User talk:Levi Ackerman

Welcome
13:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Titans are my trigger!
I take it you are an Attack on Titan fan? StickySock (talk) 14:01, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I am indeed. But, there is more to me than my Japanophilia, as you will all soon learn. Please pay no mind to the ominousness of the previous sentence. Levi Ackerman (talk) 16:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I am too. *extends olive branch flying a slightly used white Kleenex* B) talk 23:01, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Regarding atheism being "quasi-religious"
Hello Levi Ackerman! Aside from this obvious objection, I think the type of atheism that Levi Ackerman might be distancing himself from on his userpage is a particular strain of New Atheism, not in any way the larger project of atheism in general (to which everyone from Buddhists to Communists belong, too). Levi Ackerman should consider embracing the term "atheist", and instead Levi Ackerman might wish to change the userpage phrase from "Atheist" to specify "New Atheist" or something like that.

Further, Levi Ackerman should be perfectly aware that there's no inherent contradiction present in enjoying people like Sam Harris exclusively for his handle on fundamentalist religion, while at the same time distancing yourself from his enormously slippery footing when it comes to geopolitics, national security, race ethics and the likes — because as QualiaSoup explains, when Levi Ackerman is taking in atheist reasoning, Levi Ackerman is never listening to atheist claims being made, per se. Levi Ackerman is listening to the refutal of theist claims, nothing more.

And there's never any "baggage" stance endorsement that comes along with doing just that on its own. In fact, it's to separate the good and the bad in all issues and in all people, and accept that a person doesn't have to be divinely right on all topics to be worthwhile taking in. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:37, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Don't blank half of sourced articles
Knock it off, please. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:46, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Levi Ackerman apologises. Levi Ackerman wasn't done editing the page. But with respect, that Galloway page read (past tense) anything but rational. It read (past tense) personal. Levi Ackerman didn't think that was how this place rolled. Levi Ackerman is all for the occasional injection of ridicule. In fact, it is what has endeared this place to Levi Ackerman. But, that - the Galloway page - was just a hit piece. Levi Ackerman suspects Brexit and the Labour Leadership election/coup has something to do with the animosity evident in that page.
 * I hope you're not going to refer to yourself in the third person all the time. It's not going to endear you to anybody. In fact, it's going to make everybody hate you. Spud (talk) 09:20, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Why do you presume Levi's goal here is to endear himself to anybody? Levi's goal here is to learn and to impart what little knowledge he has, so that others might, if they're so inclined, learn from him as well.&mdash; Unsigned, by: Levi Ackerman / talk / contribs
 * {FAMAS (talk) lives? MyHatIsBread (talk) 11:39, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * As has just been pointed out, you're not the first person here to pull that kind of stupid crap. You can learn and impart your knowledge to others without being a twat. Which is exactly what you are being. You can also save yourself a lot of time by typing I, me and my. Spud (talk)
 * Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! Was that called for - calling me a twat? How exactly is Levi being a twat? Does Levi referring to himself in third person hurt you in some way? Do tell! If anyone is being a twat, it's likely you for that, frankly, unwarranted ad hominem. Just calm down. Levi will continue to refer to Levi in third person. Take it or leave it. Levi doesn't have to do something or stop doing something just because you find it grating. Levi Ackerman (talk) 15:02, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Trust me, I'm not the only one who will find it grating. If you keep it up, you will get sworn at by other users on a regular basis. You have been warned. on your own head be it. Spud (talk) 15:11, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I really don't get it! I ain't hurtin' nobody!Levi Ackerman (talk) 15:16, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * But, you know what? I'm not here to make enemies. So, since it means SO MUCH to YOU, I'll stop. Levi Ackerman (talk) 15:21, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Read this
On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes ( ~ ) or by clicking on the sign button: on the toolbar above the edit panel. (You can indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line.) Thank you.--JorisEnter (talk) 12:28, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. It's funny. I've always wanted to learn how to code. I may just learn how to do so being a contributor to this website.Levi Ackerman (talk) 14:19, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Learning to code via picking up Wiki formatting? Baby steps indeed... But hey, it's a start. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:30, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

♫ Come my minions, rise for your master! Let your evil shine... ♫
Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

"Do you register as human"
I've been digging your insights in the Saloon of late. I was just curious: do you identify as progressive, libertarian, independent, or ah, meat popsicle? Plutoniumboss (talk) 23:21, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I live in the UK, so our politico-ideological identifications are somewhat different. For instance, I'm probably what people in the UK would call to a socialist. Mind you, here in the UK that's not as damning as it in the US. If I lived in the US, I would probably be classed as a progressive. I am not a member of any political party. I've only ever voted two ways: Liberal Democrat and Labour. Oh, and I also voted to leave to EU.--Levi Ackerman (talk) 09:35, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * We probably had a lot in common before the Brexit, to be honest. At least you had the competence of the Lib-Dems at your disposal. I wouldn't put our progressives in charge of a coffee maker. Plutoniumboss (talk) 17:18, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Question
What critical race theory, intersectionality, radical feminism - all of which I am already familiar with (thank you very much) - and all of which you seem to be obsessed with (you always seem to bring at least one of them up regardless of the premise of the conversation) - has to do with this escapes me. I didn't start this thread to bash the left. Sorry if that disappoints you and Lord Aeonian.

Why do you always lump Aneris and myself together? We've had significant differences, as you could have seen on his talk page, and I very rarely bring up any of things you mentioned. Is Jonanism simply easier for you then addressing multiple views at once? Lord Aeonian (talk) 00:20, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Wait by your computer or phone screen, keep staring at it, while I craft a well-thought out, but irrelevant, response to your question. It shouldn't take too long. You and Aneris manage to do it everytime.--Levi Ackerman (talk) 08:25, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This attempt at being passive aggressive tells me all I need to know, so don't worry about that long response :) Lord Aeonian (talk) 20:34, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh no! But, I've just finished writing it! I put so much effort and research into it. I was ready to post it. I just needed to spellcheck and proof-read it. Oh damn! By the way, "attempt at passive aggression"? Lol. Is that theory of mind? Did you just psycho-analyse me? Your sidekick (or are you his) also tried that earlier. Lol. --Levi Ackerman (talk) 02:27, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

ECHR & Malta's gay conversion therapy (GTC) ban
Hiya Levi,

As our conversation about Malta's ban on gay conversion therapy (GTC) in the saloon bar has been archived, I thought I'd leave my response on your talk page instead, so here goes:

While I can see some possible judicial merit in your argument (essentially that the GTC ban potentially forces religious believers to transgress their beliefs by remaining gay and not being able to seek help), I think that the ECHR will have to consider some of the following aspects that makes this far less of an open and shut case of infringement of the freedom of religion: Now, as I mentioned earlier, I think that there is a problematic underlying assumption in the GTC ban, that sexual orientation is fixed and that attempting to change it is always involves coercion, that is quite questionable. Viewing sexual orientation as less of an iron clad given is one of the few merits a religious challenge to the law would have, in my eyes at least. However, if the ECHR accepted this argument, it would open a wide alley for all kinds of "help schemes" to "fix" sinful identities or behaviour being allowed under a rather dubious religious freedom banner. For instance, equality clauses, inheritance laws and so forth could potentially be struck down using the same "avoidance of sin" argument for any religion that allots women a lesser say than men (imagine, for instance, what could be claimed as a transgression against religious freedom by citing ). Contrast this with the instance in which the ECHR struck down the Armenian conscription law based on a freedom of religion argument: It was not because conscription per se was regarded as transgressing on religious freedom, but because Armenia did not provide for a civil service alternative to conscription.
 * The argument assumes that GTC actually works.
 * The argument assumes that prevention of what some religion defines as a sin is something that cannot be regulated by secular law.
 * The law doesn't ban a change in sexual orientation, only the GTC part.

I think a more likely challenge to the law, stressing a secular concern with its focus on a set sexual orientation that is not to be tampered with, is the one highlighted in this Malta Today article which mentions that simple exploration of sexual identity or treatment of certain psychological issues may end up falling under the rather broad wording of the law and thus that social workers or mental health professionals might face prosecution. This also illustrates the problem with using such a "blunt instrument" as a legal ban, unless accompanied by a very long detailed description of exceptions and context. ScepticWombat (talk) 07:57, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Please let WIGO'ers move WIGO's wherever they please
It's nobody's duty to patroll WIGO. Just live and let live, eh? 18:17, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * It's not me. It's Weaseloid and his acolyte, RBP. They keep removing a news report I posted last year in WIGO: world away from WIGO: world. I'm not moving anyone's posts. I'm simply moving mine back! You need to tell this to Weaseloid. In fact, I think you already did. Levi Ackerman (talk) 18:21, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 *  * being an acolyte intensifies *  Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:46, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * lol. Whatever the hell that means.Levi Ackerman (talk) 19:52, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Removing talkpage content
Hello. You can't remove content from your talkpage, no matter how whiny the post is. 06:23, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "It's my talk page. I can do whatever I please with it, so long as it's within the rules." No you cannot. 06:27, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Here you go!

 * I'm sure he made all this to whine on the Internet about how we aren't rational. This isn't a good idea.&mdash; Unsigned, by: Diacelium / talk / contribs
 * Well, he asked for it.--JorisEnter (talk) 18:39, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm back???
Weird.Levi Ackerman (talk) 16:55, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Christopher (talk) 09:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Essay:Brogressive
Regarding your edit on Essay:Brogressive, essays should not be edited without express invitation by the original author. You need permission to edit from as it is their essay. Also, are you this BoN? CowHouse (talk) 13:53, 23 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I wasn't aware of that rule. It's an odd rule. I thought anything added to this website belonged to the website. It's why we aren't allowed to delete content on our own talkpages. Thus, it strikes me as a tad inconsistent for the author's express approval to be required in the case of an essay. And yes, I am that BoN.Levi Ackerman (talk) 14:05, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The rule is mentioned on the Category:Essays page. My understanding of the rule is that an essay is meant to be an opinion piece from the perspective of an individual user, not a collaborative article. If there's something badly wrong with it you can still mention it in the talk page. FYI, you can removed talk page content under certain circumstances. CowHouse (talk) 14:11, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * FWIW, that 'essay' started as a mainspace page, and was objected to for reasons I never was able to parse, so now it's 'my' essay. Wildly different versions appear in the history and there's an extensive but unilluminating discussion on the talk page. RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Brogressive is also relevant. I personally don't care. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 21:09, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

JonTron
Since your edit was reverted. Did you want to discuss it in the talk page? CowHouse (talk) 06:58, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Let's do it!Levi Ackerman (talk) 07:36, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and justify your edit on the talk page. CowHouse (talk) 16:11, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Response
To answer this question, "porch monkey" is an and "lapdog" is not. CowHouse (talk) 04:53, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * "Lap-dog" is not an ethnic slur, but it is an ad hominem. A rather unfair one, if I may say so. So, I propose, as a compromise, I let your revision stand, but I remove the description of Murtaza Hussein as a lapdog. As a matter of fact, why is that even in the article? The article is about Glenn Greenwald. Isn't the reference to Hussein guilt by association? Greenwald has enough "asshattery" of his own. I don't see the need to hang others' around his neck.Levi Ackerman (talk) 18:46, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with your edit. CowHouse (talk) 11:05, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. :-) Levi Ackerman (talk) 13:46, 4 March 2018 (UTC)