User:CensoredDog

This is the user page of CensoredDog, formerly known as PeeingDog until the account was banned for being "offensive." Upon changing its username, CensoredDog was banned once more for picking an allegedly "pointy" username. This judgment was reversed by a sensible user.

Both my initial username PeeingDog and current username CensoredDog are inspired by one of my philosophical heroes, Diogenes of Sinope, who established Cynicism (from Greek kynos = 'dog'). Cynics taught that bodily functions such as urination, defecation, and sex are natural and thus cannot be bad or shameful. Cynics, like many other good philosophers, were not afraid to speak what they believed to be true. Their outspoken disposition, in conjunction with their reputation for being doglike -- e.g., urinating, defecating, or masturbating in public as well as literally barking at their enemies or groveling at their friends -- often caused them to be dismissed as "mad."

Teresa M. Bejan distinguishes between two types of free speech, arguing that some of the thorniest problems of the most heated debates in contemporary democracy stem from our collective tendency to conflate the two types: "Today, both terms are often translated as 'freedom of speech', but their meanings were and are importantly distinct. In ancient Athens, isegoria described the equal right of citizens to participate in public debate in the democratic assembly; parrhesia, the license to say what one pleased, how and when one pleased, and to whom." As someone who spoke whatever he wanted, once boldly telling Alexander the Great to "get out of his light," Diogenes was certainly a proponent of free speech in the second sense (parrhesia). More importantly, let us not forget that Diogenes's commitment to free speech ensured that, though he spoke his mind, he allowed others to speak theirs too.

To reiterate, Diogenes is the reason I chose the usernames PeeingDog and CensoredDog. It is ironic that the former, named without any intention of causing offense, was banned on the grounds that it might cause offense. It is also ironic that the latter, chosen solely in honor of one of the greatest philosophical proponents of free speech and thus based on no "pointy" intentions, was censored on the unwarranted assumption that it is "pointy." In neither case was I given a chance to defend myself logically against an argument, for their argument did not exist.

Argumentation
I try to ensure that every edit or revert I make is accompanied by a good reason that is made explicit in either its edit summary or some talk page. Because what constitutes a good reason is oftentimes controversial, I will oftentimes resort to discussion in the form of argumentation. I believe that deploying good arguments, counterarguments, counter-counterarguments, counter-counter-counterargument, ad infinitum, is the key to good editing.

For this reason, please forgive me if my posts are sometimes long. I try to be at once concise and precise. Moreover, not having time to read my (or someone else's) arguments is never a good reason to revert anything. This is because


 * (1) you can always read later when you have more time,
 * (2) oftentimes good reasons against your decision to revert might exist in long arguments,
 * (3) I will always find time to read your posts and address all of your objections,
 * (4) the length of my arguments may be a sign of thoroughness rather than of wordiness,
 * (5) the thoroughness of my arguments and the time I spend reading your posts and addressing your arguments are signs of my respect for you and other readers,
 * (6) somebody who uses the "no time" rationale does not seem to show the same respect that I show him or her, and
 * (7) if say you don't have time to read everything, you (unfairly) put the burden on me to type even more words to reexplain myself--so it's a catch-22 for me and a lose-lose situation.
 * (5) the thoroughness of my arguments and the time I spend reading your posts and addressing your arguments are signs of my respect for you and other readers,
 * (6) somebody who uses the "no time" rationale does not seem to show the same respect that I show him or her, and
 * (7) if say you don't have time to read everything, you (unfairly) put the burden on me to type even more words to reexplain myself--so it's a catch-22 for me and a lose-lose situation.
 * (6) somebody who uses the "no time" rationale does not seem to show the same respect that I show him or her, and
 * (7) if say you don't have time to read everything, you (unfairly) put the burden on me to type even more words to reexplain myself--so it's a catch-22 for me and a lose-lose situation.
 * (7) if say you don't have time to read everything, you (unfairly) put the burden on me to type even more words to reexplain myself--so it's a catch-22 for me and a lose-lose situation.

Rules
While I will do my best to abide by mandatory rules, I might see no reason to abide by optional rules. Just as importantly, many rules, mandatory or otherwise, are open to interpretation or admit of exceptions that are themselves open to interpretation. If I am accused of breaking some rule, I will keep in mind that "the rules are principles, not laws." I will also keep in mind "Ignore all rules." Specifically, please bear in mind the following points:


 * (1) "Primary" does not mean bad. "Secondary" does not mean good.
 * (2) Reliable sources need not be neutral. In fact, biased sources may be best for illustrating the different viewpoints on a subject.
 * (3) BOLD, Revert, Discuss (BRD) is optional.
 * (4) For Dispute Resolution, follow normal protocol: rather than deleting unsourced, biased, or badly written material, try improving on it (or just add a caveat).
 * (5) Assume good faith.
 * (6) Please refrain from discussing my conduct in an article's talk page. Explaining that I have committed a logical fallacy is great. Accusing me of cherry picking or being biased without explaining how--even if such accusations were true--such conduct would falsify the conclusion of my argument is a fallacious ad hominem and a fallacy fallacy. I will generally not call you out for deploying some fallacious argument because doing so will easily lead to logic chopping, which is counterproductive.
 * (7) It's sad that (1)-(6), all of which are common sense, must be written down as rules in Wikipedia. It's also sad that I often have to resort to quoting Wikipedia and providing links to users to prove that (1)-(6) are true (or at least eminently sensible), as if my dialectical opponents couldn't figure (1)-(6) out themselves. For this reason, I have not provided any links to (1)-(6). I shouldn't have to. But if you absolutely need me to, I can.
 * (5) Assume good faith.
 * (6) Please refrain from discussing my conduct in an article's talk page. Explaining that I have committed a logical fallacy is great. Accusing me of cherry picking or being biased without explaining how--even if such accusations were true--such conduct would falsify the conclusion of my argument is a fallacious ad hominem and a fallacy fallacy. I will generally not call you out for deploying some fallacious argument because doing so will easily lead to logic chopping, which is counterproductive.
 * (7) It's sad that (1)-(6), all of which are common sense, must be written down as rules in Wikipedia. It's also sad that I often have to resort to quoting Wikipedia and providing links to users to prove that (1)-(6) are true (or at least eminently sensible), as if my dialectical opponents couldn't figure (1)-(6) out themselves. For this reason, I have not provided any links to (1)-(6). I shouldn't have to. But if you absolutely need me to, I can.
 * (6) Please refrain from discussing my conduct in an article's talk page. Explaining that I have committed a logical fallacy is great. Accusing me of cherry picking or being biased without explaining how--even if such accusations were true--such conduct would falsify the conclusion of my argument is a fallacious ad hominem and a fallacy fallacy. I will generally not call you out for deploying some fallacious argument because doing so will easily lead to logic chopping, which is counterproductive.
 * (7) It's sad that (1)-(6), all of which are common sense, must be written down as rules in Wikipedia. It's also sad that I often have to resort to quoting Wikipedia and providing links to users to prove that (1)-(6) are true (or at least eminently sensible), as if my dialectical opponents couldn't figure (1)-(6) out themselves. For this reason, I have not provided any links to (1)-(6). I shouldn't have to. But if you absolutely need me to, I can.
 * (7) It's sad that (1)-(6), all of which are common sense, must be written down as rules in Wikipedia. It's also sad that I often have to resort to quoting Wikipedia and providing links to users to prove that (1)-(6) are true (or at least eminently sensible), as if my dialectical opponents couldn't figure (1)-(6) out themselves. For this reason, I have not provided any links to (1)-(6). I shouldn't have to. But if you absolutely need me to, I can.

Inclusionism
I consider myself a moderate inclusionist: For example, if a sentence is not adequately cited, I am inclined to believe that inserting a caveat stating how it is not adequately cited is superior to deleting the sentence. This is the way I treat almost all articles, but I have on rare occasions deleted bad writing.