Revision 25482 of "User:Ed Poor/Dr. Kemp" on enwiki

''I moved this debate with Dr. Kemp, who is mischaracterizing me so consistently I can only question her sincerity. -- Ed''

:No need to question, Ed.  I'm entirely sincere in everything I've said. It is not a mischaracterization, because I've only stated the impressions I have based on what you've said.  Oh -- and I didn't actually call you the representative of good -- merely pointed out that you seemed to have given yourself this role.  You must have been confused.  [[user:J Hofmann Kemp|J Hofmann Kemp]]

::It seems confusion is our mutual enemy. If we agree on this at least, perhaps it can give us something to build on. --Ed

Hi, Ed! -- Welcome back.  I notice you are again starting articles on which you cannot be neutral, and I have to ask, WHY????  By the way, I went to school in California when the schools were ranked highest in the country.  They were well funded, and fairly liberal.  My sex education classes ranged from basic anatomy (you're going to get your period, girls) to encouraging a healthy attitude towards accepting our bodies and sexuality.  Birth control was discussed, but the teachers always claimed that abstinence was the best method of birth control and that sex was not a substitute for liking yourself.  Byt the time I was a senior in high school, we also discussed STDs and, the day before Senior Prom, my biology teacher brought in some ex-students who worked at planned parenthood, who demonstrated how to put on a condom without breaking it.  Some people surreptitiously palmed a couple of condoms for later, but most of us just laughed and filed the info away for future reference.  At no time were we pushed to "accept immoral practices".  We were, however, taught that some people, for whatever reason, were gay, and that, even if we found it an immoral practice, we lived in a country where it was legal to be gay, and it was wrong to attack people (verbally or physically) because of it.  I'm sure sex ed has changed -- i'll have to ask my daughter.  But really...could you please not write articles if you know in advance you can't be neutral? [[user:J Hofmann Kemp|J Hofmann Kemp]]

:In the battle between good and evil, the mere failure to condemn evil is the precise equivalent of accepting it. Education which promotes a "non-judgmental attitude" toward something thus pushes students to accept it. I refuse to be neutral: I oppose evil. However, I have agreed to '''write''' from an [[NPOV]] when contributing to the wikipedia. I will still call a spade a spade, but in cases where many others want to call it a diamond I will try to indicate a '''source''' for its identification as a spade. Fair enough? --Ed Poor

::You oppose ''what you consider to be evil'' and many other people consider to be good. And that's just fine, but advocacy like that does not belong into an encyclopedia. [[user:AxelBoldt|AxelBoldt]]

:::If you think that way, perhaps you are evil. Beware. --your friend, Ed Poor

::::If you think that way, perhaps you also believe that encyclopedias are evil.  Conundrum.  [[user:Olof|Olof]]

::::No, Olof, I don't think encyclopedias are evil. Assembling human knowledge is a worthy goal. However, forcing children to accept immorality is evil. Calling this force "non-judgmental" does not make it good. --Ed Poor

:::::QED [[user:Olof|Olof]]

Ed, I hardly think that believing in free will and that man was granted the ability to reason and make choices can be construed as evil.  As usual, you are oversimplifying the argument and condemning others who disagree.  Whether or not you like it, not even all Christians believe the same thing (or at least not all to the same degree) when it comes to sexual mores. Your "traditional" does not make it the only viewpoint, and is certainly not the only moral one, nor does it represent the views of all religions and cultures.  It's insulting and arrogant for you to claim that you are somehow the representative of good vs. evil, and those of us who wish for a balanced article that includes information with which you don't agree represent some corrupting force. [[user:J Hofmann Kemp|J Hofmann Kemp]]

:You sound a bit confused. That's natural, because evil's best weapon is confusion. Let me give you a bit of guidance.
*''Well, that's one of the most patronizing and offensive statements yet.  I'm not at all confused, Ed.  Nor do I accept your implication that I am somehow confused because I am under the influence of evil.  How dare you reduce a debate on the presentation of information in a neutral, inclusive, and objective style to Ed = good, people who think Ed can't be objective = confused or under some evil influence?''

#I agree with you that believing in free will and that man was granted the ability to reason and make choices can not be construed as evil. You seem to think I believe otherwise, although you don't say way.

*''I think you believe otherwise because you have consistently negated arguments of people who discuss using reason to make moral decisions, absent a membership in a social group that follows what you so blithely (and incorrectly) call traditional morality.  If this is not what you mean, perhaps you should write more clearly.''

#If there is indeed, as you seem to suggest, an argument which should not be simplified, please delineate its complexity in the article. I will be happy to read your contribution.
*''Ed, one of my objections is that almost all of your contributions start out as this one has.  To wit: Ed places a very non-NPOV  stub on the site; immediately, many people jump in to try to add to and neutralize the content; Ed takes offense and sparks major debate over morality; Ed answers objections on NPOV, etc., with something like, "please delineate its complexity in the article. I will be happy to read your contribution" -- implying that you have some type of editorial rights that the rest of us don't.''  
*''Have you not realized that: 1)'''you are not the arbiter of what goes into an article''', and 2)'''you are abusing the time and efforts of others by working in this fashion'''?'' Understand that I call abuse because you depend upon people who care about the quality of the content on the site to jump in and contribute to subjects they may not have wanted to write on, but feel obligated because they care about the project.  It's really inconsiderate and (based on my own experience and the inferences I've drawn from that experience) manipulative of you.  Your methods force others to do the bulk of the work while you take advantage of the evangelical opportunities that always arise from the debate on "traditional" morality -- traditional in quotes because I know right-wing, Rush limbaugh Republicans who would disagree with you -- not to mention tons of other people who are very moral.''

#I condemn no one, except those who deliberately choose evil. Axel implied that I shouldn't oppose evil. If he's really saying that, I repeat that he should beware: refusing to oppose evil lets it triumph (as Edmund Burke or someone said).
*''As above -- you imply that those of us who argue with you about the characteristics of morality are somehow of lesser mental capacity, moral worth, and/or influenced by evil -- it's offensive and likely untrue.''

::Don't put words in my mouth. I said that you are welcome to oppose ''what you consider evil'' and advocate for ''what you consider good'', just like I do, '''but not on Wikipedia'''. This is not a space to advocate viewpoints. Do it on your website, on Usenet, write letters to the editor, whatever. Your goal in contributing to Wikipedia, quite obviously, is not to create a good encyclopedia, but to sneak in your point of view. By doing that, you suck time out of the rest of us. [[user:AxelBoldt|AxelBoldt]]

#I agree that the traditional viewpoint is not the only one. If there's another one you'd like to see in the articl, please add it. Perhaps you could even describe variations within the traditional viewpoint. 

*''As above, buddy.  You started the article -- it's '''your responsibility''' to do your best to present other viewpoints as well.  Otherwise, you're not really a contributer -- just a gadfly who doesn't respect the time of other Wikipedians.''

#If there are other opinions about what is "moral", please describe these, too, and say who advances these opinions.
*''As above -- and don't be disingenuous -- it's insulting.''

#I am not the world's leading advocate of goodness, but that should be no bar to contributing ideas about goodness vs. evil to the wikipedia. You do it, yourself.
*Perhaps on talk pages, but my article writing is  based in a career of scholarship, which demands objectivity.''
#Your biggest mistake, would be to think that I don't want a balanced article. Is this what you really think? Come on, now, what would make you think I opposed balance and NPOV? I have no objection whatsoever to "including information with which I don't agree" -- it must merely be labeled correctly as to who believes it, in accordance with [[NPOV]] policy.
*''Ed, what I believe about you is that you are deliberately creating situations like this to make yourself feel important and perhaps even more comfortable with your own moral choices.  Moreover, I believe that you are trying to use these pages to evangelize others on the truth as seen by the [[Unification church]], but in a fairly subtle way.  I believe that you don't have the ability to write a fair and balanced article, but would like to think of yourself as some kind of arbiter of what information belongs in that article -- thereby boosting your own importance in your own little world.  I believe that you are so wrapped up in your little control games that you do not feel obliged to treat the rest of us as colleagues -- in short, the traditional virtue of charity and the Christian tradition of the Golden Rule seem to be absent from your wikipedia life.  Those are some of the nicer things I believe about you, Ed.''
*The straight (but not narrow), happily married, Christian, environmentalist, Feminist, Mrs. Dr. [[user:J Hofmann Kemp|J Hofmann Kemp]]

I hoped I had cleared up any false impression Dr. Kemp may have formed of me, but plainly I have failed. Nevertheless, i still would like us cooperate to make the Wikipedia comprehensive, accurate, and neutral (in the [[NPOV]] sense). -- Ed