User talk:ADM/Archive 5

Metaphysical Libertarianism

Here is Mr Farrell. Here is a link to and interview about some of his work.[1] LoveMonkey (talk) 19:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the book on the arguments as I have made them to you on substance theory in the East. [2] LoveMonkey (talk) 20:11, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you get time.. I would still like to discuss Kant and how you appear to be invalidating his Transcendental idealism. As you never got to the part of the dialect where because you understand this [3] you then start calling personalism and Byzantine theology - Neoplatonic.[4] Come now I adore Aristotle as obviously you do too. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bombing European Capitals

Dear ADM, Is it civilized practice to remove your contribution on a talk page (together with an answer to that contribution, as you did on Talk:Martin van Creveld) as soon as you realize, when pointed out to you by a fellow wikipedian, that you had overlooked a preceding discussion? In the Dutch Wikipedia domain - I am Dutch - it is not, but of course conventions can be different in other domains. Theobald Tiger (talk) 11:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if there are any conventions on this, but as long as it doesn't bother anyone who was directly reading the page, it is probably okay. Most conventions are completely arbitrary, and are the product of tacit agreements between people. I think Wikipedia is based on a kind of thelema - do what thou wilt - a liberal ethic by which almost anything is acceptable unless it is not directly offensive towards another user. See also Wikipedia:Be bold, which explains this overall policy. ADM (talk) 21:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your straight answer. What you did was not at all offensive to me, of course. Theobald Tiger (talk) 10:06, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories

Hi. Why are you deleting whole sections from this article without discussing it first on talk? Much of the text you deleted is properly sourced and has been in the article a long time. Some of it was hammered out as consensus/compromises to long-standing disputes. (And since I wrote a lot of it myself, I'm kind of fond of it :)) Joegoodfriend (talk) 05:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I put it in CIA Kennedy assassination conspiracy theory. If you don't like this entry, perhaps you should think about merging it. Anyways, the reason I had been considering a fork was because I thought the original Kennedy conspiracy article talked too much about the CIA instead of other competing theories. I am personally a fan of the LBJ-Masonic theory, which is barely mentioned in the original article. ADM (talk) 05:19, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote in talk, I am all for a re-write on the CIA-related stuff. That doesn't explain why (1.) you deleted whole sections of the article not on this specific topic and (2.) why you made major revisions to an article on controversial stuff without discussing it first on talk. Thanks. Joegoodfriend (talk) 05:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added parts about Cuba to the split because they also talk about the CIA. It's possible that the entry was busy and I thought that it was free, without people coming back to check their work. I didn't get the impression that it was under discussion. ADM (talk) 05:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strange talk posts in Pedophilia

I've noticed you've made several postings to the talk page for pedophilia, yet never responded to any of them. I dare say most of them seem off-topic or provocative, and seem to lack a clear idea of the subject matter. Please stop leaving these posts, especially if you never intend to reply to them.Legitimus (talk) 12:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do intend to reply to them, at least most of them. Pedophilia in general is a controversial topic, so it is difficult to sub-divide anything that would be especially controversial and anything that would not be. ADM (talk) 12:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well let me address your most recent here, for this reason: It's in the wrong article. Technically the subject matter relates to child sexual abuse, so you probably should move it.

Some background on this and problems noted in the other posts: Pedophilia and child sexual abuse (CSA) are separate subjects that are often confused with one another. CSA is the actual abusing of a child; pedophilia refers to a person's mental sexual attraction to children (specifically, children who have not reached puberty), not the act of abuse itself. Many of the previous posts seem to have the mistaken assumption that pedophilia is the act of abusing a child.

Another matter is the somewhat inflammatory nature of two post, about the Talmud and LGBT adoption. Both of these subjects are frequently issues brought up by bigots to use in propaganda, so naturally are bound to rile many people.Legitimus (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most people in the general public tend to assume that an attraction to children, especially a same-sex attraction to children, is highly conductive to child sexual abuse. As I said above, it is only a formal convention to assume that the two are separate. Also, what I am interested in here is public perception of social phenomenons, and not necesarily the medical distinctions that specialists like to make. If something is deemed to be sociologically controversial, and it is proven by the public to be so, then it certainly deserves to be mentioned somewhere in our entries. Furthermore, I had been reading about the social legitimization of these things. If it appears that the Talmud allows LGBT adoption in certain circumstances, and it happens that this is relevant, then it should be cited with appropriate sources. That is all. ADM (talk) 13:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Teenage pregnancy archive

It's better not to do it that way -- it kinds of breaks the contribution history. I'm going to delete your page, move the archive back, undelete your page, move the oldest threads to an archive, and set up auto-archiving.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks, since I wasn't exactly sure how the auto-archive works. ADM (talk) 16:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Auto-archive is probably overkill for this page, but I like taking the humans out of the equation, so there's no dispute over whether a particular topic should be archived or not. Does it look like I properly restored your changes? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it looks OK. ADM (talk) 17:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Current vs. unchangable

You're absolutely right; My edit to the article didn't accurately convey my concept of the RCC's position. My understanding is that the teaching against contraception has such extensive and long-standing support that is has gone beyond a "current teaching" and has become immutable. Contraception, if I understand correctly, is a sin of intent: if a couple has a "contraceptive mentality" while using NFP, they commit the same sin as a couple that uses a barrier method. It's not clear if use of a condom with the intent of preventing disease is actually contraception.

Church statements that I have read against condom promotion (not use of condoms to prevent disease, but the promotion of such use) do not use a "condoms are immoral" argument. Instead, they say such programs promote promiscuity, which increases disease transmission, and so are counterproductive. That a consensus exists against condom promotion programs does not imply that a consensus exists that an individual's use of condoms as a disease preventative is a sin.

Even if such a consensus on inherent immorality of condoms (regardless of the intentions of their users) exists, it is relatively new and has greater dissent among theologians than the teaching on contraception. I don't believe this teaching is yet on the level where it should be considered immutable.

Does that make sense? If my understanding is correct, I'd like to find a way to convey that in the sexual ethics article. If I'm all off base, I apologize. Either way, thank you for taking the time to explain things to me. Lyrl^Talk _C 16:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Opposition to contraception is not a theological dogma, like say the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption, but it is one of the Ten Commandments : thou shalt not commit adultery. That's pretty high up on the values scale. To make an analogy, by using the interpretative system of supersessionism, it is almost as if Moses was a previous Pope of the Catholic Church and that his morally infallible commandments were an essential part of the magisterium of the early Church, the Church of ancient Israel. If the Church were to abandon those commandments, not just adultery but any of them, including stealing or murder, it would be a major attack on her historical and spiritual foundations, and it is likely that the Church would actually begin to disintegrate like the Anglican communion today, which has been really hurt badly by the rejection of the anti-adultery commandment by the Episcopal Church in the United States. ADM (talk) 17:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added a brief reply on my talk page. Lyrl^Talk _C 14:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, ADM. You have new messages at Debresser's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Editing the comments of others

Please do not change what other editors write on a talk page... and especially do not change the title of an RFC (request for comment). RFC titles are designed to notify people that there is an issue that needs discussing, and are often linked to on various other pages. Blueboar (talk) 16:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much about RFCs ... I guess I didn't think it was linked to other pages. Sorry about editing your comment over there. ADM (talk) 16:57, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Antisemitism in patristics nominated for deletion.

An article you created, Antisemitism in patristics was nominated for deletion by User:Crotalus_horridus on 18 June 2009 but the article was not tagged and the discussion was never added to the log. I've tagged the article and added the discussion to today's log. This means the 7 days starts today. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Biblical canon

Please provide edit summaries--esp. when you make pretty drastic changes to articles. One has to look very carefully to properly judge grand removals of information. Thank you, 207.157.121.50 (talk) 22:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the entry lutheran canon. [5] ADM (talk) 23:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. But in Recent Changes one can't see that; I hope you understand why I made the remark. 207.157.121.50 (talk) 23:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chance or Purpose?

OK, good enough, but the fair use claim for the image does not stretch to this article. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Archives