User talk:JimWae/Archives/2007

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Your reversion on the SUNY Stonybrook page

Hello sir.

Thank you VERY much for removing the section of my edit that I worked on for over half an hour! Lots of people say that I "ruin others' hard work" when I vandalise a page by adding things, but YOU sir, oh... YOU have ruined MY work. I think it's NICE to describe how the intricacies of the phone system at SBU work and how to "hack" on public phones. Wouldn't you find that interesting? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.225.64.229 (talk) 02:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC).

It is not notable enough, nor of enough general interest, to be included in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a blog site. --JimWae 02:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, go throw yourself in a ditch! Who are YOU to set the standards of what's appropriate? I shall reverse your reversal, you swine! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ajo Mama (talk • contribs) 04:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC).

Marbel Hill

Thanks for remembering it in the New York City revision!!!--futurebird 13:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Dual nationalities/citizenships

Why are you both a citizen of the U.S. and Canada? Make up your mind and pick one. After that, owe allegiance to only ONE "country."

Many people, like me, in the U.S. do not like people like you with dual nationalities! YOU CAN NOT OWE ALLEGIANCE TO MORE THAN ONE "COUNTRY"!!! PICK ONE AND STAY WITH IT, OR LEAVE!!! -- Unsigned comment by anon IP June 2005 Special:Contributions/4.226.240.86

- Why would I care what people like you like? Why would I bother explaining anything to an anon Dallas IP with no other edits? Are you perhaps projecting your difficulty reconciling your allegiance to the USA with your allegiance to the Confederacy? --JimWae 05:38, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)

While I have no problem with a person having dual citizenship, I do understand why many people do. Many of these people are nationalists, and I am sympathetic to their view of things as well. But to accuse a nationalist of being a confederate, thereby implying nationalists are racist, hateful, and nazi-like is completely INTOLERANT of you JimWae. Of course, there is a spectrum of views within nationalism itself, I am sure; a right-wing (nazi-like) and a left-wing. I assure you that mosts American nationalists are simply proud of their country and want to protect it from people who abuse it. This group of people is far from being racist. (Gaytan 17:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC))
  • If you want me to take you seriously, you will please refrain from trying to create mountains where there is not even a molehill. Nowhere did I ACCUSE the offensive anon IP of anything, though, of course, my QUESTION does raise the possibility of his being conflicted about his own allegiances. (Incidentally, given other editing events around that time, I had some reason to believe there were indeed some neo-Confederate attitides involved too.) Your attempt to make this an issue of racism is either completely incoherent or ignorant of you. Do you subscribe to the view that all neo-Cons are racist nazis? It appears to me that you just wanted a punching bag & chose me because you are having problems dealing with the other articles which we are already both editing--JimWae 05:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Is this real? Some Belgian Francophones easily accuse the Flemish of being (regional-)nationalists and separatists, as there is a what is here in Belgium often called 'extreme'-right Vlaams Belang party with a Nazi-associated historical background, that has been getting some political weight. As everyone here, I know several assumed VB voters and none of them has ever suggested having a problem with my wife's double nationality. "One cannot have allegiance to more than one country", hm. I thought the United States were more united than the countries of the European Union, and now the difference appears to be even more overwhelming than I had assumed. Or is it in fact much less united because of the southern versus northern nationalist feelings not having been overcome internally? — SomeHuman 08 Sep 2007 22:11 (UTC)

Jim, just wanted to let you know that I too have lived in two English speaking countries in North America and have ancestors in Europe. I recently learned that I could regain citizenship in the other English speaking country for just $100. I think it might have something to do with the right to return to the country of your birth. You might want to check out human rights. --Jbergquist 10:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Time

Your first edit sujmmary read: "aren't measurements real enough?" This made no sense; the text that you removed concerned the perfectly legitimate distinction between the absolute and relative time. The former view holds that time is real, the latter that it consists in the relationships between events.

Your second edit summary was: "Undo revision 99745266 by Mel Etitis (talk) remove editorial QUESTION - again!)". Leaving aside the incorrect implication that you were giving the same reasson, this is not an editorial question. Philosophy texts, including encyclopædias, often use a question as a way of bringing out a distinction between two positions.

That the article, including this sentence, could be improved is beyond question; the same applies to most of the Wikipedia articles on philosophy. Removing this sentence doesn't improve the article, though, and it's difficult to tell why you think that it does. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

  • And what does "So, is it (being time) a real thing that is all around us, or is it simply just a human measurement?" add to the article? It is barely grammatical, it asks a question that never gets answered (and that wikipedia can never answer), and the simplified dichotomy (as explicitly presented in the question), suggests that measurements are not "real". Plus, we are "hearing" the voice of the editor. It reads like a high-school kid asking for an answer for his essay assignment. --JimWae 15:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree that it could (like the rest of the article) be improved. The question is rhetorical, as I've already pointed out, not editorial. Moreover, it certainly doesn't imply (not even remotely) that measurements aren't real. If there are only measurements, then time isn't real, but instrumental. You are familiar with the the subject, and with philosophy in general, aren't you? (Sorry, that reads more aggressively than I intended; I ask only for information.) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Consider please that you might be using "real" in a very narrow "physical reality" sense? Are promises not real? Why should time's being defined only by measurements make time "unreal"? --JimWae 05:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not engaged in original research here; the article refers correctly to a standard debate between philosophers such as Leibniz and Clarke concerning the reality or relativity of time. It does so using the standard terms in a standard way, as a Wikipedia article should. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Benjamin Franklin's deism

JimWae - In the "religion" section of the Benjamin Franklin article you commented that a true deist believes that "Divine goodness doth dispense rewards and punishments both in this life and after it." This implies that a deist believes he can change God's divine plan for the destiny of humans everywhere depending upon the behavior and actions of an individual. Now, my quotes in the Franklin article came from Isaacson which are ultimately based on the deism expounded by Matthew Tindal in his "deist bible", Christianity as Old as the Creation in 1730). As for the position you take on deism, it was expounded by Lord Herbert of Cherbury during the early the first half of the 17th century. Because deism has evolved over the centuries, expecially over the question of prayer, we have to compare Franklin to the deism that was prevalent in his day. So the question is, which of these men's ideas were more prevalent in Franklin's day, Lord Herbert of Cherbury or Tindal? Franklin's (1706-1790) early brush with deism in the 1720's probably was more akin to the deism of Lord Herbert of Cherbury. But for the second half of Franklin's life, Tindal's work was predominant, which taught that prayer was fruitless due to their understanding that God put everything into motion a long time ago and that man has no say in it (see deism). During this latter part of Franklin's life, he was definitely out of step with most deists. Today, deists seem to be changing their tune on this doctrine, reverting back to some doctrines found in the deism of Lord Herbert of Cherbury and away from Tindal. Isaacson argues that Franklin was not a pure deist, as many biographers also believe today (in comparison to Tindal's deism), but was actually a man who believed in the value of good deeds and prayer to influence god to change the course of humanity. If you disagree with Isaacson, please provide your reasoning, with references please. (Gaytan 16:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC))

  • I have edited most of your incorrect summaries of Tindal's work --JimWae 18:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

RFC

JimWae... As a major editor at George Washington and religion I thought you should know that I have started an RFC on the whole "Washington was not a communicant" issue. You may want to toss in your two cents. Blueboar 18:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Founding Fathers and deism

I have corrected your misinterpretation of Tindal on his view of prayer in the George Washington article. Yes, he did view particular kinds of prayers as a duty of mankind, but not all of them. He spoke harshly against prayers that sought to alter Deity's divine plan by stating "There are few so gross to imagine, we can direct infinite wisdom in the dispensation of providence, or persuade him to alter those laws he contrived before the foundation of the world for putting things in a regular course." No interpretation is needed; he clearly denounces prayers which seek particular blessings from God. That is, like all deists of his day, prayer should be done only to thank God for his role in our lives, not to suggest ways for him to to improve our lives. Prayers of gratitude are those prayers which he specifically states are "a duty, as it raises in us a due contemplation of the divine attributes, and an acknowledgment of his great and constant goodness, and serves to keep up a constant sense of our dependence on him; and as it disposes us to imitate those perfections we adore in him, in being kind and beneficent to one another." While Washington's statements are replete with expressions of gratitude toward God (prayers that Tindal explained were "a duty"), he also suggested that Americans "implore His protection and favor", to allow the national government to be wise and just; to "protect and guide" all nations; to promote "true religion and virtue, and the increase of science"; and to "grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best" (from Washington's Thankgiving Proclamation). All of this, according to Tindal, is "gross to imagine" since Washington asking all Americans to "direct infinite wisdom." And, although you may not find it in your personal library, my personal library is full of biographers and authors who believe Washington was not a deist. So, I have changed the article to express this fact by saying "some" biographers believe Washington was a deist, and "some" don't. I am not arguing that any of the Founders were "kinda Christians," I only wish to point out that while they were not Christian, they were not typical deists either, thereby leaving them in limbo with respect to their preferred religion. But, they were all, God-fearing men who entreated God through prayer regularly. Gaytan 20:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

  • He is not actually even denouncing such prayers - he is describing as gross those (few?) who imagine such prayers to be less than futile. (He does not say if he values every act of prayer, but even those asking to suspend the laws of nature would qualify as being mindful of mankind's dependence on him.) Prayers that the US government be wise are more directed at a change in people than in a change in God's plan. When one prays to be worthy of something, one is not usually asking the rules be relaxed for worthiness --JimWae 04:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I am concerned about what you said elsewhere about masquerading - was that directed at me? Should I take you seriously or not? --JimWae 04:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I have edited GW & religion agins: Tindal does not DENOUNCE any prayers - and he presents a positive view of prayer FIRST, he clearly values many kinds of prayer - including praising as well as thanking - & mentions another gross thing: praying to alter "natural laws" --JimWae 04:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
OK JimWae. Looks like your idea of Deism is actually evolving into something almost compatible to Christianity (but with no belief in miracles or divine revelation, of course). My problem is with those Wiki editors who claim that Deism is closer to Atheism than Christianity, that is why I say that "deism is a code work for atheism", as it is used by some Wiki editors. Now if you are not one of those people, then I believe you and I can work together without butting heads so much. But for anyone to rely on www.positiveatheism.org in order to argue that the Founders were deists, to me these people are nothing more than undercover atheists, pushing their secular agenda all over Wikipedia. Now that is an "agenda". My "agenda", again, is to simply show that the Founders were God-fearing men and that they believed it was man's duty to pray and live morally and often urged their fellow man to do likewise; I have never stated that these men were card-carrying Christians. These men were spiritual men and, although many of them would not espouse any particular Christian creed, many of them did believe in worshipping God and stated that religion, in general, was essential to morality and would benefit mankind. Yet many of them were anti-Church, that is they were suspicious of organized religion and blamed it for many of the crimes committed during the Dark Ages. Now if I lived during their day, I would have to agree. But that would not make me an atheist, as some undercover atheists in deists clothing would argue. Gaytan 17:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
But I still have to disagree with your analysis on Tindal; you are trying to stuff all prayers into Tindal's view of acceptable prayers by claiming that ALL prayers are acceptable to deists as long as they do not seek to petition an alteration of God's "natural laws." Exactly the opposite is true! Most deists reject most traditional forms of prayer and now you are trying to redefine prayer in order to fit it into the deist definition of an acceptable form of prayer! Defining "natural laws" would enter a whole new discussion, so I won't bother. Now you said yourself, deism is not a religion, it has no established creed. As such, I will no longer bother discussing diesm's view of prayer with someone who will not admit that deism has some sort of regulated belief system or some concrete views. It is pointless. Because of deism's varying and undefined characteristics (according to you), a deist claiming to be very spiritual-minded person can effectively argue their case using deist thought, just as well as an atheist, who claims to be a deist, can argue their case for deism's uninvolved and impersonal God. Deists today have such a wide spectrum of beliefs, I cannot even understand how they can classify themselves together in any way. But good luck to them. I just can't stand when people say that the Founders were non-God-fearing men who acknowledged only a God who basically made a clock (the world and all life) and carelessly left it to tick on its own forever. Thereby leading people to believe that the Founders did not care about God (since He cared not for them), that for them faith is useless, that for them intellect replaces faith, and that for them, everything is man's doing, no thanks to God. This is the atheistic spin on deism. You do not seem to be spinning deism this way, but rather toward a more spiritual outlook with a respectful and grateful view of God. Gaytan 17:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


Jefferson...

I notice we have a disagreement on how the article should be written. Please go to Jeffersons talk page. Thanks, JJstroker 04:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Concerning the several anti-govenment orgs, can examples be provided? Marktunstill 22:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)