User talk:Tisane/Archive1

Welcome to RationalWiki Tisane. You have at least one nice tie. 05:59, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Well I still like your tie. It's a nice tie. 06:16, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

About that tie: why a self-identified libertarian would wear a tie in glorious Party red? (Your reaction to having the link to your site deleted is quite immature. And a wiki-fail: you missed the categories.) --ZooGuard (talk) 08:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well it was the nicest tie I had. It's one of those Jos A. Bank ties that, if I recall correctly, cost $50, and was purchased at the behest of a recruiter who, aghast at the tie I was wearing, invited me to hold his tie in my hand and then to hold my tie, and notice the difference in weight and quality. The heavier tie, evidently, is of superior quality. I guess I could have confused him by stitching some lead weights to my tie. In any event, political candidates almost always wear red ties, and one has to be careful about tie patterns when planning television appearances. As the Italian song goes, "That's a moiré." Tisane (talk) 22:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Test

Oh really?
So, you think you can just walk in here and make yourself useful do you? Well, let me tell you what we do to people like that around here. A goat will be delivered to your front door shortly. make sure you know what to do by then. -- PsyGremlin  11:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

When writing a new article...
...could you please drop a wiki-link or two into it, and a category? Thanks. P-Foster (talk) 18:50, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Also also, can you please stop linking to stuff that we will never have articles on? 07:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Those links will work after RPED is installed! Tisane (talk) 08:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that extension you wrote works tons well on your wiki where it links your father's name to some completely different person on Wikipedia. 09:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Same thing happens here if I put Andy Schlafly and am referring to some other Andy Schlafly. It will link to an article about an unrelated person. Tisane (talk) 11:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds like really bad idea. 11:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back
I see they demoted you again to sysop. Sorry. --Abd (talk) 14:44, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, just when I thought I couldn't sink any lower, they visit upon me the final indignity. Tisane (talk) 10:26, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Meh, the final indignity is to be made a Moderator. That's when you actually have to clean up the piles of manure in this place while getting bitched at the entire time. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 12:21, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Like hell you do. Most of us do fuck all.  19:33, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Deleted Essay
Hi there! Your essay arguing that pedophilia is not harmful has been deleted. While our custom is very strongly in favor of free expression of ideas - even to the point of tolerating many racist or otherwise stupid essays - I'm afraid that yours was so wildly repugnant that even I endorse its deletion. Please do not advocate for any form of sexual assault - it is reprehensible on a scale that we are unwilling to permit. Thank you.--talk 21:34, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

You
Can you do us a favour. Create a new account. I don't think the Wiki needs everyone wheel-warring over your rights clogging up RC. ToP will probably get smacked down for this in the coop but until then use a different account for a bit. Consider this an experiment of libertarianism in action. By the way this isn't an endorsement on your position on peadophilia, nor a condemnation as I haven't read your essay. Tielec01 (talk) 02:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I was about to ask for a name change anyway. Well, I have already written pretty much all I have to say that would be relevant to the block over at User:Tisane/Censorship, although I might also add that I don't think there was a serious problem that was imminent enough to require this immediate action. And I'm not aware of a policy or precedent justifying the block, although I suppose I could be the first one. If the community doesn't want to discuss child-adult sex, you guys could have just said so, but then again, why create a child sexual abuse article and then only allow one side of the argument to be presented? Doesn't seem very evenhanded. I didn't see any notice warning that opposing viewpoints would not be tolerated. Tisane (talk) 03:09, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I imagine that revulsion is not an uncommon reaction as paedophilia is a culturally touchy subject so any discussion of it is fraught with danger. I didn't read your essay so I don't know what you were advocating, if it was merely an exploration of the arbitrary nature of age limits etc etc.. I see no problem. If you were advocating buggering small children then obviously the article needs to be removed. In any case you shouldn't be blocked because you have offended one user, the community can vote on the issue and decide whether your "crimes" deserve a perma-ban. Tielec01 (talk) 03:15, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I never really advocated it, I mostly just threw out some analogies and said "What is the difference?" Kind of a thought experiment. Anyway &mdash; why block. There was never any official warning or anything like that. I was not told, "This is where the community stands so don't cross that line again." So, I would suggest that the community simply figure out where the line is, announce where the line is, and then we can proceed from there. I edited as though freedom of expression were allowed without fetters other than those required by law. If there are other restrictions that the community has adopted, or is adopting, that are relevant to the situation, then I can abide by those, though I may disagree with them. In the meantime, why don't I just refrain from discussing the topic under contention, and then there will be no need for a temporary block while discussion on long-term remedies is underway. Tisane (talk) 03:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Text of the controverted essay
Reposted at http://libertapedia.org/wiki/Essay:There_is_a_lack_of_strong_evidence_and_sound_logic_for_concluding_that_there_is_a_high_likelihood_of_severe_harm_from_child-adult_sex#Costs_of_debating_the_topic for the non-sysops. If you have an objection to my posting that link, go ahead and revert. Tisane (talk) 03:44, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Link removed, if people want to read your filth they can copy/paste it. -- PsyGremlin Prata! 08:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems like an exercise in pointlessness. Zack Martin  HolyMaratreanSigil.png 08:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Weird. I made it easier to copy and paste, PsyGremlin has no care for the user who might want to look at the essay, no surprise. It's funny, on the Coop page I took flack because I hadn't actually read the essay; when I first looked, I was not yet demoted again. HCM.
 * By the way, for using "orifi" as the plural of "orifice," you should be taken out back and shot. That is totally intolerable. Think of the children!
 * As well, you deserve piles of poop on your head (hey, I hang out with real children) for writing such a wimpy essay, stuck in your head, theoretical this and theoretical that. The widespread condemnation of sex with children is not entirely stupid, Tisane, even if it can get crazy-hysterical. Yes, I personally know a case where a girl consented to sex with her father, and later, the shit hit the fan. Parents have special privileges, and have almost total control over children, and there are strong reasons why most societies prohibit incest. (Biology is only part of it.) (The statements made that none allow it are not correct, but it's very unusual.) The strongest argument against sex with children, one I saw accepted even by actual child molesters (regretting what they had done), was that it created shame and a need for secrecy. A man told me, "I set it up so the boy lied to his parents." A very common report is "Let this be our little secret." Some may argue that society's limitations are "unfair," but that completely misses the point. Love does not equal sex, and isolating someone from their society can kill them, in the end. I'd call death major damage, wouldn't you? --Abd (talk) 04:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Dude
Stop talking about it. You aren't going to help yourself by still discussing it at all. We know your position and your defense for why we should should say it. now just let this go on and at all don't mention the issue, ok?-- Mikal Harass  Follow 05:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It's more of a meta-discussion at this point, about the bounds of acceptable speech on the wiki. The merits of the issue itself are no longer being discussed. Am I banned from the meta-discussion as well? Tisane (talk) 05:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

LLYour being cooped because you wouldnt shut up about it, and your STILL talking about it. dont link to it either. just dont talk about sex and kids, ok?-- Mikal Harass  Follow 06:06, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Feel free to do what everyone else does Tisane and ignore this insipid cretin. His only influence is in the pity he gets from certain kind-hearted members who are too nice to ask him to stop licking their arse. Tielec01 (talk) 12:35, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Tisane, you know now that if you talk about sex and kids here, it will arouse a mob with pitchforks. You can now choose what effects you'd like to create. If you want a mob with pitchforks, they are pushovers. I'm not quite sure what else RW is useful for, but that's up to you, them, and the mods, who are usually a saner bunch. Except for ... ah, never mind, He's fun, too. --Abd (talk) 00:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

coop
You know you've been cooped, right? You haven't defended yourself yet, which is curious. Coop, in all it's glory.RandonGeneration (talk) 04:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps he took advice to shut up. The move to ban him isn't doing too well, majority opposed at this point, 2/3 ban vote required. Besides, why should he argue against a promotion? I think he knows that RW is a useless waste of time. --Abd (talk) 04:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Meh, it's good etiquette to warn him at least. Perhaps he has some insights we don't?RandonGeneration (talk) 04:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * He's got tons of insights you don't, because he has life experience you don't. At least I hope you don't. If you do, my condolences. But I'm pretty sure most RWians don't want the insights. On the other hand, RG, maybe I'm wrong, and you are correct that notice should be provided. Still, Tisane is not a new user here, and he'd have seen the mention of the coop above. It's up to him, of course. --Abd (talk) 04:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I could try to defend myself, but what am I really going to say? All edits are public, so anyone can see for themselves what I have and haven't said and done in the wikisphere. If people are worried about what's going on in my head, I have no evidence by which I can prove, "No, that's not what's really going on in my head," so I'm not sure what there really is for me to say.


 * Part of the problem, though, with discussions about user behavior (whether it's before the ArbCom, or RfA, or the chicken coop, or whatever) is that while it's very easy to point out bad edits, the good edits can often be disregarded. Or at any rate, it's hard to assess whether the good outweighs the bad, or vice versa. For example, suppose I contribute to writing five featured articles. Am I going to go before the ArbCom and say, "Look at all these good edits?" That's not how those processes work. So, what ends up happening is that people just operate based on perceptions. In some cases, e.g. WP:ANI, the decision-makers are like the police or a vice-principal; the nature of their job is that they mainly are acquainted with the bad that you do. There is no probation officer to prepare a PSIR to summarize everything that you've done, both good and bad; and even if there were, those "bureaucratically prepared, hearsay-riddled" reports tend to be biased against the defendant anyway.


 * On RW, my history is brief enough that I guess people don't need a lot of help in assessing it, but a lot of the edits that I regarded good got reverted. So that could be an indication that this wiki and I aren't all that good of a fit. You guys can decide for yourselves how accepting you want to be of what kinds of contrarians. Inevitably, this community, like most mobocratic online communities, will tend to be molded Sanger's Law; this cooping is just one more step in that self-reinforcing process. Tisane (talk) 00:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Requested name change to Leucosticte
I request a name change to Leucosticte. Please check the first box ("Move user and talk pages (and their subpages) to new name"). Thanks. Tisane (talk) 23:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The proper place for your request is here. Zack Martin  HolyMaratreanSigil.png 08:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I am not your "bro"
I don't know why you're emailing me or why you think I'm on your side, so I feel it's best to inform you that I find your world view reprehensible; from you condoning of pedophilia to your willingness to commit murder. I voted against banning you, yes, but only on the grounds that you would cease pushing your more abominable beliefs. Truth be told, voting against your banning left a sour taste in my mouth. If such a vote would arise again I would definitely vote for a ban. Please do not treat me as any sort of ally, and please seek professional help for your condition, before you hurt anyone. Perhaps this link might give you suggestions on how to begin. The cross of a pedophile is a heavy burden, and you must take great measures to ensure that you do not threaten society's most valued scions, children. I both pity you as much as I revile you. -- "Shut up, Brx." 21:39, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Since Brxbrx decided to put this libel here, I'm countering it, instead of revision-deleting it, but I certainly considered that. It's not worse than what was in the Chicken Coop discussion of the banning, however.
 * Tisane is not a pedophile, none of his actions support such a diagnosis, and nothing he has done indicates that he is a danger to children, to anyone who knows how to recognize actual danger.
 * The link "helpfully" cited is to a response to a pedophile seeking help. It has zero to do with Tisane. If you actually read his material, especially on his "bliki," you'd see that he is not sexually attracted to children, he's attracted to mature women, he's clear about that.
 * He did issue a threat against the President, but the context was obvious: he had no intention of actually harming anyone. He wanted to be arrested on the charges. If he'd intended to harm the President, he certainly would not have told the Secret Service, as he did! That affair, indeed, is evidence of a kind of psychopathology, but it is not one that Brxbrx, or, likely, anyone on RationalWiki, is competent to diagnose. Tisane is far more likely to harm himself, through the responses from people that he has provoked, by pushing the buttons of unexamined belief, than any direct harm. He was threatened with serious physical harm, by users here, including one who threatened to track him down and cut off his balls. Yet, apparently, this caused RW mods -- and you -- no concern at all. Tisane has no history, as long as I've known him, of actually threatening physical harm to anyone, nor any history of seeking real-world harm, or even wiki-harm, for anyone. And especially not children.
 * Pedophilia is a psychological condition, not a crime. A pedophile is at serious risk of offending if in proximity to children, unsupervised. "Condoning pedophilia" would be equivalent to "condoning schizophrenia." I.e., huh? The legal issues that he's addressed are around social response to "child-adult sex," which is a complex issue. He has not advocated child abuse, but he has questioned some of the evidence commonly cited as reasons why society should severely prosecute (and persecute?) "pedophiles." He believed that RationalWiki was a place where the issue could be examined rationally, with evidence and arguments. I could have told him, already, that he was mistaken. It was impossible here, and that was predictable. He stopped immediately when the essay was deleted. But the community then went into a tizzy.
 * Brxbrx, I have seven children, two of them are underage (girls, 9 and 11). I have six grandchildren. If I believed that Tisane was a threat to children, I'd be on the phone to the authorities in a flash. My whole point in what I presented in the discussion is that he was accused of things he had not done, at all. And most -- nearly all --, in those discussions, voted *assuming* that he had done these things, but they were never clearly established by specific evidence. I requested evidence many times, with no response, so I assume it was on the lines of "Why is he even bringing this up? He must be a pedophile and promoting pedophilia." I.e., circumstantial, based on narrow assumptions about why people do things, probably based on how the people involved themselves do things.
 * He's a libertarian, taking a general libertarian position on social intrusion into private lives. Nothing he has written, so far (and I've read a lot more than you have, I'd bet), condones actual harm to children. Certainly he is explicitly opposed to child rape, i.e., forcible rape. The only area he has approached is that of consensual sex, and what he did was to point out the logical defects in certain common arguments. That does not prove the opposite. But he's accused of promoting the opposite. It's a common error on RationalWiki. --Abd (talk) 22:32, 5 September 2012 (UTC)