User talk:Wejer

Welcome!
Hi Wejer, please remember to follow these steps when updating an item's price in the Grand Exchange Market Watch.

To UPDATE the market price of this item in the Grand Exchange Market Watch:


 * 1) Move the value from Price to Last.
 * 2) Move the value in Date to LastDate.
 * 3) Add the current market price to Price (Without commas; i.e. 42000, not 42,000).
 * 4) Add 5 tildes  to Date to add the current time/date.
 * 5) Click Save page.

If you have any more questions, please leave a note on my talk page. Thanks! =) 15:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Re:Vandalism found
Hi there. Well what that vandal did (I've reverted their edits and reported them to the Counter Vandalism Unit) was go to the Exchange:Ruined_dragon_armour_lump article and edited the price so it would say "free if you like men". The way to revert this is to go to that article and click "undo" (or, if you have rollback rights you simply click "rollback") and then you undo their changes. This would not have worked as well in this case, however, because the IP had edited twice, which means rollback rights would have helped greatly in this situation. However, if you go to the revision before the vandalism started and select all of the text and right click "copy" then delete all of the text on the current revision and select "paste", you can then remove the vandalism. Thanks for notifying us of the vandalism in progress, however next time, please try to use the actual form, not the talk page. Kudos 2 U Talk! Edit count! Contribs! 19:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Re:Proposal
You most certainly may label me as a fellow Libertarian, you may also be interested in seeing if Rendova is interested, he's a Paulite himself.-- 15:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "foreign aid is counter-productive, because the money will most likely down the dictator's pockets; also, building schools and hospitals is equally wrong, because it just frees up money for the dictator to spend on secret police and armed forces." - I have to sortof disagree with this. I like the idea of volunteer and charity hospitals, perhaps merely checked up on, but not policed, maintained, or otherwise controlled, by their own government (the contributors, that is). I say this because if the need for hospitals is so great, the dictator would likely already be putting minimal or no money into it to begin with. Of course this would have to be looked at differently, since in all probability each situation would be different and thus would need to be looked at and treated differently.

Also you didn't mention anything on abortion or gay rights :d. I'd be interested in your thoughts on those. ahh and the political compass puts me at (1,-2) on the scale. I guess I do have a few commie views :p 05:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

-You, a commie? You haven't been to my country I presume (Sweden), cause here the communists have their own legitimate party, and are present in our parliament. You would have a very big hassle fitting in with your own, moderate views.

About foreign aid: yes, it is true dictators don't spend much money on public services, regardless if they are right or left-winged. However, they always spend a certain, small amount to keep the population content. Cuba is quite a good example of this; the people go to school a couple of years, so that they can learn to read. But what is there to read? Because there is no free (private) media, the only thing they have acces to is their propaganda newspaper! Will they get an accurate view on the world that way? I have to disagree.

Although it is true that all countries are not so miserable as communist cuba is at the moment, we should always excercise caution when giving foreign aid. It is primarily a country's own responsability, not ours. What we shall provide for them is REAL free trade and COMPLETLY free immigration, which will have a lot more impact on other countries standrard of living than any amount of charity money would do.

Of course, you can't prevent charity anyway, because people do whatever they like with their money. Still, charity money is better than welfare taxation, because the first one is voluntary while the second is not (you may be put into prison for not paying your taxes).

I cannot stop people from giving money though, I can only warn them to be cautious. Wejer 08:47, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes I forgot, I will put my views on gay rights, abortion and similar issues. Keep the suggestions coming! Wejer 08:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I read the updates. I'm very strongly pro life and don't think people are born gay (although I can understand getting gay "vibes" if you know what I mean :| ), especially by way of natural selection. Homosexuals don't have kids, so even if there was a certain "gay" gene, it wouldn't be able to get passed on to the next generation. And I think government should continue to fund research on the most important things, at least for the time being. I don't think we should just throw on the brakes, but we shouldn't quite keep going as we are now. Other than that, I'm mostly with you :p 19:55, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

You have a good point there that gay people aren't motivated to pass on their genes, because that is a choice they have made. However, natural selection does not only occur between iduvidual and induvidual; if you work together as a group, you can sometimes accomplish more than you can on your own. I believe it is called "altruism". Take ants for example; their workers are sterile. They do not help spread the queen ant's genes in a very direct way. However, they have had other functions, such as food gathering for example, which indirectly help the queen survive and help pass on her genes that way.

I think that gay people have had a function when mankind needed to survive as cavemen and beyond. Perhaps a similar one to ants, or perhaps not; although, to be honest I am not exactly sure, as I lack constructive proof for my claims.

To a different point; you say you are "pro-life". Does that mean you are against abortion? Or perhaps the death penalty? I would like to hear your thoughts on this one. I would also be interested knowing what you mean by "fund(ing) research on the most important things". What is important to you? Wejer 20:30, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually I'm against both capital punishment and abortion. Abortion because I personally believe life begins the moment sperm meets egg, and I believe all life is sacred, and likewise I'm against the death penalty because, also, all life is sacred and no human should have the right to take another person's life unless they're going to prevent them from hurting or killing someone else and there are no other options. The only exception I would make on abortion is when the mother's life is in jeopardy, and even then I would, naturally, make the abortion optional.


 * I maintain my position on homosexuality :P. Like I told the board of review a couple weeks ago when I was moving up a rank in boy scouts, "As a Christian I see homosexuality as wrong. As an American I believe we should have the right to live our personal lives the way we want." 05:18, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

edit I forgot to mention what I meant by "important" research. By that I mean we should help fund (even if only slightly) research into HIV/AIDS, space exploration (only for the time being, since private groups are only starting to take interest in the field), the possible causes, results, and even existence of global warming/cooling, etc. A thought I had pertaining to this was, perhaps, keep a low federal income tax and give discounts (maybe leading up to 100%?) according to donations to charity and/or research groups. I haven't put very much thought into that though. Too much happening in my personal life to worry about politics lately :s 05:25, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Interesting thoughts, especially your stance on the death penalty. Some pro-life christians would contrary to you claim that the death penalty should be an option against murderers and rapists, because they have "ruined" life that they hold sacred. I am glad that you have kept your head cool on this topic, since killing another human being, even if it is a criminal, is such a big waste.

I respect your standing on homosexualtiy but must however object. If you think gay people are "wrong" (even if someone proved that they were not born gay, and that it was a free choice), what should the punishment be? Wouldn't it be a logical (but scary) next step to actually criminalise gay people? Maybe force them to wear little pink triangles on their arms? That's what Hitler did in Nazi germany.

I realise from our discussions that you are not a fascist, and you would probably be horrified to be associated with them. Therefore I implore you to think again on this topic; just because the Bible is holy to you, it doesn't mean it is a good guide for modern society, because some sections were written more than 2000 years ago! Even if your God had good intentions when he gave its authors divine inspiration to write it down, the fact remains that the text was specifically written for people of another age and society, who had very little of the liberty we enjoy today.

To something else: you have come up with some good topics that could be classified as "important", and mostly I agree. However, there is acutally little need for them to be funded by taxpayers, as they can all be taken care off by charities, if they grow big enough. What keeps us from having space exploration foundation? Or a global warming foundation? Right now, government funding have led to environmentalists screaming after taxpayer's money, when they should instead look for people who would voluntarily part with their money. That way, everyone becomes happy.

In fact, the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation have multiple projects that together add up to tens of BILLIONS of dollars every year. One of these projects include research on combating and possibly curing HIV/AIDS.

Link: http://www.gatesfoundation.org/nr/public/media/annualreports/annualreport07/AR2007Statements.html

I think we should encourage more people like Bill Gates to contribute to charity because 1. they have extensive experience of handling finances (unlike government bureaucrats) and 2. they have A LOT of money they like to spend on a good cause, 'nuff said.

How would you encourage charity? As you said a 100% discount is a very good action. More long-term however we should focus on improving people wealth. Note that I do not say 'income', because a good income is no good for charities if you also have large expenses, since there is no spare cash to give to the needy. What I would propose is not only to lower taxes, but also to discourage loaning. That way we will slowly but surely create a good climate for good-will and charity.

By the way, what is your stance on embryo stem cells and animal testing? Is it a worthy goal to inflict pain and death on 'lower beings' to only possibly gain data that help us to save human lives? Where your pro-life loyalties lie here I would be interested to know. Wejer 10:43, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

RE:"under constrution
It's actually {{ not ( like this {{under construction}} {{Signatures/Cruser234}} 16:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I know that, it was intentional :) but thanks for your concern. Wejer 16:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

RE: Need help?
IF you need help contact me 16:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I will remember you. Wejer 16:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem :) 16:08, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm
While I do not agree with some of your view points, I give you respect for being able to speak your mind. Not many people can do that. Its take a lot to be able to speak of where you stand in life and being open about somethings just isn't easy. I respect your opinions as they are yours and do not pertain to me. Keep at whatever you're doing because you're doing great :). In case you ever need me you know where to find me :]. Happy Holidays!, 09:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)