User talk:Ronin Zanoh

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Chat, Ask, and Talk away. I'm just a Secular Humanist, atheistic to the concepts of Gods and the Supernatural Causality of our beautiful, chaotic world.

Atheism Plus[edit]

Lately, people have kept removing my contributions. I don't mind doing minor edit work per community guidelines, but I sure hate having to retype the bloody article every time some tosser wants to remove it.

Did you ever figure out that you don't need to do that? --Abd (talk) 18:10, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
New logo large.png Welcome to RationalWiki, Ronin Zanoh!

Check out our guide for newcomers and our community standards!

Tell us how you found RationalWiki here!

If you are interested in contributing:

Isn't everybody supposed to get one of these? Hi.--Weirdstuff (talk) 08:37, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
I have indeed received one of these, but I am still not sure why people keep removing my contributions, especially when I cite my sourcers. Also, Allo! -- Ronin Zanoh (talk) 03:26, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


As I see through my page and editing, you have blocked me for removing a paragraph you made which has just as much contention in terms of content as is mine (on the same grounds you allege). You claim and I quote the following:

  • Well, for starters, asserting the criticism is "valid" is not justified, so that word needs to go. Second, this still seems like a case of throwing anything you can think of at the wall to see if it will stick.

What point in the article was I addressing? It was this one:

  • According to PZ Myers, Atheism Plus represents an attempt at a new secular humanism without appropriating the religious trappings of many secular humanist groups.[5]

The response I made was criticism against this allegation provided by the article I made which states thusly: In response to PZ Myers, Amplified Atheist! wrote an article in their blog titled, "Atheism Plus. What's the Point?". The authors, Perseus and Io, challenged the claims made by Free Thought Blogs on the allegations that Secular Humanism was neither skeptic/atheistic, and had "religious trappings". Quoting from the site,, the authors' not only addressed the logical fallacy stipulated by Free Thought Blogs, their provided rebuttal dictates secular humanism as follows:

"Throughout recorded history there have been non-religious people who have believed that this life is the only life we have, that the universe is a natural phenomenon with no supernatural side, and that we can live ethical and fulfilling lives on the basis of reason and humanity. They have trusted to the scientific method, evidence and reason to discover truths about the universe and placed human welfare and happiness at the centre of their ethical decision making. Defining ‘Humanism’ the word humanist has come to mean someone who:

  • trusts to the scientific method when it comes to understanding how the universe works and rejects the idea of the supernatural (and is therefore an atheist or agnostic)
  • makes their ethical decisions based on reason, empathy, and a concern for human beings and other sentient animals
  • believes that, in the absence of an afterlife and any discernible purpose to the universe, human beings can act to give their own lives meaning by seeking happiness in this life and helping others to do the same." [Perseus & Io. [1]. Amplified Atheist!. 2012 August 23.] [Harold J. Blackham. [2]. British Humanist Association!. 2012.]

I even cited my sources of this criticism, and I did at first answer it in depth only to be said it was reproducing the article. You now allege it as "link spamming". I don't know what plane of reality you live in, but a cited source that addresses an allegation made by Mr. Myers is valid criticism. And I didn't even invoke what you allege by "misogynisits" or "priviliged" persons making a "useless point". Answer me this: where was your source for this?

  • The movement has engendered fierce (and usually unhinged) opposition from groups that see it as a feminist incursion on atheism, especially misogynist groups like the Men's Rights movement and people who don't understand the concept of privilege. The latter are generally not misogynist per se, but see other forms of skepticism as more important than what they perceive as a social issue; the latter pretty much by definition take offense of any support of women's issues and have been the source of (among other things) misrepresenting the goals of A+ as being merely repackaged (straw) feminism alongside threats of rape and violence against A+ advocates.

And I don't state this blindly, you invoked your own fallacy on the third point you made against me:

  • Third, your entire approach sounds very #FTBullies, which is a very, very childish way of looking at things. On the whole, you're quoting a lot of opinions without really discussing them, and you're doing it in a very Gish-gallopy way. Try a little more analysis and a little less argumentum ad baculum and let's see what you come up with; I need to reiterate that a lot of people who oppose A+ are doing it just because of a knee-jerk reaction, and others are doing it because they think women are inferior and/or evil. Any reasonable argument against has to be free of those two positions (since they're pretty much the root of the creation of A+ to begin with). EVDebs (talk) 23:54, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Well for a "knee jerk reaction", you most certainly provided why I have constantly removed your paragraph. You are missing the point addressed in my paragraph against the principle and allegations made by FTB, and I handled it in a rational, mature manner by stating valid criticism of those who addressed said allegations.

So if any administrator, other than this gentleman, reads my post, compared to me "dogged" post, his post is a kindergartner's spiel high on acid with no citations to back it up, and the same points he uses against me, he invokes himself. Oh and for the record, Mr. "#FTBullies" EvDebs: blocking me for removing your post on valid contention is tantamount to rude and bullying. You even provide evidence against you by stating something like this to a rational position against you:

  • "I'm rubber you're glue" is not an argument. Like I said. Take it to the talk page for the article or get lost. Either way, stop polluting my talk page.

Nice, I'm not the one using forceful coercion. --Ronin Zanoh (talk) 09:08, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

  • And I thought I was tedious. I've been outdone. I'll have to go back for more training. --Abd (talk) 01:08, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Pardon my ignorance, but what do you mean by that, my good man? --Ronin Zanoh (talk) 09:08, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Ronin, you are editing in a community, and to do so successfully, you will need to understand and adapt to the norms of the community. I'm famous for "walls of text," but the result of writing that way is that people look at it, their brain says "No, I am not going to read that" -- it's an automatic reaction -- and there you go. With some experience and in some contexts, you can get away with longer essays, etc., but you are nowhere near there.
You were blocked for five minutes. This is not terribly coercive, as such things go. You took longer to complain about it than to just wait it out. If you do some reasonable, accepted editing, someone may give you sysop privileges, which would allow you to unblock yourself. I'm not doing that because, though you are not a vandal, you are still clueless.
If you really want to learn how this community works, you'll need to spend more time following it. Watch Recent Changes. This wiki is not much like others, if you have any other experience.
Edit warring is a reason that was given for your block. You were edit warring. I'd suggest not doing that with a sysop. This isn't Wikipedia. Not a great idea to do it with anyone. It irritates people with all the edits flooding Recent Changes. It gets noticed.
I recommend letting go of being right. People don't like it. Good luck. --Abd (talk) 01:34, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Got it. Will keep that in mind and keep things simple from now on. Will do as advised and see how things work around here.--Ronin Zanoh (talk) 09:08, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Don't threaten[edit]

Your last edit to the A+ talk page crossed a line. Don't threaten to use any sort of power on someone you are arguing with. Not only is basically pointless (as everyone has power) it is GREATLY frowned down on around here. --Revolverman (talk) 02:42, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I apologise if I spoke out of turn. I have been getting belittled by this user, and I was civil until that point. Note my actions that I intend to make things right, and will edit it accordingly, and make a new tab regarding the content I am trying to advocate its inclusion. --Ronin Zanoh (talk) 10:42, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

You've been Coop'd[edit]

Take a look at this, and if you wish, state your side of the issue. I also posted an idea that might help calm this down. --Revolverman (talk) 02:54, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Can you try[edit]

To do more with less edits? Thanks. --Mikal Harass Follow 03:43, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes I can and will. Terribly sorry about that! --[[User:Ronin Zanoh|]12:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)