Still working to recover. Please don't edit quite yet.
Difference between revisions of "Talk:Pedologues"
From Anarchopedia
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
: Mostly it is for information. Anarchopedia is more than just a site for anarchism, but rather a way to work in the anarchist manner (unlike wikipedia and such sites). Also i think it has '''much''' more relevance than [[national anarchism]] or [[anarcho-capitalism]]. ~ [[User:Beta_M|User:]][[Buddhism|B]][[ethics|e]][[Taoism|t]][[anarchism|a]][[postmodernism|_]][[metaphysics|M]] (VolodyA! V Anarhist) <span class="plainlinksneverexpand"><sup>[{{fullurl:User_talk:Beta_M|action=edit§ion=new}} Talk]</sup></span> [[2007]] [[December 31]] 10:15 <sub>([[Coordinated Universal Time|UTC]])</sub> | : Mostly it is for information. Anarchopedia is more than just a site for anarchism, but rather a way to work in the anarchist manner (unlike wikipedia and such sites). Also i think it has '''much''' more relevance than [[national anarchism]] or [[anarcho-capitalism]]. ~ [[User:Beta_M|User:]][[Buddhism|B]][[ethics|e]][[Taoism|t]][[anarchism|a]][[postmodernism|_]][[metaphysics|M]] (VolodyA! V Anarhist) <span class="plainlinksneverexpand"><sup>[{{fullurl:User_talk:Beta_M|action=edit§ion=new}} Talk]</sup></span> [[2007]] [[December 31]] 10:15 <sub>([[Coordinated Universal Time|UTC]])</sub> | ||
| − | ::That's fair enough, I'm here to contribute preferably in an Anarchist manner - that's what attracted me to anarchopedia as opposed to wikipedia. Though I'm not going to debate with you the legitimacy of Anarcho-Capitalism and other free market Anarchisms, as that is a a discussion for another place and another time, my first question is why would we be linking to a website that may provide grounds for authorities to shut down this site (as they have been known to do this for the smallest reasons, let alone a reference to paedophilia). My second question relates to your comment about national Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism - shouldn't we be trying to present these in an unbiased manner so that people should make up their own minds? I mean, I think it's fair enough if you hold a personal dislike of either of those two subjects, but I think it's unAnarchist to elevate some Anarchisms to a higher status in any kind of wiki. If you wanted to do this, there should be a point made that anarchopedia is specifically for traditional Anarchisms and include no reference to anarcho-capitalism and national Anarchism except for a single page offering critiques and refutations. | + | ::That's fair enough, I'm here to contribute preferably in an Anarchist manner - that's what attracted me to anarchopedia as opposed to wikipedia. Though I'm not going to debate with you the legitimacy of Anarcho-Capitalism and other free market Anarchisms, as that is a a discussion for another place and another time, my first question is why would we be linking to a website that may provide grounds for authorities to shut down this site (as they have been known to do this for the smallest reasons, let alone a reference to paedophilia). My second question relates to your comment about national Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism - shouldn't we be trying to present these in an unbiased manner so that people should make up their own minds? I mean, I think it's fair enough if you hold a personal dislike of either of those two subjects, but I think it's unAnarchist to elevate some Anarchisms to a higher status in any kind of wiki. If you wanted to do this, there should be a point made that anarchopedia is specifically for traditional Anarchisms and include no reference to anarcho-capitalism and national Anarchism except for a single page offering critiques and refutations.--[[User:RoyceChristian|RoyceChristian]] 05:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 05:09, 1 January 2008
relevance?[edit]
How is this relevant to Anarchism? --RoyceChristian 02:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Mostly it is for information. Anarchopedia is more than just a site for anarchism, but rather a way to work in the anarchist manner (unlike wikipedia and such sites). Also i think it has much more relevance than national anarchism or anarcho-capitalism. ~ User:Beta_M (VolodyA! V Anarhist) 2007 December 31 10:15 (UTC)
- That's fair enough, I'm here to contribute preferably in an Anarchist manner - that's what attracted me to anarchopedia as opposed to wikipedia. Though I'm not going to debate with you the legitimacy of Anarcho-Capitalism and other free market Anarchisms, as that is a a discussion for another place and another time, my first question is why would we be linking to a website that may provide grounds for authorities to shut down this site (as they have been known to do this for the smallest reasons, let alone a reference to paedophilia). My second question relates to your comment about national Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism - shouldn't we be trying to present these in an unbiased manner so that people should make up their own minds? I mean, I think it's fair enough if you hold a personal dislike of either of those two subjects, but I think it's unAnarchist to elevate some Anarchisms to a higher status in any kind of wiki. If you wanted to do this, there should be a point made that anarchopedia is specifically for traditional Anarchisms and include no reference to anarcho-capitalism and national Anarchism except for a single page offering critiques and refutations.--RoyceChristian 05:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
