User talk:Rajakhr
What are you?
- who are you seems to be more interesting, leaving no name behind when signing a page is not an honourable signing. Read more into Klingon culture. Rajakhr (talk) 01:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
We should meet somewhere off of wikipedia. What say you?
Miloserdia (talk) 01:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Before I reverted you on this, what did you feel needs sourcing? What is there is already sourced. Flyer22 (talk) 00:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- How 'killing people for amusement' implies seeing people as objects? I find it a pretty generalist and deep going statement that needs sourcing and in fact think it's the reverse, if they see people like objects? Why not smash a box? In any sense I think they are very aware of that these people have feelings and that is what causes them their amusement. Also, the source was a book used to investigate in criminal sciences, I don't really think those books are reliable on the personality of people or criminals as they seldom feature research in controlled conditions and often state what is needed for the killing to stop. Thank you for taking the time though. Rajakhr (talk) 08:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- Seeing people as objects is about more than smashing a box. Think of how some men see women as sexual objects; are they not very aware that these women have feelings? Yes, serial killers typically know that these people have feelings and "get off" on the feelings they cause these people while murdering them. You are correct on that. However, most experts still state that serial killers typically see their victims as objects...because these people are disposable to them (like trash). I thank you for striving for accuracy here on Wikipedia, though. Flyer22 (talk) 01:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- That's not really the psychologial definition of the concept though, to find them disposible or not care for their feelings. For instance, people with asperger's syndrome are commonly said to see people as objects because they fail to recognise other people have a mind and feelings of their own. I think that at least a change of wording is required to 'do no care for others', or some thing similar. To me at least, this implied that the profile of such a killed is that he or she fails to understand that other people have feelings. Rajakhr (talk) 03:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- Seeing people as objects is about more than smashing a box. Think of how some men see women as sexual objects; are they not very aware that these women have feelings? Yes, serial killers typically know that these people have feelings and "get off" on the feelings they cause these people while murdering them. You are correct on that. However, most experts still state that serial killers typically see their victims as objects...because these people are disposable to them (like trash). I thank you for striving for accuracy here on Wikipedia, though. Flyer22 (talk) 01:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- How 'killing people for amusement' implies seeing people as objects? I find it a pretty generalist and deep going statement that needs sourcing and in fact think it's the reverse, if they see people like objects? Why not smash a box? In any sense I think they are very aware of that these people have feelings and that is what causes them their amusement. Also, the source was a book used to investigate in criminal sciences, I don't really think those books are reliable on the personality of people or criminals as they seldom feature research in controlled conditions and often state what is needed for the killing to stop. Thank you for taking the time though. Rajakhr (talk) 08:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Vitriol and Bias in the "Icons of Evolution" article[edit]
I saw your comments on the talk page.... I agree with you.
the integrity and credibility of "Wikipedia" suffers EVERY TIME an article like this has this much BLATANT vitriol, venom, hate, bias, POV, and hysteria slopped all over it, by biased Darwinists with agendas....with the alibi of "majority view"
"neutrality" in wording and tone is more of a pillar of WP than even "majority view". Meaning that there still should be a semblance of objectivity and non-bias. "Pseudoscience" could be stated LATER ON, but not right in the intro...to poison the well.
They've been reverting good-faith edits. My re-wording is accurate and NEUTRAL... With no pro or con or taking sides either way, for the INTRO. "Pseudoscientific" should be stated that others say that. NOT WP itself.
there's so much POV in this article, it reads like a Darwinist blog on MySpace, rather than a neutral Encyclopedic article, that tries to show at least a semblance of objectivity in tone......
Anyway, if you want, check out what's been going on... at Revision history of Icons of Evolution 68.237.215.48 (talk) 20:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)