User talk:Cosmikdebris

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>


Remember[edit]

Always patrol stuff before deleting or moving, that spam account will be stuck in the unpatrolled recent changes for months. Christopher (talk) 18:53, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

@Christopher Got it, thanks. Cosmikdebris (talk) 18:55, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Sorry if I sounded angry about that, I’m not. Christopher (talk) 19:07, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank You[edit]

I tried deleting it earlier today, and that didn't work out well enough. I didn't realize how dramatic that page could get. So, uhh, thanks for doing what I should have done earlier. RoninMacbeth (talk) 01:56, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

@RoninMacbeth Glad to be of service. Cheers, Cosmikdebris (talk) 01:58, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Awesome Award[edit]

A close up of an awesome, amazing goat's face.

Awesome Award

for

Cosmikdebris

Reason: being awesome

ClickerClock (talk) 08:58, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
@ClickerClock Thanks! Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 17:47, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

User:DiscoDudette checks in[edit]

You know nothing about me, so don't make shit up, okay? I am nothing like those users you put on User talk:Christopher. I am a decent user to help out. Nothing more. Bombshell (talk) 09:16, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

@Bombshell Ah, so that IP I blocked was a proxy. Shame, I thought it might be your real IP. Oh well. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:27, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Now that you're a ninja…"[edit]

You do know that you need to turn on your "bot" setting in user right management when you want to hide edits, right? Bongolian (talk) 03:52, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

@Bongolian Yes, I'm familiar with how this feature works. Thanks, Cosmikdebris (talk) 13:51, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the Peter Singer page[edit]

Hey, why was my edit on the Peter Singer page reverted? Granted, it's a bit much for my edit history, but I saw quite a few inaccurate statements on the page so I decided to edit them. I'd sort the inaccuracies/edits into three categories (maybe four, if you include the additional info added):

Effective altruism - it simply isn't true that Singer gave up/stop advocating his beliefs after his 1971 paper. Rather, he published the 2009 book, The Life You Can Save, which furthered his drowning child argument, basically saying in effect that it's amoral not to donate to charity with surplus wealth when you're living in a world where there's so many people undergoing great suffering because they don't have as much as you. You can read the Wikipedia article on the topic for more info, but there's simply no doubt that Singer did expand on his argument later, albeit a few decades later.

Infanticide/Replacability Argument - Nowhere can you find Singer advocating infantacide for the sake of it (as the article largely implies), let alone the arbitrary "28 day" timeframe listed (even less grounding in reality - the so-called number was pulled out of the editor's ass, to be frank). Rather, he simply advocates non-voluntary euthanasia in the case of severely disabled/ill infants whom the doctors and parents believe will suffer gravely if they continue to live, in addition to severe dementia/Alzheimer's patients who have regressed to the point of simply laying in a bed and being force-fed through a tube where the family members believe that they should be allowed to die in dignity, as stated in the sources linked.

As far as the replacibility argument goes, it's a theoretical statement in relation to animal rights/veganist views held by Singer, not euthanasia. Literally a quick google search would find that: http://oxfordindex.oup.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199396078.003.0008 https://etd.ohiolink.edu/!etd.send_file?accession=wright1433172495&disposition=inline https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-137-28627-7_4

Rape apology part - Out of all of these parts, that part is the most slanderous/misleading. Singer instead argues that the man was consenting and enjoyed the relationship, based on the evidence at hand. Again, one would find that by reading the article linked as a "source".

And if you really want an explanation for the additional info part, I just decided to include other views of Peter Singer that seem to get far less attention but give you a better insight on the views of the philosopher (as well as added another external link in the form of an entire library full of Singer's papers, books and excerpts).

Anyways, thanks for reading this. DancingCake (talk) 21:54, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

@DancingCake: Thank you for the follow-up. We are constantly bombarded with article vandalism and sometimes revert too quickly. With your permission, I would like to put your comments above on the talk page for the article, so that others can see the rationale for your changes. Once this is done I see no reason why your edits can't proceed. Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 23:41, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
@Cosmikdebris: That'd much appreciated. Apologies for any inconvenience - I'm still fairly quite new to this thing as per my rather small edit history mainly with small changes. Thanks for your help. DancingCake (talk) 02:53, 17 April 2018 (UTC)