User talk:Michael Voytinsky

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello there, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Wikipedia:Naming conventions or how to format them visit our manual of style. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Village pump. Cheers! --maveric149

[edit] WikiProject Philosophy

Hi Michael! I noticed that you have made a lot of terrific contributions to articles about philosophy. I'm trying to organize those of us who are philosophically inclined over on WikiProject Philosophy, in the hopes of sprucing up the philosophy pages around here, and I'd like to invite you to join us. If you're interested, drop on in -- there's no obligation, I'm just trying to form a nexus and central meeting point for philosophically-minded 'pedians. Thanks, and good luck! — Adam Conover † 20:45, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)

Adam, I have added my name to the list of participants on WikiProject Philosophy. I am currently trying to read "The Critique of Pure Reason" in its entirety - God, did Kant ever need a good editor! Currently I have made it almost half-way. -- Michael

Wow, awesome. The CPR is great. We desperately need some sort of summary of it, though -- I suppose we need not go into every subject, but we need at least a summary of the main thrust and a description of the architectonic. I would love to work on it, but we definitely need a team, because it's such a big task... In any case, glad to have you aboard! — Adam Conover † 19:56, Apr 9, 2004 (UTC)

I have put in a very brief summary of the CPR's subject matter in the CPR entry. I think the next step will be to start putting together a list of key concepts in the Critique. Some of these concepts will have entries in the Wikipedia already (e.g. synthetic and analytic propositions), and others will not, or will need more work. -- Michael

[edit] Image:Michael.jpg

Hi there! I noticed your image didn't have an image copyright tag on it, so I added {{GFDL}} to it. I figured that since you took the photo and uploaded it to Wikipedia, you intended to license it under the GFDL. If I'm wrong, please update the tag appropriately. Thanks! --David Iberri | Talk 19:43, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] SIIEG

Hi Michael: I want to invite you to join us at SIIEG and take active part in making sure Wikipedia remains neutral. I am specifically referring to Muslims who unfortunately seem to be more committed to their religion than to facts and this encyclopedia. They often use unethical conduct to have their opinion prevail and opposing views on Islam censored. Since I joined I became the target of their endless abuses. I finally found SIEEG. That is a great idea and I want to promote it. Muslims work in group and are very militant, to the extent that some of them are so unethical that present themselves as “mediators” when other Muslims get in tug of war with you, when obviously in matters of their faith they have vested interest. This is conflict of interest and should not be allowed no matter how the person claims to be impartial and unreligious. I converted to Islam because all I read were lies. Now that I saw the truth, I want to make the truth prevail. People should not fall into this trap because they are lied to. The problem is that once they convert to Islam, they are immediately fed with hate. I started hating everyone without knowing why. The change was so subtle and so incremental that you do not notice. We must stop this lie and save innocent people like me and thousands others from becoming victims. Some people have become suicide bombers after conversion. like this poor woman You must make it your business to take stance. So please join and become part of our project. OceanSplash 14 Dec. 2005 03:54

[edit] Now You Have Seen the Truth

With respect, I will not join SIIEG, because, and please do not take this the wrong way, you are obviously a bunch of loons.

Ah, that's what I like to see: deference before a comma, and impudence immediately after.Myles325a 02:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Your problem is that having found out that one "Truth" was not a truth at all, you continue to search for "Truth". However, there is no "Truth". (That is not a "Truth", btw.)

Certainly it is not the function of an encyclopaedia to present the "Truth". You and your Muslim opponents are equally under the misapprehension that that is in fact its function, and so you confuse "facts" and "NPOV". You think, incorrectly, that facts ARE NPOV. That is not true.

Facts are, as a matter of fact, very tricky. Is it a "fact" that the "sharia" prescribes 100 lashes for "fornication"? Well, there is no book called "The Sharia", for one. A statement that something is "according to the Sharia", if unqualified, is meaningless.

Do Muslims support suicide bombings? Clearly some do. If you want to be really NPOV, you can say that they "describe themselves as Muslims", which reduces scope for dispute. Others do not. Unless you have access to reliable, reputable polls dealing with the subject, no NPOV generalization is possible.

Some people who describe themselves as Muslims will use weaselly language when explaining their views on suicide bombings. The previous statement is clearly not NPOV. But it is NPOV to quote them, and quote a public figure expressing the view that the statement is weaselly. Done right, neither you, nor the deranged loons running islam-qa.com will disagree with an NPOV statement - that should be your idea. Not "Truth".

By the way, look up E-Prime. You may find it useful - I would not advocate switching entirely to E-Prime, but you may want to put some thought into full implications of the casual use of the verb "to be" and its equivalents. Sometimes, phenomenological descriptions of events are much better for neutrality. For example, try to rephrase the statement "President of Iran is a lunatic" without using the verb to be. Michael Voytinsky 22:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I did not say that there is a truth that we can find and philosophically there is nothing in what you wrote that I disagree with. However, my point is not whether some Muslims approve of suicide bombing or not. My concern is that Islam approves of it. The Quran calls for killing and hating the non-Muslims such as you. Did you see this? Anyway, I just found SIIEG and don’t know whether people there are loons or not. I reserve that judgement after I know them better. Do you know them? From what I read, I think they are dedicated to a cause and I share that cause. What is NPOV? Isn’t it stating the views of both sides without taking side? So why opposing views to Islam are censored? see this if you have time. User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Gross_and_flagrant_abuses_of_powerWish you the best and cheers. OceanSplash 15 Dec. 2005 9:20

I am not sure how a concept can approve or disapprove of anything. I am not sure where you are getting the bit about the Quran calling for murder of non-Muslims. Given the number of Muslims I work with, and the fact that I have not been murdered, your interpretation of the Quran is not widely shared. This can be further supported by the number of people I have met who have travelled in Islamic countries (including Saudi and Iran) who have also not been murdered.

I do not know the SIIEG people personally, but they - including you - come across as people with an axe to grind. "Loons" is a first impression, not a thoroughly considered opinion.

Views opposing Islam, or supporting Islam, have no place in the Wikipedia. The author - any author - should seek to present information in such a way that all readers, regardless of sides, can agree with it (this is an ideal that we should strive for, not something that can be easily done every time). So, for example, rather than saying "Islam approve of suicide bombing" you can write "Sheikh so-and-so said that suicide bombers who kill Israelis will go to paradise immediately" (assuming he has in fact said that). You can also write "CAIR has condemned suicide bombings, but, according to critics so-and-so and such-and-such, has not condemned any particular suicide bombings." This way, a redneck Islam-hater and a crazed Islamic fundamentalist will be able to read the entry and say, "Yes, this is a good descrption."

The goal here is not to present views of one side and then views of another - this is not a debate forum, if you have not noticed. NPOV is not an emergent property that comes out of different sides presenting their views. Rather, it must be present in the entirety of the entry - unless quoting non-NPOV sources, of course - but such quotes themselves are NPOV. Michael Voytinsky 12:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Just a note

Just a note because I saw you asking about Sharia's punishment, and didn't want to let the banned troll User:Absent (look at his userpage!) have the sole influence on you - it's important to note that Sharia does not punish rape victims, and traditionally takes a very harsh stance against the rapists (although, because Sharia has a much greater burden of proof to prove guilt, the "presumption of innocence" is stronger than in most Western countries for all crimes (It has nothing to do with sex, all accusations of crime give the benefit of doubt to the accused). Also, a commonly misunderstood concept of Sharia is that "It kills women for premarital sex" which is patently untrue, the sin of adultery is that you are betraying your spouse (male or female), so premarital sex (in which an unmarried person has sex) is viewed much more 'liberally' or 'lightly', than if you were married. For reference's sake, I'm a Canadian Christian, so I like to think I'm at least somewhat unbiased in that I have no real agenda, except dispelling ignorance and fostering knowledge :) If you have any other direct questions, you can ask me, although there are of course more authoritative sources as well Sherurcij ^{(talk) (bounties)} 14:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

"I have no real agenda, except dispelling ignorance and fostering knowledge :)"

This is not for you to say but for others to decide. I have yet to see an ignorant person admitting ignorance or a person with hidden agenda being forthcoming with his agenda. This is not to slight you, but commonsense which would make your self declaration of knowledgeablity and sincerity redundant.

As for burden of proof in Islam, obviously that burden especially in the case of rape is so hard to meet that always the rapists get away with their crime and the victims are punished. Generally rapists do not rape their victims in public, so asking the poor victims of rape to produce several witnesses is ludicrous and is indicative of the ignorance of the legislator, in this case the imaginary deity of the self proclaimed prophet of Islam. Then of course if the victim complains about abuse, that complaint is taken as her confession or worse if she becomes pregnant there is material evidence that sex out of wedlock has occurred and as the consequence it is often the victim that is chastised. As the result victims of rape in Islamic countries bury their pain and do not complain.This law is nothing but the mockery of the victim. It demands the victim to do the impossible to get justice. OceanSplash 15Dec. 2005 23:56

Thank you for the clear example of what an agenda looks like :) Sherurcij ^{(talk) (bounties)} 05:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

By the way, the "imaginary deity of the self proclaimed prophet of Islam" you mention, is actually the same deity worshipped by Christians and Jews :) Sherurcij ^{(talk) (bounties)} 05:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Islam and beyond...

I'm glad that you're more adept than I am in stating your view about "Islam says" and the like. I have for quite some time been trying to get read of personifying religions or texts. Not sure the best way to get read of all of this but good luck on Islam articles and on any other articles out there. gren グレン 22:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Belated resp

Thought you might like to see the resp i posted at Talk:Physicalism#Physicalism and Subjective Idealism - What is the Difference.3F. See ya, "alyosha" 22:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] MY ORTHODOX BROTHER!

Why do defend these Muslims? You are a Russian, I consider all Russians my brothers. Why do you defend Muslims who murder Russians in Chechnya, do you not remember what these animals did in Beslan?

These people are evil. Pure evil. May our lord Jesus Christ show you the truth my friend. I have seen the truth, what they do to churches in occupied Cyprus.--GreekWarrior 19:45, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I am an atheist

But that hardly matters. I think your hero Noam Chomsky would not approve of your hatred for Muslims.

As to Chechnya - the Russians have been doing at least as good of a job murdering people as have the Chechens. How many people died when the Russians bombed Grozny to the ground? As to Beslan, most people died because of the criminal levels of incompetence of the Russian security forces. (You may want to compare Beslan with a similar episode in Cambodia - where one person died.)

Attacking houses of worship is not Muslim monopoly. Surely you have heard of two people in California in prison for planning to bomb a mosque?

I do not "defend" anyone. I do try to promote NPOV descriptions here - this is not a place for personal opinions. I will do NPOV edits of bad editing by Muslim fundie nuts as much as I will correct bad editing by anti-Muslim types (such as yourself).

It is obvious that something traumatic has happened to you in Cyprus. Have you considered counselling? Unless I am mistaken, UK's socialized medicine will cover it. I have met people for whom a traumatic childhood experience defined, for a life-time, a relationship with an entire group - e.g. being beaten up by a bunch of black kids and called "whitey" can cause lifelong hatred for blacks (and the reverse is equally true). This is unhealthy, and can lead to missed opportunities - from personal friendship to career advancement. Michael Voytinsky 16:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Hello my friend, you should not be so rude. My fear and loathing of Muslims is rational, Islam is not a religion, it is a political organization, ergo it should be feared more than other major world religions as it's political agenda is akin to that of fascism, I should know, when I visited my fathers hometown in the pseudostate so called 'trnc' the other year I saw what they had done to our church, can you imagine if they had stolen your home and occupied moscow and other parts of russia and destroyed st. basils and turned it into a mosque? in chechnya russia wants peace, but if they give peace the idiot murderer basayev (surely you cannot defend him too?) will just attack dagestan and it will start all over again. So yes, something traumatic happened in cyprus, that was called the turkish invasion 'atilla' (named after their forefather, the greatest murderous barbarian of them all).

I was not being rude at all. Calling you a shit-eating, uncle-fucking donkey rapist, that would have been rude, but I have not done that.

As to Cyprus, I am not sure what that has to do with Islam at all. Turkey is a secular state.

But none of this matters here. If you want to discuss pros and cons of Islam, the political developments in Cyrprus, etc., there is Usenet and a bzillion discussion forums that you can use. The Wikipedia is not a discussion forum.

You may want to familiarize yourself with the concept of NPOV. The purpose of the Wikipedia is not presenting "objective truth" (which is more elusive than some people realize), but a presentation of available knowledge on the subject from the neutral point of view.

So, the following is not NPOV:

"Islam forbids attacks on civilian targets, and there are no Islamic terrorists. People who get killed by the muhajedeen deserve it."

Neither is this:

"Muslims are bloodthirsty maniacs who delightly in killing infidels, especially women and children."

Note that I did not say anything about the truth or falsehood of the above statements - merely that they are not NPOV.

But the following would be NPOV:

"According to CAIR and so-and-so and such-and-such, and other prominent Muslim theologians, Islam forbids attacks on civilian targets, and any attacks on civilians in the name of Islam are contrary to teachings of Islam. However, according to Daniel Pipes, they are really apologists for terrorism, who half-heartedly condemn it strictly for PR purposes."

"The issue is further complicated by whats-his-name, who takes the view that attacks against civilian targets are permitted if they are in retaliation for enemy's attack on one's own civilian targets. The extent to which this view represents the views of Muslims is in dispute. According to Daniel Pipes, 95% of all Muslims think this. But according to Prof. Dorkenburger, professor of Religious Studies at the University of Utana and author of 'You are an intolerant bastard', Daniel Pipes is an intolerant bastard."

Daniel Pipes, Prof. Dorkenburger, Usama bin Laden, and people from CAIR could all read the above and agree that it describes the situation accurately. This would not require them to agree on whether or not Mr. Pipes is an intolerant bastard, whether or not CAIR is lying through its teeth, whether or not Prof. Dorkenburger has the slightest clue, or whether or not the people in the WTC deserved to die.

Hope this clarifies things for you. Michael Voytinsky 02:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Vw

Hi, you seem to have copied the text of Template:Vw on User talk:66.108.76.130. Please use {{subst:vw}} instead so that the user page doesn't become categorized in Category:User warning templates. Thanks. Shawnc 11:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Michael.jpg listed for deletion