they argue shepherd people into certain social positions and reinforce inequality. Anarchism in that sense is opposed to any system utilizing a social hierarchy, including these systems. I was a (right) libertarian myself for a number of years, and later an anarcho-capitalist, so I can understand the confusion. If you picture anarchism as simply advocation of the abolition of government, it's not hard to see anarcho-capitalism, but it's generally a bit more radical than that. There's considerable debate as to whether anarcho-capitalism is anarchism at all, or just an extension of libertarian theory that wants to "free" the market from government intervention. It might also help to take a look at the libertarian socialism article. Hope that clears things up. Sarge Baldy 20:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

What had me confused at first was that anarchy (linguistically) doesn't simply mean an absence of government, and that the etymology of the word (an [no] archy [rule]) actually shows it to mean an absence of rule. Bureaucracies by definition contain hierarchies (hier [high priest] archy [rule]), with managers effectively ruling over clerical workers and both effectively ruled by a massive set of institutional guidelines. These same hierarchies exist between any groups of unequal power, such as men and women, the dominant race and the minorities, the rich and the poor. That's the position taken by most anarchists, and perhaps worth some consideration. Sarge Baldy 21:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Image:051210 Political Compass.gif has been listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:051210 Political Compass.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Berumen

Hi, why did you delete the section on Berumen rather than moving it to an archive? I had a near identical run-in with icut4you et al, where he also played the libel card when I alleged that Berumen was non-notable as a philosopher. Ended up with Jimbo himself deleting the discussion noting in the edit history 'deleted after legal threats from Berumen.' He's also been happy with the legal threats to others. The guy is massively controversial here on Wikipedia. Anyway, every few months someone new notices Berumen's article (think it has been on VfD around three times) or more importantly his inappropriate insertion into various philosophy articles, and the whole thing starts up again. Interesting thing is - it's different people, with varied edit histories, questioning his inclusion, while it is _always_ the same cabal of icut4you, Ockham, Logic2go etc. defending him. Anyway, think it would be better to have keep the discussion on an archive page for possible interest next time the issue comes around. But it's your talk page, so up to you. Blorg 22:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi again, thanks for the reply; you archive just by adding /Archive1 etc to the end of your talk page, e.g. User_talk:ElectricRay/Archive1, creating the page, then cut and paste what you want to archive and add a link on the original talk page. That works, anyway, there may be some more sophisticated way! It's a lot easier to find than trawling through the page history, as this grows very quickly with every edit.

I agree completely with your diagnosis; icut4you clearly has a good knowledge of philosophy and _has_ made good contributions to non-Berumen topics but I don't see how the overarching obsession with such a minor figure can be explained in any other way (the insinuation of libel threats also supports such a diagnosis.) I also strongly suspect that many of the supporting cabal are the same person, as are many of the reviews of the book on Amazon.

I'm not too bothered by a small article on the man, but more the insertion of his views into every philosophy article imaginable, often in the same sentence as a notable philosopher, suggesting equivalence. Thankfully these are all gone now, I think he was just pushing it a little too much up to the point where it became ridiculous and was noticed by more people. I'd continue to keep an eye out, however, as icut4you pulled the whole "I don't find the whole thing important, I was mistaken in ever trying to contribute to Wikipedia and I will retire now" thing over a year ago, and indeed pulls it out regularly in these debates. He then pops back up when the thing quietens down. -- Blorg 12:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Relativism Alert

• er, I beg your pardon? ElectricRay 21:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

At the above link, User:Tony Sidaway says, "An opinion is always a point of view. Bias is immaterial; if something is not a fact but an opinion it should not be represented as a fact."

As I understand it, Tony fails to use relativism in his above statement. Is that true or am I just being paranoid? --Peace Inside 22:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

well, I'm not sure why you're asking me! I would say there aren't really any (or many) facts, and therefore that almost anything is a point of view, but aside from that I don't see the issue. And as far as I know (ie, not at all) Tony might not subscribe to relativism - most people, after all, don't. So what's there to be paranoid about? ElectricRay 10:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The first two sentences of Lao-Tzu's Tao Te Ching state, "The tao that can be described is not the eternal Tao. The name that can be spoken is not the eternal Name." After stating that the concept cannot be described, the book goes on to describe it as something very close to the modern notions of political relativism. The reason for the dichotomy, I believe, is that the book cannot claim to be an absolute reference while also saying that absolute references do not exist.

In the same way, we cannot describe to people the beauty and peace that come from relativism without sounding like we are espousing the "trueness" of relativism (which is, of course, the opposite of what relativism is all about). Luckily, relativism is so much more useful than any other methods of social interaction that its benefits become obvious when people are exposed to its implementation.

I have come to you because it is evident from your writings that you know the way better than anyone at Wikipedia, myself included. I would be honored to team with you in creating systems of relativism here at Wikipedia if that is your wish. I believe that by interacting and solving differences of opinion at various articles within an arena of relativism, we can help create areas of Wikipedia free of vandalism and biased POV. Others may see that the results of such an approach are superior to assumptions of absolute truth and choose to adopt a relativistic approach in their own lives. This, in turn, may enable Wikipedia to be a much friendlier and more reliable resource. --Peace Inside 01:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

You are very kind - although (as a good relativist!) I am sure my understanding of it is no better than yours or many other people's - simply different. Of recent times I have been particularly taken with Richard Rorty's exposition of relativism arising from "truth" being a function of "language", and language being necessarily a subjective thing (my language; the meaning i ascribe to things, is subtly different to yours, and even to other members of my own family, for example). I would be happy to discuss this with you and co-operate in creating a system (though I'm not sure what this would involve - please let me know your thoughts). I'm trying to write a book about relativism, economics and politics, so I would value the opportunity to bounce things off you, too. Let me know.

I was just talking about relativism in regard to the prescriptive element of language at Science fiction Western:Linguistic Prescription. I'm sure you could add greatly to the conversation. *Peace Inside 18:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

As for the argument about George Bush and vandalism, etc: - i don't think all the relativist education (if there is such a thing) in the world is going to stop that... my view is let the kids fight it out in the playground. It seemed pretty unimportant, and best ignored. ElectricRay 10:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that making as little of a deal about it as possible will reduce the effectiveness of the vandalism being done, which could affect motivation to do it in the first place, but I also find the issue interesting from a broad sociopolitical standpoint. The vandalism of Wikipedia is akin to terrorism of the real world: both actions are the most disruptive things that people can do in each situation. Some articles receive virtually no vandalism even though they may be controversial. By the same token, some countries receive no terrorism even though they may be well off. If we could figure out the conditions that reduce vandalism at Wikipedia, the same concepts might work in relationship to terrorism. *Peace Inside 18:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Interesting - I agree that Wikipedia is an interesting sociopolitical experiment (though *the internet* is an even more interesting one), and vandalism is an interesting phenomenon, though I would compare it more with grafitti or (real world) vandalism than terrorism - though I guess on one measure the difference between vandalism and terrorism is really just a matter of degree. And one man's constructive editing is another man's vandalism, too - it never fails to amaze me how many people just totally fail to get what "neutral point of view means". Then again, as a good relativist, I'm not convinced there is such a thing as a neutral point of view (other than uninterpreted sensory data) so I'm probably a bad person to ask. Isn't "neutral point of view" actually a contradiction in terms? I think a more constructive policy would be to identify points of view. The other thing I'd say about vandalism is, again, like a good relativist, some of the vandalism I've seen is a good deal less pernicious than some of the behaviour of admin-grade editors in this place, some of whom treat it like some sort of fiefdom, and brutalise lesser editors who happen to have different points of view (it's not happened to me, but I've seen it happen to others).

In terms of real world terrorism, it's pretty obvious to me which sorts of countries suffer terrorism: those which have active, interventionist policies - particularly foreign policies, but often domestic ones also - ie which seek to impose their own values on specific communities which, for better or for worse, don't share them. Terrorism tends not to be directed not against people but against governments - people are simply the collateral for terrorism. For example, Russia (Chechens), Spain (Basques), United Kingdom (Northen Irish, Muslims), Israel (Palestinians), United States (everyone in the world). All are governments which go out of their way to institutionally aggravate specific communities (irrespective of the rights or wrongs out of doing so). When people are disenfranchised and pissed off by a government they respond in the only way they can. I don't have any data or better arguments to back up this theory, but it seems plausible, and it's eminently relativistic. Not sure how this relates back to Wikipedia: i think some of the vandalism is not a product of Wikipedia community, but the real world of which Wikipedia represents a simulacrum. Wikipedia will never fix that! ElectricRay 23:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I define a Neutral Point of View in relative terms as something that everyone agrees is factual. For example, if everyone agrees that terrorism is evil, then the article can say that terrorism is evil, but if a single person says that he honestly believes terrorism isn't necessarily evil, then the article must cite President Bush or someone saying "terrorism is evil." If everyone agrees that President Bush said "terrorism is evil," the article is able to convey that assertion while still maintaining an NPOV for the guy who thinks that terrorism isn't necessarily evil. Relativism allows us to achieve real consensus, not WP:Consensus which is really just an obfuscating way of saying super majority.

Of course there are still issues of relevance to an article, but relativism allows us to answer these questions quite easily too in terms of what is most useful. The information that would be most useful to the widest range of readers goes to the top, while the least useful information goes to the bottom or drops off completely. When we assume that there is no absolute truth, it becomes easy to concentrate on the usefulness of Wikipedia. *Peace Inside 03:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

AfD Procedure

You made a comment on the Beruman AfD about there being a consensus, so how do we close it. Briefly, we "mere mortals" cannot. Only Admins can; one needs to be elected to the position. They will look at the AfD page, and see it there is a consensus, and then close the discussion and delete the page (note you and I cannot delete pages). More info here if you want it. Any more qs, please feel free to leave a message on my Talk Page. Batmanand 09:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I am not sure, however, that I agree with you about the admins. Whilst, of course, some do see themselves as superiors - school prefects as you put it - I have found in my experience they are in a very small minority. As Jimbo says, admin status is "no big deal", and I think that the vast majority of admins understand this. They are more "janitors" than "managers". If you have had a problem with an admin, set up a Request for Comment, and see what others think. Batmanand 10:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Erm no. People hold Jimbo in high esteem for three reasons. 1. He OWNS the site, and can (and, very occasionally does) make unilateral decisions which no-one can argue with. In that sense, I suppose, he is "God", except that he does not demand we pray to him and reveals himself much more clearly than the religious God. Jimbo could, if he wanted to, revoke all admins of their status; but he does not, because he thinks having admins is useful. So do most of the community. 2. Over a long period of time, he has shown himself to be the most commited to the principles of NPOV, verifiability etc. After all, he created most of the policies! 3. Jimbo is the single longest-serving member of the project, and as such, as in pretty much all communities, we respect our elders. We do not elevate him to "GodKing", as you say. Lots of people disagree with Jimbo lots of the time. But nonetheless, he is, almost always, right, in the sense that he has the project's best interests at heart. Batmanand 10:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

God King of Wikipedia

Before saying that Jimbo isn't the God King of Wikipedia, you may want to take a look at why he blocked Peace Inside: Jimbo Founder?. Also check out CfD:Category:Living people and what Jimbo deleted. You may also be interested in the parts of your conversation with Carbonite that Carbonite deleted. [1][2] --KIMP (spewage) 01:21, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Rob Muldoon

In regards to your neo-liberal comment. I find it to be mentioned regularly in regards to how National's ruthanasia effected the New Zealand Health System in literature I've read. Neo-liberal tends to be the forefront term for this event they have termed the big bang.

You're right that Roger Douglas would be unlikely to call himself neo-liberal, however he has called himself liberal on many occasions, even helping form ACT New Zealand- the motto of this party is The Liberal Party.

-- Greaser 01:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

AfD Thanks

Please accept my embarrassingly belated thank you for supporting my RfA, which much to my surprise passed 102/1/1, earning me minor notoriety. I am grateful for all the supportive comments, and have already started doing the things people wanted me to be able to do. And hopefully nothing else... Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 12:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Bogosity

I wish I _could_ claim this one, but unfortunately it is well established; it's even in wikipedia:

bogosity: /boh·go´s@·tee/, n.

1. [orig. CMU, now very common] The degree to which something is bogus. Bogosity is measured with a bogometer; in a seminar, when a speaker says something bogus, a listener might raise his hand and say “My bogometer just triggered”. More extremely, “You just pinned my bogometer” means you just said or did something so outrageously bogus that it is off the scale, pinning the bogometer needle at the highest possible reading (one might also say “You just redlined my bogometer”). The agreed-upon unit of bogosity is the microLenat.

2. The potential field generated by a bogon flux; see quantum bogodynamics. See also bogon flux, bogon filter, bogus. [3]

Anyway, problem gone now I think, well done yourself. -- Blorg 23:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Ruthanasia

I think both Richardson and Ruthanasia are independent articles. I think that Ruthanasia is far more note worthy than Richardson's three years as a minister. From there they went off on tangents, three years of Ruthanasia drew the Nats scorn for doing as their preceeding Labour Party government did: almost exactly the opposite of what they promised to do economically and, Richardson ended up becoming a back bencher then, later, almost talismanic for the ACT Party.

As for it being pejorative, in its own way the third way can be considered so too. Whilst laissez-faire is a term that no politician with any hopes of centrism would mention even if it aptly fits their policies.

I'm in favour of keeping it as Ruthanasia, it's well cemented in NZ political lingo. Its neutrality is unquestionable - the ACT Party openly promotes it and sought Richardson to run for them whilst Labour scorns it; that's as neutral as politics ever gets! -- Greaser 01:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Handel

I'm totally with you on this. If I were you, I would just be bold and create the new page "References To Handel" and export all the crap to that, rather than worrying about building the consensus before doing so. I did the same for Marduk and already feel much better! ElectricRay 21:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. I guess I would rather wait for a response from the trivia supporters, so that they don't end up reverting my changes again due to "lack of consensus". I think I will feel much better, though, once the move happens. :)-Sesquialtera II 22:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)