BoyWiki talk:Abuse policy - Revision history

User4: /* Opposing viewpoints */

2014-04-03T07:55:33Z

Opposing viewpoints

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:55, 3 April 2014
Line 10:		Line 10:
	The problems involved are purely intellectual and must be dealt with as such. It is disastrous to shift them to the moral sphere and to dispose of supporters of opposite ideologies by calling them villains. It is vain to insist that what we are aiming at is good and what our adversaries want is bad. The question to be solved is precisely what is to be considered as good and what as bad. The rigid dogmatism peculiar to religious groups and to Marxism results only in irreconcilable conflict. It condemns beforehand all dissenters as evildoers, it calls into question their good faith, it asks them to surrender unconditionally. No social cooperation is possible where such an attitude prevails.}}		The problems involved are purely intellectual and must be dealt with as such. It is disastrous to shift them to the moral sphere and to dispose of supporters of opposite ideologies by calling them villains. It is vain to insist that what we are aiming at is good and what our adversaries want is bad. The question to be solved is precisely what is to be considered as good and what as bad. The rigid dogmatism peculiar to religious groups and to Marxism results only in irreconcilable conflict. It condemns beforehand all dissenters as evildoers, it calls into question their good faith, it asks them to surrender unconditionally. No social cooperation is possible where such an attitude prevails.}}
	[[User:Leucosticte\|Leucosticte]] ([[User talk:Leucosticte\|talk]]) 22:29, 2 April 2014 (CEST)		[[User:Leucosticte\|Leucosticte]] ([[User talk:Leucosticte\|talk]]) 22:29, 2 April 2014 (CEST)

			:My two-cents worth

			:I think that anyone should be able to present their viewpoint, and be debated on the merits of their arguments. Unfortunately, most "antis" lack arguments. Instead, they make statements which they do not then support. Educating them is almost impossible - they usually will ''not'' follow links and read materials demonstrating the "truths" which they are in denial about (heh! it's nice to be able to use the phrase "in denial" when speaking of antis!)

			:If BW has clear, easy-to-read-and-understand explanations of the fallacies which are usually behind the anti's claims, I think it would be:
			:: easier for pedophile apologists to get their point across
			::easier for the antis (I know, I know... this is unrealistic...) who have half a functioning brain to understand
			::and clearer for anyone ''else'' who attempts to follow the "debate".

			:Oops! My two cents have just run out, and I have no more change to feed the meter...

			:[[User:User4\|User4]] ([[User talk:User4\|talk]]) 09:55, 3 April 2014 (CEST)

Lysander at 20:56, 2 April 2014

2014-04-02T20:56:29Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:56, 2 April 2014
Line 5:		Line 5:
	Over on ChildWiki, I posted [http://childwiki.net/wiki/Miscellany:Leucosticte's_account_of_his_5_March_2014_block_from_Meta-Wiki an account] of what happened when I tried to engage in debate over at Meta-Wiki about [[Wikipedia's child protection policy]]. There are many similar accounts (I would name names, but I'm not sure if that's considered appropriate here; people objected to it over at Wikiversity). I just wonder if we would treat them any better than they've treated us, if the shoe were on other foot.		Over on ChildWiki, I posted [http://childwiki.net/wiki/Miscellany:Leucosticte's_account_of_his_5_March_2014_block_from_Meta-Wiki an account] of what happened when I tried to engage in debate over at Meta-Wiki about [[Wikipedia's child protection policy]]. There are many similar accounts (I would name names, but I'm not sure if that's considered appropriate here; people objected to it over at Wikiversity). I just wonder if we would treat them any better than they've treated us, if the shoe were on other foot.

	George H. Smith writes, "A philosophical argument is spurred by an intellectual disagreement, and the purpose of argumentation is to resolve this conflict by reaching a common understanding among the participants." Theoretically, we should regard our opponents as collaborators in finding the truth, rather than as adversaries, but it seems like they want to dismiss us as unworthy collaborators because they think we're acting in bad faith. As Mises writes:		George H. Smith writes, "A philosophical argument is spurred by an intellectual disagreement, and the purpose of argumentation is to resolve this conflict by reaching a common understanding among the participants." Theoretically, we should regard our opponents as collaborators in finding the truth, rather than as adversaries, but it seems like they want to dismiss us as unworthy collaborators because they think we're acting in bad faith. As Mises [http://mises.org/humanaction/chap9sec2.asp writes]:
	{{cquote\|There is no other means of preventing social disintegration and of safeguarding the steady improvement of human conditions than those provided by reason. Men must try to think through all the problems involved up to the point beyond which a human mind cannot proceed farther. They must never acquiesce in any solutions conveyed by older generations, they must always question anew every theory and every theorem, they must never relax in their endeavors to brush away fallacies and to find the best possible cognition. They must fight error by unmasking spurious doctrines and by expounding truth.		{{cquote\|There is no other means of preventing social disintegration and of safeguarding the steady improvement of human conditions than those provided by reason. Men must try to think through all the problems involved up to the point beyond which a human mind cannot proceed farther. They must never acquiesce in any solutions conveyed by older generations, they must always question anew every theory and every theorem, they must never relax in their endeavors to brush away fallacies and to find the best possible cognition. They must fight error by unmasking spurious doctrines and by expounding truth.

	The problems involved are purely intellectual and must be dealt with as such. It is disastrous to shift them to the moral sphere and to dispose of supporters of opposite ideologies by calling them villains. It is vain to insist that what we are aiming at is good and what our adversaries want is bad. The question to be solved is precisely what is to be considered as good and what as bad. The rigid dogmatism peculiar to religious groups and to Marxism results only in irreconcilable conflict. It condemns beforehand all dissenters as evildoers, it calls into question their good faith, it asks them to surrender unconditionally. No social cooperation is possible where such an attitude prevails.}}		The problems involved are purely intellectual and must be dealt with as such. It is disastrous to shift them to the moral sphere and to dispose of supporters of opposite ideologies by calling them villains. It is vain to insist that what we are aiming at is good and what our adversaries want is bad. The question to be solved is precisely what is to be considered as good and what as bad. The rigid dogmatism peculiar to religious groups and to Marxism results only in irreconcilable conflict. It condemns beforehand all dissenters as evildoers, it calls into question their good faith, it asks them to surrender unconditionally. No social cooperation is possible where such an attitude prevails.}}
	[[User:Leucosticte\|Leucosticte]] ([[User talk:Leucosticte\|talk]]) 22:29, 2 April 2014 (CEST)		[[User:Leucosticte\|Leucosticte]] ([[User talk:Leucosticte\|talk]]) 22:29, 2 April 2014 (CEST)

Lysander at 20:56, 2 April 2014

2014-04-02T20:56:01Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:56, 2 April 2014
Line 3:		Line 3:
	Suppose someone were to show up here and start arguing on talk pages or user talk pages or the agora or similar places from an anti-boylove or anti-pederasty perspective. Would that user be blocked, or would he be allowed to debate people who are interested in those discussions? I don't think this is likely to happen, since the kind of people who oppose the viewpoints expressed on sites like this tend to want to vandalize, or criticize from sites they can control (and where our viewpoints would be censored), rather than engage in debate here. But I am just wondering what would happen if that did occur.		Suppose someone were to show up here and start arguing on talk pages or user talk pages or the agora or similar places from an anti-boylove or anti-pederasty perspective. Would that user be blocked, or would he be allowed to debate people who are interested in those discussions? I don't think this is likely to happen, since the kind of people who oppose the viewpoints expressed on sites like this tend to want to vandalize, or criticize from sites they can control (and where our viewpoints would be censored), rather than engage in debate here. But I am just wondering what would happen if that did occur.

	Over on ChildWiki, I posted [http://childwiki.net/wiki/Miscellany:Leucosticte's_account_of_his_5_March_2014_block_from_Meta-Wiki an account] of what happened when I tried to engage in debate over at Meta-Wiki about [[Wikipedia's child protection policy]]. There are many similar accounts (I would name names, but I'm not sure if that's considered appropriate here; people objected to it over at Wikiversity). I just wonder if we would treat them any better than they've treated us, if the shoe were on other foot. [[User:Leucosticte\|Leucosticte]] ([[User talk:Leucosticte\|talk]]) 22:29, 2 April 2014 (CEST)		Over on ChildWiki, I posted [http://childwiki.net/wiki/Miscellany:Leucosticte's_account_of_his_5_March_2014_block_from_Meta-Wiki an account] of what happened when I tried to engage in debate over at Meta-Wiki about [[Wikipedia's child protection policy]]. There are many similar accounts (I would name names, but I'm not sure if that's considered appropriate here; people objected to it over at Wikiversity). I just wonder if we would treat them any better than they've treated us, if the shoe were on other foot.

			George H. Smith writes, "A philosophical argument is spurred by an intellectual disagreement, and the purpose of argumentation is to resolve this conflict by reaching a common understanding among the participants." Theoretically, we should regard our opponents as collaborators in finding the truth, rather than as adversaries, but it seems like they want to dismiss us as unworthy collaborators because they think we're acting in bad faith. As Mises writes:
			{{cquote\|There is no other means of preventing social disintegration and of safeguarding the steady improvement of human conditions than those provided by reason. Men must try to think through all the problems involved up to the point beyond which a human mind cannot proceed farther. They must never acquiesce in any solutions conveyed by older generations, they must always question anew every theory and every theorem, they must never relax in their endeavors to brush away fallacies and to find the best possible cognition. They must fight error by unmasking spurious doctrines and by expounding truth.

			The problems involved are purely intellectual and must be dealt with as such. It is disastrous to shift them to the moral sphere and to dispose of supporters of opposite ideologies by calling them villains. It is vain to insist that what we are aiming at is good and what our adversaries want is bad. The question to be solved is precisely what is to be considered as good and what as bad. The rigid dogmatism peculiar to religious groups and to Marxism results only in irreconcilable conflict. It condemns beforehand all dissenters as evildoers, it calls into question their good faith, it asks them to surrender unconditionally. No social cooperation is possible where such an attitude prevails.}}
			[[User:Leucosticte\|Leucosticte]] ([[User talk:Leucosticte\|talk]]) 22:29, 2 April 2014 (CEST)

Lysander: /* Opposing viewpoints */ new section

2014-04-02T20:29:11Z

Opposing viewpoints: new section

New page

== Opposing viewpoints ==

Suppose someone were to show up here and start arguing on talk pages or user talk pages or the agora or similar places from an anti-boylove or anti-pederasty perspective. Would that user be blocked, or would he be allowed to debate people who are interested in those discussions? I don't think this is likely to happen, since the kind of people who oppose the viewpoints expressed on sites like this tend to want to vandalize, or criticize from sites they can control (and where our viewpoints would be censored), rather than engage in debate here. But I am just wondering what would happen if that did occur.

Over on ChildWiki, I posted [http://childwiki.net/wiki/Miscellany:Leucosticte's_account_of_his_5_March_2014_block_from_Meta-Wiki an account] of what happened when I tried to engage in debate over at Meta-Wiki about [[Wikipedia's child protection policy]]. There are many similar accounts (I would name names, but I'm not sure if that's considered appropriate here; people objected to it over at Wikiversity). I just wonder if we would treat them any better than they've treated us, if the shoe were on other foot. [[User:Leucosticte|Leucosticte]] ([[User talk:Leucosticte|talk]]) 22:29, 2 April 2014 (CEST)