User talk:Sam Clark/archive2

Other Forms of Utilitarianism
Hi Sam,

I'm the person who posted the comment about G.E. Moore beginning of September. And you're right, it's not really that relevant. What I was trying to get to: Between utilitarianism and consequentialism, there's a lot of blur area. And if knowledge and beauty are to be counted as direct goods, that's more on the consequentialist side. However, if we were to count social connection as a direct good, that would be more on the utilitarian side. The argument might be as follows: Look, many of our peak, most brimming times are when we are connected with others, feel genuinely understood, accepted and liked, an adventure together perhaps, or at least a project, and the world feels open. Live possibility of other social connection.

Thus, we could count social connection as both an indirect and direct good. In fact, this is so appealing, I wonder why no one has really developed this approach to utilitarianism.

Anyway, like you, I'm a pretty sporadic user of the Internet, these days even more so since I'm in the process of moving.

Take care,

Doug


 * So, WP has a policy against original research. Well, if that's the policy, that's their policy.  However . . . maybe merely sketching out future directions the theory might take?  Like the French encyclopedia writers, can't we be a little bit cutting edge and controversial?  Maybe.


 * I mean, utilitarianism has to take into account relationships, and not just in a merely stilted way.


 * -Doug

Re: Tolkein vandal
''Sorry, I think I've been tripping over your toes reverting a vandal adding nonsense to various Tolkein-related articles (Rohan, Balrog, etc.). Hope I didn't make things worse... Cheers, Sam Clark 17:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)''
 * Not at all--let me know if I can help. Owen&times; &#9742;  17:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * User:Iheartrobojesus has already been banned permanently. User:Raptorjesuspwns hasn't edited since the last warning, but if he continues with his vandalism, just let me know and I'll be happy to block him. Owen&times; &#9742;  18:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting me
I was dearly mistaken when leading the Justice article with moronic discussion of the Nuremburg trials and their pejorative title 'justice of the victors'. Chris 19:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Private language
A note of thanks for cleaning up my pathetic prose. Banno 22:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Distributive justice
Hey, I just took a quick hour to edit and reogranize Distributive justice, and I noticed that you had been doing something with it in July, according to the talk page. Would you mind going over it and seeing if you could make it any stronger, or clearer? Justice isn't the strongest of my abilities, and so I was hoping you could have a looksee. - Sam 16:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Something you might be interested in
Since you requested deletion for the One Peice attacks, I thought you could help out here: Articles for deletion/List of Dragon Ball special abilities. Hydromasta231 04:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Please consider also warning vandals
Thank you for reverting vandalism on Wikipedia. Could you also please consider using our vandal warning system ? First offenses get a "test1," then a "test2," followed by a "test3" and "test4." At the end of this, if the vandal persists, he or she merits blocking for a period of time. If you do this, it will greatly help us in decreasing vandalism on Wikipedia. Much thanks, -- Kukini 15:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * My pleasure. I do appreciate your work in reverting vandalism a great deal as well. Kukini 02:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Global justice ISBNs
You're welcome - some dull jobs I like! —Serein 21:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Star of Bethlehem review
Thanks for your review. I didn't notice any problem with articles, but I have fixed the other stuff.Kauffner 18:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Political Philosophers
Hi Sam. I just made a reply on the discussion page for the List of Political Philosophers. I posted my reply before noticing your comment on my user page, otherwise I'd have come here first for a dialog. It is very frustrating to be treated like I was the dirty end of a stick. I get accused of adding Rand's name as if that were a crime. Yet people delete her name which is also a form of editing. Both are equally valid forms of editing, all else being equal. Based upon comments you have made over time I consider you to be thoughtful and reasonable (regardless of whether or not we agreed). I assure you that there are others I'd not say that of. I believe that the best application of WP policy and spirit is to allow for time for comment whenever there is a dispute. I have done that. To make the best arguments I can and to reply as honestly and directly as possible to objections. I tried to do that. And then to go ahead and make that edit if it still seems to be the best fit for WP policy. I agreed with your comment on the nomination to delete page - that there was a value to that Major Philosophers page. But there wasn't enough support for any suggestions for reducing the bias. I tried to get additions to the criteria but as soon as Rand was removed, no one felt any need to do anything. I believe there is a legitimate difference of opinion on what is the criteria for philosphy/philosopher but it is badly clouded by strong biases. I believe that what is best for WP - in cases of legitimate disputes - is to show both sides - not to censor one side. That is my rationale for putting Rand back in the list. SteveWolfer 19:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello again. I do appreciate the kind remarks on my user page. I put a reply to your last comment on the List of Political Philosophers talk page. Maybe I'd better apologise in advance for saying your remark sounded a little snippy. Actually, even when you 'sound' snippy to me, it doesn't feel offensive. I notice from your user page that you are in the UK. When I spent a few months in Cowes, I noticed that the English were much more forthright in speech than Americans - and I came to like that trait a great deal. I suspect we have different preferences in thinkers and different beliefs, but when you communicate I get a sense of someone who listens for rational arguments and is open to suggestions. Best Wishes, SteveWolfer 20:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I have taken part in the debate and I justified my reversion on the talk page. You're wrong. LaszloWalrus 22:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The arguments were relevant then, and they're relevent now, whether or not you want to acknowledge them. LaszloWalrus 17:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Global Justice
Hi Sam, Sorry, certainly didn't mean to offend by calilng the philosophy page you did on Global Justice "obscure". It's very thoroughly done and is, in fact, something I'm extremely familiar with. The problem is that I think the broader public understands global justice to be a movement as much as a political philosphy (both of which are, admittedly, not household discussions alas). I've taken your suggestion and bulked up the Global Justice movement page and will create a global justice (organization) page, but am thinking the political philosophy page should probably be listed separately too... So maybe a disimbiguation page? I'm a bit new to how best to do it, but not to Global Justice... and I think it's pretty key to bring the movement at least as front and center as the philosophy... for example, try googling "Global Justice"

Peace, _M —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthewkavanagh (talk • contribs)

good comments
On veil debate at Reference Desk today. Cheers --Amists 12:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your Reference Desk response
...on Czech currency during WWII. My English-speaking target readership will probably recognize that "crown" is a cognate for koruna, though till today I'd been unaware of the term. I appreciate your input! -- Deborahjay 22:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

User:24.56.251.6
Sorry, I was away from the computer. Oh yeah, him..... Depression (mood) guy. He seems to have stopped for now (presumably the school day is over) - if he starts again tomorrow, yeah, I think a block would be in order. That IP has already gotten blocks of up to a week. Cheers. FreplySpang 23:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Justice of the Victors link removal from the Justice article
Hi Sam! :) -- may I ask if it was you that removed the Justice of the victors link from the Justice article? If so, may I ask why? If it was someone else, please forgive my blunder. Thanks! :) -- Vangran


 * Hi. Yeah, it was me - sorry, meant to get in touch about it, but got distracted. The 'see also' list in Justice has a tendency to expand enormously, so I periodically prune it back. My rule of thumb is that Justice is a top level article, and should suggest 'see also' for second level ones, through which people can drill down to more specific topics. I'd say that Victor's justice was such a specific topic, and a sub-topic of (for instance) Retributive justice (where I've just added it), Punishment, Law, International law and/or Just war rather than of the top-level article. Happy to discuss if you disagree, though. Cheers, Sam Clark 16:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I do disagree. Justice of the victors, I feel, is crucial to understanding law. While judges, juries, polticians, lawyers and so on do, in the long term, do things wisely and correctly, it is important to remember that Might does in fact make Right. Only by force of arms, threats of violence, imprisonment, fines, and so on does the justice system have at least one leg to stand on. If there's no brute force backing up law, there's no law at all. Why do you think courtrooms have a man-at-arms standing near the judge at all times?


 * So, justice of the victors is, as I've said, important to understanding justice at any level. I imagine that you will not ,see things this way, but just thought I'd share my view anyway. Thank you for yout time. :) -- Vangran


 * I agree that JotV is crucial to understanding law. But the article Justice isn't about law, it's about the concept of justice. It only mentions institutions (including courtrooms, imprisonment, etc.) briefly at the end. So, I still think JotV should be a see also from other places, but not from Justice. On your argument that 'Might does in fact make Right' (I can't resist, I'm a professional philosopher): the fact that, in an imperfect world, justice will need to be enforced, doesn't entail that there's no distinction between what we can do (what we have the might to do) and what we should do (what we have the right to do). And the concept of 'victor's justice' makes no sense without something to compare it to: real justice. (since you've moved this off your talk page, I'm assuming you want to talk here...). Cheers, Sam Clark 16:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Like I said -- I did not think you would agree. Oh well! -- No worries. :) I trust that you have a deeper understanding of Justice than I, and that the article is better off without the link to Justice of the victors. Cheers! -- Vangran

Global Justice and just war
I didn't see that the concept applied so intricately to global justice. I'll put it back up because I didn't see the connection earlier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blu rav3 (talk • contribs)

Signpost updated for November 13th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 20th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 27th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 01:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Does psychology work? (continuation)
I see your point, Sam. If I understand these authors correctly, though, social control is one cunning enemy. In fact, JackofOz is right when he said that subjection is all just a matter of degrees. Although I will not deny the fact that we have the capacity to produce new meanings, and choose for ourselves, on the whole, I'm still convinced that the power above us is much more influential in our lives. I'm not talking about the "frequency" of social control happening in the phenomena, but the fact that social control is happening in the pheonomena. I cannot pinpoint who is more subjected and who is more free, that requires an in-depth study. I only know (or partially know, to leave a room for error) what these authors say. In your case, I wouldn't want to judge how much you're subjected or not. I don't even know exactly how you got your condition. But I could hypothesize. Depression maybe a manifestation of human self estrangement, him/her not being able to do what he/she wants to do, or not even knowing what he/she is meant to do, a very deep sense of being lost. I also don't want to put an unnecessary dualism between biological and social factors. As crude as it is, I believe that healthy individuals produce their kind and sick ones also produce their kind. If society is getting more depressive or acquiring more "abnormalities," I wouldn't blame it on society alone, because I believe that the relationship between the material world and its opposite is dialectical. So, if your "desire not to be irrationally miserable - and (your) choice to take anti-depressant medication - are a symptom of subjection" - I'm not really sure. In fact, I think that you're in a better position to examine that yourself. You are smart, and you are very well informed by critical theory. You should know (or at least partially know, to leave a room for error again) if you are being subjected to a larger force that you cannot see. Moonwalkerwiz 00:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Improvements to the philosophy article
Hello Sam. I recently paid a visit to the Philosophy page for old time's sake, and I see someone has contributed a personal essay. For example


 * The easiest clue to indicate which of these philosophies is being referred to by the word philosophy is to note the language used.
 * Their view of reason rested in the creation of concepts using the deductive method operating on the data provided by the senses as its basic material.
 * They invented the concept of philosophy to designate the whole endeavor of making sense of all aspects of existence.
 * Rationalism is only one possible answer to the question of intelligibility

I rather suspect User:Josephprymak. If I politely suggest these entries are not perfect style, or that they at least need citation, do I run the risk of a prolonged edit war? You seem to have had some dealings in that quarter. Best Dbuckner 11:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your message. I will try the gentle approach.  Dbuckner 17:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 4th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

reliable sources
Do you not regard genealogics.org as "reliable source"? Its documentation about empress Elisabeth's ancestry, way back to Middle Ages, show the descent.

You can start with http://genealogics.org/pedigree.php?personID=I00001556&tree=LEO (such links are carefully put in the article, see the path there) and continue upwards along the path. Maed 04:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Witch Hunt
Thanks, Sam; your words are very much appreciated. The campaign is both unwarranted and vicious, and it did make me feel like throwing the whole thing over. But I am tough. To be young, female and intelligent one really has no other choice. I think victory, if any victory there is, will simply lie in hanging on. Therein lies the greatest provocation to small-mindedness. I feel sure you will recall what Swift said about a certain type of confederacy. That makes me sound a bit conceited, which I assure you I am not! Incidentally, I very much enjoy your thoughtful contributions My very best wishes. Clio the Muse 23:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Sam. The step-family issue was a particularly bad piece of manipulation, used as a preliminary to a renewed attack.  You will see my response on the RD talk page under under Call for Suggestions etc.  This really is so pathetic.  Best wishes.  Clio the Muse 00:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 11th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

My bad
Sorry I moved you Ref Desk Comment about the questioner referring to 16th century "photograph" to the Discussion page. That was a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Edison 18:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Russell
Hi Sam! Thanks for your offer, you're quite kind. I really appreciate it.

The Goldman article that I had my eye on was published in Philosophical Studies, 1972. Here's the complete reference: http://www.springerlink.com/content/m1q2268857105w09/

Also, this reply looked somewhat interesting: http://www.springerlink.com/content/q3168rg043641720/ { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 02:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Bah! Ok, thanks. There are a few other titles that seemed like promising candidates, but they're books, not articles. Maybe P:ANSA made more of a dent in books, while notsomuch in journals. I can't believe that the silence is total... I mean, if Goldman noted Russell's contribution as a prominent work, then he must've had a reason to note it, besides the usual unhelpful reasons (i.e., giving lip service to popular author). Oh well, thanks anyway! { Ben S. Nelson } Lucidish 23:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk
I think StuRat is being a bit combative in his responses to you there, and I think it's counterproductive. I have made a comment to this effect at Requests_for_comment/StuRat should you care to read it. Certainly, ignore this if you wish- I'm not trying to get you involved in something that doesn't involve you, but since I mentioned you specifically at the RFC I thought it only appropriate to let you know. Friday (talk) 20:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

re: Nobel Women
Well, thank you for the acknowledgement. :) On that note, you wont have noticed, but I had nothing to add to your answer on justice, and would have liked to hear more, because I don't know when I'm going to read Honderich. (I read Ahrendt, but that was years ago). Maybe you can advertise for the reference desk at the philosophical pages you work on. A lot of questions on philosophy, ethics and religion are asked and they deserve expert answers. ---Sluzzelin 19:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 18th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)