Another one for the list:
I've noticed you consistently delete any and all criticism of this incredibly misguided razor. I just said what everybody was thinking when I added, "However, it's incredibly misguided, as it enables malicious people to feign stupidity (i.e. George W. Bush) and forgives dangerous stupidity. It's been said the opposite, "Never attribute to stupidity that which can adequately be explained by malice," is the razor we should be adopting, mainly to reduce stupidity - especially wilful stupidity - and to eliminate the possibility of feigning stupidity as a defence for malice. Most people actually agree, but would never say out loud, that malice should be assumed by default, and stupidity should only be considered once malice is ruled out."
- Furthermore, deleting rational criticism seems to be an ongoing pattern with you. My last experience with you guys was questioning why you called Vatican City a sovereign nation while Kent Hovind's dinosaur park was not, even though the religious leaders of both plots of land claimed their land to be sovereign, you seemed to favour Catholicism over whatever Hovind is. And you might say, "Well the government calls Vatican City sovereign," to which I would cite examples where you rejected the government's claims. I will grant that you're more accurate that Wikipedia, by longshot, and WAAAAY more accurate than Conservopedia (sp?), but you do seem to have your own fascist censorship policies to keep an official narrative in place like those other places do. You should change your name to FascistWiki.126.96.36.199 (talk) 21:08, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Hanlon's razor: 2017 edition
I believe that the assumption of good faith is one of three general assumptions that we make in our discursive practices. We assume the Three Transcendentals, that are interlocutors are fellow lovers of: the good, the true, and the beautiful. I believe these assumptions are largely implicit—heeded wordlessly by most of us, most of the time. Now, I don’t believe that the concepts ‘good’ and ‘beauty’ are capable a clear and satisfactory formulation—but that’s beside the point—what we can glean from these concepts, if we are honest with ourselves, is that they are pervasive in all human cultures and play a significant role in our lives. Note well: that by “beauty”, I don’t mean the narrow sense of the word that only applies to human morphological characteristics; I mean the broad sense i.e. the beauty present in: the composition of a symphony, the myriad patterns and qualities of colour found in flowers and crystals, the elegance of a mathematical proof, etc. Beauty stands forth, however ineffable, as an aesthetic ideal: it’s that obscure object of desire; it compels us in love, it seduces us in lust; and in science and mathematics it’s the poetry of reality. We ought to assume when we are engaging in discourse that our fellow humans caeteris paribus are driven by similar values. LeucippusSalva veritate 00:12, 7 September 2021 (UTC)