User talk:Spud

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

"William Lane Craig" article - logical fallacy[edit]

I saw you reverted my change to the Craig article. The argument that "looks like a logical fallacy" to you is in fact a valid application of modus tollens or "denying the consequent", not an application of the (fallacious) inference pattern affirming the consequent.

I'm not going to revert it or reply again about this. Leave the article in whatever state you like. (Sorry if it's bad form to bring this up here, I'm not familiar with wiki etiquette.)— Unsigned, by: 175.144.7.24 / talk / contribs


Why is it some users can be put into political catagories but not others?[edit]

When you reverted an edit on my page that put me into a category, you said users aren't allowed to use those categories. So why is it that User:MariaMacLachlan get's special treatment? https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:MariaMacLachlan --Ambition of Truth (talk) 00:35, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

@Ambition of Truth Special treatment? Hardly, given it was LuodiWang, not Spud, who added the categories. The situation has been rectified, thank you for your assistance in this matter. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:44, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Not sure how a known anti-trans activist flew under the radar, wheras a noname like me didn't. But at least I succeeded in having the MGTOW's listed by someone else in the "Pissed at us" category. --Ambition of Truth (talk) 00:59, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Horse isn't funspace[edit]

At least not to me. It's got a fair amount of straight-cut missional things: horseshoes and luck, horse racing woo, evolution. I don't get a fun vibe from the one section of silly list. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:10, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

But 95# of the page is just silly crap. And the section about horseshoes it mostly made up of an unsourced anecdote. (A good anecdote, though, granted.) Spud (talk) 16:18, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas[edit]

Merry Christmas, Simon. I hope that you have a fantastic Christmas and a happy new year! Season greetings! 2Cute4U (talk) 12:41, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
@2Cute4U Thank you. Season's greetings and best wishes for 2019 to you. Spud (talk) 13:13, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Please consider the correction of a factually incorrect article about me[edit]

Dear Spud, I am writing you because a few weeks ago, an article about me (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Dalibor_Jur%C3%A1%C5%A1ek) appeared on Rational wiki. This article contains some factually incorrect claims, to which I demanded corrections. I have written on the article Talk page, where I have specified the claims and given my arguments.

However, I was met with being labeled a „liar“, „denialist“, but my arguments were not addressed. I have also contacted the mail legal@rationalwiki.org, but there was no answer (the e-mail box seems to be defunct, as my e-mail was not delivered). As you are an active RationalWiki Moderator/Sysop, I believe you are competent to enter this process and correct the information. I hope we can engage in a fair and open discussion.

PS. I have also contacted the user Nerd.

Thank you and friendly regards, and wish you a Happy New Year --Dalibor.jurasek (talk) 10:04, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

The Holocaust happened. It left millions of people dead, including my relatives. Don't try to play word games to deny your denialism. Spud (talk) 13:52, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer, but you did not at all address my arguments. I am not claiming the Holocaust did not happen, I just do not have enough information to consider how some aspects of it happened. I hate playing with words – more so in an age where people label others with opposing views and consider that a legitimate argument. I already explained how the consequences of your logic are contradictory. If sceptic = denier, from that follows that A equals non-A.
More importantly, I addressed other issues, as well, to which you did not respond. The content of the article about me is in violation of your own standards, which state “Articles about living people must be handled carefully“, „we need to firmly back our points“ and „if a claim is not solidly referenced, asserts something about the article's subject(s), and the article's subject(s) might object to it, it probably shouldn't be in the article at all. This is not just for legal protection, but because it's the right thing to do.“ --Dalibor.jurasek (talk) 15:52, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
@Dalibor.jurasek As far as this wiki is concerned, either:
  • You believe all aspects of the Holocaust happened exactly as the history books say it did. Or;
  • You are a Holocaust denier because you either question or are skeptical about some part of it. Or;
  • You don't think the Holocaust was bad, because you are a NAZI.
That's basically it. Dysklyver 16:11, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
@Dysklyver That's not true. Deniers pretend the Holocaust never happened, and are composed entirely of cranks. Revisionists want to re-examine the number of deaths reported, either because they're cranks who wish to downplay an atrocity for their own political gain, or because they are historians seeking accurate numbers. This second camp is a bit more complicated. Then of course there are those who try to justify the Holocaust, and are (obviously) cranks. whichever camp Jurasek falls into there can be no denying that the article needs more sources. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:28, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Just to put things in context. I actually never published any article regarding whether the Holocaust happened. I never publicly lectured on it or anything. My only public statement regarding revisionism was one discussion post from 2010 (my blog, where the discussion was, was deleted several years ago) where I stated: "I do not have a clear opinion, but rather I tend to favour the revisionists. To say with greater certainty, I would need information I simply do not have. Unfortunately, the likelihood of acquiring them given the present legal state is very low.". From then on, my opinion evolved in that I am fifty:fifty. I know both sides have serious arguments, but also serious questions that need to be answered. What happened to the Jews during second world war, I consider a horrible crime committed by the Nazis. Whether it was 6, 5, 2 or 1 million does not make it less horrible. All of this, of course, needs to be understood in historical context. The Holocaust should not be politicized as much as it is, and other victims should be remembered as well. We need a free discussion of all opinions and sides of view. It is absurd to put into jail someone who simply voices an opinion different from the official version - even if they are utterly wrong.
Since writing my article in 2010, still as a student of law, I have not dealt with the topic of Holocaust. It is not a topic of major interest for me. I thus do not feel obliged to have an exact opinion on it. And I reject being labeled when I do not have a clear opinion. When I have an exact opinion on something, I need to have really clear arguments. It does not suffice to me that something is a mainstream consensus. I need to go deeper to be sure. And that goes for all topics. If I have serious reasons for doubt (which I have in many aspects of the Holocaust), I abstain from a clear opinion. Precise fact-checking usually takes a lot of time and energy, which I invest in topics important for me. There are thus many topics on which I do not have a clear opinion on. I am unlike many other people, who, after reading just one, two articles already have a clear-cut opinion.
According to the logic the author of the article about me used, all true sceptics and all true agnostics are Holocaust deniers. Also, this logic is self-contradictory, as I showed at my talk page.
To sum up:
1. I do not at all deny the Holocaust, I consider it a horrible crime, though I am not sure about how some aspects of it happened.
2. I only stated my opinion on revisionism once, in a discussion post in 2010, to an article which is already deleted for several years. There, I wrote I don't have a clear opinion and I cannot have it because the present legal state makes open and free discussion impossible.
3. I have not dealt with the Holocaust (be it publicly, or personal study) since.
It is ludicrous in this context to lump me in one category with people who are hateful, truly deny the Holocaust and have not event studied the literature extensively. This reminds me of Orwellian newspeak.
Also, your article about me pops up very high in the search of my name. In our society, when one is labeled as an "extremist" or "Holocaust denier", it might be problematic for them to study, find a job or even a living contract. I am aware that my activities (sometimes "politically incorrect") can put me in this position. But I refuse to be in this position as a result of a false accusation, repeatedly proven untrue, only to be labeled as a liar, on a wiki supposedly run by people favoring critical thinking.
Moreover, the article still claims I am a pseudoscience promoter, which has absolutely no basis in fact. Nobody on the discussion has shown any argument for this, despite my repeated requests.
Thank you, and wish you all a happy new year!
Dalibor
--Dalibor.jurasek (talk) 11:58, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
I have put in a deletion nomination on the basis that you deserve us at least considering whether you should have an article or not. The key thing probably is that you don't have a platform or following and the likelihood of anyone reading your old writings is pretty slim... Dysklyver 12:33, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
I have read the discussion at https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki:Articles_for_deletion/Dalibor_Jur%C3%A1%C5%A1ek. Thank you for listening to my arguments. I was still listed as a Holocaust denier in the article https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Jan_te_Nijenhuis, so I deleted this mention, because most editors voting in the vote were persuaded that I am not one (although I really was, for a time). Wish you all the best and good luck. --Dalibor.jurasek (talk) 11:11, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

That addition to WIGO...[edit]

...was already added to Clogs, and even if it hadn't it should've been added there instead of WIGOW anyways. Palaeonictis Fossil beds 12:46, 12 February 2019 (UTC)