RationalWiki:Saloon bar

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Saloon bar
WIGO Bar colour.png

This is a place for general chit-chat about virtually anything that doesn't fit anywhere else.
Invision-Board-France-355.gif For previous conversations see the automagic barchives. Guinnesssmiley.gif

What is going on?

The Bar
(talk) (talk) (talk) (talk) (hic)

RationalWiki:Forum
  1. Argument for the existence of limited god (09:57, 26 Mar 2017)
  2. Is there any hope (00:48, 25 Mar 2017)
  3. Would human extinction be such a bad thing? (17:25, 24 Mar 2017)
  4. A theocratic movement in the U.S. is gaining power (00:34, 23 Mar 2017)
  5. A couple of cute goat pictures (15:50, 20 Mar 2017)
  6. A few references regarding modern historical periods (14:31, 19 Mar 2017)
To do list

Contents


Holy crap, Jontron's gone off the deep end.

This discussion was moved to Talk:JonTron#Holy crap, Jontron's gone off the deep end..

Rational Limerick Contest

Hey good work, Rationalwikians! Why not collect these into a limerick generator for funspace? Bongolian (talk) 05:29, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I take that back; is my poetic meter busted or are some of you guys not following the limerick meter? Ronin looks good, but Rev??? Bongolian (talk) 05:35, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Actually, I'm the one following the Limerick meter... The sentences of a limerick are supposed to be read out at different speeds, in a non-melodic but strictly paced way, and that means you can only have a certain number of syllables in the different sections of the limerick. All my submissions nail the optimal syllable count (I've balanced them for that) and can be read out loud with a consistent tempo. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:12, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
For an example of the optimal limerick pacing (and it's also an excellent limerick), see here . Translation available here. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:55, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
Good one! Bongolian (talk) 20:16, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

RoninMacbeth

Kind of self-explanatory. I'll start. Ahem:

There once was a man named Trump,

Who really was kind of a grump.

So he ran for the White House

And the Nazis he did rouse

So now we're all down in the dumps.

Anyone else? RoninMacbeth (talk) 20:32, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

There once was a man named Andy,

Who gave CP bans out like candy.

“The speed of light has decayed

For Earth was made in but days!”

Such statements this man thought were dandy.

I came up with this one walking home from swim practice. RoninMacbeth (talk) 00:31, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

There once was a man named Roko.

Whose theory was thought to be loco.

So LessWrong went in flames,

And Eliezer was shamed

Now nobody mentions poor Roko.

I'm less proud of this one. RoninMacbeth (talk) 00:44, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Ikanreed

A man was a highly skilled homeopath

He would mix and dilute in his bath

Only one small problem this lent

There was not one molecule of ingredient

Because this man sucked at basic math

ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:41, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I had an infection that turned my skin bright red

I took my chiro's advice and went with alt med

Don't trust Big Pharm

Because what's the harm

And now I'm lying on my death bed

ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:52, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

There was this certain theory

About how everything was a conspiracy

And don't trust the news

Because it's run by the Jews

And all these coincidences are eerie

(Sorry for the slant rhyme) ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 21:00, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

schools will never teach intelligent design

because there's no evidence coming down the line

and complexity irreducible

can't survive the scientific crucible

No matter how much Darwin you quote mine

ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 21:15, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Reverend Black Percy

Dopey FAKE NEWS? Very sad!

I'm the best prez that we ever had!

InfoWars dares to say,

Now the frogs have turned gay,

That Pepe wants to be called Chad!

(My first attempt, I hope the references aren't too obscure) Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:17, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

The moon is a spaceship IT'S TRUE!!

How could I be misleading you?!

As I fell out of bed,

Landed right on my head,

The truth of the Matrix broke through!!

(Guess who) Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:27, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Courageous Freeman-on-the-land,

The judge forced him to take the stand!

Though they had his passport,

He remarked with a snort,

"the REAL me's in Gondwanaland!"

Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:08, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Tankies will call you "Comrade!"

Say "Stalinism wasn't that bad!"

Just don't point out

That Hegel was a kraut

Or you'll turn them stark raving mad!

Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:50, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

A long-debunked communist plot,

"The tap water is your garrotte!"

But since things are fine,

Lest you WAKE UP online,

Mike Adams will have written for naught!

Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:17, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

The denier knows his alphabet,

"AGW" means "A lie from Soviet!"

For each science report,

saves his brilliant retort,

"But I'm not even breaking a sweat!"

Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:34, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Chemtrails must turn people gay,

It's all in that deviant spray!

Some damn plane in the sky,

Must've hit a bullseye,

Cause I can't stop watching men's ballet!

I'm actually a bit proud of this one. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:45, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Things hadn't turned out as planned,

When Moses got lost in the sand!

Wandering the desert,

Not so much as a skirt,

But atleast he got quite nicely tanned!

Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:57, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Darwin claims "Man is an ape",

But there's one question he can't escape!

It's "Oh, were you there?"

Since his proof is threadbare,

We'll need monkeys transforming ON TAPE!

#ReasonableCreationistDemands Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:21, 18 March 2017 (UTC)'ll

My vote.Gaul Dernitt (talk) 07:15, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

LeftyGreenMario

Do you know the Banana Man

Who tried to find out how life began?

He literally took a slapstick fruit

And proven that scientists don't give a hoot

Aside from laughing as hard as they can!

Mom told her little Deneb

Trust no strangers on the web

But Mom embraced a random meme

That promised could fulfil her autism-free dream

Her kid is now caught in a sick web.

David Gerard

Rational rational rational

Rational rational rational

Rational rational

Rational rational

Rational rational rational

"But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:57, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

There once was a guy that I liked

I took him for being quite bright

He liked all I hated

Our paths seemed post-fated

And I got along fine with my life

Pure love Gaul Dernitt (talk) 06:49, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Rationalzombie94

There once was a creationist

There once was a creationist, he thought his mind was spacious

He preached and preached religion

But nobody listened to the dick

He preached and preached then got an education

He learned and learned to find his God didn't exist

He cried and cried till his spirit died and ended up in Tartarus

The creationist cried and cried when he saw the smirk in Hades's eyes

Hades preached and preached Jesus was only imagination.

The creationist screamed and scream as he was tortured

The creationist was a dick, a dick, a dick he learned

But the pain would never end for the asshole creationist creationist

He was a Nazi who committed murder by proxy

He didn't care if the people were dyin

He created squads of death that took peoples breath

The Nazi by Proxy got trapped in a boxy

With no way out and with out a doubt he was dead sauerkraut.

Okay I am not good with limericks --That Undead Schizophrenic (talk) 21:37, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Goodpost.gif Know thyself. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:58, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

nobs

There once was a man named Barack

Who had a wife that looked like a jock

One night while they're sleepin'

Under the covers he's peekin'

And said, "My God, I thought it was a sock!"

nobs 03:40, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay, that was funny. You get brownie points for that!--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 03:45, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
There once was guy named Trump

Who could rile people on the stump

To Washington he came

And left it the same

When he ended by drowning in the swamp

nobs 06:17, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

There once was a boy named Ryan

With big ideas a-flyin'

When they told him to fix-it

He said he would nix-it

Now the poor people are cryin'

nobs 06:30, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

There once was a hag named Pelosi

Whose leadership style was lousy

When they tried to replace her

No one would face her

Cause she looked like Bela Lugosi!

nobs 10:09, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

There was an ol' putz named Schumer

Who couldm't shake off the rumor

No matter how hard he tried

Or how loud he cried

He licks the shit off his bloomers

Disclaimer: for NPOV purposes, I struggled hard to come up with a McConnell one. Anybody any ideas to get started? nobs 10:09, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

There was a young man named Bruno

Who said there is one thing I do know

A woman is fine

And a sheep is devine

But a llama is numero uno

There once was a guy named Reince Priebus

Who gave everybody the heebie jeebies

When he tried to cut costs

In healthcare he lost

Now everyone is living on government freebies

There once was a guy named James Comey

Who said Trump was Putin's homey

When they sat him to speak

The country did freak

When they saw he was a Deep State croney

There once was a guy named Bannon

Who had a mouth like a canon

When Trump asked advice

He said "stick to lies"

How to shitcan 'em both everyone's plannin'

Anybody got any ideas for Kellyanne? nobs 16:32, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Smerdis of Tlön

Rising to the challenge

There is a Senator McConnell

A foe to things floral and faunal.

Global warning he spurned

So as the world burned

The climate turned more and more saunal.

- Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 17:37, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

DiamondDisc1

                   ...
                  .....
                 .......
                .........
                 .......
                  .....
                   ...
                    .
Here's one from old Percy.
Vandals on here take a risk,

This sysop might give them a frisk!

Unbuckling his belt,

And the damage is dealt,

"You WILL stare at my fucking disc!"

Th hug.gif Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:08, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Good job RBP :p-ᎠᎥamᎧndᎠᎥᎦᏣ1(talk) 05:07, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! ^^ Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:18, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Is the climate change movement saying consumption threatens the planet?

Here's the dilemma: the old-school Cold warriors on all sides of the tri-polar debate say peace and trade go hand-in-hand. 'Trade' being a codeword for 'consumerism'. Through this formula we've avoided nuclear war for 70 years, although we've failed at curtailing proliferation. The people of India, China, Brazil, Indonesia, Russia, the EU and elsewhere all are living the Amrerican dream, success and freedom defined as driving a gas polluting vehicle. The climate change movement says consumption threatens tbe planet. The Salafis say Western consumerism threatens Islam's survival. Are the people of all tbe aforementioned countries willing to bow to these political forces, whose policy objectives are the same? This is only one problem in sorting how to find a path of continued existence on the planet, cause neither the climate change advocates, the Salafis, or Westernized mass consumers have a monopoly on the solution.

Remember George Bush's immediate advice to citizens how to respond to the 9/11 attack? "Go shopping." In theory, he was right. And that thinking sustained us another 16 years. But I see whole system breaking down fairly rapidly. nobs 05:49, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Not sure what that conversation was about anymore, so I made a new section.

An arbitrary definition of success and freedom is such an easy way to "prove" than Indians are living the American dream. And yet, in this listWikipedia's W.svg, the US is number 3 with 797 road motor vehicles (excluding two-wheelers) per 1000 people, India is number 160 with 18... If we want to cherry pick criteria to fit our narratives, at least let's try to get some numbers.

AGW is a measurable physical phenomenon, it means that we (humans everywhere, not targeting anyone) are putting so much CO2 into the atmosphere that the planet's temperature is increasing more than it would have naturally. Magically shifting energy sources would stop our CO2 output without requiring any reduction in production or consumption. But this is a huge technological challenge, transportation is only a part of it (15% according to this, "the largest net contributor to climate change pollution" according to this), and before we get there, reducing waste overall would help (it would also help with many other things).

I don't have any two-word solution that will make the world a better place. Things are constantly changing, and ignoring the changes is the first step away from a solution. --Cmonk (talk) 12:59, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

"Climate Change Movement" there's no such thing. Only people who know what they're talking about. Christopher Jesusspeed!
13:03, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
So what is the opposite of 'global warming denier', a global warming proponent? nobs 17:10, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
The same as the opposite of 'holocaust denier' or any other kind of 'reality denier': a realist. --Cmonk (talk) 19:23, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
@Cmonk: Here's a short excerpt from a World Wildlife Fund report pg 8:
The main driver of our increased demands on the planet over the last decades is an explosion in global consumption driven by seemingly insatiable consumer wants.

However, countries have not equally benefited from this consumption growth. While there is a global consumer class – mainly based in industrialised countries – growing in extent and affluence, more and more are slipping deeper and deeper into poverty and are not able to meet their basic needs for food, water and shelter. Today the overall consumption of the richest fifth of the world’s population is nine times that of the poorest fifth (UNEP, 2002).

In line with these disparities in the global geography of consumption, the lifestyle of people in different countries poses very different demands on the planet and countries have contributed very differently to global environmental problems. While the Ecological Footprint of the average American, for example, is 9.4 gha/cap, a person in India only has a footprint of 0.9 gha/cap. The Ecological Footprint of Sweden is 5.1 gha/cap. In comparison to the recommended 2,1 gha/cap that the planet is able to cope with (WWF, 2008), we would need another 2 planets to sustain our lifestyle if everyone in the world would live like we do in Sweden.

Therefore, the world is faced with a twofold challenge. We need to reduce the overall demands on the planet while meeting our present needs more widely and to allow future generations to meet their needs. This is the idea behind the concept of sustainable development, which we hope will lead to “the fulfilment of basic needs, improved living standards for all, better protected and managed ecosystems and a safer more prosperous future” (UN, 1992).

(Note many of these hypotheses and projected statistical conclusions take no consideration of future gains in energy efficiency, an unknown variable). nobs 17:39, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
It's the Capitalist Peace Theory that basically says that trade and capitalism cause peace because in an interdependent world economy war is too distruptive. CorruptUser (talk) 18:06, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Hence my conclusion, that breakdown of that paradigm, which is occurring now fairly rapidly, is leading to a world of political instability. In the period of 1945-72, the only nuclear powers were the five permanent members of the UN Security Council. Today they can be defied, and we're not even talking about non-state actors. There are other competing interests now. And another point still still stands: proponents of global warming theory are following a political agenda and twin track that parallels Salafism - anti-Western materialism and consumerism, without passing judgement on the merits of either. nobs 18:24, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
In my opinion, it should be expected that any entity with the will and resources could develop arbitrary levels of science and technology, simply because the laws of physics are the same for everyone; so it is almost unavoidable that nuclear proliferation would become a global issue. Back on topic, the section in the report that you link (section 1.1 "Living beyond limits") contains 2 parts, a first one about the ecological footprintWikipedia's W.svg which you cited, and a second one about global warming. The idea of ecological footprint includes concepts such as "Carbon, Food, Housing, and Goods and Services", so there is some level of guesswork involved, and it is not without its critiquesWikipedia's W.svg. But global warming is a different thing, with its own measurements and models. It would help if you could specify what you call "global warming theory", because I can't tell whether we are talking about the same thing. --Cmonk (talk) 19:19, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
That's what I'm saying. The movement is elusive. It lingers in the shadows, has a political agenda, attacks its opponents, and denies it exists (see above). Its rhetoric is vague but inspired. I have as much superficial knowledge of global warming as I do the Koran after all these many years, but I'd say it too, is a youth movement that targets the young, with a few grand imams and scholars to inspire its followers that Western values, traditions, and society are a threat to survival. These things aren't to be taken lightly, people 15-25 lack the experience and perspective to govern the planet, but they are the one's who will be called upon to kill each other in a battle of the planet's entrenched, competing interests. None of the old rules we lived by now apply. nobs`
The biggest difference being that global warming has scientific evidence behind it, whereas the Koran is a collection of the speeches of a warlord whose proof of divine inspiration was "I have an army". CorruptUser (talk) 01:27, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
I have no knowledge of such shadow movement. I trust the scientists because I can't check everything myself (no one can). If climate scientists say "AGW is a fact and here is the evidence", then that's my opinion (I do my best to check, but there is only so much I can do). If tomorrow they come out saying "we messed up because of this and that", then I will go with that too, although my trust will have been eroded. If it turns out that it was all a sick joke, then I will probably just give up. I see no rhetoric in a graph that shows temperature increasing over time; the only way to doubt it would be to argue that the individual data points are incorrect, and that is beyond my abilities. I don't have a complete understanding of all the details, but so far everything that I think I know is consistent, and the claims from scientists about the impacts of CO2 date back to the 19th centuryWikipedia's W.svg, so it's not just a new fad. In addition to instabilities caused by ideological conflicts, a changing climate would introduce an additional level of instability by affecting basic housing and food security. Models predict that business as usual should have such negative consequences. And instead of being far away in the future, they have already started: coral bleaching, ice caps melting, floods, islands disappearinglink=wp:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiribati#Environmental_issues. Is this all just scaremongering? Are these events fake news or merely coincidental? I doubt it, but if the people who dedicate their lives to the question say we should do something about it, then we probably should. --Cmonk (talk) 02:09, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

There appears to be 'at least some connection' between human activity and 'what happens to the world as a whole' - and if you use fewer resources (or use your resources more effectively) you spend less money (which you can use in other, more enjoyable areas).

Can someone come up with a succinct 'Morton's Fork style version of this? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:14, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I also don't know what the "global warming movement" is. The fact is that human activity is causing the world to warm. This isn't a question of political opinion - it's a question of fact.
A possibly associated fact is that the world is a virtually closed system with finite resources. Using these resources generates waste other than CO2 and at some point we will need to move to a sustainable growth model which might even be a zero growth model. Or go to the stars using some as-yet undiscovered technology.
Another possibly associated fact is the enormous inequality in respect of the distribution of wealth between rich countries and poor countries - and also between a relatively small number of fabulously rich people and the rest of humanity.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:58, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Energy-wise, the planet isn't a closed system because energy from the sun fuels both photosynthesis and global warming. Matter-wise, we are mostly closed (good enough approximation), but even though we have more than enough raw elements (carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen), the problem is how these elements are combined: breathable air, drinkable water, edible plants and animals. Because of continuous technological innovations (renewables, desalination, artificial meat) I find it difficult to say what, if anything, will be a long-term problem. Short-term, I am particularly concerned about coastal erosion and fresh water shortages: moving populations is costly and risky, and not even a developed country like the US can just brush off droughts. --Cmonk (talk) 00:27, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay. I've been in a two-day, highly insensitive low-level briefing on FISA. Now, here's a problem in achieving a global consensus on global peace, tranquility, while avoiding nuclear war and high levels of carbon emmisions. To achieve this consensus, one-quarter of the planet's population would have to be polled with the question: Who is the final arbiter of truth, Allah or Science? I'd be interested to see editors guesses on polling results, both within the global Muslim population and the world at large (for the remaining 75% of the earth's population, fill in the blank with the local prevailing deity of your choice). My guestimate: Islam: 83% Allah, 13% Science; Global composite aggregate (includes Islam), 75% Deity of your choice, Science 22%, Don't know 3%.
Conclusion: Science might not be ready for primetime for global leadership in the political sphere in the 21st century. nobs 05:02, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Isn't nobs just confusing the degrowth movement (who think that mass consumption is bad) and people who believe in global warming in? Diacelium (talk) 20:20, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
This term, "sustainable growth" is a term the stop-global-warming movement hijacked from supply siders in the late '80 and early '90s, and gave it its own twist and meaning. Thatcherism, Reaganomics, and supply-side economics was all based on a theory to end stagflationWikipedia's W.svg and promote sustainable growth (i.e. no need for constant government stimulus). When Reagan & Thatcher departed the scene in 1989, they left a theory in place but the leadership (Papa Bush always called it VooDoo economics anyway) wasn't as committed. By 1992, you see the UN footnot in the quotebox above using the term, "sustainable growth" when the stop-global-warming movement was in its infancy. But they really mean something quite different from supply-siders who popularized the term. By "sustainable growth", the stop-global-warming movement realy means rationing in a zero sum society (one persons gain is another person's loss, there is no concept of mutually beneficial exchange).
This flying under the radar with a hijacked term helped make the stop-global-warming movement immensely successful. I had no idea of the corruption of a term I assumed was widely understood and accepted, until I read that report cited above a few weeks ago. nobs 22:18, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
The UN used the term "sustainable development", which was coined and first defined in the Brundtland report published in 1987 at the end of the work of the Brundtland CommissionWikipedia's W.svg started in 1983. In this document, "The satisfaction of human needs and aspirations [is] the major objective of development" and sustainable development is "development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs". The EU does have a plan called sustainable growth, in which climate change is only one point of concern. Whether the naming inspiration came from Robert C. Higgins' sustainable growth rateWikipedia's W.svg (1977) or some political speech, I don't know, but it hardly matters today because of the multiple meanings and buzzwordiness.
Nothing can go "under the radar" with the global environment because it is public and borderless. As a political and social movement, environmental concerns are old, starting as early as the 17th century in the UK (sourceWikipedia's W.svg) and refining the message in the 19th century in various countries; in the US, Nixon played a major role by creating the EPA in 1970, following public concern in the decades before (sourceWikipedia's W.svg). Interviewed by Penn and Teller in 2003, the environmentalist Patrick Moore said "The environmental movement was basically hijacked by political and social activists who came in and very cleverly learned how to use green rhetoric or green language to cloak agendas that actually had more to do with anti-corporatism, anti-globalization, anti-business, and very little to do with science and ecology" and concluded "The solution side is to try and figure out how to do things better. Not to have campaigns against everything in the world, but rather to have campaigns in which you are shifting from the way you did things before into doing things in a new way that still provides the goods and services we need, but do so at less cost to the environment."
Regardless, nature doesn't care one bit about politics, economic theory and buzzwords, and it doesn't do voluntary trade either. Concepts such as mutually beneficial exchange only make sense for humans who want to justify their actions. When it comes down to it, everything is about energy and matter exchanges: energy only flows one way, and matter gets recycled. That people can value something because they believe it is beneficial to them doesn't mean it actually is, and that kind of belief is also a basis for irrationality that this site aims to counter. Despite the uncertainties, regular need for revisions and occasional errors, science is the best way we have to understand the world. Our current scientific understanding is that AGW is a fact. Arguing against that requires appropriate scientific skills. What we could or should do about it is debatable, but denying it on ideological grounds is not helpful. --Cmonk (talk) 20:04, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Vindicated. Great work, to the point, etc. It all harkens back to debates in the late 1970s and early 80s between supply-siders, best represented by Ronald Reagan, and zero-summers, best represented by Prof. Lester ThurowWikipedia's W.svg of MIT. When the zero-summers lost and the communism was discredited (the substance of their arguments being that the rich get rich at the expense of the poor), their arguments carried over to the one forum that would welcome them - the developing and undeveloped word of the UN which had not benefitted from the global Free Trade movement which was yet to occur. Hijacking what was then a commonly understood phrase, "sustainable growth and development", the zero-sum concept was reborn. nobs 01:08, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
I am not quite sure I see the vindication, so let me rephrase a bit in case I was too ambiguous (the downside of trying to be fair). Humans have their agendas, but nature doesn't, so talking about this side against that side doesn't solve anything. Some people do give in to and promote alarmism/hysteria, but that by itself doesn't mean that we shouldn't be concerned about the environment. Climate change is only one part of the environmental concerns, and talking about "the climate change movement" is misleading. Climate scientists conclude that AGW is happening, so any policy discussion by non-specialists has to start with that as an assumption. Economic models don't apply to basic physics, and when it comes to ecosystems everything is complicated (they can absorb some amount of disturbance but not too much). If anything, on a human civilization timescale (how long? who knows...), burning fossil fuels is a "zero-sum game" because eventually they will run out, and we don't have any efficient means to scrub the accumulating CO2 from the atmosphere. At the level of modern-day people, those who say that it hasn't been a problem so far ignore that: (a) a lot of measures have already been taken in an attempt to reduce our consumption of fossil fuels (hybrid or fully electric cars, renewable energy, more efficient technology); (b) it actually has been, and continues to be, a problem (variations in oil price, energy dependency and conflicts, ocean acidificationWikipedia's W.svg). The warming itself means that the planet is accumulating large amounts of heat, and this matters because weather events are essentially heat transfer phenomena. --Cmonk (talk) 03:59, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
It's all moot when we're praying to Mecca 5 times a day. nobs 07:08, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
No, it isn't. (also this for a different perspective) We don't get to pick and choose our problems, they all happen at the same time. We do get to figure out what to do, but ignoring one doesn't make it disappear. --Cmonk (talk) 09:35, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Digested it all. But doesn't that corroborate my basic thesis, if not even moreso? This article is citing what we might call the 'global mainstream' of adherents to Islam, versus a more radical, if not widespread, Salafist view. In all three cases, Salafist, the 'global mainstream' Islamic scholars (if indeed such a thing exists; it's debatable), and climate crisis advocates, all adhere to an anti-consumerism, zero-sum economic theory ("limits to growth"). Isn't this a marked reversal of the pro-economic growth and development paradigm based on consumer goods and free trade that the existing global peace structure is built on? nobs 15:17, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
While there is some anti-consumerism and alarmism in the declaration, there is no mention of specific religious subgroups, and the Nature article doesn't elaborate on fundamentalism either. The website lists 27 "scholars" with various affiliations and countries (UN, Malaysia, UK, NGOs, etc.); I don't know how mainstream they are, but they certainly seem diverse. What I see is a group of people trying to convince others that AGW is a problem, arguing in favor of what they believe is a solution, with some governments apparently unwilling to listen, and others already facing the issues. To me, this looks like what is happening elsewhere, only with a religious framing; in fact, Nature points out that other faiths did the same thing, like this message by Pope Francis.
People in general are not experts in anything, be it climate science or economic theories. It is not hard to see why someone would think "to chase after unlimited economic growth in a planet that is finite and already overloaded is not viable" (from the Islamic declaration) regardless of religion or politics. Whether it is correct or incorrect is not self-evident, largely debatable, and instead of being anti-consumerist, it could also be pro-spiritual/anti-materialist.
As I see it, your "thesis" is that a proposed solution is the prime driver of a push for the recognition of an imaginary problem which serves only as a justification for the solution. Maybe this is indeed what some people want; however, the problem is real, and there is currently no widely accepted solution (in part because some people keep denying the problem). And your last sentence is like those loaded questions that are impossible to answer with a simple yes or no because of all the assumptions behind them ("have you stopped beating your spouse yet?"). What I can say is that shifting energy sources, that is replacing fossil fuels with renewables, wouldn't necessarily affect "consumer goods and free trade". On the contrary, environmental damage is destruction of valuable resources, and nobody would suggest something like a carbon tax if we weren't pumping out CO2. But we don't have such a magical solution, and the goal now is to figure out some kind of compromise, keeping in mind that while we are arguing, things keep happening. --Cmonk (talk) 21:12, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── This has all been very constructive, and I think there are things we can build on. I've learned alot. Can we agree on a statement something like the following:

There are apace in the world two competing views or understanding of the phrase "sustainable growth and development." One such view interprets it to mean "sustainable economic recovery with increased employment and consumption"; another interprets it to mean "a world with finite natural resources that are depleted at a faster rate as population grows". The first group is old school, the second group are heirs of the planet. The first group control the dominant political and military alliances on the planet. The second group will be heirs of the dominant political and military alliances on the planet.

Or words to that effect. nobs 00:30, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I also learned a lot: I don't necessarily agree with or understand all your points, but I find this kind of challenge valuable. Regarding your statement, instead of a generational difference of opinion, I think sustainable development is more about trying to avoid making the future more difficult than the present. But the official meaning has changed, and will keep changing with the state of the world and the priorities of those involved. If I had to summarize it, I would say that it is about designing long-term policies acknowledging the dynamic physical world. --Cmonk (talk) 06:09, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Coming from a business background, in recessionary times and a falling stock market, people think "it can only go to zero." In a rising stock market, theoretically the skies the limit, because numbers are infinite. This is what supply-siders thought in the 80s, when Allen Greenspan produced the first "sustainable recovery" lasting 103 months. But the zero-summers always talked about "limits to growth", which basically people didn't want to hear.
I could write a boat load on what I've taken from this discussion, beginning with "sustainable growth" being a redirect in Wikipedia when Allen Greenspan never stopped using the phrase for 16 years as Fed Chairman, and it had nothing to do with what that page redirects to. What that page redirects to most people thought threatened "sustainable growth and development". nobs 06:37, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Layout of an ICR "science" article

  • Introduction of the issue
  • Distort the issue
  • Add no credible insults
  • Quote mine
  • Then Claim the bible is true with no citation or analysis --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 21:28, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
I tried looking at some ICR stuff but I could feel my brain cells crawling out through my ear and jumping off. BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 12:33, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Sandboxes

How can I add a sandbox for myself?Anim (Carfa) 12:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Randir/Sandbox. BicyclewheelToxic mowse.gif 12:31, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Today's oxymoron: funny CSPAN-2 clip

I don't really know the context or the people involved, but I did get why people were laughing: https://mobile.twitter.com/SenSasse/status/844630468477771776/video/1 Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:54, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Can't speak for the oxy, but cspan never has any sort of shortage of morons. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 21:21, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Also that's the senate, so CSPAN-2, not CSPAN. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 21:23, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Duly noted. Th hug.gif Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:27, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
This is good staff work - setting up the joke. Kinda like Donna Brazile getting the leaked questions in the debate. nobs 02:15, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

SolveMedia captcha not working on Firefox 52

Got a report that people using Firefox 52 can't create accounts - the SolveMedia captcha just doesn't show anything. I can reproduce this in FF 52 Ubuntu too. I can see the captcha in Chromium 56. Anyone else? Anyone know why?

(The SolveMedia thing was bodged on by Trent years ago. I'd replace it ReCaptcha, but the current ReCaptcha v2 requires MediaWiki 1.26 or higher, and the older ReCaptcha 1 is being retired at some unspecified time soon.) - David Gerard (talk) 16:09, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Aw, damnit, I need to dump my changes into a repo somewhere. It really was a small change. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 21:33, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Women's fashions as a signpost of changing times

For the first time ever, I found a link from CP's MPR relevent, timely, and interesting. Suffice it to say the final section sums it up wjth a quote from the editor of Teen Vogue

The foundation of Vogue’s leadership and authority is the brand’s unique role as a cultural barometer for a global audience. Vogue places fashion in the context of culture and the world we live in – how we dress, live and socialize; what we eat, listen to and watch; who leads and inspires us. Vogue immerses itself in fashion, always leading readers to what will happen next. Thought-provoking, relevant and always influential, Vogue defines the culture of fashion.

So here's an effort to marry the youth of Western civilization brainwashed by the anti-God, secular global warming movement with proponents of shariah law. All based on the gospel of consumerism. Oy vey. nobs 16:50, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

>anti-God, secular
>sharia law
You can't do both, sorry :/ Lord Aeonian (talk) 17:39, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Wrong. Sharia proponents and the anti-God, secular, pro-Science stop-global-warming movement are both anti-consumer, anti-Western materialism, anti-supply side. nobs 21:52, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
The most common and accepted literal translation of the word "Sharia" is "religious". Sharia and secular are literally opposites, you dense motherfucker. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 14:19, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
He obviously means anti his particular interpretation of a particular version of particular god. Sharia law is anti that god (just as it is anti Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, Judaism, Sikhism, Wicca, Odinism, $¢ientology and of course atheism which we all know is a religion). Christopher (talk) 15:09, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
$¢i€nto£og¥* Anim (Carfa) 15:17, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Might I say that I am very impressed by the users who actually managed to understand what on earth Nobs was going on about, and were even able to create meaningful responses to this missive from a parallel dimension. Well done.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:30, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
The translation of shariah I've always understood to be the way, in much the same sense Jesus referred to himself as the way. And in the 21st century a democratic poll (assuming shariah allows) of Shariah vs Science, Shariah wins, hands down. nobs 17:12, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Ah yes, Teen Vogue. They've had their iron fist and widespread, highly relevant influence on American culture and values for decades. For too long they've been telling teen girls what style of jeans are in fashion. You know, one of those pieces of clothing explicitly forbidden to women under Sharia law. That also happens to be a highly industrialized and relentlessly marketed product purchased and consumed by massive swaths of the American public. 71.188.73.196 (talk) 17:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Yep, you got it. It will not be long before we begin hearing that joining the jihad against the House of Saud is the prime way to fight global warming. nobs 17:29, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Sincere question: do you consider people wearing shirts to be oppression? An artifact of a backwards culture requiring specific dress to maintain modesty? Occasionally even punished under law(but only for women)? Or do you see them as a normal part of your daily life? And I know this is driving at a point, but it's also a sincere question. Wherefor shirts? ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:49, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Please don't make me imagine nobs as one of those stereotypical hippie naturists. Vulpius (talk) 19:17, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Actually, legend has it that if you can get nobs to imagine himself as a hippie of any kind, he'll vanish into giant mushroom cloud, akin to mixing matter and antimatter. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:46, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Really, I were a hippie back in the day, it was a phase we all went thru. Then I got stuck in juvie rehab. While on furlough, me and a couple other inmates visited George McGovern's campaign hq. He was running on a legalize marijuana platform. There was the top of a shoebox full of pennies for campaign donations. When one of my fellow inmates stole a pocketful of pennies, I realized there and then it was pointless forging political coalitions with idiots. Nixon won, with money to burn and payoff Watergate burglers. The rest is history. nobs 01:20, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @Ikanread:Sincere question: do you consider people wearing shirts to be oppression?
Honest to God answer (I swear on stack of Popular Science backissues): This morning I answered the door shirtless. A property manager woke me with some important business. We spoke for about a minute and a half or two. Tbe lady whose probably a few years younger said, "Would you put on a shirt so we can talk." She was probably being distracted, or aroused. That's probably why we wear shirts, as a custom and courtesy. nobs 01:50, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

@ikanreed I think all gendered clothing is oppression in the sense that it originated in patriarchal contexts. For example, Western formal wear for women emphasizes physical features and shows lots of skin, whereas formal wear for men minimizes body appearance as much as possible to focus on other traits. While it's most obvious in formal wear, that gender disparity continues in almost all western fashion from what I can see. It's very clear that the clothing was designed in a context where women are valued for little more than their appearance, whereas men have 'more to offer,' so to speak. This isn't any different from the superficially opposite 'modesty culture' which sees women as property to be hidden and protected as one would protect valuable goods; the difference being that you're showing off the 'goods' with a woman on your arm in some high class setting rather than hiding her from others in rural Afghanistan until you trade her virginity for some social capital in a marriage agreement. In fact, I recently saw a Saudi tweet support haya and hijab by asking if one would one hide a very valuable car in a garage or covered with a tarp, as opposed to leaving it outside and uncovered for the elements to ruin it and for others to steal it. One of the responses was along the lines of "if I had a very nice car, I would drive it around all day to show off, not hide it!" You can see how the car is still property no matter what, covering it or exposing are just different ways for an owner to utilize the property.

The point is that yes, all these clothes are inherently oppressive but not definitely so. A woman can wear attractive clothing and feel confident and desirable just like another can cover up and feel like she is resisting a culture that sexualizes women. The only problems come when people confuse what gives them personal ease of mind with historical realities, and you end up with hijabis saying Islam is a 'feminist religion' because the hijab resists sexual objectification and commodification - a purpose probably not envisioned by Umar al-Khattab when he pestered the Prophet to mandate hair covering because he found himself tempted by the beautiful hair of one of Muhammad's own wives. Lord Aeonian (talk) 01:21, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Leftypol

I just wanted to know your guy's thoughts on /leftypol/ and their central idea that identity politics is both a right wing movement and that it should be destroyed along with the capitalist class structure.'Legionwhat do you want from me 01:26, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Leftypol seems to be mainly leftcom, as opposed to, say, reddit's r/Communism, which is 'tankie' and toes the ML or MLM line. Are they right about this? Well, I think it goes without saying a great deal of historical materialism is about reducing secondary aspects of the base and superstructure model into class struggle, or rather 'unveiling and exposing' class struggle as the root of other social problems, as a Marxist would phrase it. Identity politics is fundamentally opposed to the combined, unadulterated struggle of the international proletariat in Marxism proper, but I think many Marxists and wannabes also see the potential for combining various groups into a popular front through group concessions in a distinctly democratic, coalitionist form of politics. Ironically, /leftypol/ is following Lenin's line and the tankies are not in this instance. Lord Aeonian (talk) 01:56, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
/leftypol/ is 4chan being 4chan and therefore reprehensible shitheads who cannot meaningfully be spoken of as having "ideas" that rely upon anything other being voiced by anonymous arseholes. This is a bad and ill-formed question - David Gerard (talk) 02:15, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
There isn't a leftypol on 4chan btw.'Legionwhat do you want from me 02:53, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

It's International Day Against Advertising

I just found out. Probably again an idea of the far-left degrowth hippies, however I do think advertising can be problematic (as explained by this website's page on it). Diacelium (talk) 13:04, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Ads beat a paywall, which many people oppose to.—127.0.0.1 (talk) 15:03, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
I have never heard of this day. perhaps they need better advertising. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:11, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Goodpost.gif I laugh at almost anything. Christopher (talk) 15:13, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
I love selling advertising. It's the easiest thing in the world to do. You simply walk in to the guy who buys the advertising and say, "Hi! I represent (fill in the blank with the size of the market of your distribution, say 60,000 for example) potential customers." Wait for the buyers eyes to widen and light up, which usually takes about 3 seconds. He's already got all the numbers in his head on unit cost. Now it's only a matter of what percentage of those 60,000 will respond.
100 years ago, when mass advertising was in its infancy, there were ethical concerns about it. Loyal consumers felt the seller was doing everything possible in good faith to deliver a product or service at a fair margin or profit. Businesses that advertised took chances, cause many customers rebelled at the unfairness that they should have to pay the cost of convincing others to buy the same product when they themselves already were convinced its a good deal. And of course increased demand also means increased prices. But today we have the concept of marginal utilityWikipedia's W.svg, that a volume leader can produce more at less cost than mom n' pop, and no ad budget is suicide. nobs 15:41, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

If it's the 25th in your timezone it's also the "International Day of Remembrance of the Victims of Slavery and the Transatlantic Slave Trade".--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:26, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I know of a dissertation that could be picked apart

http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2154&context=doctoral . The author (Name is Pierre Willems and he graduated from the ICR Graduate School) thinks Abiogenesis is evolution and he even mentions his extreme bias against Evolution. But I suggest you all read it and you will see why it is terrible, but it is still better than Kent Hovind's doctoral dissertations.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 17:46, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

It starts with: "The purpose of this case study was to research how science teachers balance both religion and evolution in the science classroom with as little controversy as possible."
If it had started with : "The purpose of this case study was to research how science teachers balance both magic and science in the science classroom with as little controversy as possible." then it would have been more honest - but I'm afraid I wouldn't have read much further. Does that make me a bad person?--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:58, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
TLDR. If RW covered every bullshit thesis, we'd never get anywhere. You could however include it as an example on the Liberty University page as an example of the fishy carp that they certify. Bongolian (talk) 18:29, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
I actually managed to read the entire thing, I am only a high school graduate and I understood it completely. I think I might have a thick skin against bullshit? I do like the suggestion of adding it to the Pseudoscience University page though. I could put a dissection of the "Thesis" there.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 20:06, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
My bullshit alarm went off after I read "I would like to dedicate this dissertation to my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ whose strength and provision allowed me to finish this project". Great way for Willems to show his bias four page in.—127.0.0.1 (talk) 20:59, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
support
Community
Tools