User talk:71.56.221.81

I have created a rational, objective addition to the Rational Wiki article on "authoritarianism". An admitted left wing authoritarian named EVDebs has attempted to edit out my statement of fact regarding left wing authoritarianism, claiming it is "tinfoil hattery". However, his objection that the statement of fact is "tinfoil hattery" is simply a logical falacy. It is a mere argument by assertion, with no rational, well-reasoned argument put forth with any sufficient specificity. On his User page he describes himself thus:

"very liberal socially, but rather centrist economically (I support a mixed capitalist-socialist system with a mandated living wage, strong, independent labor representation and a decent public health safety net to be deployed alongside a well-regulated private health care system, for example, but I also have some libertarian quirky bits)."

He very clearly has a strong left wing authoritarian bias, BY HIS OWN ADMISSION. Since I am trying to include a bit about such left wing bias HE IS NOT QUALIFIED TO EDIT SUCH A POSTING because the posting itself is about those very biases that he is serving by editing to serve his own left wing authoritarian agenda.
 * Oh great, you think socialized medicine and social insurance is the spawn of Hitler? Osaka Sun (talk) 20:38, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

No, Osaka, you are not addressing any of the premises of my argument. I am saying that they are objectively and rationally left-wing and authoritarian.

Now an admin has placed an abusive block on me for stating some objective facts about left wing authoritarianism in america.

The user Scream!! has abused his admin status by banning me for stating objective, rational, scientific facts about left wing authoritarianism. Scream has abused his position and is not competent to be an admin. He has banned me because I put objective, rational facts about left wing authoritarianism on Rational Wiki. He is trying to censor FACTUAL information being disseminated.


 * No, idiot, I blocked you for making "Boring repetitive reversions to established articles". Just go away & take your silly tea party stuff with you. Scream!! (talk) 21:13, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh and:
 * Scream!! (talk) 21:13, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

@scream, why do you feel you have to resort to authoritarian verbal abuse? First off, I am not a part of the "Tea Party". The fact that you would even make such a statement is outwardly demonstrative that you are operating from your own left-wing authoritarian bias. You are violating the purpose of the site, which is: "About RationalWiki

Our purpose here at RationalWiki includes: Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement. Documenting the full range of crank ideas. Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism."

I am trying to insert a factual statement of left wing authoritarianism. You have tried to censor me from doing so, and have vandalized my contributions acting out of your own left wing authoritarian bias, evidenced by your own statement:

"Just go away & take your silly tea party stuff with you."

I never said I was a tea party member. I am simply trying to state the OBJECTIVE FACT that left wing authoritarianism IS STILL AUTHORITARIANISM, and I never even made a value judgement that it is "bad". You have gone to great length to censor information on this topic out of your own bias and have abused your admin status.

YES, I reverted the article, because my contirbutions were being vandalized by a self-admitted left wing authoritarian.

You have made up this "tea party" thing out of thin air and projected it onto me which is evidence of your bias.

Admin scream has further compounded his abuses by coming on here and verbally abusing me. Such abuse makes him unworthy to be an admin.

Also telling, is neither Scream nor Osaka have provided any intelligible rebuttle of any of my statements of fact.

The only "argument" to speak of from Scream is his fallacious ad hominem personal insults, he has demonstrated he is irrational and hostile to the free flow of information.
 * Err ... Fuck off? Scream!! (talk) 21:48, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Wow, do you have an actual well reasoned, articulate, intelligible rebuttle? [insert crickets]

Or are you only capable of irrational personal insults?

You have the opportunity to rebut any of my allegations that you have abused your admin status. If you fail to do so, I will take that as your aquiescence that you have done so. You come on here to engage me in more of your abuse, but you fail to rebut any of the allegations. Telling.
 * Scream!! (talk) 21:58, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

A voice of reason is heard in the land (edit button)
OK children, let's all calm down here for a moment. Here's the thing 71.56.221.81, this website is pretty heavily left wing/liberal. I'm sure that if you did a poll you would find that I'm the only one here that describes themselves as a Right Winger or a Conservative (is what's his face still around? I don't pay attention to these things). So, you really aren't going to find many people who aren't going to have a noticeable left wing bias.


 * (Sorry to interject) uh... so can we use "right winger" ourselves, or is that your word? --Eira undefined 04:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Having said that, the onus is actually on you to provide evidence in this case. Your edit was that the US is currently a left wing military dictatorship, which is going to require sources on three things: 1) that President Obama is even left wing in any sense other than "he's not a Republican", 2) That President Obama is any more of a dictator that any President since Reagan, and 3) that the US is a military dictatorship, because as a currently serving member of the US military that is interesting news to me.

If you are unable or unwilling to provide evidence of your claims from a reputable source, then they will be prevented from being included in the articles. --Token Conservative (talk) 22:23, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Nicely said, Hamilton. The BoN was so much fun though! Scream!! (talk) 22:30, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is highly liberal and highly authoritarian. Your point of argument 2) shows your own authoritarian bias Hamilton. You say that in order to show he is a military dictator, I need to show he is more of a dictator than reagan. You presuupose Regan is not a dictator, when factually that is what he was. A dictator is a dictator. Obabma being less of a dictator does not make him a non-dictator.

Really, you are not aware that your missions are dictated to you by Obama?
 * Well, there are still two other things you need to provide evidence for.--Token Conservative (talk) 22:42, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

And even, arguendo, if what Hamilton says is true(which I'm not conceeding it is), that does not change that Scream!! has abused his status as admin by using verbal abuse/personal attacks.
 * As we conservatives are want to say, grow a thicker skin and shut up.--Token Conservative (talk) 22:51, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * (EC) Change of subject much? I don't think that being a sysop has a great deal of status on here but I am pleased to be accused of abusing it. Just go away, please! Scream!! (talk) 22:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)


 * "I am pleased to be accused of abusing it"- precisely the reason you should not have it
 * Please sign and date your talk page posts with four tildes, thus ~


 * I will support Hamilton's suggestion that you grow a thicker skin. If you like, you could start a case at the henhouse regarding Scream's patently egregious block, which expired a while ago.
 * BRB, making popcorn, Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 23:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * My personal political statement can only qualify as authoritarian in a libertarian fantasy world, so I'll thank you not to tell me what I am. (Yes, I am definitely a statist. That is not the same as authoritarian, and it's dishonest to claim otherwise.) Second, while I'm not an all-out Obama defender, your accusation of him being a military dictator is, indeed, just so much tinfoil hattery, and kind of a PRATT besides. I stress the latter because you are unlikely to find a credible, reasonably objective source that will support your positions without doing severe violence to the English language, not that I would put it past you to do so given how you interpreted my statement of my politics. In fact, I do not expect us to be able to have a rational discussion with you, although you could surprise me. EVDebs (talk) 03:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

@EVDebs: So do you believe that the definition of "authoritarian" is as the article describes? "Its adherents don't necessarily want to "tell you what to do" - as long as, if they disagree with you, someone else in power will tell you what to do." So, if you are not an authoritarian, are you saying that you do not agree with the definition, or that the definition just doesn't specifically apply to you? As part of your admitted "statist" agenda, do you not then wish to have people in power telling others what to do? All you have provided as a rebuttal is a serious of fallacious arguments-by-assertion and ad hominems. You have not provided any reasoned argument or facts to support your assertion of "tin foil hattery", you just want me to take your word for it as if you are the authority. I am awaiting your explanation of how you say you want a state, yet simultaneously do not want people in power telling us what to do, or your reasoned analysis of how the definition of "authoritarianism" is in error. I do not expect you to provide a reasoned response that actually addresses any of the premises of my argument. This is the point of my statements on left wing authoritarians: they are completely blind to their own authoritarian aggression. They are in utter denial of the facts. Left wing authoritarians like EVDebs are in total denial as to their own authoritarian tendencies.
 * Mmmmyeah, no intention of defending myself to you beyond what I've already done. Spoiled brattitude should not be an ideology. EVDebs (talk) 04:41, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

So then you admit that you have no rational argument to support your assertions, only logical fallacies. Your ideology is to stick a gun to people's heads and pretend it's not a gun. You are incapable of intellectual honesty.
 * I tend to prefer mockery to debate when dealing with Dunning-Kruger cases, but my alt.flame mojo is on the downswing tonight, so I'll just badger you instead. EVDebs (talk) 04:50, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Like I said, I do not expect you to provide a reasoned debate that actually adresses the premises of my argument. You just provide more fallacious ad hominems, proving me right. So keep going with the ad hominems, if it is all you have to support your position. Like the article says, authoritarians are prone to sloppy reasoning.

You left wing authoritarians want to use the violence of the state to enforce your "progressive" ideas on people whether they like it or not. You claim you are statist yet not authoritarian. You say they are not the same thing. Yet you provide no reasoned argument to support such an assertion. It is authoritarian double-speak. You think that your state violence is "good", and refuse to even acknowledge the violence or the authoritarianism of it. You even have to cencor me and vandalize my contribution, you cannot stand to have your violence exposed.
 * Bla bla bla yada yada yada. Learn to sign your posts, noob. EVDebs (talk) 05:08, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for further proving me right with more fallacious ad hominems.
 * People like you get this idea that you're owed a debate and I have to be honest, I don't really get what you expect. We both know nothing I say is going to convince you, because you're clearly not willing to be convinced of anything you don't already believe. You can throw out whatever abused buzzwords and other language manglings you fancy, but it won't make a damn bit of difference in terms of debate. One thing's for sure, I owe you nothing in terms of an explanation because I have no reason you're here to do anything except convince yourself that we don't count. EVDebs (talk) 05:20, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Learn to sign your damn posts. Why do you expect someone else to go and do your work for you?  If you want to participate in a discussion then you need to sign your posts.  DamoHi 05:27, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


 * So, if I get this right, Anon, your argument is "authoritarianism is anyone being told what to do by a government." That isn't authoritarianism.  That's just government in general.  Authoritarianism must be shown to be egregious in some way over and above the workings of the average state.  Simply saying that corporations must pay a living wage or that everyone must pay taxes that will be used to fund universal health care is about as far from authoritarianism as you can get.  Unless you are a crazed anarchist or strident libertarian.  (Forgive any newbie posting mistakes.) VoiceofKiki (talk) 05:33, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You're good Kiki.--Token Conservative (talk) 15:01, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

please sign
Failure to claim credit for your contributions does little to enhance your credibility.--Weirdstuff (talk) 06:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Until you sign your posts you don't get to contribute. You have been asked nicely enough times.  Time for some basic common courtesy.  DamoHi 07:47, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Now an authoritarian admin "Damo" has vandalized my page because he didn't realize "stop the violence" is my signature. My new account on here is called "stoptheviolence". He censored about 2700 words of content out of my post because it hits too close to home apparently. stop the violence

Here is the censored material:

@EV Debs: I am not owed a debate by you. I am merely pointing out that you have made no argument to advance your position, because your position is based on bias, and has no rational substance. All you have provided are assertions and ad hominems. I know you do not want to argue with me, you are incapable of the intellectual honesty I demand. −		 −	@Voice of Kiki: −	So, then are you saying that the definition of authoritarianism in this article is wrong: −	"Its adherents don't necessarily want to "tell you what to do" - as long as, if they disagree with you, someone else in power will tell you what to do."? −	Or are you saying that saying that "corporations must pay a living wage or that everyone must pay taxes that will be used to fund universal health care" does not involve −	someone "in power" telling us "what to do?	 −		 −	The criteria that define authoritarianism is this belief that there is some person or group of people who have the right to initiate violence against others, due to some perceived"authority".	 −	Whether that coercive violence is used to enforce what you perceive to be "good"(like fair wages or health care) is not the objective criteria of defining authoritarianism.	 −	That is the hypocrisy of left-wing authoritarianism, it's adherents, such as yourself, will not even admit to themselves their own authoritarianism. You want to hold a gun to someones head while at the same time saying "That's not a gun, that's progress". Again, I am not even stating a value judgement on your beliefs, I am just stating the objective fact that what you advocate for still involves statist aggression. You still are saying people need to be told what to do and using violence to enforce the "rules", but you think it is different because it's for what you perceive to be a "good cause". Violence is still violence, even if it is motivated for what you want it used for, rather than what someone else wants. The "good cause" does not tranform something violent into something non-violent. −		 −	Again, this is just an assertion, with no reasoned argument, or cited facts or evidence: −	"Simply saying that corporations must pay a living wage or that everyone must pay taxes that will be used to fund universal health care is about as far from authoritarianism as you can get. " −		 −	Further, it is a blatantly fallacious and self contradictory statement. You want to force people to pay for what you deem they "must" pay for, yet you deny that is authoritarian(the belief that someone in power has to tell you what to do)Stop the violence −		 −	You left wing authoritarians want to use aggression and violence to further your agenda, but you cannot admit to yourself the violence and aggression involved, let alone admit it to the world. When the statist aggression is used for what you want, you deny that it is violent aggression, and if you believe that denial you are lying to yourself. --- stop the violence

Damo, you call vandalizing my page "courtesy"? DO NOT VANDALIZE MY TALK PAGE DAMO. stop the violence

Please, Damo, undo the vandalism you have done to my page. Is there a way to block these authoritarians from censoring the truth? stop the violence

@EV Debs: I am not owed a debate by you. I am merely pointing out that you have made no argument to advance your position, because your position is based on bias, and has no rational substance. All you have provided are assertions and ad hominems. I know you do not want to argue with me, you are incapable of the intellectual honesty I demand.

−		 −	@Voice of Kiki: −	So, then are you saying that the definition of authoritarianism in this article is wrong: −	"Its adherents don't necessarily want to "tell you what to do" - as long as, if they disagree with you, someone else in power will tell you what to do."? −	Or are you saying that saying that "corporations must pay a living wage or that everyone must pay taxes that will be used to fund universal health care" does not involve −	someone "in power" telling us "what to do?

The criteria that define authoritarianism is this belief that there is some person or group of people who have the right to initiate violence against others, due to some perceived"authority". Whether that coercive violence is used to enforce what you perceive to be "good"(like fair wages or health care) is not the objective criteria of defining authoritarianism.

That is the hypocrisy of left-wing authoritarianism, it's adherents, such as yourself, will not even admit to themselves their own authoritarianism. You want to hold a gun to someones head while at the same time saying "That's not a gun, that's progress". Again, I am not even stating a value judgement on your beliefs, I am just stating the objective fact that what you advocate for still involves statist aggression. You still are saying people need to be told what to do and using violence to enforce the "rules", but you think it is different because it's for what you perceive to be a "good cause". Violence is still violence, even if it is motivated for what you want it used for, rather than what someone else wants. The "good cause" does not tranform something violent into something non-violent. Again, this is just an assertion, with no reasoned argument, or cited facts or evidence: "Simply saying that corporations must pay a living wage or that everyone must pay taxes that will be used to fund universal health care is about as far from authoritarianism as you can get. " Further, it is a blatantly fallacious and self contradictory statement. You want to force people to pay for what you deem they "must" pay for, yet you deny that is authoritarian(the belief that someone in power has to tell you what to do)Stop the violence You left wing authoritarians want to use aggression and violence to further your agenda, but you cannot admit to yourself the violence and aggression involved, let alone admit it to the world. When the statist aggression is used for what you want, you deny that it is violent aggression, and if you believe that denial you are lying to yourself. --- stop the violence
 * You are a funny guy, but you still haven't learnt to sign your posts. Perhaps a bit slow of learning huh?  DamoHi 09:16, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Damo, on your page you state:"I find these days I have very little to add." If all you have to add is verbal abuse and vandalism and censorship then please stay away. If you have something meaningful to add to the conversation that is meaningful and actually related to the topic, then please do. But please refrain from the childish ad hominems, thank you. Can we try to keep it at an adult level please? stop the violence
 * I don't care about what you are typing, I only care that you follow a few basic rules and courtesies of the place. 1) that you sign your posts in the appropriate way.  2) that you follow our etiquette when posting on talk pages, specifically using colons  to outdent your comments.  I will give you 10 minutes to go through and fix up your last few posts.  I would appreciate it if you would acquiesce to these basic requests.  If you choose not to, that is up to you, but then you are choosing not to post here.  DamoHi 09:36, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I am merely pointing out that you have made no argument to advance your position, because your position is based on bias, and has no rational substance. All you have provided are assertions and ad hominems. I know you do not want to argue with me, you are incapable of the intellectual honesty I demand .--Token Conservative (talk) 15:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

seriously please sign.
Please learn how to properly sign your posts. Expecting other people to run around fixing things for you just makes you look selfish.--Weirdstuff (talk) 20:16, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

bELIEVE IT OR NOT, this site is not the most intuitive for a beginner, I think I'm getting the hang of it. 71.56.221.81 (talk) 20:20, 29 August 2013 (UTC)stoptheviolence