User talk:Objectivist/Abortion Debate

This is not helpful
First of all, V, I want you to know that what I've seen from you is deserving of respect; you have been well-reasoned, calm, and capable of discourse. But this page (as well as your comments which led me here) are not going to help the situation regarding these abortion-related articles.

As I read your posts here, it appears that you have created this page for the purpose of debating abortion opponents. Dude, that's not what we're about. We're supposed to be presenting an NPOV article which presents both sides, not determining which side is right or wrong. Frankly, this page may be deletable per policy, if I'm not mistaken.

I urge you to undo your last post at Talk:Abortion debate as counterproductive, and instead expend your energies trying to craft the best, most NPOV articles possible on the subject. And yes, sometimes that will mean debating discussing your concerns about what some anti-abortion editor feels, but not about whether the arguments against abortion are sound, but whether or not such arguments are appropriate for the article. HuskyHuskie (talk) 01:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm fairly sure there is a much wider latitude of allowed postings in personal-userspace, than in the main article space. Not to mention that while the data I presented tends to undermine the pro-life position, I've mostly tried to present that data in an Objective manner (meaning the data and logic is valid regardless of what anyone thinks about it).  So, what I've done is something of an experiment.  What happens when pro-lifers meet arguments they have no way of countering?  There's only one way to find out! V (talk) 04:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not questioning your objectivity. And while you are correct that there is a greater latitude provided in userspace, there are limits.  Wikipedia does not exist as a forum to debate issues.  See WP:SOAP.  But beyond the rules, the question is, is this page designed to advance the encyclopedia, or is it to debate abortion?  Perhaps tangentially, if by some miracle you manage to convince all pro-lifers that abortion should be legal, then I suppose that will change the article.  But you know you're not going to do that, and therefore (as far as I can see), this page serves no legitimate purpose.  I don't question your sincerity, but I do question your understanding of our purpose here. HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:58, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * In the long term (and only in the long term), and even if nothing else gets added to it, there is another way in which that page can help improve the encyclopedia. Too many folks only think about the short term, it seems...and I have to check my notes; I may have an argument or two not yet included.  Anyway, that other "way" is also something of an experiment, which would be spoiled if the details were released, sorry. V (talk) 04:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Well, that's just another indication (to me) that you're not clear what we're about here.  This is supposed to be a transparent operation, and it's not supposed to be somebody's "experiment".
 * Okay, well, I've said my piece, I'm done here. No hard feelings, just some minor uneasiness.  See you around. HuskyHuskie (talk) 12:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia encourages experimentation; that's why sandboxes are available; that's why it has a Be Bold policy. So, I'm boldly posting all those arguments, partly for the long term benefit of the encyclopedia, and partly for other things, such as educating any pro-lifers who actually dare to read them. V (talk) 14:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)