User talk:Agent White/Archive2
From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Sorry to mess up the cleanliness
I always carry a deep respect for the Candian. They have shown me intelligence and a warm sense of humour. I thank you for joining this cause of ours. With your profoundly welcome help, the 5th of November will have such tremendous force and valour behind it that nothing, least of all the undead, will get in the way of such a symbol of strength. We will endure, and we will be victorious. --Codename V 02:52, 23 June 2006 (BST)
- Hey man, I don't mind.
- Proud to be of service. Agent White
Boo
Your template, it's talk page. I made some suggestions there to improve it. Would you mind taking a look? –Xoid S•T•FU! 09:02, 1 July 2006 (BST)
Policy
Did you bother reading the policy? It says to apply then wait a week and then you can create it. This is only to stop people from creating a page one day and never showing up again. Sonny Corleone WTF RRF ASS CoL 21:36, 25 July 2006 (BST)
- I read it, I think it was crap.--Agent White 01:01, 26 July 2006 (BST)
Vote
"Seems to have issues with criticism as evidenced by his lashing out against all people who are against." Like...? Cyberbob Talk 07:25, 31 July 2006 (BST)
- I replied on the voting page.--Agent White 19:11, 31 July 2006 (BST)
Regarding...
This edit. I think you are mistaken my friend, Reptileus is not taking the piss out of anything, he really is that stupid. Check the PKA talk page for more info. –Xoid S•T•FU! 07:26, 17 August 2006 (BST)
- My apologies Xoid. I was actually being ironic. The edit was completely true. I also understand that he is serious. I simply wanted to anger him/point out the idiocy of the plan. I researched the whole thing one day, managed to see... 2 people... on their forum. Reptilius and Katthew. Not exactly a heartwarming bunch. I was mostly shocked and stupified that anyone would be so arrogant as to try his plans. So instead of insulting him directly I made it slightly more insulting. Of course, saying that I believed it was a joke was 100% believable since it is, just not an intelligent one. --Agent White WTF•W!•SGP•CMS-Meta•CMS 00:54, 18 August 2006 (BST)
- Ah. Wasn't aware you did the research. Heh. "Reptileus is an idiot." Who knows? This could be something that pretty much every group agrees on. Even more brilliant is how he uses Katthew as a draw card. I have no doubt that the "Katthew" on that board is a sockpuppet. I'm just amazed that anyone signed up/fell for it. *cough*ShinobiSoldier*cough*. –Xoid S•T•FU! 04:41, 18 August 2006 (BST)
- I dunno. I have little respect for Katthew after the DARIS/New CoL fiascos as well as her personal conduct, therefore my personal opinions on the issue are coloured. If could very well be a fake use of Katthew, but I recently saw people commenting that the time for DARIS to return was in the wake of the Big Bash....--Agent White WTF•W!•SGP•CMS-Meta•CMS 05:15, 18 August 2006 (BST)
- The goals of the Confederacy of Malton are what makes me doubt it the most. Particularly the final point, being permissive of bad spelling, stupid mistakes, etc. That doesn't sound like Katthew at all. –Xoid S•T•FU! 05:25, 18 August 2006 (BST)
- There is truth in that. And I guess Katthew has always viewed herself as prosurvivor as well. I mean her good points of the new CoL included barricading and stopping PKers, so I guess that isn't really a pro-Katthew type thing, although she might have changed. And yeah, the shutting up about spelling screams not Katthew. If nothing else she seems pretty constistent. You make good points.--Agent White WTF•W!•SGP•CMS-Meta•CMS 06:37, 18 August 2006 (BST)
- The goals of the Confederacy of Malton are what makes me doubt it the most. Particularly the final point, being permissive of bad spelling, stupid mistakes, etc. That doesn't sound like Katthew at all. –Xoid S•T•FU! 05:25, 18 August 2006 (BST)
- I dunno. I have little respect for Katthew after the DARIS/New CoL fiascos as well as her personal conduct, therefore my personal opinions on the issue are coloured. If could very well be a fake use of Katthew, but I recently saw people commenting that the time for DARIS to return was in the wake of the Big Bash....--Agent White WTF•W!•SGP•CMS-Meta•CMS 05:15, 18 August 2006 (BST)
- Ah. Wasn't aware you did the research. Heh. "Reptileus is an idiot." Who knows? This could be something that pretty much every group agrees on. Even more brilliant is how he uses Katthew as a draw card. I have no doubt that the "Katthew" on that board is a sockpuppet. I'm just amazed that anyone signed up/fell for it. *cough*ShinobiSoldier*cough*. –Xoid S•T•FU! 04:41, 18 August 2006 (BST)
Could you please elaborate on this point?
"Censorship of hate speech is the most important part of free speech" Because, in my opinion (and the Supreme Court's) the opposite is true. Remember, at one time Communism was seen as so dangerous as to allow censorship. If we allow censorship of racism, we strengthen their cause and curtail our own freedom. Just like the Supreme Court the wiki should not set such a harmful precedent.Jjames 22:01, 18 August 2006 (BST)
- The answer is simple. If you studied psychology you would know that the main problem with any form of bigotry is hate speech. You can watch the ability of a person fall over the course of a day to less than half of their former ability (even in things like spelling that we deem so simple) if they are exposed to hate speech. I don't give a shit about your surpreme court. I am a Canadian. (Yeesh, that is on my user page). As for the Communism argument, that is a fallacy. Communism is not a race nor an identifible group. Also Communism is no longer censored because it is an idea of government which is freedom of thought being curtailed. Is insults toward others tolerated in America? Is destroying their arms or pieces of their brains? If so, then I will make a point of never doing my time in the Silicon Valley, because that is the same effect as hate speech. --Agent White WTF•W!•SGP•CMS-Meta•CMS 22:21, 18 August 2006 (BST)
- You should cite sources if you are going to make broad claims. Did your study show how other protected forms of insults or criticism affected people? Are you saying people have a right not to be upset? And Communism is a perfect example because religion is protected by the new policy as well, and it isn't any more identifiable than communism. If we shouldn't curtail freedom of thought for Communists, then why for racists? And yes, in America we do tolerate insults, it is a part of freedom of speech. Are you advocating a ban on insults on the wiki? As for the Supreme Court, whether you agree with them or not, their precedents are studied by scholars and lawyers around the world. Not so much Canada's.Jjames 23:32, 18 August 2006 (BST)
- I am sorry, I don't carry a textbook in my back pocket. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/divided/etc/view.html is a link to a video on the topic, however I forget the name of the scientist who did the study and runs courses on the topic, however it is a valid case study. I have done other reading, but also have seen the PBS documentry as my introduction to the topic during early psychology classes. Also, America accepts verbal harrassment and assault as legal? All this time I thought that this was not true and have seen cases when this is not the case... interesting. Rulings by the American supreme court are also laughed at all over the world. Yeesh. Religions are a freedom yes, and communism is a freedom. Saying you can't say anything communist is what I was saying was bad. I am all for rulings disallowing insults for political view, but then I AM also for rulings disallowing direct insults. It would make the whole world a more civil place if you were forced to say your side more intelligently. I mean if you had to explain your reasoning for every time you were to disagree with someone and then shut up rather than start insulting their parantage or giving personal attacks I would be very pleased. Yes I show affiliation for WTFCENTAURS but this is because I am a hypocrite. I do not follow the rules I advocate for. I will however follow them when we can finally get them in place. Violence is not the answer, until someone runs at you with a knife.--Agent White WTF•W!•SGP•CMS-Meta•CMS 23:42, 18 August 2006 (BST)
- Your scientific claims are moot since you have failed to show any controlled respected data from actual researchers (as opposed to grade school teachers) to back your claims. As for your beliefs that we shouldn't attack people for points of view, that is what we are doing. One persons point of view, is another person's insult. We must protect freedom everywhere for freedom to be safe anywhere. As for people laughing at the supreme court, why are so many legal systems based on ours, satire? If you actually advocate laws supporting suppresion of insults, then you are a facist. Why don't you cite the American laws forbidding verbal assualt and harassment? I am curious as to your understanding of them. Your willingness to curtail freedom of speech and thought to preserve peoples feelings would result in great pain, suffering, and loss of freedom and potentially life if extrapolated to any reasonable outcome. Please be more responsible with your comments.Jjames 01:00, 19 August 2006 (BST)
- WRONGO. That has been backed up on multiple occasions, as I said I do not remember where it is. That is simply the major record of it, and since it has been tried on multiple occasions it is pretty provable. I understand that your mind is completely closed to the idea of people who are not PHD's doing research, but it does happen, and is still valid. Also, insults to the point of harrassment are illegal, I don't actually know any American law, I simply know of cases I have read via news sources I read online. I don't have passages to cite, but assault is illegal, I know that. I am Canadian so personally I don't care about American law. As for the law systems based on you... name one other than Iraq... you're based on Rome so don't go there.--Agent White WTF•W!•SGP•CMS-Meta•CMS 01:55, 19 August 2006 (BST)
- You do realize that you have the burden to prove your claims right? Otherwise they are invalid. You haven't proved a single one. Seeing as you can't obey the most minimal guidelines for debate, i'm afraid I have nothing more to say to you.Jjames 18:49, 19 August 2006 (BST)
- WRONG. This is voting. You don't have to prove shit in voting.--Agent White WTF•W!•SGP•CMS-Meta•CMS 00:53, 20 August 2006 (BST)
- You do realize that we were just debating our points of views, right? When you do that, you are required to support claims with evidence or your points are considered invalid. Just curious, have you graduated high school?Jjames 19:34, 20 August 2006 (BST)
- Interestingly, no I have not. I will be graduating in about 4 days. Seeing as I am not of an age where graduating highschool is typical (18 in Canada, most graduate 19+) I think that is a reflection of my intelligence, not my ignorance. Anyway, you were asking me to explain my vote. I did so and you did not accept what I said. That is perfectly fine. However, we were not having a formal debate, there are actually no rules for formal debate. I was quite generous in offering you the things I based the statement on, you chose not to believe them. You also proved your ignorance in how study works (believing that it is limited to only certain groups as opposed to anyone who chooses to preform a study, this is a fallacy, however only certain groups typically get the money to study). I did demonstrate an ignorance of American law, but however I can point you to subsection 11 b of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms of Canadian Law, since that is the law I abide by, it makes more sense for me to know that does it not? I also said that I based alot of my knowledge of American Law on news articles. Since those are illegal to find in alot of cases, citing those is difficult, and why should a I remember them for someone who runs with an INGAME White Supremacy group on a wiki for an online game? Finally, what we were doing was debating in the loose sense of the word, but not debating in the formal sense of the word, if we were debating in the formal sense of the word, you can have a burden of proof. PROVE me wrong. I dare you.--Agent White WTF•W!•SGP•CMS-Meta•CMS 21:56, 20 August 2006 (BST)
- Well I called that right anyway. I'm not trying to insult your intellegence, merely correct some basic fallacies in your logic. The reason most people prefer evidence cited from studies performed by professional in the field is that they have a higher standard of proof. The classroom experiment over what prejudice feels like is fine in the way of anecdotal evidence, but it lacks an effective control group and is hardly a representative sample. It teaches the kids a great lesson, but citing it to prove the harmful effects of insults doesn't hold up. It's hard to take your assertation of the superiority of canadian law over american law as you have professed an ingnorance of American law. Saying you don't have to prove points against a white supremecist is a casebook ad hominem attack (a fallacy relying on attacking personal character or beliefs of the individual arguing rather than countering their points or proving your own). If I was a aupremecist (I'm not, OWS was satire denouncing racism) your obligation to reveal the flaws in my logic would be greater. No one wants to see a supremecist win an argument. There is no difference between formal debating or loose debating except form. At any point in a discussion with anyone if you make a claim ("Insults shoud be illegal") then the burden of proof lies on you to prove it, not anyone to disprove it. All I have to do is point out that you haven't proven your point. Good luck in college.Jjames 00:25, 21 August 2006 (BST)
- At this point since it is taking over my talk page I am gonna put everything in a second archive. Anyway, as to laws, I never said if one is superior, I simply said it was a premise in what I believed in American law, but was in Canadian Law. I also have an ignorance of the structure of American Law and do not know where the articles stating things are kept, meaning I have issues with the citation, however I do have a working knowledge, enough to get by in the states. As for my study, again it was issues in my citation. Since I did not prepare for formal debate I don't have the citations lined up. If I was to debate formally I would have citation. So while you may claim debate all you wish, it will still be nothing but a tool to discredit me. As for the white supremecy thing, the answer to that is simple, in this debate there is bais, and someone who is going to join OWS at all is going to naturally be againt censorship since it would make OWS completely cut out of anything, therefore it is a bias analyzation (of course that could be a crock of shit, which it is, but it works, I coulda left this sentence out and there would be no way of proving it wasn't). The rules of debate do not apply on this wiki, since they have never applied before, so don't try to hold me to them, especially about a vote. Democratic Processes by definition does not require proof or intelligence. It is quantity over quality.--Agent White WTF•W!•SGP•CMS-Meta•CMS 15:09, 21 August 2006 (BST)
- I don't want to make a personal judgement against you, but it seems to me you moved this archive because you lost the argument. I think you are hung up on the term "debate" and I can't see why you believe you don't have to support your aguments. No one in any argument anywhere will take your word for something you can't ever back up with proof. You claim to understand american law, and yet when I asked you to explain what verbal harrassment and verbal assualt were, you were unable to. This is not an issue of citation. You couldn't define the words you using. As for bias, it is only valid in if the facts or reasoning I use are biased. Everyone has a motivation behind their points of view so under your reasoning, no on is to be trusted in an argument. In point of fact, I created OWS to parody racism and promote free speech, but the new guidelines under vote would not make it against the rules. We never denigrated another race, sexuality, belief system etc. It would only apply to things like OSW,OBS, and OYS. If you look under deletion, I am voting to keep those pages. I'm not fighting to preserve something I like, but pages that openly attack and target me and feature crass racism.(I hate racism.) But it is important in a free society to have a free exchange of ideas. Finally, I never said you vote was invalid because you couldn't support it. I said your reasoning behind it and your other comments were. You are still allowed to vote without basis.Jjames 18:51, 21 August 2006 (BST)
- At this point since it is taking over my talk page I am gonna put everything in a second archive. Anyway, as to laws, I never said if one is superior, I simply said it was a premise in what I believed in American law, but was in Canadian Law. I also have an ignorance of the structure of American Law and do not know where the articles stating things are kept, meaning I have issues with the citation, however I do have a working knowledge, enough to get by in the states. As for my study, again it was issues in my citation. Since I did not prepare for formal debate I don't have the citations lined up. If I was to debate formally I would have citation. So while you may claim debate all you wish, it will still be nothing but a tool to discredit me. As for the white supremecy thing, the answer to that is simple, in this debate there is bais, and someone who is going to join OWS at all is going to naturally be againt censorship since it would make OWS completely cut out of anything, therefore it is a bias analyzation (of course that could be a crock of shit, which it is, but it works, I coulda left this sentence out and there would be no way of proving it wasn't). The rules of debate do not apply on this wiki, since they have never applied before, so don't try to hold me to them, especially about a vote. Democratic Processes by definition does not require proof or intelligence. It is quantity over quality.--Agent White WTF•W!•SGP•CMS-Meta•CMS 15:09, 21 August 2006 (BST)
- Well I called that right anyway. I'm not trying to insult your intellegence, merely correct some basic fallacies in your logic. The reason most people prefer evidence cited from studies performed by professional in the field is that they have a higher standard of proof. The classroom experiment over what prejudice feels like is fine in the way of anecdotal evidence, but it lacks an effective control group and is hardly a representative sample. It teaches the kids a great lesson, but citing it to prove the harmful effects of insults doesn't hold up. It's hard to take your assertation of the superiority of canadian law over american law as you have professed an ingnorance of American law. Saying you don't have to prove points against a white supremecist is a casebook ad hominem attack (a fallacy relying on attacking personal character or beliefs of the individual arguing rather than countering their points or proving your own). If I was a aupremecist (I'm not, OWS was satire denouncing racism) your obligation to reveal the flaws in my logic would be greater. No one wants to see a supremecist win an argument. There is no difference between formal debating or loose debating except form. At any point in a discussion with anyone if you make a claim ("Insults shoud be illegal") then the burden of proof lies on you to prove it, not anyone to disprove it. All I have to do is point out that you haven't proven your point. Good luck in college.Jjames 00:25, 21 August 2006 (BST)
- Interestingly, no I have not. I will be graduating in about 4 days. Seeing as I am not of an age where graduating highschool is typical (18 in Canada, most graduate 19+) I think that is a reflection of my intelligence, not my ignorance. Anyway, you were asking me to explain my vote. I did so and you did not accept what I said. That is perfectly fine. However, we were not having a formal debate, there are actually no rules for formal debate. I was quite generous in offering you the things I based the statement on, you chose not to believe them. You also proved your ignorance in how study works (believing that it is limited to only certain groups as opposed to anyone who chooses to preform a study, this is a fallacy, however only certain groups typically get the money to study). I did demonstrate an ignorance of American law, but however I can point you to subsection 11 b of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms of Canadian Law, since that is the law I abide by, it makes more sense for me to know that does it not? I also said that I based alot of my knowledge of American Law on news articles. Since those are illegal to find in alot of cases, citing those is difficult, and why should a I remember them for someone who runs with an INGAME White Supremacy group on a wiki for an online game? Finally, what we were doing was debating in the loose sense of the word, but not debating in the formal sense of the word, if we were debating in the formal sense of the word, you can have a burden of proof. PROVE me wrong. I dare you.--Agent White WTF•W!•SGP•CMS-Meta•CMS 21:56, 20 August 2006 (BST)
- You do realize that we were just debating our points of views, right? When you do that, you are required to support claims with evidence or your points are considered invalid. Just curious, have you graduated high school?Jjames 19:34, 20 August 2006 (BST)
- WRONG. This is voting. You don't have to prove shit in voting.--Agent White WTF•W!•SGP•CMS-Meta•CMS 00:53, 20 August 2006 (BST)
- You do realize that you have the burden to prove your claims right? Otherwise they are invalid. You haven't proved a single one. Seeing as you can't obey the most minimal guidelines for debate, i'm afraid I have nothing more to say to you.Jjames 18:49, 19 August 2006 (BST)
- WRONGO. That has been backed up on multiple occasions, as I said I do not remember where it is. That is simply the major record of it, and since it has been tried on multiple occasions it is pretty provable. I understand that your mind is completely closed to the idea of people who are not PHD's doing research, but it does happen, and is still valid. Also, insults to the point of harrassment are illegal, I don't actually know any American law, I simply know of cases I have read via news sources I read online. I don't have passages to cite, but assault is illegal, I know that. I am Canadian so personally I don't care about American law. As for the law systems based on you... name one other than Iraq... you're based on Rome so don't go there.--Agent White WTF•W!•SGP•CMS-Meta•CMS 01:55, 19 August 2006 (BST)
- Your scientific claims are moot since you have failed to show any controlled respected data from actual researchers (as opposed to grade school teachers) to back your claims. As for your beliefs that we shouldn't attack people for points of view, that is what we are doing. One persons point of view, is another person's insult. We must protect freedom everywhere for freedom to be safe anywhere. As for people laughing at the supreme court, why are so many legal systems based on ours, satire? If you actually advocate laws supporting suppresion of insults, then you are a facist. Why don't you cite the American laws forbidding verbal assualt and harassment? I am curious as to your understanding of them. Your willingness to curtail freedom of speech and thought to preserve peoples feelings would result in great pain, suffering, and loss of freedom and potentially life if extrapolated to any reasonable outcome. Please be more responsible with your comments.Jjames 01:00, 19 August 2006 (BST)
- I am sorry, I don't carry a textbook in my back pocket. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/divided/etc/view.html is a link to a video on the topic, however I forget the name of the scientist who did the study and runs courses on the topic, however it is a valid case study. I have done other reading, but also have seen the PBS documentry as my introduction to the topic during early psychology classes. Also, America accepts verbal harrassment and assault as legal? All this time I thought that this was not true and have seen cases when this is not the case... interesting. Rulings by the American supreme court are also laughed at all over the world. Yeesh. Religions are a freedom yes, and communism is a freedom. Saying you can't say anything communist is what I was saying was bad. I am all for rulings disallowing insults for political view, but then I AM also for rulings disallowing direct insults. It would make the whole world a more civil place if you were forced to say your side more intelligently. I mean if you had to explain your reasoning for every time you were to disagree with someone and then shut up rather than start insulting their parantage or giving personal attacks I would be very pleased. Yes I show affiliation for WTFCENTAURS but this is because I am a hypocrite. I do not follow the rules I advocate for. I will however follow them when we can finally get them in place. Violence is not the answer, until someone runs at you with a knife.--Agent White WTF•W!•SGP•CMS-Meta•CMS 23:42, 18 August 2006 (BST)
- You should cite sources if you are going to make broad claims. Did your study show how other protected forms of insults or criticism affected people? Are you saying people have a right not to be upset? And Communism is a perfect example because religion is protected by the new policy as well, and it isn't any more identifiable than communism. If we shouldn't curtail freedom of thought for Communists, then why for racists? And yes, in America we do tolerate insults, it is a part of freedom of speech. Are you advocating a ban on insults on the wiki? As for the Supreme Court, whether you agree with them or not, their precedents are studied by scholars and lawyers around the world. Not so much Canada's.Jjames 23:32, 18 August 2006 (BST)
