User:Wehpudicabok
Wehpudicabok (Talk | contribs) |
Wehpudicabok (Talk | contribs) m (Undo revision 1277026 by Wehpudicabok (talk)) |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
<option>i'm so meta, even this acronym</option> | <option>i'm so meta, even this acronym</option> | ||
<option>know, think, choose, do</option> | <option>know, think, choose, do</option> | ||
| − | |||
</choose>|purple}} | </choose>|purple}} | ||
{{userbox ||id=♀ |info-c=#FFB7C5|info=<center>This user '''stands with [[wp:Chelsea Manning|Chelsea]]'''.</center>}} | {{userbox ||id=♀ |info-c=#FFB7C5|info=<center>This user '''stands with [[wp:Chelsea Manning|Chelsea]]'''.</center>}} | ||
Revision as of 00:03, 14 January 2014
| | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Hi. I'm Wehpudicabok.
I recently discovered that, according to RationalWiki:Active users, I am in the top 50 most active RationalWikians! Currently, at least. (All those punctuation corrections pay off!)
I'm a quiet contributor and a quiet person. I try to be unobtrusive. That's probably why you don't hear much about me. But look at my edit history; I may even have been on this site longer than you!
Recently there has been some interest in transgender-related articles on RationalWiki. I am transgender myself (currently in the process of a male-to-female transition), and so the activity draws my interest more personally than most. I do tend to have strong opinions about these issues, but I also try my best to consider the opinions of others and to be sensitive. If I offend you, please let me know and I will apologize.
The take-away: Wehpudicabok is female, so use feminine pronouns plz.
Contents |
Awesome quote
“”Truth is sought for its own sake ... Finding the truth is difficult, and the road to it is rough. For the truths are plunged in obscurity. ... God, however, has not preserved the scientist from error and has not safeguarded science from shortcomings and faults. If this had been the case, scientists would not have disagreed upon any point of science...
Therefore, the seeker after the truth is not one who studies the writings of the ancients and, following his natural disposition, puts his trust in them, but rather the one who suspects his faith in them and questions what he gathers from them, the one who submits to argument and demonstration, and not to the sayings of a human being whose nature is fraught with all kinds of imperfection and deficiency. Thus the duty of the man who investigates the writings of scientists, if learning the truth is his goal, is to make himself an enemy of all that he reads, and, applying his mind to the core and margins of its content, attack it from every side. He should also suspect himself as he performs his critical examination of it, so that he may avoid falling into either prejudice or leniency.
|
Ibn al-Haytham, Doubts Concerning Ptolemy. Note that although his use of "God" sounds like it could refer to Spinoza's, he was a devout Muslim and believed in an interventionist God, so this should be taken literally. The funny thing is, either way, it's still brilliant!
Pages for which I am responsible
MainspaceThese are largely my work
I just got the ball rolling on these |
EssaysCompletedOngoing(ish) |
The ACTUAL world's smallest political quiz
- Scientists are almost unanimously predicting massive, irreversible damage to the environment to occur over the next few decades, primarily as a result of pollution caused by the growth of major global industries. However, attempts to combat this catastrophic danger are met with resistance from the leaders of corporations, who stand to lose money if legislation forces them to modify their production methods to bring them in line with long-term sustainable living. Do you support the US government attempting to restrict the ability of corporations to pollute?
- a) Yes, absolutely
- b) No, but I'm an idiot who can't even read the above paragraph
- There is no question two because question one is the only one that fucking matters.
Give yourself one point for every "a" answer given. Your total score indicates whether or not you should be voting - one means yes, zero means no.