User talk:Przciąszczłóśćiek

What is going on? World Blogs Clogs Elections The Bar (talk) (talk) (talk) (talk) (hic) Welcome to RationalWiki, Przciąszczłóśćiek! Check out our guide for newcomers and our community standards! Tell us how you found RationalWiki here! If you are interested in contributing: Read what our articles are intended to be Check out the to-do list See our help page and Wikipedia's formatting cheatsheet If writing a new article, consider writing up a draft And most importantly: Pull up a goat and have some fun!

Bongolian (talk) 02:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

To Summa Atheologica

@Summa Atheologica Hey, can you at least check the article talk page before falsely accusing me of lying (again) and then blocking me for it? I was not referring to the exchange of comments made on Spud's talk page but instead the Bestiality talk page discussion that they referred me to; all the people engaged in that discussion but one agreed that a lack of consent on the animal's part is a bad argument against bestiality (assuming meat-eating isn't scrutinised in the same way) - additionally, most of the earlier entries on that talk page raise the same concern. How am I not justifying in simply implementing what seems to be the talk page consensus in a snarky manner?

Then, I was not citing Wikipedia - I was simply presenting it to you as a more-or-less accurate summary of the scientific consensus on the topic of insects being able to feel pain. If you want actual sources, they are there under the "References" section. And, speaking of intellectual dishonesty and lying, "my claim" was: "whether insects are able to experience pain or not is controversial, and it is difficult to know for sure"; in order for the article to disagree with me, it needs to say that it is uncontroversial that insects are able to feel pain. Now, reading the very first sentence of the article, "Pain in invertebrates is a contentious issue". Once again, if you don't want to take that statement at face value, here is a scientific paper (linked in the aforementioned "references" section) for you, which shows that some responses which imitate a reaction to a feeling of pain are in fact largely reflexive, and are only "intermediate between habituation and associative learning". Although the burden of proof here isn't even on me here, so I didn't even need to provide any sources to back up my claim.

In light of the two paragraphs above, I politely ask you not to make accusations of "lying" and "intellectual dishonesty" directed at me unless you have definitive proof that these accusations are justified; or, at least, if you really want to throw an accusation at me, please avoid stating that accusation as a fact when you aren't sure.

Lastly, regarding the block: I honestly was not aware of the 3-reverts-rule, nor of any revert policies other than "discuss if your edit is reverted" (which I did), nor even of where to find these policies (I have read the community standards, and I didn't find any mention of any other revert rules). If you tell me what I am and am not allowed to do with regards to reverting right here and now, I will follow your guidelines. I think the fact that I was blocked for 3 days without any warning was a bit harsh. Przciąszczłóśćiek (talk) 19:17, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Under other circumstances it might have been harsh, but a new user really shouldn't edit war with people who have been here for years, let alone mods. On another note, reaction to pain can absolutely be reflexive, which again shows your intellectual dishonesty, and fails to argue for your point. You also are misrepresenting your own argument. You never said whether insects could feel pain is controversial, but implied it was settled science, taking the position opposite to actual studies conducted. Let other sysops determine if I acted inappropriately, and how you should be dealt with.𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 19:46, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay, but how was I supposed to know what I should and should not do? I am really new here, so if you had warned me of the consequences, I would most definitely have stopped.

Reaction to pain can be reflexive, but the fact that it can be means that evidence in the form of argument-by-analogy is unreliable. In fact, this is exactly why the topic of pain in invertebrates is so contentious. Come on, this is all in the article. If you had bothered to read the article before, for a third time, baselessly accusing me of dishonesty, you wouldn't be making statements like that.

And now you're teaching me on what I actually believe. Great. Well, at this point, I don't even know what to tell you. If you think you know my beliefs better than I do myself, then there is little point in continuing this conversation. All I'm going to say is that I've never thought that the issue of pain in invertebrates is scientifically settled. What I did, though, think - and still do - is that there is a massive difference between complex animals like cows and humans and less complex ones like insects; I believe this is true regardless of whether insects are able to feel pain or not, although the fact that they might not is probably the most obvious point of distinction. Please stop lying (yep, in this case I can say that with confidence) and attributing to me things that I never have done.

Sure, let other sysops decide. Just to reiterate my position (perhaps to those other sysops), I don't claim to have done nothing wrong, nor do I even claim that my block was totally unreasonable - what I do claim is that, if you unblock me now, I won't make the mistakes that led to this block again (given you explain those mistakes clearly to me). Przciąszczłóśćiek (talk) 20:08, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

The paper you linked is on sea slugs, not insects. Yes, the difference matters. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 22:45, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie But the reason I linked the paper was to back up the fact that "pain in invertebrates" is a contentious issue - something which Atheologica obviously does not believe, in spite of the scientific consensus (or, rather, lack thereof). Of course, there must be similar papers on insects - I just couldn't find them in the article. Przciąszczłóśćiek (talk) 00:19, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I see. You're randomly assuming that because one group of invertebrates (a paraphyletic and fairly arbitrary group) seems to not be able to feel pain, the same must be true of a completely unrelated taxon. What academic rigor!𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 02:23, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Nope, I'm not doing that, and you know it. The discussion above was about the Wikipedia article that I linked - you claimed it contradicted my claim, and I wanted to prove to you that it absolutely did not. I first quoted the opening sentence of the article, and then backed it up with an example of an actual source (so you wouldn't pull out the "anyone can edit Wikipedia!" card). Now, given that we know that the article supports my position and is backed up by actual sources, we can use it to conclude that the scientific consensus on the ability to feel pain in invertebrates as a (which includes insects) is moot. The article doesn't specifically mention insects - because it can't go into detail about every group of invertebrates there is - but it makes a more general statement which also applies to insects. If I were as pedantic as you are being right now, then I could contend that you can't claim that the particular insects that are live in Andorra-la-vella can be classified as animals - simply because there is no paper which specifically mentions insects in Andorra-la-vella being animals.

If you want an actual scientific source on the scientific consensus on pain in invertebrates, by the way, here it is: Sherwin, C.M. (2001). "Can invertebrates suffer? Or, how robust is argument-by-analogy?". Animal Welfare (Supplement) 10: 103–S118. . I don't know how far you can stretch this and keep coming up with disingenuous arguments that you a priori know to be fallacious. Przciąszczłóśćiek (talk) 10:48, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

@Przciąszczłóśćiek and Summa Atheologica Can either of you provide proof that the other is being dishonest? If not, then both of you need to stop saying shit like "Nope, I'm not doing that, and you know it.", "I don't know how far you can stretch this and keep coming up with disingenuous arguments that you a priori know to be fallacious.", "You also are misrepresenting your own argument.", "Please stop lying (yep, in this case I can say that with confidence) and attributing to me things that I never have done.". It is in bad faith if not backed up by evidence, and not conducive to a useful discussion. Also, Summa's example was insects, and the biology can be different between phylum, hence why I said it mattered. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 12:33, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

"Please stop lying (yep, in this case I can say that with confidence) and attributing to me things that I never have done." This I have proof for: the edits that I made on the Veganism page did not imply that pain in invertebrates is a contentious issue. You can verify that for yourself. The other examples, fair enough, I was just getting frustrated with Atheologica making comments about me or what I have said that they can verify by themselves to be fallacious, without any input on my part (like how I did not imply that the fact that sea slugs don't feel pain means that insects don't feel pain, either). I will stop that, but I really would like Atheologica to do the same.

To reiterate, I did NOT provide the paper about sea slugs as evidence for the fact that insects don't feel pain. Instead, I provided it as evidence that the Wikipedia article that I was linking was well-sourced (and, in particular, that the sentence "pain in invertebrates is a contentious issue" is backed up by at least some evidence), and as a demonstration of what type of arguments the side opposing the idea that invertebrates can feel pain is making. This happened to have confused all of you, so I linked a scientific source which summarises the scientific consensus on pain in invertebrates (this should be quite uncontroversial, right?). Are there any more things you'd like me to clarify, or are we all happy with the fact that there is no scientific consensus on whether invertebrates (including insects) are able to feel pain? Przciąszczłóśćiek (talk) 14:14, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't know why you're getting mad at me, I'm just refereeing. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 18:21, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

No, I'm not getting mad at you at all, I'm sorry if it appeared that way. I was just asking a genuine question there at the end: are we happy that pain in insects is a contentious issue in the scientific community, or are there any more things that I need to clarify? Przciąszczłóśćiek (talk) 20:56, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

@Bongolian Btw, you might want to have a look at this, too, given your most recent revert of my edit with the edsum "what is your evidence for this". ^{— Unsigned, by: Przciąszczłóśćiek / talk / contribs}

It's fairly well known — by those who want to know — that people unknowingly eat insects in their food. People do not unknowingly eat sea slugs (which is in an entirely different phylum than insects). If you want to make a reasonable argument, you should at least give an example for insects. Regarding edit warring, you started this business after I put up the welcome message. The welcome message does include a link to RationalWiki:Community Standards, which does advise against edit wars "Avoid edit wars. …" Bongolian (talk) 01:30, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

See my most recent reply to Atheologica. The source I used was to back up the claim made in the Wikipedia article that the issue of pain in invertebrates is controversial. However, you guys seem to REALLY love nitpicking and say things like "but the article only mentions invertebrates - it didn't mention insects, does it? Maybe insects are the sole exception to the rule - how do you know!?" Of course, if that's your approach, you'll always find a way to nitpick your way around all the evidence that I throw at you, but, logically speaking, the burden of proof is on you to prove that a source that makes a claim about a group that includes insects somehow makes an exception for insects. By the way, I have since provided a scientific source on the consensus on pain in invertebrates, so you can't use the already disproven "it's just Wikipedia!" argument.

Now, on edit-warring: please read the last paragraph of my first message to Atheologica. I was aware that edit-warring was unadvisable, but my revert strategy was the following:

1) If someone reverts my edit without explanation, I re-revert asking for an explanation.

2) If I get reverted again, I talk to the reverter or make a new edit which takes into account what the reverter wasn't happy with.

3) If an agreement has been reached with the reverter or on the article's talk page, I make the change that an agreement has been reached on.

There was nothing on the Community Standards page that indicated this was a bad strategy. There was no mention of any 3-revert-rule, either. I honestly did not think I was doing anything wrong. If you explain what exactly I was doing wrong and what I shouldn't do upon my unblocking, then I won't do that again. Przciąszczłóśćiek (talk) 11:15, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

That's part of the problem. If you are reverted multiple times by different people, you don't just have the authority to revert over them. Given your account's young age and untrustworthiness, nobody is obliged to explain their revert. If three different people revert the same edit, just accept that the edit is probably trash and accept the will of the mob.𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 14:59, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay, cool, I will change my editing strategy now, but I didn't know that my previous editing strategy wasn't good enough. Whether implementing the scientific consensus or talk page consensus, even if it's reverted by a couple of people, is a trash edit is highly debatable, but it seems like whether re-implementing it after it got reverted more than once is a good idea is not (i.e. that it is not a good idea). Przciąszczłóśćiek (talk) 15:07, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

To Bongolian

@Bongolian Just wanted to say that your most recent edit on Veganism makes no semantic sense: "a distinction between complex animals able to feel less complex living beings". I assume you meant "a distinction between complex animals and less complex living beings". Przciąszczłóśćiek (talk) 16:20, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. Bongolian (talk) 01:36, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Message to Summa Atheologica (again) and my solution

Message to Summa Atheologica

Hey, man. As much as I am in disagreement on many topics with the editors that have engaged on this talk page, I am hopeful that they will agree with me that what you're doing now is sysop rights abuse. Let me break down why I believe that:

1. Let's start with the topic of baseless accusations. GrammarCommie (an experienced editor by your own admission) left a message recently which asked both you and me to provide evidence for our accusations of each other of dishonesty, and to refrain from these accusations if we don't have any evidence. I have a hard time believing that you didn't see this message, given that your userpage was linked in it. And, well, what do we see? Not only do you keep baselessly accusing me of deceit, but this accusation is part of your justification for blocking me. A syspo who, against requests by experienced editors to stop, baselessly accuses editors with whom they don't agree of ill intent and blocks them for it? That's a red flag if I've ever seen one.
2. Now let's get to your actual rationale behind my block. You claim that I have removed a source, and that removing a source is an act of deceit. Beside even the mind-blowing hypocrisy of you having previously edit-warred ([1], [1]) out an edit which has been backed up by numerous sources[name="Sherwin, 2001">Sherwin, C.M. (2001). "Can invertebrates suffer? Or, how robust is argument-by-analogy?". Animal Welfare (Supplement) 10: 103–S118. ][1][2][3], some of which I have provided to you specifically, and which represents the scientific consensus, and still accused me of ill intent, I have provided my rationale for removing the source and why I believed it was not appropriate in the edsum. Now, you may or may not agree with that rationale, but to block me because you don't agree with it puts you in a very bad light.
3. You didn't even try to discuss the issue before blocking me. I made one edit, which I even went out of my way to justify (something which I don't have to do and something which you have never done with regards to my edits), and I immediately got blocked. At this point, I'll just throw a couple of Community Standards quotes at you: "If an edit you make is repeatedly reverted, or someone has otherwise objected to it, then discuss it on the article's talk page", "We encourage everyone to join in, be bold, and engage in sensible debate, but expect them to do so without resorting to vandalizing articles or harassing other users ", "Blocking should never occur if somebody is attempting to discuss an issue in a reasonable manner". Needless to say, you violated all of those guidelines. Given that your justification for my last block, which you issued to me without warning, was that I didn't respect a Community Standards rule (which isn't actually on the CS page), it seems only fair for you to receive at least a 3.5-day block without warning. But I digress.
4. Parsing it all together. I have made one revert, which I politely justified. Then, without any attempt at discussion or even a warning, you block me because you don't agree that my justification is valid. You have repeatedly, against the Community Standards, assumed bad faith about me, and despite requests by other editors to stop, you not only continue doing it but use it to futher justify this block.

My solution

The jury is out on this one, but I really hope that all of my arguments are considered and an appropriate decision is made. I suggest that Summa Atheologica get promoted to autopatrolled and blocked for numerous violations of Community Standards guidelines, as their abusive editing strategy hampers progress on the pages in which they are active. The faults in their editing strategy have already been pointed out to them, and my own 3.5-day block that came without any warning was ruled to have been valid, so I don't think that any additional warnings are warranted.

Setting our disagreements aside, GrammarCommie and Bongolian, what do you think? Przciąszczłóśćiek (talk) 00:52, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

Because of your edits to and time on the wiki, Autopatrolled has been added to your user rights. This lets you bypass most of the abuse filters, bypass the CAPTCHA, and edit more frequently. If you have questions, bleat ask away.

We hope you enjoy your newfound POWER — and these external tools:

• Google Scholar Button ^{(Chrome, Firefox)} searches your highlighted text in Google Scholar. Easily check academic citations!
• web.archive.org and archive.today, among other tools, can save permanent copies of webpages. Never lose a crank website or racist Tweet ever again!

Please try not to make major revisions or tone shifts to articles without talkpage discussion though. This is mostly for the selfish reason of spare me from going through all of those red exclamation points in recent changes, but it has some perks for you as well I think. And your post coop edits have been very agreeable. Peace! Knight Commander^{In Service}_{To Her}^Goatness 01:09, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Sure, advice taken. I'll try and keep my edits more conservative, or make more extensive use of the talk page. Thanks for your words and the patrolling! Przciąszczłóśćiek (talk) 13:55, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Topic

What have you been up to? I am fascinated about covid19. Can you talk about it? If the same thread is opened please redirect my post :). Thanks :). I wrote once again - i cant see answer:) PS: I don't know any people with covid and you? rambo :D ^{— Unsigned, by: Ramboaxorn / talk / contribs}