Information icon.svg Our policy on articles on living people is under review. Your comments and inputs are welcome on the relevant project talkpage.

Nominations and campaigning for the RationalWiki 2020 Moderator Election is underway and will end on November 23.

User talk:Inquisitor Sasha/Archive 1

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This page is an archive
Please do not edit it. Discussions that need to be continued can be made on the associated talk page.


...have got to be one of the worst debaters I have ever seen.

1) Someone being anti-abortion is not the same as being anti-woman, especially when the person with that view is a woman herself

2) "Holocaust" does not just refer to The Holocaust of Germany, it can also be used generically to describe destruction on a mass scale. Try googling "nuclear holocaust", then call antisemitism on everyone who uses the term.

3) They did not deny The Holocaust, they were showing how people are capable of denying anything. This appeared to be in response to your claim that a foetus is not human. Obviously this went over your head.

4) The heartbeat argument was in response to whether or not a foetus was human, it's quite weak to try and link this to someone becoming a vegetarian (eating NON-human animals).

5) There's no reason an abortion has to take place after 8 weeks, in fact from a health perspective it's best if it occurs as early as possible. A rape victim can easily have testing and an abortion before the 8 week timeframe, your argument about this is poor.

6) Acknowledging that a baby has a good chance of survival if it is born at 24 weeks, and a reasonable chance at 22 weeks, it is possible to argue that referring to it as a foetus (ie the same as one at 13 weeks gestation) is overly restrictive.

You come across as being highly arrogant and unwilling to consider another person's viewpoint. Additionally you make the mistake of trying to debate by focusing on one point your opponent made while losing sight of the big picture. I honestly feel that your skills are on par with those you were arguing against. To post it here for all to see does not help your cause. (talk) 08:32, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I suspect that you're the Antiwomanist that was in that discussion. I'm not going to get to everything at the moment, but I'll go over your first point. The position is sexist and Antiwoman; it has no other agenda. Just because you claim to be a does not mean that you cannot be sexist. If you have a discussion with any Feminist, they should be able to explain this. To continue, Being X does not make you exempt from being anti-X. There's plenty of examples of Jewish Antisemites; just because they may have originally been Jewish doesn't make them non-Antisemetic. Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 06:07, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
I'll address some of your other points.
2) I am aware of what the word Holocaust means. I don't know what the point of bringing it up is. I suspect that this may be a claim that one of the people in the Antiwomanist page was not making a comparison to The Holocaust. Such a claim would be ridiculous. One group explicitly posted a photo from The Holocaust and made a direct comparison. Second, Holocaust has a specific meaning unless used in other very specific contexts, such as those related to nuclear war. It is obvious that the intent was to make a comparison to The Holocaust.
4) I'm not sure about the specific timeframes, but the limit on when the abortion can happen is a common tactic used to effectively ban abortions for victims of rape, because they must be performed by probing. For obvious reasons, rape victims are unable to undergo this kind of procedure.

I understand the point of the Antiwomanists, and it's one that I disagree with. I have the ability to (very well) examine their thinking understand their reasons for what they claim. Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 06:26, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
No, I'm a regularly lurker at RW (been here since '07) and I came across your post on the saloon bar.
Firstly, if you think people are against abortion solely because they are anti-women, then you are completely deluded. Most anti-abortionists hold their position because they believe a foetus has the same rights as a human being. Thus in their minds abortion is a form of murder. It has nothing to do with their views on women's rights, in fact it's entirely possible for a feminist to be against abortion.
To give you an analogy, there is a blood test known as Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA) that is sensitive for prostate cancer, in fact it's more likely to detect it than a rectal examination. However, the government where I live used to refuse to fund it for routine screening because the evidence did not suggest it would save many lives. Now someone may come along and say that saving one life is enough, and that the only reason the government is refusing to fund it is because they are anti-male. But I'm sure you can see that wasn't the real reason. Now replace "government refusing to fund" with "anti-abortion" and "male" with "woman"...
As for the second point, are you saying that because one anti-abortion group posted a picture linking abortion to The Holocaust, then an individual who is part of a completely different group must be making the same connection? Language is fluid, and while you may think that the word "Holocaust" should only be used to describe a brutal genocide, others have used it in different contexts many times. This is just another.
Regarding point 4, if you do not even know how an abortion is performed, why the hell are you arguing about it? Look up "medical abortion", and with the greatest respect please stop talking things you don't seem to know anything about. (talk) 07:43, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
That's alright. It doesn't matter, though I don't think you're the same person anyway.
The outward claim and the reason that the Church gives for being Antiwoman is that abortion is (in their view) murder. The underlaying cause is sexism. I never suggested that sexism is the only reason why people are Antiwoman on abortion; it is the cause.
The fact that the Church has brainwashed so many women into throwing away and not caring about their own rights is very scary. I would say surprising, but totalitarian groups creating self loathing is nothing new; there was a book, I believe called Hitler's Jewish Soldiers about this phenomenon.
That example may not be the example of anti-male sexism, but that does not mean that other examples sex-based hinderances are not sexist.
The term Holocaust does not have a fixed meaning. However, it should be remembered that it has accepted meanings in certain contexts, and nearly any context outside of a nuclear war will be considered a reference to The Holocaust by other people. This is a fairly obvious fact, and it is a poor excuse to compare something to a holocaust and then claim that it isn't a Godwin's Law claim.
I am aware of the general procedure for some abortions. I am also very familiar with the Antiwomanist tactic of excluding rape victims from abortions by requiring early deadlines for when an abortion needs to be performed. That does not require any additional research.
I would like to give a general reminder to please maintain civility.
Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 22:35, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
So let me get this straight, you're saying that the ONLY reason the Church is against abortion is because they are sexist?
That it has nothing to do with the fact that they view life as sacred (reflected in their opposition to euthanasia)?
That is has nothing to do with the fact that they view the foetus as having the same rights as a human being, and thus that ending its existence is the same as murder?
That they are exploiting the issue of abortion in order to oppress women across the world?
And that any woman who opposes abortion on the grounds it ends a human life MUST have been brainwashed by the Church?
(in fact that claim is quite sexist in itself)
Just because a particular issue only affects one gender/race, doesn't mean it is automatically sexist/racist. You need to consider the underlying intention. The reason people are against abortion is not because there is a grand conspiracy of sexist Church leaders, it is because they genuinely believe that a foetus has the same rights as a human being. If you fail to grasp this, you can hardly claim to understand the other perspective.
We'll have to agree to disagree about the use of "holocaust". I don't believe it is a sacred word which cannot be used outside of other contexts, but I recognise that other people do. Nonetheless, I am convinced that many (not all) anti-abortionists who use it are not doing so with antisemitic views.
Putting a deadline of 8 weeks does NOT prevent a rape victim from having an abortion. In fact, a rape victim is far more likely to be found to be pregnant and receive the treatment than a member of the general public (due to the fact that doctors would be looking for signs of pregnancy). (talk) 22:55, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
It's probably not the only reason, but it's the underlying reason. I feel that the question was a bit of oversimplification.
I haven't seen much evidence that the Church considers life to be sacred. Abortion seems to be the only issue, which draw attention to the underlying reason. I'm also not saying that it's a conscious decision. Euthanasia for the terminally ill that is consensual is humane; forcing people to suffer is not and rather goes against the life is sacred claim, especially when the person is about to die anyway.
Except that a fetus is clearly not a person. It becomes a person. but it is not a person.
Yes, women who are against abortion are not thinking, as with other overly religious people, and in many cases have been indoctrinated into an oppressive belief. I understand your claim of sexism, coming from the idea (that I support) that Feminism is insulting to women because it calls them dumb for being brainwashed by "the Patriarchy". In this situation however, I believe that it is a legitimate claim, especially when considering the other mind = off effects of religion.
I don't think that you need to agree about the Holocaust definition. I don't think that it is in any way a scared word, and oppose any thinking that treats it as such. It's good that you recognize the implied context of it, which is what I was pointing out. It is Antisemetic to be using the Holocaust for the Antiwomanist agenda, because of the way that it trivializes the Holocaust.
Except rape is rarely reported, and so there is little reason why a doctor to be involved. While the deadlines do not actually prohibit the victim from having an abortion, they are intended to make the process so unbearable and terrifying it would be impossible.
Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 23:36, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Actually you'll find that many if not most Christians are opposed to euthanasia on the grounds that it breaches the sanctity of life.
Similarly many Christians (at least outside of the US) are opposed to the death penalty, on the grounds that it breaches the sanctity of life.
Furthermore, abortion has only been accepted by society in the recent decades. Prior to this, many if not most of the population was opposed to it on the grounds that it breached the sanctity of life.
The position of most denominations of Christianity has been unwavering - that abortion is wrong because it is murder, just the same as euthanasia. I certainly feel that this is good evidence they are opposed to it for their genuine belief that it is murder, rather than some plot to oppress women.
What is your evidence that people who are anti-abortion do so because they are anti-women?
Are you rejecting the possibility that most people against abortion genuinely believe that the foetus has the same rights as a human, and that abortion is thus murder?
And what about modern Churches which view women as equals to men, but which still oppose abortion?
Re the rape statistics, reporting (at least in my country) concerns whether it is reported to the police, not whether a woman sees a doctor. (talk) 00:07, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Your article....[edit]

.....has been moved into your user space for the time being. Please see the talk page for discussion. Acei9 18:38, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Question for you[edit]

I remember you talking before about making a wiki and I see you have some experience in the upper levels of wikis, so I was wondering if you could help me out with something. I am planning on making a website for a group I'm in, and a wiki seems like it would be the best way to do what I want and because I'm already pretty familiar with how things work on them. I was thinking I'd use one of the free wiki platforms that are out there and use ads to pay for expenses, but I'm not familiar with any of the free wiki platforms, so I was hoping you could make a recommendation. Thanks in advance. --Logic and Empricism (talk) 00:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I can help out. I worked with Wikkii for a long time, but they're system administrator went completely silent a while ago, and they recently had a 2-3 week blackout where they website was totally down. They're totally free, but I would only recommend them if you are able to make a backup every single day (possibly a few times, depending on how much it gets updated). I made a system that allows wikis where the owner only has web access to be backed up. (It only does pages, not user accounts, and isn't practical for saving all the revisions of articles) There's another place that seems like it could be good called Referata. The only possible issue is that they aren't free for all their options. Their basic setup is free, so it would likely be fine for your purpose, but they seem to want to charge for additional features. This shouldn't be a problem, depending on how many pictures you plan to upload. Looking at their prices, I would not recommend paying if you need the additional features. Their most basic package costs far more than basic webhosting, which would give full access to all aspects of the wiki. It's more than the convenience of not having to manage a server. MediaWiki is also fairly easy to install and run, so it shouldn't be a problem. If you buy webhosting, I recommend GoDaddy or Dreamhost; both are around $8/month and Dreamhost gives you a free domain name with the hosting plan. I believe that they do make you pay for the whole year at once, which isn't good when you're first starting.
For your purpose, I'd recommend Referata. The one place you should avoid at all costs is Wikia; they'll make it seem like they're a really great community that offers a lot of support, but they force really bad changes on wikis for advertising benefits, and they don't view admins or founders as the owners of wikis; they view wikis as owned by themselves, and they have frequently removed the admins (including founders) from wikis and given the wikis to other people when the admins didn't comply with what Wikia wanted. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 05:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Sasha. Does GoDaddy/Dreamhost have information on how much I can make from ads on the wiki? It wasn't my whole goal in going into this project, but I was hoping to make some money from this project. I can probably get $100 in seed money to last me through a year, and then I cancel or move to a free host depending. I'm imagining that free wiki hosts wont let me collect on ads.
Either way, thanks, and when your wiki project starts coming around let me know, I'll be happy to offer whatever help I can.--Logic and Empricism (talk) 07:15, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
The webhosts won't have any information on how much you can make since it's totally dependent on the visitors you get and what kind of ads and payment system you have, and they don't provide ads. GoDaddy offers an affilate program where you can earn a commission from referring sales, but I believe you have to pay for it, and so it's not worth it because you'll never make back the investment; very few people will made the decision to buy hosting on the spot like that. I recommend something like Google Adsense for advertising, and that you use an extension such as HTMLets to add the ads to the site. It's a very backward move to go from a private server to a free wiki host, so I'd only suggest doing that if you really weren't able to afford it at all. Depending on what the wiki is for, Dreamhost offers free hosting to non profit organizations. Referata allows ads, but only for the paid versions, which aren't worth it and wouldn't return the investment. I think they are totally ad free otherwise though. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 15:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, you've given me a lot to think about.--Logic and Empricism (talk) 17:27, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Can you stop Godwining up the wiki?[edit]

It makes you look stupid, and thereby lowers the apparent average intelligence of the community. Thanks. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 16:05, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok. I'll manage it. It's s subject that I've studied, so there's a reason why I come to it. Still, I still need to do things the same way as everyone else. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 16:07, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Some Better Advice[edit]

Keep blocking people like that and you'll find your keys have been removed. --Mikal 06:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Joke blocks pie jan 13.png

ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 06:03, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

An hour long block on somebody, for bullshit reasons no less, is considered abusive and doing them enough means you don't get to block people anymore. We thank you for understanding our very easy to follow and understand rules on the matter--Mikal 06:07, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Ok. When I say this (User_talk:Mikal/Archive3#Don.27t_drop_hour-long_blocks_on_non-sysops.) I thought it was only a problem if blocks that long were made on non sysops. Thank you for explaining the policy. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 06:11, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Oh no, its less worse on a sysop, but your still abusing privileges by doing it. also, that's a bit stalkerish love--Mikal 06:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
I thought that since we can unblock ourselves, it wasn't as much of a problem, but I've seen the 3 second block so it's not much of a problem. Anyway, I saw that when it was originally on your talk page. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 06:24, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


This isn't Wikipedia. We have different standards and different procedures from Wikipedia. Please stop linking to Wikipedia guidelines and telling users to follow them. Blue Talk 16:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Good post!Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 16:21, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Stop reverting[edit]

Edit points and sarcastic comments were part of the culture of this site long before you got here. Deal with it. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 16:21, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I already left a comment on your talk page about it. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 16:23, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Discussion pages[edit]

You can move threads off to forums to have the discussion there if you like, but you're not supposed to outright delete them even if you don't like where they're headed. Peter Droid whisperer 00:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

It was a dumb idea to start. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 00:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Then you say that, and the thread ends. Peter Droid whisperer 00:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


Person with a really silly user name, you seem to have no idea what this place is or how it works. You might want to slow down and listen a bit, especially if I become more active again. ħumanUser talk:Human 06:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't mean to be disruptive. I'll slow down, and I'll listen to any advice if you would like to share any. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 07:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Editing other's user pages[edit]

Don't. TyJFBANBSRADA 22:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Blackhole lists[edit]

Thank you SO MUCH for that tip - the vandal managed to find only one open proxy in 48 hours that was not already in the lists. You saved RW from a LOT of vandalism - David Gerard (talk) 11:34, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Imperium Inquisitor[edit]

Die deutsche Bezeichnung ist "Reichsinquisitor" .... --larron (talk) 09:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


Can it not be this contrasted block please? It clashes with so much good lookingness--MikallakiM 14:50, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Seconded.And smaller. Polar Bear in the Jungle Peter Tosh > Bob Marley 15:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
und es sollte heißen: Reichsinquisitor / Großinquisitor / Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein vom Sturmkrieg Sektor --larron (talk) 15:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Krasnayavehr, Pantzah, Kronstadt, Frauchen, Ordo Scharzenkommando, Frävehrkrieg, Petrograd. Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Ordo Scharzenkommando 16:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
I can change it. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 16:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)