User talk:ZackMartin
(→Regarding your censorship warning: new section) |
ZackMartin (Talk | contribs) (→Regarding your censorship warning) |
||
| Line 357: | Line 357: | ||
There should be talk page for talk pages! You might want to add diff links. These censors have run rampant on the wiki this last year or two. They are bad people, and ignore the wiki's founding principles of openness and clarity. Oh well, I guess there's some idiots on here who prefer to create ways to wield power versus writing good content. {{User:Human/sig|}} 06:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC) | There should be talk page for talk pages! You might want to add diff links. These censors have run rampant on the wiki this last year or two. They are bad people, and ignore the wiki's founding principles of openness and clarity. Oh well, I guess there's some idiots on here who prefer to create ways to wield power versus writing good content. {{User:Human/sig|}} 06:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC) | ||
| + | :I'm actually contemplating taking it down. The whole "let's ban MC" thing seems to have died out. Is MC still technically banned? Is the "revert everything MC says" rule still actively enforced? {{:User:Maratrean/sig}} 06:34, 15 June 2012 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 06:34, 15 June 2012
| WARNING: This page has been censored against my wishes |
|---|
This page used to contain some comments by an IP editor believed to be MarcusCicero, whose edits are supposedly so outrageous that they have to be deleted on sight. I would have thought, that on my talk page, people would extend me the courtesy of deciding for myself whether any editor's edits should be deleted; however, some editors have such a single-minded obsessiveness about this issue, that they not only will not extend that courtesy, they will not even entertain a compromise of letting MC's edit remain on the page, but be hidden by {{collapse}}. This notice is my protest against their pettiness. Number of times so far this page has been censored without my consent and against my express wishes: 5
Note my objection is to others censoring the page without my consent. While I am generally pretty liberal in what I will accept, in extreme circumstances (e.g. posting irrelevant pictures of naked people on my talk page) I reserve the right to revert, as permitted by the Community Standards users are permitted to delete posts containing personal attacks or trolling from their own talk pages, being responsible for any abuse of this permission |
- NOTE: I am very busy at the moment - new job, moving house, etc. So I may not be able to respond to you for some time. Zack Martin
00:48, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- I hope all goes well Hamster (talk) 05:29, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you Hamster for your kind words. I actually have not moved yet, I am moving from Melbourne to Sydney in about a month, but I am still busy with new job. (My new job said they'd let me start from Melbourne, but they want me to me located in their Sydney office long-term... for coincidental personal reasons, moving to Sydney works quite well for me anyway... but, moving is a chore, and I am the procrastinator's procrastinator) Zack Martin
07:57, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you Hamster for your kind words. I actually have not moved yet, I am moving from Melbourne to Sydney in about a month, but I am still busy with new job. (My new job said they'd let me start from Melbourne, but they want me to me located in their Sydney office long-term... for coincidental personal reasons, moving to Sydney works quite well for me anyway... but, moving is a chore, and I am the procrastinator's procrastinator) Zack Martin
- I hope all goes well Hamster (talk) 05:29, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
MCwiki business
User:Moshe was unjustly blocked by an over-zealous Eira and a boorish. He was very willing to improve the wiki. You should unblock him that he may continue to enhance MCwiki, and make it less BORING --"Shut up, Brx." 02:42, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Given that it is Marcus' wiki, and he re-blocked you, I think I should ask his opinion before doing so, and so I have. Zack Martin
09:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- I think that MarcusCicero is anti-semitic. That would explain his hostility towards the innocent and childlike User:Moshe. He's also possibly racist against blacks, as well, since he's against the creation of articles on hip hop stars.--"Shut up, Brx." 13:32, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe he is, maybe he isn't, I don't know him well enough to say. Anyway, MCWiki is not particularly interesting at the moment, I can't be bothered. Zack Martin
00:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
- Maybe he is, maybe he isn't, I don't know him well enough to say. Anyway, MCWiki is not particularly interesting at the moment, I can't be bothered. Zack Martin
- I think that MarcusCicero is anti-semitic. That would explain his hostility towards the innocent and childlike User:Moshe. He's also possibly racist against blacks, as well, since he's against the creation of articles on hip hop stars.--"Shut up, Brx." 13:32, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm with Pinty
Zac,
If Pint doesn't want you to post on his talkpage then don't do it. --MtDPinko Scum 03:35, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- Please read RationalWiki:Community standards#User pages, which says A user's talk page, like any other talk page on the site, is public and does not belong to the user. Anyone is permitted to post on anyone's talk page. RW:CS goes on to say However, users are permitted to delete posts containing personal attacks or trolling from their own talk pages, being responsible for any abuse of this permission. But, the posting I made was not trolling or a personal attack, it was a response to what Bert posted. Zack Martin
03:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- Fuck the community standards. Seriosuly Zac, this is why nobody likes you. I mean aside from the clown-shit crazeh Branch Davidian stuff you go on with. If folk don't want you taking a big poo on their coir welcome mat, then maybe you should respect that. --MtDPinko Scum 03:53, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- What if I said I don't want you to post on my talk page? Standards exist because they are an attempt to be fair. Bullies hate standards, except for double ones. Zack Martin
03:55, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
I'd totally respect your requestI'd not take one blind bit of notice. I'll monster you to my heart's content. And to quote Malcolm Tucker Don't you dare call me a bully. I'm so much worse. --MtDPinko Scum 04:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)- Since you admit you wouldn't listen to me, by no means will I listen to you. Nice arrangement we've reached here, actually. Zack Martin
04:11, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- So you are a bully mara, as you would want people to not post on your talkpage but don't care if others want the same?--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 04:12, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- No, I'm happy for anyone to post on my talk page, as is permitted by RW:CS. But some people seem to believe that standards are only binding on people they dislike. Zack Martin
04:14, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- If somebody tells you go get off they're front lawn, do you tell them to fuck off?--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 04:16, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- I think Zac's faith in the communitard standards is touching. Misguided, but touching all the same. --MtDPinko Scum 04:18, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- @Mikalos, the rule on RW is that user talk pages are public property, they don't belong to the user. It's not their lawn, its the public sidewalk. Now, some people don't agree with that, and would prefer a "my talk page is my castle" approach - but we had a vote about this not too long ago, and those pushing for a change lost the vote. If you don't agree with the status quo, maybe you should push for another vote on the issue? Zack Martin
04:22, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- That may be so, Zachary. But try and get it enforced, cunthooks. --MtDPinko Scum 04:24, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- "John Marshall has made his decision: now let him enforce it!" ~Andrew Jackson--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 04:26, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- True story. I was awakened by some wretched whining one morning around 4:30 and looked out my third story window to see a nasty old woman shaking a small child by her arm until she screamed and cried. I called down "hey you fat old cunt stop hurting that little girl." She glared and shook her fist at me, her wiry mustache glistening with pure hate. After all, she was standing on the sidewalk and could do whatever the fuck she wanted. So I went into the kitchen and got a pot full of water. I came back to the window and the old bat still had that little girl squealing! After apologizing to her for what was about to happen I poured it on both of them and told the old lady to fuck off. They left quietly. Maratrean is the other kind of fat old cunt.

04:26, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- Nutty, your language is just charming. Zack Martin
04:31, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- Nutty, your language is just charming. Zack Martin
- That may be so, Zachary. But try and get it enforced, cunthooks. --MtDPinko Scum 04:24, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- @Mikalos, the rule on RW is that user talk pages are public property, they don't belong to the user. It's not their lawn, its the public sidewalk. Now, some people don't agree with that, and would prefer a "my talk page is my castle" approach - but we had a vote about this not too long ago, and those pushing for a change lost the vote. If you don't agree with the status quo, maybe you should push for another vote on the issue? Zack Martin
- I think Zac's faith in the communitard standards is touching. Misguided, but touching all the same. --MtDPinko Scum 04:18, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- If somebody tells you go get off they're front lawn, do you tell them to fuck off?--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 04:16, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- No, I'm happy for anyone to post on my talk page, as is permitted by RW:CS. But some people seem to believe that standards are only binding on people they dislike. Zack Martin
- So you are a bully mara, as you would want people to not post on your talkpage but don't care if others want the same?--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 04:12, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- Since you admit you wouldn't listen to me, by no means will I listen to you. Nice arrangement we've reached here, actually. Zack Martin
- What if I said I don't want you to post on my talk page? Standards exist because they are an attempt to be fair. Bullies hate standards, except for double ones. Zack Martin
- Fuck the community standards. Seriosuly Zac, this is why nobody likes you. I mean aside from the clown-shit crazeh Branch Davidian stuff you go on with. If folk don't want you taking a big poo on their coir welcome mat, then maybe you should respect that. --MtDPinko Scum 03:53, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- This is the problem, people who believe rules only exist when it suits them, that they (and their friends) should be exempt from the rules, but the rules should be maintained to beat up those they dislike. It's a common attitude in countries with corrupt dictatorships — the ruling clique can do whatever they want, but for those out of favour the rules provide plenty of rope for a hanging. Shouldn't you aim for an approach a bit more civilised? Zack Martin
04:30, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- Theres a reason wikipedia has a rule called ignore all rules--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 04:32, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, but "Ignore all rules" doesn't mean what some people think it means. Zack Martin
04:35, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- Fortunately this isn't Wikipedia. As I said, you try and get them there roolz enforced pussy-go-whiney. --MtDPinko Scum 04:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- "John Marshall has made his decision: now let him enforce it!"--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 04:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- Fortunately this isn't Wikipedia — and what is wrong with Wikipedia? I don't want this place to be Wikipedia, but it couldn't do wrong with being a bit more like it. Zack Martin
04:45, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- Go ask that big shiksa User:JzG. --MtDPinko Scum 04:46, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- JzG seems a nice guy/gal. A pity people are so hostile. You can disagree with people without trying to bite their heads off. Zack Martin
04:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- JzG seems a nice guy/gal. A pity people are so hostile. You can disagree with people without trying to bite their heads off. Zack Martin
- Go ask that big shiksa User:JzG. --MtDPinko Scum 04:46, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- Fortunately this isn't Wikipedia — and what is wrong with Wikipedia? I don't want this place to be Wikipedia, but it couldn't do wrong with being a bit more like it. Zack Martin
- "John Marshall has made his decision: now let him enforce it!"--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 04:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- Fortunately this isn't Wikipedia. As I said, you try and get them there roolz enforced pussy-go-whiney. --MtDPinko Scum 04:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, but "Ignore all rules" doesn't mean what some people think it means. Zack Martin
- Theres a reason wikipedia has a rule called ignore all rules--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 04:32, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- This is the problem, people who believe rules only exist when it suits them, that they (and their friends) should be exempt from the rules, but the rules should be maintained to beat up those they dislike. It's a common attitude in countries with corrupt dictatorships — the ruling clique can do whatever they want, but for those out of favour the rules provide plenty of rope for a hanging. Shouldn't you aim for an approach a bit more civilised? Zack Martin
Hows it going?
Your plan to take over the world I mean. I hope for your sake that you have made a little bit more progress than when we last discussed it. Have you checked out the resource that I left for you last time? Here it is again just in case:
--DamoHi 03:47, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- Currently we are in year 1 of our 1000 year plan. We expect the first couple of centuries to show little outwardly visible progress. Zack Martin
03:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- Wait, do you actually believe that? Sam Tally-ho! 03:51, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I could be off by a few millenia... Zack Martin
03:53, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell, its about the only thing that he really believes in. A lot of people seem to think that this guy is a harmless whackjob. The reality is that he is potentially a very harmful, dangerous whackjob with delusions of extreme grandeur. DamoHi 03:55, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- Postmillennialism is so dangerous, ain't it now... especially when I start predicting the escathon to be a millennia away Zack Martin
03:56, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- Postmillennialism is so dangerous, ain't it now... especially when I start predicting the escathon to be a millennia away Zack Martin
- As far as I can tell, its about the only thing that he really believes in. A lot of people seem to think that this guy is a harmless whackjob. The reality is that he is potentially a very harmful, dangerous whackjob with delusions of extreme grandeur. DamoHi 03:55, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I could be off by a few millenia... Zack Martin
- Wait, do you actually believe that? Sam Tally-ho! 03:51, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
By the way, did you really write this 332 page book of your prophecies and stories regarding your religion. Perhaps you are even more of a fruit loop than we suspected. DamoHi 04:07, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, its contents were revealed to me by the Goddess Maratrea. Zack Martin
04:09, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- Sure they were.--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 04:12, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- You believe whatever you want (if you don't believe in her, its because she doesn't want you to...) All fine with me. Zack Martin
04:15, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- I believe in YEC, Premilinneal Xtianity, jsyk. And no, you give no proof that your religion is anything more then Henai is. --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 04:17, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- Sure... just remember, many people here think your beliefs are just as stupid as mine are (or at least they would, if they were being consistent) Zack Martin
04:19, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- I know they do, so do a number of my best friends. But that's irrelevant. --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 04:21, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- Sure... just remember, many people here think your beliefs are just as stupid as mine are (or at least they would, if they were being consistent) Zack Martin
- I believe in YEC, Premilinneal Xtianity, jsyk. And no, you give no proof that your religion is anything more then Henai is. --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 04:17, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- You believe whatever you want (if you don't believe in her, its because she doesn't want you to...) All fine with me. Zack Martin
- Sure they were.--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 04:12, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the 332 page book
Writing 332 page books full of gibberish basically puts you in the time-cube status. Perhaps its time you went back on your meds? As bad as they may have been for your ability to reason, being off them appears to be worse for your mental capacities. DamoHi 04:24, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- What meds? Zack Martin
04:31, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- The Anti-psychotics you used to take. [1] --DamoHi 04:37, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- I didn't take them for psychosis. I took them pro re nata for anxiety. Zack Martin
04:39, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- I know, you said. But mental health conditions have a habit of running together. It seems to me that you have something a little worse than just anxiety going on if you are going to sit down and write that gibberish. How long did it take you by the way? A year? --DamoHi 04:41, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- I can't remember how long it took me to write it. If we followed your logic, the founder of every religion would be mentally ill. Now that may be your opinion, but it is not the mainstream view of the professions of psychiatry and clinical psychology. Zack Martin
04:44, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- (EC) These anti-psychotics, did they include Zyprexa? --MtDPinko Scum 04:45, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- I'm reasonably sure that the 'mainstream view of the professions of psychiatry and clinical psychology' is the Mohammed had epilepsy or something... Peter talk, or type, or whatever... 04:46, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- Peter, got a cite for that one? Zack Martin
04:48, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- Peter, got a cite for that one? Zack Martin
- I can't remember how long it took me to write it. If we followed your logic, the founder of every religion would be mentally ill. Now that may be your opinion, but it is not the mainstream view of the professions of psychiatry and clinical psychology. Zack Martin
- I know, you said. But mental health conditions have a habit of running together. It seems to me that you have something a little worse than just anxiety going on if you are going to sit down and write that gibberish. How long did it take you by the way? A year? --DamoHi 04:41, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- I didn't take them for psychosis. I took them pro re nata for anxiety. Zack Martin
- The Anti-psychotics you used to take. [1] --DamoHi 04:37, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- @MtD, Yes, it was olanzapine. I found it worked quite well for anxiety, and I have found doctors don't mind prescribing it given it is non-addictive (although they often aren't so familiar with using it for anxiety, since it's off-label). But I haven't taken it in several years, since my anxiety is much better than it used to be. Zack Martin
04:47, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- I knew it! I had a boyfriend like you. Fine when he was on the pills, but the moment he came off the dissolvable wafers he started a temple in the spare room. Zyprexa is why you're fat, you know. --MtDPinko Scum 04:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- No its not why I'm fat. I was fat for years before I was on Zyprexa, and I haven't taken it for years and am still fat. Red wine and French cheese and lack of exercise, more likely. Yes, it can cause weight gain, but I was never on it that much (remember, I said pro re nata, which means you take it whenever you feel you need it). My ex-girlfriend had anorexia/bulimia, one eating disorder clinic she went to, the psychiatrist liked to put people on Zyprexa because it both calmed them down a bit and the weight gain was helpful. (She is who got me on to it.) Zack Martin
04:53, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- Well it's not the only reason you have a mountaineering team rappelling down the north face of your left tit, but let's be honest now. The fact that you're taking Olanzapine is proof positive that you're not a Godly Prophet but just a sad man who is as mad as a clown's cock. AmIRite? --MtDPinko Scum 05:02, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- I haven't taken olanzapine for 4+ years. I don't see why being or not being a prophet has anything to do with having a history of mental illness. Must a prophet be physically perfectly healthy? Or mentally perfectly healthy? Or perfectly moral? That may be your theology but it isn't mine. In my view, prophets can be as flawed as the rest of us. And I detect in your writing a lot of the stigma/discrimination so prevalent in our society against people who have mental illness (which is silly given that most people experience it at some point in their life, but the stigma makes them afraid to admit that.) Zack Martin
05:06, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- You've not taken it for four years? It doesn't show. ::rolleyes:: Srsly doll, get medicated. You don't have to live like this. --MtDPinko Scum 05:09, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- Why should I take medication which I have not been prescribed and which isn't indicated? Zack Martin
05:39, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- Unless you are using "indicated" in a unique or special sense, I would say that some sort of anti-psychotic medication is very much indicated. DamoHi 05:41, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- (ec) My ex used to say exactly the same thing. But it was prescribed and (going by your efforts here at the very least) it is indicated. Now, stick that wafer under your tongue. You can pretend it's some sort of Maratrean Communion if you like. Whatever bakes your cake, old bean. :) --MtDPinko Scum 05:43, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- I don't believe either of you are qualified to diagnose mental illness, nor to recommend psychiatric medication. Zack Martin
05:48, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- Indeed, but we can suggest that you need to go and seek some psychiatric help. Why don't you make a booking at a psychiatrist and bring along a printout of your book and some of your other religious materials. If the issue is one of cost, perhaps we (as in RW) could sort something out, maybe pass a hat around or something. I would hate for this to end in tragedy when it could easily be prevented at an early stage. DamoHi 06:06, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- (EC) I don't see any need at present for that. Zack Martin
06:14, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- (EC) I don't see any need at present for that. Zack Martin
- Indeed, but we can suggest that you need to go and seek some psychiatric help. Why don't you make a booking at a psychiatrist and bring along a printout of your book and some of your other religious materials. If the issue is one of cost, perhaps we (as in RW) could sort something out, maybe pass a hat around or something. I would hate for this to end in tragedy when it could easily be prevented at an early stage. DamoHi 06:06, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- I don't believe either of you are qualified to diagnose mental illness, nor to recommend psychiatric medication. Zack Martin
- (ec) My ex used to say exactly the same thing. But it was prescribed and (going by your efforts here at the very least) it is indicated. Now, stick that wafer under your tongue. You can pretend it's some sort of Maratrean Communion if you like. Whatever bakes your cake, old bean. :) --MtDPinko Scum 05:43, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- Unless you are using "indicated" in a unique or special sense, I would say that some sort of anti-psychotic medication is very much indicated. DamoHi 05:41, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- Why should I take medication which I have not been prescribed and which isn't indicated? Zack Martin
- You've not taken it for four years? It doesn't show. ::rolleyes:: Srsly doll, get medicated. You don't have to live like this. --MtDPinko Scum 05:09, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- I haven't taken olanzapine for 4+ years. I don't see why being or not being a prophet has anything to do with having a history of mental illness. Must a prophet be physically perfectly healthy? Or mentally perfectly healthy? Or perfectly moral? That may be your theology but it isn't mine. In my view, prophets can be as flawed as the rest of us. And I detect in your writing a lot of the stigma/discrimination so prevalent in our society against people who have mental illness (which is silly given that most people experience it at some point in their life, but the stigma makes them afraid to admit that.) Zack Martin
- Well it's not the only reason you have a mountaineering team rappelling down the north face of your left tit, but let's be honest now. The fact that you're taking Olanzapine is proof positive that you're not a Godly Prophet but just a sad man who is as mad as a clown's cock. AmIRite? --MtDPinko Scum 05:02, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- No its not why I'm fat. I was fat for years before I was on Zyprexa, and I haven't taken it for years and am still fat. Red wine and French cheese and lack of exercise, more likely. Yes, it can cause weight gain, but I was never on it that much (remember, I said pro re nata, which means you take it whenever you feel you need it). My ex-girlfriend had anorexia/bulimia, one eating disorder clinic she went to, the psychiatrist liked to put people on Zyprexa because it both calmed them down a bit and the weight gain was helpful. (She is who got me on to it.) Zack Martin
- I knew it! I had a boyfriend like you. Fine when he was on the pills, but the moment he came off the dissolvable wafers he started a temple in the spare room. Zyprexa is why you're fat, you know. --MtDPinko Scum 04:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- @MtD, Yes, it was olanzapine. I found it worked quite well for anxiety, and I have found doctors don't mind prescribing it given it is non-addictive (although they often aren't so familiar with using it for anxiety, since it's off-label). But I haven't taken it in several years, since my anxiety is much better than it used to be. Zack Martin
- Do you think you are in a better position to judge this than us. You can't be as objective as us. In any case, most crazy people don't think they are crazy. DamoHi 06:18, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- You are some random person on the Internet. You barely know me. You see only one small part of my life which I choose to reveal to you. You are certainly not in the place to judge what mental health issues I may or may not have. Let the word "crazy" be gone from our vocabulary, it's really no better than similar epithets used to put down people based on race or sexuality or physical disability. Besides, while it is true that sometimes people with mental health issues are unaware or in denial, I think you'll find most often they are aware when something's wrong. Novel religious beliefs are not, in and of themselves, a form of mental illness, and I think you'd find many psychiatric professionals would agree with that. My uncle is a professor of psychiatry and a devout Catholic. Do you think he'd diagnose someone as psychotic if they claimed to see the Virgin Mary? Yet he loves to go on pilgrimage to Lourdes. Zack Martin
06:30, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- I can totally diagnose psychiatric conditions. I've been following Nx's posts and whilst he seems to be largely Axis II I think I've gotten the gist of things. --MtDPinko Scum 06:13, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- You may think you can, but that doesn't mean you can. Zack Martin
06:15, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- Ok I can't but I feel that I can say without fear of contradiction that you're a fucking nutter Zachary. Which is fine. If you like the manic buzz, knock yourself out. But remember, RW isn't a halfway house for the mad, bad and terminally insane. If you manage to Hutchens yourself outta the gene pool in some ghastly auto-erotic self asphixiation thing, it's not our fault. --MtDPinko Scum 06:20, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- You mean Hutchence, of course. For a moment I thought you were saying Hitchens. Zack Martin
06:31, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- It could be Carradine for all I care. So long as you don't mark that pretty neck of yours. :) --MtDPinko Scum 06:33, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- Autoerotic aspyhxiation has never interested me, so I don't think I'll be doing anything like that. Zack Martin
06:36, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- Well that's good to know. How about enemas? Any preferences there? I know a marvellous recipe involving blood warm spring water, lemon myrtle essence and half a football boot full of Dencorub. --MtDPinko Scum 06:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- No. But hey, if you enjoy it, all the best to you. Zack Martin
06:43, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, I wouldn't encourage anyone to be giving themselves Dencorub (diclofenac) enemas unless it was medically indicated. But, so long as you aren't causing yourself or any one else harm, who am I to tell you not to? Zack Martin
06:47, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- You silly boy. Diclofenac is the active constituent of Voltaren, not Dencorub. Trust me here son, I know what I'm doing. --MtDPinko Scum 06:54, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- What's in Dencorub? Zack Martin
06:56, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- Well not Olanzapine if that's what you're worried about. --MtDPinko Scum 07:01, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- Methyl salicylate, apparently. Probably would be quite sensitive on those delicate rectal tissues. Also, could well prove fatal, considering the fact that its toxic, and the rectum is very good at absorbing drugs (good old suppositories). Zack Martin
07:12, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- I'm willing to risk it. How can we truly know if we don't try? Now stop snivelling and spread those ample cheeks. --MtDPinko Scum 07:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- I'm afraid you are going to have to find another partner for your kinky games, they are not quite to my taste. All the best, Zack Martin
09:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- I can see that swarthy lothario Damo has turned your pretty head. It's ok Zac, you go with your heart. You'll come back to Matteh sooner or later. Your kind always does. --MtDPinko Scum 10:02, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- I'm afraid you are going to have to find another partner for your kinky games, they are not quite to my taste. All the best, Zack Martin
- I'm willing to risk it. How can we truly know if we don't try? Now stop snivelling and spread those ample cheeks. --MtDPinko Scum 07:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- Methyl salicylate, apparently. Probably would be quite sensitive on those delicate rectal tissues. Also, could well prove fatal, considering the fact that its toxic, and the rectum is very good at absorbing drugs (good old suppositories). Zack Martin
- Well not Olanzapine if that's what you're worried about. --MtDPinko Scum 07:01, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- What's in Dencorub? Zack Martin
- You silly boy. Diclofenac is the active constituent of Voltaren, not Dencorub. Trust me here son, I know what I'm doing. --MtDPinko Scum 06:54, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, I wouldn't encourage anyone to be giving themselves Dencorub (diclofenac) enemas unless it was medically indicated. But, so long as you aren't causing yourself or any one else harm, who am I to tell you not to? Zack Martin
- No. But hey, if you enjoy it, all the best to you. Zack Martin
- Well that's good to know. How about enemas? Any preferences there? I know a marvellous recipe involving blood warm spring water, lemon myrtle essence and half a football boot full of Dencorub. --MtDPinko Scum 06:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- Autoerotic aspyhxiation has never interested me, so I don't think I'll be doing anything like that. Zack Martin
- It could be Carradine for all I care. So long as you don't mark that pretty neck of yours. :) --MtDPinko Scum 06:33, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- You mean Hutchence, of course. For a moment I thought you were saying Hitchens. Zack Martin
- Ok I can't but I feel that I can say without fear of contradiction that you're a fucking nutter Zachary. Which is fine. If you like the manic buzz, knock yourself out. But remember, RW isn't a halfway house for the mad, bad and terminally insane. If you manage to Hutchens yourself outta the gene pool in some ghastly auto-erotic self asphixiation thing, it's not our fault. --MtDPinko Scum 06:20, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- You may think you can, but that doesn't mean you can. Zack Martin
- I can totally diagnose psychiatric conditions. I've been following Nx's posts and whilst he seems to be largely Axis II I think I've gotten the gist of things. --MtDPinko Scum 06:13, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- You are some random person on the Internet. You barely know me. You see only one small part of my life which I choose to reveal to you. You are certainly not in the place to judge what mental health issues I may or may not have. Let the word "crazy" be gone from our vocabulary, it's really no better than similar epithets used to put down people based on race or sexuality or physical disability. Besides, while it is true that sometimes people with mental health issues are unaware or in denial, I think you'll find most often they are aware when something's wrong. Novel religious beliefs are not, in and of themselves, a form of mental illness, and I think you'd find many psychiatric professionals would agree with that. My uncle is a professor of psychiatry and a devout Catholic. Do you think he'd diagnose someone as psychotic if they claimed to see the Virgin Mary? Yet he loves to go on pilgrimage to Lourdes. Zack Martin
"You are some random person on the Internet"
Cont' from above That is all very well in its way. The point remains that
- a)you have dedicated a large part of your life to writing texts that are basically complete gibberish (330 odd pages worth),
- b)you say that you "do whatever she tells me"
- c)you appear to want to organise some sort of compound or area, which you hope will one day take over the world
- d)and it emerges that you have in the past been diagnosed both with epilepsy and some other mental illness
Whilst its possible that you are really a prophet hearing commandments from a divinity, it is at least as equally as likely that you are suffering from some kind of mental illness. For your sake and the sake of others I hope that you would go and get this possibility checked out, just in case. DamoHi 06:53, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- Why are you harshing our buzz? Zac and I have a whole thing going on here. --MtDPinko Scum 06:55, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- Dr. Damo, what is your diagnosis? DSM-IV code? Zack Martin
07:16, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- I don't have one, that is why I am suggesting you go see a psychiatrist. He or she might have one for you, or maybe they won't. Don't be disingenuous, I am trying to be serious. And in case you have forgotten, this is not a case of me throwing stones, I was diagnosed with schizophrenia and I take seroquel on a semi-regular basis, so I have some knowledge of what I speak. DamoHi 07:27, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- I do appreciate your concern. Sorry for my flippancy. But I don't think you have a correct understanding of the present situation. Zack Martin
07:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- perhaps its a complicated ad campaign for a tv series. Young proto-prophet Zarnacy, high school science nerd is visited by the shade of Travancus who urges him on a quest for the golden guppy. Helped on his quest by Bacu , and saved from total disaster by the flying Taba it could be a teen sci-fi hit. Cast Claretta as a young woman and you have a love /sex interest. Hamster (talk) 04:50, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- Hmm... except for the fact that Claretta is gay... Zack Martin
05:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- Hmm... except for the fact that Claretta is gay... Zack Martin
- perhaps its a complicated ad campaign for a tv series. Young proto-prophet Zarnacy, high school science nerd is visited by the shade of Travancus who urges him on a quest for the golden guppy. Helped on his quest by Bacu , and saved from total disaster by the flying Taba it could be a teen sci-fi hit. Cast Claretta as a young woman and you have a love /sex interest. Hamster (talk) 04:50, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- I do appreciate your concern. Sorry for my flippancy. But I don't think you have a correct understanding of the present situation. Zack Martin
- I don't have one, that is why I am suggesting you go see a psychiatrist. He or she might have one for you, or maybe they won't. Don't be disingenuous, I am trying to be serious. And in case you have forgotten, this is not a case of me throwing stones, I was diagnosed with schizophrenia and I take seroquel on a semi-regular basis, so I have some knowledge of what I speak. DamoHi 07:27, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- Dr. Damo, what is your diagnosis? DSM-IV code? Zack Martin
You know...
You know you can lock your user and talk page so only sysops can edit it, right? That'd stop the user harassing you (at least on these two pages) and, because most users here are sysops, it wouldn't really stop people from talking with you.
Radioactive Misanthrope 09:53, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the hint, I'd forgotten about that. I won't do my talk page though, I don't want to stop genuine correspondents who happen to be non-sysops from talking to me. Zack Martin
09:55, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- You're welcome!
Radioactive Misanthrope 10:00, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not a sysop! What if I have something important to say?
- You're welcome!
- ...Oh yeah, right. Fallacy (talk) 10:03, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- Indeed. We both know you never have anything important to say :-)
- Oh, and kudos for remembering to indent multi-line posts, Fallacy
Radioactive Misanthrope 10:05, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- (ec)Just my user page, not my talk page. No one but me should be editing my user page anyway. Zack Martin
10:05, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- ...Oh yeah, right. Fallacy (talk) 10:03, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
My apology
In truth, I really love. I just love you so much that I had no idea how to express it, so I chose to pretend I hated you instead. You have my apologies. DELETE MARATREANISM (talk) 12:59, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Poe or what - or not?
Hi. I was just looking at your blog about your religion.
I'm honestly unsure if we have misjudged you and you are simply setting up a religion for ridicule or if you honestly believe what you are saying. For instance, I see your most recent post is:
- I received a revelation of a new text, having the following title: An account of the most wicked King Reheltus, King of the Negarens, who killed 600,000 of the people of the Varyadrud, for he hated them with all his heart and soul; and the most wicked Slebiog, the false prophet who served as his vizier; unto whom Mavi and Vacaub appeared, while he lived upon the streets of Aviné. Now this man was to the Travancine-Clarettan era what Adolf Hitler is to ours.
If you are a parodist then you're doing a fantastic job. If you are not then ... well ... it's a bit odd.--BobSpring is sprung! 17:17, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if it's Poe or not and frankly, who cares? It's obviously all made up one way or another. Whether he believes it or not is only of consequence to him and irrelevant to anyone else. Ajkgordon (talk) 18:24, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
- He's put way to much work into his religion to be a Poe. Sam Tally-ho! 03:52, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- Well, we all have our hobbies and enthusiasms. Maybe he just likes making up religions. Can't say I would blame him. Fallacy (talk) 05:12, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- @BobM, It's not a parody. What is wrong with the above text you have cited? I mean, you read the Bible say, or the Book of Mormon is similar, it is full of Blahmash begat Foomush who begat Whatsthat, who angered the Lord so he struck him down, but his son Somethingelse sacrificed forty-two jerboas, and the Lord was most pleased... If you think our scriptures are ridiculous, they are no more or less ridiculous than those of any other religion.
- @Fallacy, well, it's not a hobby because I think it is something rather serious, rather than just something done for fun, but rather something done for a serious spiritual purpose - may we call it a vocation instead? Zack Martin
05:31, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- When it comes to mythology, the stuff that was preserved primarily in oral tradition is a little more straightforward than the stuff originating from or embellished by writers, since it is more difficult to remember hogwash than to write it down. The quote above sounds a bit like the Galactic Confederacy tale from Scientology, or something from H.P. Lovecraft's Dream Cycle.
ListenerXTalkerX 06:00, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know about that. I can't see why an oral culture couldn't remember something short and simple like the most wicked King Reheltus, King of the Negarens, who killed 600,000 of the people of the Varyadrud, for he hated them with all his heart and soul; and the most wicked Slebiog, the false prophet who served as his vizier; unto whom Mavi and Vacaub appeared, while he lived upon the streets of Aviné. It's not that complex, it just contains four individual names (Reheletus, Slebiog, Mavi, Vacaub), two names of peoples (Negarnes and Varyadrud), the offices of a couple of those people (King, false prophet), etc. Certainly oral cultures have remembered things far more complex. Zack Martin
06:05, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- Stuff passed down in oral tradition generally does not have such lengthy titles (which, for the most part, originated after the invention of the printing press); it cuts right to the point. If this story of yours were a derivative of some oral tradition, we could probably conclude that the king in question (who would be known by perhaps a dozen different names and rule as many different countries in various versions of the tale) knocked off 60 big-shots at some point, a figure that then was gradually exaggerated by the storytellers.
ListenerXTalkerX 06:33, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe the term "title" isn't completely correct. Maybe "abstract" would be more accurate? Or maybe this is not the original title? Some texts have multiple titles. It is not uncommon for a title to be of a different vintage from the text itself, or for texts to change their titles over time. Often in earlier times when there are fewer texts there is less need for titles, whereas as more and more texts are collected titles may be imposed by the collators of those texts. Zack Martin
06:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- Maybe the term "title" isn't completely correct. Maybe "abstract" would be more accurate? Or maybe this is not the original title? Some texts have multiple titles. It is not uncommon for a title to be of a different vintage from the text itself, or for texts to change their titles over time. Often in earlier times when there are fewer texts there is less need for titles, whereas as more and more texts are collected titles may be imposed by the collators of those texts. Zack Martin
- Stuff passed down in oral tradition generally does not have such lengthy titles (which, for the most part, originated after the invention of the printing press); it cuts right to the point. If this story of yours were a derivative of some oral tradition, we could probably conclude that the king in question (who would be known by perhaps a dozen different names and rule as many different countries in various versions of the tale) knocked off 60 big-shots at some point, a figure that then was gradually exaggerated by the storytellers.
- I don't know about that. I can't see why an oral culture couldn't remember something short and simple like the most wicked King Reheltus, King of the Negarens, who killed 600,000 of the people of the Varyadrud, for he hated them with all his heart and soul; and the most wicked Slebiog, the false prophet who served as his vizier; unto whom Mavi and Vacaub appeared, while he lived upon the streets of Aviné. It's not that complex, it just contains four individual names (Reheletus, Slebiog, Mavi, Vacaub), two names of peoples (Negarnes and Varyadrud), the offices of a couple of those people (King, false prophet), etc. Certainly oral cultures have remembered things far more complex. Zack Martin
- When it comes to mythology, the stuff that was preserved primarily in oral tradition is a little more straightforward than the stuff originating from or embellished by writers, since it is more difficult to remember hogwash than to write it down. The quote above sounds a bit like the Galactic Confederacy tale from Scientology, or something from H.P. Lovecraft's Dream Cycle.
- Well, we all have our hobbies and enthusiasms. Maybe he just likes making up religions. Can't say I would blame him. Fallacy (talk) 05:12, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- He's put way to much work into his religion to be a Poe. Sam Tally-ho! 03:52, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
they are no more or less ridiculous than those of any other religion That's hardly a ringing endorsement. -- Nx / talk 07:35, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- Only to people who have already made up their minds that all religion is ridiculous. Zack Martin
08:51, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- And religions boil down to believing things on faith, and faith is believing things without evidence, and believing things without evidence is ridiculous, so yes, all religion is ridiculous. Fallacy (talk) 08:55, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- Why is belief without evidence ridiculous? I don't agree with you on that one. I think believing things without evidence can be a perfectly sane and sensible thing to do. Zack Martin
08:58, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- (EC) Many of the beliefs of religion (most moral precepts, for example) are of a sort for which no "evidence" can be brought to bear, so choosing what to believe is just a toss-up.
ListenerXTalkerX 09:00, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- The statement "believing things without evidence is ridiculous" is a claim for which no evidence can be brought to bear, and hence by its own standards it stands condemned. A self-defeating position. Zack Martin
09:03, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- Not exactly; one could do some statistical analysis of beliefs held without evidence and beliefs held with evidence and compare how many turned out to be true and false in each case. I think the beliefs held with evidence would come out ahead in that regard.
ListenerXTalkerX 09:14, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- Well, the claim was an unqualified and absolute, "believing things without evidence is ridiculous". It was not qualified with "some things believed without evidence are ridiculous" (a vacuous claim almost everyone will agree with, even myself). As to your new suggestion, ListenerX, how does one pick which beliefs to form your sample? By choosing the sample appropriately, one could arrive at many different results. There is no obvious approach to random sampling. And, many of the beliefs it will be disputed whether they are true or false, and disputed whether or not they are evidenced. What you are proposing sounds like a good idea in theory, but is impossible in practice. Zack Martin
09:35, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- A good test corpus, at least for the kind of beliefs under debate here, is those of the old beliefs based in religion that are scientifically testable, vis-a-vis beliefs obtained via the scientific method. There have been false beliefs on both sides, but a larger proportion of the old ones have been falsified.
ListenerXTalkerX 18:52, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
- A good test corpus, at least for the kind of beliefs under debate here, is those of the old beliefs based in religion that are scientifically testable, vis-a-vis beliefs obtained via the scientific method. There have been false beliefs on both sides, but a larger proportion of the old ones have been falsified.
- But that argument boils down to "Nothing beyond the existence of oneself is knowable. Therefore I can believe anything I want with neither rhyme nor reason." OK, so there is no logical argument against it but it's no surprise that others find it risible. Sorry if scientism gets your goat but it's a little more functional that arguing about how many giant bats can dance on a pin head. Bad Faith (talk) 11:02, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- It's ridiculous because it's made up but intended to be taken seriously. Nothing you argue - comparisons with other religions or other oral traditions, your position on reality and rationality - can remove that simple straightforward fact. Mara, you're a con artist, nothing more. Whether you believe in your own con or not is irrelevant. Ajkgordon (talk) 11:36, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- @BadFaith, I don't agree that "Nothing beyond the existence of oneself is knowable. Therefore I can believe anything I want with neither rhyme nor reason." I think we should believe things for good reasons, but I don't agree that good reasons must all be evidential. I would suggest, we have good reasons to believe "Murder is wrong", but no evidence for it. I think some things we ought to believe, because we are morally obliged to believe them; moral truths is one category of such beliefs, but I think even some beliefs about factual matters can be morally obliged. And this is what I call faith. Zack Martin
21:58, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- @BadFaith, I don't agree that "Nothing beyond the existence of oneself is knowable. Therefore I can believe anything I want with neither rhyme nor reason." I think we should believe things for good reasons, but I don't agree that good reasons must all be evidential. I would suggest, we have good reasons to believe "Murder is wrong", but no evidence for it. I think some things we ought to believe, because we are morally obliged to believe them; moral truths is one category of such beliefs, but I think even some beliefs about factual matters can be morally obliged. And this is what I call faith. Zack Martin
- @Ajkgordon, "It's ridiculous because it's made up but intended to be taken seriously". I didn't make it up, it was revealed to me by the Goddess. But, look, if you insist on the belief that I made it up, then the same must be true for Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, the Buddha, etc. Most religions claim to be based either on some supernatural insight, most commonly divine revelation (although Buddhism claims supernatural insight without claiming divine revelation). Zack Martin
22:03, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- There is no Goddess. You made it up. But hey, Merry Christmas! Ajkgordon (talk) 10:18, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
- The Goddess wishes you a merry festival. Zack Martin
20:55, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
- The Goddess wishes you a merry festival. Zack Martin
- There is no Goddess. You made it up. But hey, Merry Christmas! Ajkgordon (talk) 10:18, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
- It's ridiculous because it's made up but intended to be taken seriously. Nothing you argue - comparisons with other religions or other oral traditions, your position on reality and rationality - can remove that simple straightforward fact. Mara, you're a con artist, nothing more. Whether you believe in your own con or not is irrelevant. Ajkgordon (talk) 11:36, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- Well, the claim was an unqualified and absolute, "believing things without evidence is ridiculous". It was not qualified with "some things believed without evidence are ridiculous" (a vacuous claim almost everyone will agree with, even myself). As to your new suggestion, ListenerX, how does one pick which beliefs to form your sample? By choosing the sample appropriately, one could arrive at many different results. There is no obvious approach to random sampling. And, many of the beliefs it will be disputed whether they are true or false, and disputed whether or not they are evidenced. What you are proposing sounds like a good idea in theory, but is impossible in practice. Zack Martin
- Not exactly; one could do some statistical analysis of beliefs held without evidence and beliefs held with evidence and compare how many turned out to be true and false in each case. I think the beliefs held with evidence would come out ahead in that regard.
- The statement "believing things without evidence is ridiculous" is a claim for which no evidence can be brought to bear, and hence by its own standards it stands condemned. A self-defeating position. Zack Martin
- (EC) Many of the beliefs of religion (most moral precepts, for example) are of a sort for which no "evidence" can be brought to bear, so choosing what to believe is just a toss-up.
- Why is belief without evidence ridiculous? I don't agree with you on that one. I think believing things without evidence can be a perfectly sane and sensible thing to do. Zack Martin
- And religions boil down to believing things on faith, and faith is believing things without evidence, and believing things without evidence is ridiculous, so yes, all religion is ridiculous. Fallacy (talk) 08:55, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
I take it as axiomatic that it's ridiculous to believe in (theoretically at least) testifiable claims that are not supported by scientific evidence; and if your deities or whatever are completely untestifiable, then it's ridiculous to believe in them as well. Fallacy (talk) 17:19, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- But your axioms also are completely untestable, then by your own standards your own beliefs are ridiculous. Unless, "axioms" are somehow excluded from your ridicule, in which case, why can't my axioms be also? Zack Martin
22:04, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- That's the problem with axioms -- they are, by definition, subjective -- but here's a set I think most people could agree on:
- But your axioms also are completely untestable, then by your own standards your own beliefs are ridiculous. Unless, "axioms" are somehow excluded from your ridicule, in which case, why can't my axioms be also? Zack Martin
Axiom: We can trust our general perception of reality, because it's all we can do.
- Sub-axiom: The scientific method is the best way to find the truth of soft reality [reality = hard reality, our perception of reality = soft reality], based on its track record.
- Sub-sub-axiom: Believing in things without sufficient scientific evidence is ridiculous, because there's no 'objective' way to know if it's true.
I'm sure they could be betterly stated and refined. Fallacy (talk) 05:07, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
OK, let me address your alleged axioms one-by-one:
- "We can trust our general perception of reality" - this is so vague and vacuous as to be meaningless and useless. Hence I do not accept this axiom
- "because it's all we can do" - well, I agree with this line of argument, but you better watch out, it will take you much further than you personally presently want it to go, if you are consistent. I believe the universe is fundamentally good, because it is all I can do.
- "The scientific method is the best way to find the truth of soft reality" - only a certain constrained subset of apparent reality. The scientific method can't tell me whether murder is wrong, nor can it tell me whether my wife is cheating on me, nor whether my friend is trustworthy. Of course, part of the approach of scientism, is to try to twist the scientific method to supposedly apply in circumstances in which it was never meant to apply, and to seek to make it much more general than it actually is
- "Believing in things without sufficient scientific evidence is ridiculous". I reject this axiom. There is heaps of evidence in life which is not scientific. If I see my wife cheating on me, that is not scientific evidence, since no one observed it other than myself, my wife and her lover; it is non-repeatable. If they both say I was lying, then unless some form of corroborating evidence arises (which is by no means guaranteed), it is simply my word against theirs.
Zack Martin
08:37, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
- What that means is, if we see a tree, then we can trust it's a tree.
- No, you do not have to think the universe if fundamentally good to function in the world, unlike the axiom.
- Objective reality. Your personal opinions are excluded.
- I should change that to just 'evidence'. For the small things, yeah, you don't need scientific evidence, but you should still have evidence.
Fallacy (talk) 17:51, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
- Actually I agree with Maratrean. He says: "If you think our scriptures are ridiculous, they are no more or less ridiculous than those of any other religion."
- This is absolutely true. There is no religion which is more ridiculous. (Or less)--BobSpring is sprung! 18:03, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- I think some religious beliefs are wrong (e.g. "God wants us to cut the hands off thieves"), but I think there is a large core of religious truth common to almost all religions. But I would not say anyone's beliefs as a whole are ridiculous. Maybe some of these wrong beliefs, like the one I just mentioned, could be properly called "ridiculous"; but I think I'd rather just stick to the term "wrong" Zack Martin
21:55, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- How can you possibly cast judgement on whether god wants to cut the hands off thieves. Indeed, how can you possibly know anything about any deity - and if you're going the personal revelation route - how do you know that the god you sense exists anywhere outside of your head. Oh, and it noticeable above how smoothly "I think this is wrong" changes to "this is wrong". How quickly the subjective becomes the objective. Bad Faith (talk) 22:01, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- Well, to start with my heart tells me its wrong. And I am hopeful your heart tells you the same. Like when you think of something and have a sick feeling in your stomach, which tells you it's wrong. And anyone whose heart tells them otherwise, I hope with more experiences their heart will change. For example, someone is very homophobic, and then discovers someone they love and/or respect is gay, and with time their feelings on the issue change. "how do you know that the god you sense exists anywhere outside of your head" - well, how do I know that solipsism is false? I have faith. Zack Martin
22:12, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- But other peoples hearts tell them other things at other times and in other societies. Moral certainties come and go. In the meanwhile, of course you feel your morality is "right", you couldn't function if you didn't but here we have the massive problem of "following the heart" or any such - it's at best relativistic but often, nay usually, interpreted as absolute. And when these absolutes clash each one "just knows". There's an terrible arrogance about your "faith" that refuses to address the unknowable and conflates hopes and wishes with a reality that has no supporting evidence whatsoever. Bad Faith (talk) 22:35, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- Morality is either absolute or relativistic. You are right that if morality is absolute, we have the problem of conflicting absolutes. But these conflicts can be resolved, albeit most commonly by lived experience rather than argument. Like the example I mentioned, two people have contrary moral absolutes on homosexuality, and likely no amount of argument will resolve the difference. But the one who feels homosexuality to be immoral discovers that someone they love or respect is homosexual (e.g. their daughter or son or best friend, or their best friend's son or daughter, or so on), and with time their feelings change. And I believe that in the long run, all conflicts of absolutes will resolve themselves in a similar way. The other alternative, is morality is relative. But if morality is relative, then anyone can adopt whatever morals they want, and do whatever they want, and justify anything. The serial killer says "I think eating children is morally praiseworthy". With moral absolutism, you can say the serial killer is objectively wrong, even if you lack a way of proving that to them by argument. With moral relativism, all you can say is "Well, the serial killer follows a different moral system than mine, and one I dislike, but ultimately both our systems are equally valid". Zack Martin
23:06, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- you seem to be making relative morality an individual matter , and mostly its not. Morality is an aspect of societies that allow people to live and work together without conflicts or at least minimal conflicts. Some societies dont have the same concept of ownership, so a person who needs something may be able to just take what they need. Eating a young child may be harmful to the groups survival long term where eating the elderly allows the group to retain that persons wisdom, and gets rid of someone detrimental to the group. Hamster (talk) 19:31, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
- Morality can be relative to the individual and the society as a whole. It's all subjective, anyway. Fallacy (talk) 19:35, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
- People have always done, and will continue to do, disagreeable things. The only effective method against them is to throw them in irons, rather than spieling a pile of pish-posh about "objective morality."
ListenerXTalkerX 05:40, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
- People have always done, and will continue to do, disagreeable things. The only effective method against them is to throw them in irons, rather than spieling a pile of pish-posh about "objective morality."
- Morality can be relative to the individual and the society as a whole. It's all subjective, anyway. Fallacy (talk) 19:35, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
- you seem to be making relative morality an individual matter , and mostly its not. Morality is an aspect of societies that allow people to live and work together without conflicts or at least minimal conflicts. Some societies dont have the same concept of ownership, so a person who needs something may be able to just take what they need. Eating a young child may be harmful to the groups survival long term where eating the elderly allows the group to retain that persons wisdom, and gets rid of someone detrimental to the group. Hamster (talk) 19:31, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
- Morality is either absolute or relativistic. You are right that if morality is absolute, we have the problem of conflicting absolutes. But these conflicts can be resolved, albeit most commonly by lived experience rather than argument. Like the example I mentioned, two people have contrary moral absolutes on homosexuality, and likely no amount of argument will resolve the difference. But the one who feels homosexuality to be immoral discovers that someone they love or respect is homosexual (e.g. their daughter or son or best friend, or their best friend's son or daughter, or so on), and with time their feelings change. And I believe that in the long run, all conflicts of absolutes will resolve themselves in a similar way. The other alternative, is morality is relative. But if morality is relative, then anyone can adopt whatever morals they want, and do whatever they want, and justify anything. The serial killer says "I think eating children is morally praiseworthy". With moral absolutism, you can say the serial killer is objectively wrong, even if you lack a way of proving that to them by argument. With moral relativism, all you can say is "Well, the serial killer follows a different moral system than mine, and one I dislike, but ultimately both our systems are equally valid". Zack Martin
- But other peoples hearts tell them other things at other times and in other societies. Moral certainties come and go. In the meanwhile, of course you feel your morality is "right", you couldn't function if you didn't but here we have the massive problem of "following the heart" or any such - it's at best relativistic but often, nay usually, interpreted as absolute. And when these absolutes clash each one "just knows". There's an terrible arrogance about your "faith" that refuses to address the unknowable and conflates hopes and wishes with a reality that has no supporting evidence whatsoever. Bad Faith (talk) 22:35, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- Well, to start with my heart tells me its wrong. And I am hopeful your heart tells you the same. Like when you think of something and have a sick feeling in your stomach, which tells you it's wrong. And anyone whose heart tells them otherwise, I hope with more experiences their heart will change. For example, someone is very homophobic, and then discovers someone they love and/or respect is gay, and with time their feelings on the issue change. "how do you know that the god you sense exists anywhere outside of your head" - well, how do I know that solipsism is false? I have faith. Zack Martin
- How can you possibly cast judgement on whether god wants to cut the hands off thieves. Indeed, how can you possibly know anything about any deity - and if you're going the personal revelation route - how do you know that the god you sense exists anywhere outside of your head. Oh, and it noticeable above how smoothly "I think this is wrong" changes to "this is wrong". How quickly the subjective becomes the objective. Bad Faith (talk) 22:01, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- I think some religious beliefs are wrong (e.g. "God wants us to cut the hands off thieves"), but I think there is a large core of religious truth common to almost all religions. But I would not say anyone's beliefs as a whole are ridiculous. Maybe some of these wrong beliefs, like the one I just mentioned, could be properly called "ridiculous"; but I think I'd rather just stick to the term "wrong" Zack Martin
- If morality is relative to one's society/culture, well then the Islamic Republic of Iran could say that executing homosexuals is morally praiseworthy according to the morality of its culture, and all you can say is that your culture is different from theirs. Only by accepting that there exists an objective morality that transcends culture can we consistently say that the Iranian authorities are wrong and we are right. I find it disappointing that so many people with liberal social views, upon seeing the conservatives/reactionaries justify discrimination and oppression with the language of absolute morality, conclude that the only liberal option is moral relativism. On the contrary, a social liberalism that can say that discriminating against homosexuals is absolutely, objectively and transculturally morally wrong is superior to a moral relativism that can say no more ultimately than "I dislike discriminating against homosexuals, but your feelings may be different from mine" or "my culture disapproves of discriminating against homosexuals, but your culture may be different from mine". Zack Martin
08:53, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
- "If morality is relative to one's society/culture, well then the Islamic Republic of Iran could say that executing homosexuals is morally praiseworthy according to the morality of its culture, and all you can say is that your culture is different from theirs."
- I can also say that I have a differing moral opinion.
- "Only by accepting that there exists an objective morality that transcends culture can we consistently say that the Iranian authorities are wrong and we are right."
- Objectively wrong, and objectively right, yes.
- "I find it disappointing that so many people with liberal social views, upon seeing the conservatives/reactionaries justify discrimination and oppression with the language of absolute morality, conclude that the only liberal option is moral relativism."
- The only rational option is moral relativism, and I'd like to keep liberalism fairly synonymous with rationality.
- "On the contrary, a social liberalism that can say that discriminating against homosexuals is absolutely, objectively and transculturally morally wrong is superior to a moral relativism that can say no more ultimately than "I dislike discriminating against homosexuals, but your feelings may be different from mine" or "my culture disapproves of discriminating against homosexuals, but your culture may be different from mine".
- Superior in what way? It's still just your opinion that that's so -- now, however, you're pretending it's objective truth. No difference except for a piling of delusion on top.
- Fluckedtalk to me :D|see my shit 09:05, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
- Fallacy, you insist ethics is subjective/relative and not objective/absolute. Yet clearly to me, you seem to think that rationality is objective/absolute not subjective/relative. Suppose we have a debate between three positions, the "Rationalist", the "Postmodernist", and the "Traditionalist". The Rationalist says rationality is objective/absolute but ethics is subjective/relative. The Postmodernist says both rationality and ethics are equally subjective/relative and neither is objective/absolute. The Traditionalist says that both rationality and ethics are equally objective/absolute and neither is subjective/relative. Now, let us suppose an audience member (let's call her Sarah) is listening to the debate, and has not yet made up her mind about this issue. Which position should she choose? Why that one and not one of the other two? What sort of arguments or evidence might each position put forward to try to convince her? Zack Martin
09:12, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
- My position is that true objectivity doesn't exist on a practical level, because:
- Fallacy, you insist ethics is subjective/relative and not objective/absolute. Yet clearly to me, you seem to think that rationality is objective/absolute not subjective/relative. Suppose we have a debate between three positions, the "Rationalist", the "Postmodernist", and the "Traditionalist". The Rationalist says rationality is objective/absolute but ethics is subjective/relative. The Postmodernist says both rationality and ethics are equally subjective/relative and neither is objective/absolute. The Traditionalist says that both rationality and ethics are equally objective/absolute and neither is subjective/relative. Now, let us suppose an audience member (let's call her Sarah) is listening to the debate, and has not yet made up her mind about this issue. Which position should she choose? Why that one and not one of the other two? What sort of arguments or evidence might each position put forward to try to convince her? Zack Martin
- "If morality is relative to one's society/culture, well then the Islamic Republic of Iran could say that executing homosexuals is morally praiseworthy according to the morality of its culture, and all you can say is that your culture is different from theirs."
- It's impossible to know almost anything with 100% certainty, and
- 'Soft reality', our perception of reality, is, by definition, the only reality we can and will ever know, and we're biased and imperfect beings. Fuckertalk to me :D|see my shit 09:18, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
- (EC) In that debate, for the "Rationalist" position, I would enter the quote from Philip K. Dick that appears as the epigraph of our reality page: "Reality is that which doesn't go away when you stop believing in it." Moral principles have gone away as society stops believing in them.
- As to your arguments in favor of "objective morality," in addition to your continued use of the argument from adverse consequences, you seem to be making the assumption that in questions of morality, a person must not act on a subjective sentiment but must act on an "objective" principle.
ListenerXTalkerX 09:27, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
- "Moral principles have gone away as society stops believing in them" - is that really true? I think there are some near universal moral views, common to almost all societies. For example, killing people without a justification is near universally condemned as immoral. Societies differ on what are valid justifications, but there are some which are near universally accepted, e.g. self-defence; others which are near universally rejected, e.g. killing people because it's fun; others which some societies accept but others don't, e.g. capital punishment, human sacrifice, casualties in a war of conquest, etc. We haven't stopped believing in the prohibition of murder, and we aren't likely to ever do so. If anything, we've strengthened the prohibition, because we have been shrinking the exceptions - for example, many countries have prohibited the death penalty, and even those which retain it, most of them have greatly limited its scope. We still accept war as a valid exception, but the tendency today is to interpret the laws of war much more strictly than in previous centuries.
- In many cases where it appears that moral principles are going away, is it really the principles which are going away, or do we still hold the same deeper principles, but we've become more enlightened about how to apply them. For example, some of the arguments used against the death penalty (e.g. risk of killing the innocent) don't rely on any innovative moral principles, but in previous decades or centuries many people just shrugged them off who would today find the argument convincing. Zack Martin
21:04, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
- It is true there are certain abstract principles that are widely accepted across societies, but I would argue that these just reflect common features of those societies, and would also change if those features ever were to change. Look what happened during the Black Death, for example, or even at your example of war. Face it: it was no ideals that made us tighten the restrictions on war, but the invention of nukes.
ListenerXTalkerX 05:55, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- It depends on whether you think there exists some essential properties of human beings and human societies that are unlikely to ever change, or whether you think that human beings and societies are infinitely malleable without any essence. Now, no doubt about, some properties which we used to think were essential, we realize no longer are; and some properties which today we are inclined to see as essential, in the coming decades and centuries will be realized not to be; but it is one thing to suppose we may be mistaken about what constitutes the essence of humanity and human society, quite another to suppose that no such essence exists at all, and absolutely anything at all could potentially constitute a human being or a human society. The planet Jupiter will never be a human being; nor will the number 17 ever be a human society. So I think there are certain features of human society which will never change, and I think some form of prohibition against murder has always and will always exist, even if the precise parameters of the exceptions vary across space and time.
- In terms of growing restrictions on war, I don't think nuclear weapons were the decisive factor. The period from the first Geneva convention in 1864 through to the aftermath of World War II contains a long history of trying to place limitations on war, from the Hague and Geneva conventions and the League of Nations through to the Nuremberg Trials and the founding of the UN. Nuclear weapons only came into the picture late into that story, and while I'm sure they played *some* role, I doubt very much it was decisive. I think the entirely non-nuclear horrors of the First World War, and the horrors of the Second World War (in which, while nuclear weapons were used at the very end, an awful amount of entirely non-nuclear barbarity had gone on before hand), where more than enough to motivate the development of the contemporary restrictions on the wars of law. Zack Martin
06:19, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- It is true there are certain abstract principles that are widely accepted across societies, but I would argue that these just reflect common features of those societies, and would also change if those features ever were to change. Look what happened during the Black Death, for example, or even at your example of war. Face it: it was no ideals that made us tighten the restrictions on war, but the invention of nukes.
- "The only rational option is moral relativism" - do you have any evidence to support that assertion? I take the contrary view, that moral absolutism is at least as rational as any other option. Zack Martin
09:24, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
- My evidence is that there is no evidence objective morality exists, and I don't even know how it could logically, unless you're using a radically different definition of morality than I am. But it is just my opinion. Fluckedtalk to me :D|see my shit 09:27, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
- You speak of "objective morality" as if it is a thing, I think because by doing though you are trying to set up (consciously or unconsciously) the balance of proof in your favour (since I take it you accept the principle that claims of existence require evidence, claims of non-existence don't). I don't actually agree with that principle, but even if we accept it for the sake of the argument, I don't agree with you that we are arguing about whether something exists or not. There is something which we both agree exists, ethical statements, and our dispute is about whether or not they have some property (the property of being capable of being objectively true or false). It's like we both agree a ball exists in the next room, but we disagree whether it is a red ball or a green ball. So, even accepting the principle I take it you accept, it still does not follow that the burden of evidence lies with my position.
- Also, it seems clear to me there are objectively true facts we can know with 100% certainty. Some of these facts include, "I exist", "Things exist", "At least one mind exists", "1+1=2", "Time exists", "Numbers exist", "Knowledge is possible", "Language exists", "Thought exists", "The English language exists", etc. All these facts are objectively true, and I know them all to be true with perfect certainty, and it is absolutely impossible for any of them to be false. Zack Martin
09:31, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
- I know all these things exist at the very least as thoughts in my mind, but I don't know with absolute, 100% certainty that they exist as objects in the 'real world' -- although that distinction is probably meaningless.
- My evidence is that there is no evidence objective morality exists, and I don't even know how it could logically, unless you're using a radically different definition of morality than I am. But it is just my opinion. Fluckedtalk to me :D|see my shit 09:27, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
- I guess it depends on what definition of 'objective' you're using. Fuckertalk to me :D|see my shit 09:38, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
- As a materialist, I accept the existence of an external and independent reality behind my perceptions. Objective facts belong to this reality, while my perceptions of it (as well as any and all moral ideas) do not. As an idealist, Maratrean, it seems you do not accept the existence of this external and independent reality, but perhaps you can still perceive a crucial difference between moral notions and the perception of having your head bashed in with a sledgehammer.
ListenerXTalkerX 09:56, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, but I'm technically a soft solipsist, just like I'm technically an agnostic towards some hypotheses of gods. Fidgetertalk to me :D|see my shit 09:59, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
- I was addressing Maratrean.
ListenerXTalkerX 10:02, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
- I know. Fuckertalk to me :D|see my shit 10:17, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
- I was addressing Maratrean.
- Yes, but I'm technically a soft solipsist, just like I'm technically an agnostic towards some hypotheses of gods. Fidgetertalk to me :D|see my shit 09:59, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
- As a materialist, I accept the existence of an external and independent reality behind my perceptions. Objective facts belong to this reality, while my perceptions of it (as well as any and all moral ideas) do not. As an idealist, Maratrean, it seems you do not accept the existence of this external and independent reality, but perhaps you can still perceive a crucial difference between moral notions and the perception of having your head bashed in with a sledgehammer.
- I guess it depends on what definition of 'objective' you're using. Fuckertalk to me :D|see my shit 09:38, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
As an idealist I believe that physical objects are patterns in the experiences of minds. So I don't deny they exist, I just deny their existence is independent of mind. Since I believe in the existence of multiple minds (I'm no solipsist), then physical objects exist outside my own mind, because they exist in other minds as well. A physical object is a pattern which exists in multiple minds. I'm inclined to think that abstract concepts are also patterns-in-minds, just a different nature of patterns. So "17", "1+1=2", "democracy", "murder" are just as much patterns-in-mind as the Eiffel Tower or the Sydney Harbour Bridge, but a different nature of pattern, one much more diffuse. With moral issues, I subscribe to a variation of moral sense theory - we possess a sense, like vision or hearing, which tells us which patterns are good or evil, which patterns are rational or irrational, and which patterns are beautiful or ugly. We produce in our mind an instance of or reference to a pattern, and this sense then conveys to us the objective judgement of that pattern. However, just as someone with cataracts has clouded vision, so too can we have cataracts of this sense (which I call the axiodeontological sense), causing us not to perceive objective truths as clearly. Zack Martin
20:54, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
Good Sir
Marcus has asked me to pass on his sincere thanks for your attempt to give him refuge on your talk page. It was a brave thing to do, and it appears that it has not helped your popularity here. Alas, sometimes doing the right thing has its consequences. Marcus has told me to wish you all the best for your Moderator campaign, and I hope that one day you and I and he, can begin the process of solving the ills of this website. We are proud of your defiant resiliance and your fight to make RationalWiki the best it can be. --Titus Atticus (talk) 22:42, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for your kind words. Zack Martin
22:58, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
So, how does it feel?
What is/will be the officially sanctioned "donation" to be a member in good standing in yer church? Do you channel L Ron Hubbard, if not, why not? 10:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ
- You should feel free to donate as much or as little as you feel appropriate. At the present time we are not accepting monetary donations over the Internet. If you would like to donate something, an Essay would be greatly appreciated as a donation.
- In terms of how some other groups do things, I think bleeding your followers dry is both wrong (we care for our followers, we do not treat them like cows that produce money instead of milk), and besides it is not a good long-term growth strategy. You'll burn them out and they'll leave. And then you'll be spending recruitment resources to gain new members just to replace the one's who are leaving, rather than to gain genuine growth. It's putting the short-term ahead of the long-term. People are what counts in the long-run, much more so than money. Zack Martin
23:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- What would you spend a monetary donation on? Sam Tally-ho! 23:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- That is a very good question. There are many possibilities (printing of literature, hiring of meeting rooms, etc). But that is part of the reason why, at the present time, we are not accepting monetary donations over the Internet — we do not want to receive money from people without clear plans (visible to the donor) on what would be done with it. Zack Martin
23:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- That is a very good question. There are many possibilities (printing of literature, hiring of meeting rooms, etc). But that is part of the reason why, at the present time, we are not accepting monetary donations over the Internet — we do not want to receive money from people without clear plans (visible to the donor) on what would be done with it. Zack Martin
- What would you spend a monetary donation on? Sam Tally-ho! 23:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Sacred animals
I was taking a quick look through your site the other and and I wonder if you could confirm whether your sacred animals are still sacred or have they all been been retired? --BobSpring is sprung! 18:00, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- If I understand M right, the critters have been moved to the apocrypha because they were recieving too much mockery/emphasis, when really they are at the periphery of the religion. steriletalk 13:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
- My guess is that Maratreaninsm is a bit like Scientology; they don't come out front with all the Xenu and space aliens stuff, its only after people have invested thousands of dollars and a few years that this stuff is revealed to them. Maratrean, for all his faults, is clever enough to know that he can't bilk his followers successfully if they think he's a loon. Better to get them into the religion first, then they will be less inclined to leave when the lunacy is fully revealed. Of course this is all predicated on the idea that he has any converts at all, it seems likely that there is only one Maratrean, and there will only ever be one. --DamoHi 05:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- I vaguely remember him mentioning once that he had a girlfriend. Maybe she could be his first convert. Sam Tally-ho! 05:38, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- @Sterile: Nothing to do with mockery damage control. It was holy revelation. 100% pure. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 06:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- *mreoowww* Terror-Taba and I has been demoted to childrens tales. It is difficult for a proto-prophet to be taken *screemmm* seriously when dead Prophets, Goddesses two Lord Bacu, and a few bats and cats of the endtime are flocking about *mrrrr* nap time now - *snoar* Oh ! watch for my movie "Terrors vs Zombie Hordes" (working title) as Terror Taba and I join the fight for earth vs the Zombie apocolypse in Resident Evil 42 Terror Trinka (talk) 06:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- @Sterile: Nothing to do with mockery damage control. It was holy revelation. 100% pure. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 06:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- I vaguely remember him mentioning once that he had a girlfriend. Maybe she could be his first convert. Sam Tally-ho! 05:38, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- My guess is that Maratreaninsm is a bit like Scientology; they don't come out front with all the Xenu and space aliens stuff, its only after people have invested thousands of dollars and a few years that this stuff is revealed to them. Maratrean, for all his faults, is clever enough to know that he can't bilk his followers successfully if they think he's a loon. Better to get them into the religion first, then they will be less inclined to leave when the lunacy is fully revealed. Of course this is all predicated on the idea that he has any converts at all, it seems likely that there is only one Maratrean, and there will only ever be one. --DamoHi 05:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
In fact, I have a follow up question on this but I'd like a comment from proto-prophet first.--BobSpring is sprung! 10:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
shall I become the next Steve Jobs or Mark Zuckerberg?
More like the next Marshall Applewhite.....AceModerator 05:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- [2] Osaka Sun (talk) 07:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- “Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe.” A.E.
ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science.
09:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- So long, and please don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out. Lord of Reckless Noise Hooray! I'm helping! 15:19, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- “Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe.” A.E.
Here's the section for friendly comments (soon to be trolled)
Yada, yada, yada, good luck in life. --★uːʤɱ heretic 15:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- called it. --★uːʤɱ anti-communist 15:45, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- That was more of a self-fullfilling protoprophecy, to be honest. Lord of Reckless Noise Hooray! I'm helping! 16:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- called it. --★uːʤɱ anti-communist 15:45, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Are you still around?
I haven't heard from you since my last post. --Bertrc (talk) 21:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
- He left a departing post a few days ago: "off to bigger and better things".
GodotDear god, fucking grow up 21:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
The proto-prophet
This "Maratrean" was a false prophet, it turned out. I will have to find another proto-prophet, or maybe just a prophet. The Goddess Maratrea (talk) 16:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- SCREECH. I WILL HIT HIM WITH A flap-flap ROCK. TERROR TABA (talk) 16:25, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- I volunteer, as long as that entails some sweet loots. I'm imagining a big treasure chest with magic wands and crowns and shit. Where do I sign up? (ʞlɐʇ) ɹǝɯɯɐHʍoƆ 16:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
- I has heard *meowww* of a possible Prophet. Anyone heard of Justin Bieber ? He looks prophety to me , and how could he be worse than Travancus ? (no offense to the dead guy). What does Holy Lord Bacu or Lord Bacu thinks ? Terror Trinka (talk) 17:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
Quasi-unretirement
I wish to quasi-unretire. But my user page is sysop-editing locked, and someone has deoped me. Can it please either be unlocked, or I be re-oped? Thanks. Zack Martin
01:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- so... uh... hows becoming the next steve jobs?--il'Dictator Mikal 01:46, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- Let me be the first to say that I am disappointed that you are giving up on your dreams to be the next Steve Jobs or Mark Zuckerburger - mainly because it means you will be back on here. :) Welcome back, I knew you wouldn't stay away. --DamoHi 02:05, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- Oh christ. Not this guy again. AceModerator 02:10, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- SCREECH. Oh, noes! The abuser of (SCREECH) animal worship. DROP THE ROCKS! TERROR TABA (talk) 02:34, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- ARAGHAH!! ArchieGoodwin (talk) 02:37, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- SCREECH. Oh, noes! The abuser of (SCREECH) animal worship. DROP THE ROCKS! TERROR TABA (talk) 02:34, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- Oh christ. Not this guy again. AceModerator 02:10, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- Let me be the first to say that I am disappointed that you are giving up on your dreams to be the next Steve Jobs or Mark Zuckerburger - mainly because it means you will be back on here. :) Welcome back, I knew you wouldn't stay away. --DamoHi 02:05, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
I am still working with my associate on our IT business plans. However, these things take time, as you can well imagine. Zack Martin
07:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- but if god wants you to become x, why is she not helping you become x faster?--il'Dictator Mikal 15:37, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- Don't let us stop you. Steve Jobs and Bill Gates didn't become successful by hanging round talking about random stuff with people they didn't really know. Sophiebecause liberals 15:45, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- Steve Jobs spent some time at an ashram in India, he also did a lot of drugs in his younger days. Sometimes, you need to take a break from certain things — you step away for a while, and then you come back to it with better insight and more success than when you stepped away. Besides, I've hardly edited this website for about 3 months. Zack Martin
00:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- Steve Jobs spent some time at an ashram in India, he also did a lot of drugs in his younger days. Sometimes, you need to take a break from certain things — you step away for a while, and then you come back to it with better insight and more success than when you stepped away. Besides, I've hardly edited this website for about 3 months. Zack Martin
- Don't let us stop you. Steve Jobs and Bill Gates didn't become successful by hanging round talking about random stuff with people they didn't really know. Sophiebecause liberals 15:45, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Welcome back.
File:Taba.jpgWarning: NSFW Image!File:Taba.jpgWarning: NSFW Image!File:Taba.jpgWarning: NSFW Image!File:Taba.jpgWarning: NSFW Image!File:Taba.jpgWarning: NSFW Image!File:Taba.jpgWarning: NSFW Image!File:Taba.jpgWarning: NSFW Image!File:Taba.jpgWarning: NSFW Image!File:Taba.jpgWarning: NSFW Image!File:Taba.jpgWarning: NSFW Image!File:Taba.jpgWarning: NSFW Image!File:Taba.jpgWarning: NSFW Image!File:Taba.jpgWarning: NSFW Image!File:Taba.jpgWarning: NSFW Image!File:Taba.jpgWarning: NSFW Image!File:Taba.jpgWarning: NSFW Image!File:Taba.jpgWarning: NSFW Image!File:Taba.jpgWarning: NSFW Image!File:Taba.jpgWarning: NSFW Image!File:Taba.jpgWarning: NSFW Image!File:Taba.jpgWarning: NSFW Image!File:Taba.jpgWarning: NSFW Image!File:Taba.jpgWarning: NSFW Image!File:Taba.jpgWarning: NSFW Image!File:Taba.jpgWarning: NSFW Image!File:Taba.jpgWarning: NSFW Image!File:Taba.jpgWarning: NSFW Image!File:Taba.jpgWarning: NSFW Image!File:Taba.jpgWarning: NSFW Image! P-Foster Talk "Armed with the knowledge of our past we can charter a course for our future"--MX 02:13, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- You may appreciate our Maratrean Art Gallery. That's my girlfriend's work, actually. Zack Martin
07:43, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- Awesome. ωεαşεζόίď
Methinks it is a Weasel 12:04, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- The hell? How old is your girlfriend? CrundyTalk nerdy to me 15:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- I could probably look it up, but given that I'm a bit lazy I'll just ask you. What is the age of consent in Australia? --DamoHi 22:04, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- The age of consent varies from state to state; in the state in which I live, it is generally 16 (although it can be higher or lower in particular circumstances.) But actually, my girlfriend is 35. All she knows how to use is Microsoft Paint, and she doesn't have a graphics tablet either. I've been contemplating buying her one of those, and teaching her some other software. (I actually touched up her artwork a bit using GIMP - she doesn't know how to use that.) She's talked before about doing some sort of art or graphics design course; she has not as yet, but I think it would be good for her if she did, and maybe she will eventually. Zack Martin
00:57, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- The age of consent varies from state to state; in the state in which I live, it is generally 16 (although it can be higher or lower in particular circumstances.) But actually, my girlfriend is 35. All she knows how to use is Microsoft Paint, and she doesn't have a graphics tablet either. I've been contemplating buying her one of those, and teaching her some other software. (I actually touched up her artwork a bit using GIMP - she doesn't know how to use that.) She's talked before about doing some sort of art or graphics design course; she has not as yet, but I think it would be good for her if she did, and maybe she will eventually. Zack Martin
- I could probably look it up, but given that I'm a bit lazy I'll just ask you. What is the age of consent in Australia? --DamoHi 22:04, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- The hell? How old is your girlfriend? CrundyTalk nerdy to me 15:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- Awesome. ωεαşεζόίď
Oh no!
It's Maratrean! He's a theist and he's also gonna advocate civility! Let's all freak out and try trolling him!--"Shut up, Brx." 03:05, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- "Civility" is most vocally advocated by people arguing for positions so flimsy as to cave in at the first bit of fun poked at them.
ListenerXTalkerX 03:13, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- How do you mean?--"Shut up, Brx." 03:14, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- All positions are flimsy. Wisdom is admitting that. In the end, we each choose to which flimsy position we will adhere — and we choose in accordance with our hearts. I offer one such flimsy position; you may well prefer others — and if you do so, I wish you the best. Zack Martin
07:41, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- Oh shut up you gibberish-spouting lunatic. Sophiebecause liberals 15:06, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
- All positions are flimsy. Wisdom is admitting that. In the end, we each choose to which flimsy position we will adhere — and we choose in accordance with our hearts. I offer one such flimsy position; you may well prefer others — and if you do so, I wish you the best. Zack Martin
- How do you mean?--"Shut up, Brx." 03:14, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Invitation
Is that an invitation for me? --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 10:45, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Request for input
In this era of confusion it occurred to me moderate voices need a spiritual doctrine devoid of whacko cults and extremism. How does Fun:Black liberation Mormonism sound? I was thinking in terms of 19 year old minority elders riding bicycles in three piece suits to register voters, but it needs some sort of doctrine to back it up. We're kinda pressed for time, but it could be patented and marketed before election day. Any thoughts? nobsCorporations are people, too. 17:53, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Regarding your censorship warning
There should be talk page for talk pages! You might want to add diff links. These censors have run rampant on the wiki this last year or two. They are bad people, and ignore the wiki's founding principles of openness and clarity. Oh well, I guess there's some idiots on here who prefer to create ways to wield power versus writing good content. ħuman
06:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- I'm actually contemplating taking it down. The whole "let's ban MC" thing seems to have died out. Is MC still technically banned? Is the "revert everything MC says" rule still actively enforced? Zack Martin
06:34, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
