User talk:Thomasgraziadio

This user is a student editor in University_at_Albany/Information_Literacy_in_the_Humanities_and_Arts_(Spring_2021) .

Welcome!

Hello, Thomasgraziadio, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Ian and I work with Wiki Education; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.

I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.

Handouts
Choosing an article to edit Editing an article • Add images to articles Citing sources on Wikipedia
Additional Resources
You can find answers to many student questions in our FAQ.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:15, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WCI Feedback

Lead: He talks about sexual ethics restrictions then provides an example about China having a 2 child policy. He then proceeds to talk about how Kant and similar philosophers viewed sex. They concluded that it should only be done done marriage to support procreation and anything else was immoral.

Neutral: It wasn't opinionated. He keeps everything on topic and stayed focused on sexual ethics.

Balanced: He included a subtopic such as utilitarianism and explained it, too.

Sources: He included two sources: "The Ethics of Sex" by M.A. Hardaker and "Sexual Ethics", an a b source by Mark Dimmock and Andrew Fisher which can be reputable.

B.eriaz (talk) 16:48, 9 March 2021 (UTC)Z.B.[reply]

Thomasgraziadio (talk) 18:19, 16 March 2021 (UTC) Thanks for the feedback! I'm happy you thought that it was well constructed.[reply]

WCI Peer Review

The main focus of this introductory piece is the ethics of sexual acts through Kant's beliefs; having sex with anybody for any other reason besides procreation is immoral. Then, it delves deeper into the normative ethical theories of utilitarianism. There is enough to get a simple understanding of these sexual ethics. There seems to be a second focus which is homosexuality and how it may be stigmatized but is mentioned later how utilitarianism allows a moral view on any other sexuality. This wiki seemed neutral, taking both sides of an old philosophical view and its modern take. The writer also adds 2 very useful sources of sexual ethics from jstor. The only thing I would revise is the grammatical errors. Marlistafa (talk) 20:42, 9 March 2021 (UTC) Marli Stafa[reply]

Thomasgraziadio (talk) 18:20, 16 March 2021 (UTC) Thanks for giving your opinion and review. I went back and fixed my grammar so I think it should sounds more fluid now.[reply]

Kant and sexual ethics

Hi! I just edited your contribution to Sexual ethics and Kant. While I didn't want to comment first, reading the two (Wrong) peer reviews above made me do so. First, your sourcing was alright.

But second, most of the details of Kant's view on sex were wrong - and most importantly, they were correct in your source! so somehow these errors were introduced by you when summarizing the source. (1) Kant's problem with sex is not procreation, but instead has to do with his view on objectifying and sexual desire. Your source never talks about procreation in the context of Kant. (2) And once more: The fact that Kant thinks sex is permissible in marriage is not because they are surrendering themselves to their partner for any sexual act (where does this come from??), but because marriage creates a legal and moral framework to treat each other respectfully. (3) Your description of utilitarianism is also not found in the source.

So, to summarize: please be more careful when summarizing sources (see WP:OR), what you wrote in the article on sexual ethics was not found in the source (at all).

HOWEVER to the peer reviewers: Please actually read the source! Such peer reviews are not helping. --Mvbaron (talk) 13:54, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thomasgraziadio (talk) 14:52, 17 March 2021 (UTC) Thanks for the editing, I must've misread some of the text or got a source mixed up. The text flows much better now and the extra ideas you brought in help a lot too. The section on procreation as the only way sex is morally permissible is in the source I linked it's just not what Kant thinks about sex I mixed it up its on pages 4 and 5. Its in the section about natural law theory. Also the part about surrendering "themselves to their partner for any sexual act" is in the source it's on page 7 in the third italicized quote, it's a summarized version of what Kant was stating. Also the section about utilitarianism is on the next page so I don't understand why you are accusing me of making false claims, When it's all in the source. He also states what you say so we are both correct, maybe I worded it a little to much up for the readers perception of what it means.[reply]

Thomasgraziadio, hi! (you can sign your comments on a talk page with four tilde characters ~). Yeah I see the quote about surrendering, but Kant talks about "surrendering" in quotes and he talks about reciprocal "surrendering" and "reacquiring" of personhood. You wrote: part of their vow of marriage was surrendering themselves to their partner for any sexual act, which sounds misleading: as if the point was to be objectified, whereas Kant means the exact opposite. Maybe this was a misunderstanding on my part, sorry. Your section on utilitarianism was just too colloquial in my opinion. best --Mvbaron (talk) 20:52, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thomasgraziadio (talk) 20:58, 17 March 2021 (UTC) my comment is signed, also I was just using what the source was saying about utilitarianism which brought the idea back to modern thinking which I don't think is really frivolous to do personally. And philosophy is about how the reader interprets the writer so either way I think we are both right, it's just hard to talk about direct information in a wiki article because of that, it's technically your opinion and my opinion. Kant talks about how sex outside of marriage is technically using people as a means to an end not for anything else therefore making it immoral, Then in turn when you get married he's talking about how any sexual act is permissible essentially "surrendering yourself".[reply]

sounds about right! Btw, thanks for working on the Sexual Ethics article, it really needs some work! --Mvbaron (talk) 21:06, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Since the page is being worked on, do you guys know when the tags can be removed from the top of the sexual ethics page? Gender Roamer (talk) 22:30, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]