User talk:Roricon

Defending This Talk Page
Since both Reverend Black Percy and Nerd have walled off their talk pages, I'm going to to put this here and at the top due to the circumstances. Roricon has already been permanently banned, had all of his changes reverted and has had his talk page discussions hidden under archives deliberately (we're not stupid, Reverend Black Percy). I'd say that he/she has already suffered enough for a user who only bothered to edit war a single article, and by http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki:Community_Standards, you aren't allowed to nuke it anyway, it doesn't matter if he/she is banned/a bad person or not. —Fourteen Words (talk) 07:08, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Also I would like to mention how funny it is to see the FuzzyCatPotato/Reverend Black Percy/JorisEnter/Nerd cabal to get so hastily assmad over a single user who didn't actually break any rules. All you guys are doing is proving people like Conscience to be correct. Things like this demonstrate exactly why we are degrading into Conservapedia 2.0. —Fourteen Words (talk) 07:19, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

So lemme get this straight
Your username is 'lolicon.' Do you expect to be taken seriously? 06:31, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. —Roricon (talk) 07:27, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * People with yams up to here that don't stop shouldn't use idioms they don't understand. 07:39, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually I understand the idiom perfectly, most people wouldn't take a degenerate furry with the name "Narky Sawtooth" seriously either. Regards of the status of both of us however, at least I'm not the person who does edit warring with an ad hominem excuse. —Roricon (talk) 07:42, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * ...Do you honestly believe that's my 'excuse', or are you just trying to be 'clever'? 08:01, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * "Counter-productive edit warring: Annoying guy with a username that's an Engrish 'lolicon'." is the summary for the edit warring, so yes it's your excuse, and is an ad hominem attack on me personally rather than an attack on the article content that I changed. This isn't an attempt at being 'clever', whatever that's supposed to mean. I honestly just want you to give a clear reasonable explanation that can't be rebutted as to why my changes needed to be reverted and a edit warring needed to be put in place, and if there isn't one that you undo the revert and the edit warring. —Roricon (talk) 08:32, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Since you appear to be incapable of making useful edits

 * Actually JorisEnter, how about you read the http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki:Blocking_policy page you just linked me to and read "Blocking should never occur if somebody is attempting to discuss an issue in a reasonable manner. Blocking is not to censor alternate opinions, but to prevent disorder.". I've consistently asked those of the opposing views to argue their case with me on talk pages and have not maliciously edited a page once. Sorry for not being a groupthink drone that you wished me to be. —Roricon (talk) 09:29, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You removed large portions of content twice after your block had expired, despite having been told not to do so by multiple editors. That's not "discussing an issue in a reasonable manner". That's vandalism.--JorisEnter (talk) 09:38, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Before continuing any further, read my section carefully on http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Talk:8chan. I was never aware of the reason behind my first block. Also, the text I removed doesn't belong on the article in the first place, the size of it doesn't matter. I don't see how multiple editors telling me to do something changes anything, why does the amount matter? If all of the editors told me to put a picture of a random piece of rape pornography on the page, would it be correct if I did so with the only reasoning being that I was told to by multiple editors? I did discuss the issue in a rational matter, I listened to everyone's arguments, and rebutted them accordingly. Once someone made their argument, they changed the article back, and when I made mine, I did the same, as we hadn't obviously reached a conclusion yet. This is a fair exchange, as if I am the last person to make an argument and no one is able to rebut it, then I at that point am correct. No vandalism occurred what-so-ever, despite how much you wish it so. —Roricon (talk) 09:49, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * In the wise words of Veronica Sawyer... "You're beautiful." 10:14, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I apologize in advance if this comes off as rude, but what does that have to do with anything we are discussing in this section? —Roricon (talk) 10:21, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Sea Lion
11:04, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * What is exactly wrong with the concept on this page, exactly? If someone is unable to answer any of the questions you ask them with a rational response, then clearly you have won the argument. If you can't back your statements with evidence, then your viewpoint is less reliable than one that does. Honestly this "You're a sealion!" tactic seems like a way to bolster your position without having to follow a scientific point of view or have any evidence backing it what-so-ever. Not unheard of for ad hominem attacks, I guess. Thanks for a badge on my talk page that does nothing more than proving my skepticism.—Roricon (talk) 11:27, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Also I would like to mention that at the top of the article, apparently "Just asking questions" is a way of shifting burden of proof. Can you show me an example of me doing this? By the way, that question just then, if you don't realize, is not shifting the burden of proof, you and many others have asserted something about me or my changes first, therefore the burden of proof is on you/them, so those don't count. Also, I will not refrain from so called "sealioning" (if I am even doing it in the first place) unless you can prove to me that it is wrong or against the rules to do so. —Roricon (talk) 11:43, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * First off: Claiming you 'won the argument'? It's pathetic, a thing for whiny babies who can only see the world in binaries (along with some other problems). Second off: Learn what an 'ad hominem' is. You keep using that phrase. It doesn't mean what you think it does. 14:24, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * @Narky Danth's Law is the droid you're looking for, and Roricon epitomizes it. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:35, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the citation of meaningless "law" #49603 that has no evidence to back it what-so-ever. —Roricon (talk) 16:22, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Ad hominem - directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining. Every instance of me citing others using ad hominem attacks has followed this principle. You do realize that is twice now you have claimed that I have been ignorant about terms when it turns out the ignorant one is actually you. When you play a game of Chess with someone, and they decide to flip the board because they don't like the current game situation, they have lost. It's as simply as that, if you consistently refuse to engage in a cogent manner during a debate, the opposing person wins the argument on a logical standard. If we were not to follow this principle of differentiation of argument standards, then both you and I should literally say "Blah Blah Blah" continually and treat it as if it's a rational debate. If I am somehow wrong here, please elaborate why. —Roricon (talk) 16:22, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Roricon, constantly talking about how skeptical and anti-censorship you are is almost always a sure sign that you're just trying to use conversation as a weapon, not a dialogue. 14:57, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I have not stated once that I am anti-censorship, and I only made a single comment about myself being skeptical, so I don't see where you got "constantly" from, perhaps you're confusing me with another individual? Also in your own very statement you use the phrase "almost always" to argue your case, which in that instance I really don't mind the probability that you so proclaim. —Roricon (talk) 16:22, 30 June 2016 (UTC)