User talk:Weri long wang/End of 2005

Democrats

I changed the article back the way it was, because it was perfectly fine that way... I would say even better. It was cute and soft on Democrats before, and now its honest, insulting, and sarcastic. I've insulted things on here before that go against my own beliefs, but for the better of the article in an attempt to make it more humorous.

In these situations, I usually only make a few changes back to my version so as to come to a middle ground consensus. Not on this one, because there is no good reason whatsoever to have reverted it.

I'm interested to see why you did, outside of it offending your own political beliefs. -AhhDiddums - Nov 4

What's the definition of a hypocrite? Weri long wang 20:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Resp:

My problem wasn't that it ISN'T soft, its that it IS. You've obviously let your political viewpoint infiltrate the site in a way which it effects the quality of the articles themselves. You can say please all you like, I'm going to make it the way I edited it to be, unless we can come to some kind of compromise, and I'm willing to be less than strict about it. Thats great if you support the Democrats, but not if it results in this article being of a lesser quality than it possibly could be. AhhDiddums 10:22, 5 November 2006 (Eastern Time. I don't know what time it is in UTC)

WP Bots

I know what bots are (I was once a wikipedian). But you might want to read this. --Micoolio101 ^{(whine • vandalism)} 00:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, you can keep it. But if someone else decides to huff it, it ain't my problem. --Micoolio101 ^{(whine • vandalism)} 03:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Spaghetti Monster noodles One-eyed Jack

Weri, you asked if I am on spag monster .com; no, not me; it's someone else using the same nick. It's a free Intarweb, and most folks know about the one-eyed jacks in poker. Thanks for thinking of me, though. I still haven't gotten the energy to dive into organised religion yet. Sorry for being such a slacker. ----OEJ 22:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Miller!

Remember me? --AAA! (AAAA) 01:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Look at this on wikipedia. [1] --AAA! (AAAA) 22:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm still a wikipedian, you know. [link] --AAA! (AAAA) 00:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Did I forget to mention I come on this site more often and I like this place better? And about the Miller thing, The image on Wikipedia that was deleted was re-uploaded to this site under your name, and it even says "Drawn by my mum (Gail Miller)." --AAA! (AAAA) 09:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Liberals

I'm not a conservative at all as a matter of fact. They're generally selfish, greedy people who don't give a shit about anybody but themselves and have built up a whole philosophy to rationalize it. They do this so they don't have to pay taxes and can try to turn the clock back to 1950 with their social policies. I'm also not a liberal: I think they're colossal whiny pussies who are incessantly whiny and soft. I just think the article should rip liberals that would make it funny. Before it was ripping conservatives which made no sense (if you want to rip conservatives go to their article). That's why the Anne Coulter article is so funny because it just tears her selfish conservative ass a new one. Quadzilla99 19:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia is for comedy

Quit worrying that an article makes a group look bad. It's supposed to. Your attempting to change the Liberals article because it's too hard on them is stupid no one with a brain is going to take their world views from Uncyclopedia. Look at Anne Coulter which is a very funny article and has been that way for months. Quadzilla99 20:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Dawkins article

Thanks for understanding the rationale behind my little outburst there, though in retrospect I should have been perhaps a little more civilised. Anyway those new edits aren't mind, if you look at the article history. I just don't want to see good edits go to waste. Ethereal 03:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

WIP move notice of Ig Nobel Prize

Hey, your article that was called Ig Nobel Prize has been moved to User:Weri long wang/Ig Nobel Prize for futher development. Feel free to move it back when you have done. Oh, and if you want to reply to this, please reply on my talk page (I do so many of these, I don't get to check them all). Thanks. —Braydie at 19:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Intelligent Design

Looking at your recent edits, and your historical ones, you seem to have trouble with the concept of parody. That is, to say, you continually insist on modifying the article to "explain" why IDers are wrong. There's nothing at all funny about doing that. People don't read uncyclopedia for explanations. Anyone who is reading this article and gets past the first para is *not* an IDer. You're preaching to the choir, and doing so at the expense of the humor value of the article. There's nothing funny about pointing out that nylon-eating bacteria have evolved. There's nothing funny about pointing out that there is no contradiction between evolution and thermodynamics. There's nothing funny about repeatedly mentioning that ID is just a cover for creationism, as admitted by its proponents. The article's readership already knows these sorts of things. You're just boring them down with true references. What is funny about ID is the outlandish things that IDers actually believe.

Since you seem more interested in debating ID, perhaps you should try out EvC Forum instead. There are people over there who honest to God actually believe in ID, and actually need the sort of stuff that you keep putting in the article explained to them. -- Rei 20:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Can we talk?

You need to come to consensus with Rei on Intelligent Design. This revert war is tearing us apart. It's annoying. Don't make me call in Famine. I'll do it, too. I'm a loose cannon; that's why the Captain made me turn in my badge and gun.--Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 12:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Reponse to your comment

If you want to talk about your beliefs in a serious manor, that's fine, I don't care. But not here. Uncyclopedia is a humor website, and that article is a lot more serious than funny. That's why I put the NRV tag on it. If you're going to remove an NRV tag, you have to revise it. You can't just remove it because it's your article.

And yes, I do like Big Rigs, I am a Rigist. --GAMESPOT=666 22:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The other article makes an attempt at being funny. It fails, but at least it is something. Add jokes to it, your ID article is funny, maybe this can be also --GAMESPOT=666 23:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I still don't think it's that funny, but maybe you should try Pee Review. --GAMESPOT=666 00:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

A grudge against you? Or maybe, I like to edit articles. Look under the "save page" button and you'll see this: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then don't submit it here." That means I can edit an article, even if it is one of yours. --GAMESPOT=666 02:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Re:Atheism article

If you're being sincere, then I must say you have caught me off guard. I actually *don't* believe most of what I put in that edit and was meaning much of it to be critical sarcasm. In fact, I'm quite surprised you enjoyed it, as right after typing it I started wondering if I took the exaggerations too far (e.g. "This is why no human has ever, ever done anything bad." ... "Communism is only a belief system that includes atheism as a major pillar, so atheism itself is blameless). Thank you very much for the compliment. -BaronGrackle 15:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• I'm up to "Ladder of Deception"; there are quite a few things to read on there. Tell me: which option did you select on the main page's thought experiment poll? The aliens or the human resistance group? I picked the resistance, or I would have if the poll links hadn't been off. -BaronGrackle 23:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the moral dog

I believe Twain was exaggerating for the sake of humour, or perhaps he was just wrong. Many dogs I have seen would very much bite you if you saved them from starvation and made them prosperous. The ones who wouldn't might just bite you in the ecstasy of being fed (literally biting the hand that feeds them) and may quite honestly not understand why you are subsequently mad at them. One of our dogs, a Lhasa Apso, seems to urinate on the carpet in our front room only when we've recently punished her. She also jumps on the furniture, but only when she thinks no one is looking. And, for all I know, she might not even think there is anything amoral about doing such things. Those actions are also possible with the simple "gain what you can" selfish perspective, which, if you were to designate it as morality, would be among the lowest forms. There are certainly heroic dogs who have saved their owners' lives and even police dogs who enforce the law and save strangers, but the former are doing what they can to save their interests (the owner), while the latter operate under the generic reward system of any animal commanded by an owner. I would wager that a drug-sniffing canine, while excellent at helping police enforce our man-made concept of morality, will not be able to determine on its own whether it is moral to seize those drugs from perpetrators and subsequentally punish them with jail time, considering that those with the drugs are not harming anyone else. If dogs have this sense of morality greater than humans, and if the basis of morality involves not infringing on the freedom of others (so long as they are not infringing on a third party's freedom), then it would stand to reason that a drug canine would refuse to carry out its duty.

And yes, the verses; I already read those on the site. Example 1: Many believe the Old Testament retribution laws were placed into effect so no punishment would exceed the crime. Even if you don't believe that, it is impossible to deny that, while Exodus and Leviticus detail what sort of retribution is lawful, the New Testament verses detail what is merciful. A major theme of the New Testament and Christianity on the whole is that mercy should dominate over justice.

Example 2: Ezekiel 23:23-26, and Ezekiel 23 as a whole, is an allegory concerning the sins of Israel (Ezekiel 23:4 b). The whore and the men with her are a sinful Israel and the foreigners whose ways she has picked up. Thus, their "sons and daughters" are also among the sinful of Israel, not the innocent. Ezekiel 18:20, which is within the same book, clarifies that the Godly will not be punished. We are all in theory condemned as sinners because of the actions of Adam and Eve, even though we supposedly didn't have a say in the matter. The reason this doesn't trouble me is because there have been times that I myself have acted wrongly, times that I have "sinned" myself. So I am indeed among the generations of Adam and Eve not simply because of their actions but because of my own, and I am thus among those that are not perfect and long for mercy.

Example 3: That very site reveals some interesting things about Israelite slavery, quoting Exodus 21:1-6. All in all, six years of servitude, made in compensation for some sort of debt owed (Deuteromy 24:7, also quoted by that site, specifies that slaves are not acquired through kidnapping). Indentured servitude, we might call it. Not the notorious slavery made popular by the American South and others.

Regarding aliens and happiness

You don't want us to go extinct? Why not? No one would suffer, ever. If these aliens have no concept of religion, then, according to your belief, perhaps life for those living for all mortal eternity would be significantly improved on a whole. I've heard you and that website you reference criticize religion because it inspires people to fight, kill, inflict suffering on others just because they believe their faith is more true than the others'. Well, who are you to fight, kill, and cause suffering among both these aliens and ourselves (by turning down the generous offer) just because you have some completely baseless notion that humans should not go extinct? What possible rationale is there to inflict such a scale of suffering?

You say we could not be totally happy anyway, that we must take the rough with the smooth. I say you are not doing justice to the scenario's hypothetical situation. Siding with the aliens "guarantees" full happiness. If you can only be happy with a combination of rough and smooth, they can provide the technology to make you believe rough is coming with smooth (through virtual reality or brain manipulation). If not even that is enough, I'm sure they can make parts of your life miserable on purpose. You are rejecting the option for all the wrong reasons: you believe that the human resistance offers both prolonging the human race and the highest possible form of happiness, since you have assumed that the aliens' offer of "perfect happiness" is a happiness inferior to that the humans offer. By the parameters of the scenario, this is decidedly, indisputably false. As for the question you present to me:

• Atheists are immoral, atheistic morality is impossible and life is absurd or meaningless or worthless if atheism is true.
• Atheists are as moral as anyone else, atheistic morality is both possible and the norm and life is not absurd or meaningless or worthless if atheism is true.

My answer: Atheists can be as moral as nearly anyone else, and in general atheists are as moral as anyone. Atheistic morality is possible but never perfect, as its foundation breeds many tenets that are admirable and many tenets that are abominable. As atheism is not monolithic even on the theoretical level, atheist morality will differ from group to group (Roman Catholic belief and Maoist belief are both monolithic; Monotheist belief and Atheist belief are not). If atheism were true, then life would not be absurd, but it would be meaningless, and its worth would be balanced rather closely against its disadvantages.

Are you moral? In some regard yes, in others no. In fairness, I am not near perfectly moral either. The difference is our belief systems, which we consider the highest epitome of morality. If we each followed perfectly his belief's commands, I would think myself perfectly moral and you would consider yourself perfectly moral as well. We would consider each other moral in some regards but terribly flawed in others.

And as far as Darwinian evolution is concerned, I don't have much opinion on it one way or the other, similar to my thoughts on Einsteinian relativity. I believe Genesis 1 describes much in divine terms which cannot always be taken literally. In fact, if you look in the history of the Creationism article, you'll find I added an introduction quote that has since been removed:

“. . . before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown . . . the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground . . . And the LORD God said, "It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him." Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air . . .”

~ Genesis 2 on a literal interpretation of Genesis 1

A verse that you won't find many anti-Evolutionists quoting. I'm still a Creationist, as you know from our previous discussion.

You cite two of my previous quotes (on infanticide and killing the unwanted) as examples of artificial selection, with which I agree. The difference between us is that I also consider abortion and active euthanasia ("active" being, for example, denying the patient food or through lethal injection) to be examples of this artificial selection.

Weri, the reason I so often get gung ho on abortion, and not always so much on other "religious" topics, is because I believe that society as a whole, religious and atheistic alike, SHARES THE SAME moral beliefs on topics surrounding abortion. Namely: religious folk believe that humans are created in the likeness of God, secularists believe that humans have inherent rights in their own regard, and both believe this makes all people "of equal importance", in your words. If pro-abortionists were to say something like, "Yes, abortion is killing people, but these people have not yet developed to the point of knowing that they would be killed, and getting rid of them now would help the rest of society who does contribute and is aware of their surroundings", then it wouldn't feel so much like slap in the face against intellectualism. In my opinion, saying that a human does not qualify as a person (or is not even human) because he is confined to a womb, or must be fed through someone else's body, or has not developed nerves specifically, qualifies as one of those "noble lies" we tell to make something easier to bear.

If atheists are genuine about their morality being based on humanism, on equality that seeks first to give primary rights to everyone before giving secondary rights to a select few, then they can no longer perpetuate lies that claim some people aren't really alive just because it makes it easier to kill them in clear conscience. Until then, there is no possible way I can take such a morality system seriously.

Now... I have played the Bible Adventures game as a young one. Let's see what I can do... -BaronGrackle 16:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)