General discussion

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents


«1..1»(1 total)

[view] [edit]

If SRA was real, what would the implications be?

Let's pretend that when the whole Satanic Ritual Abuse thing broke in the 80's, investigation showed it was real. Nothing supernatural, no actual demons, but everything else: human sacrifice, child kidnappings, secret tunnels, the works. First, what would it have taken to get the cults to that level, and second, once it was exposed, what would the fall-out have been? Thanos6 (talk) 03:57, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

[view] [edit]

Alternative for punishment?

So, I was taking a look on some articles and I saw the article about Punishment and one of the things it says is as follow:

Retribution

"...The problem with retributive justice is that, as everybody knows, two wrongs don't make a right. Taking "an eye for an eye" just results in two mutilated people instead of one. Its only purpose is cathartic, and that is retributive justice's other major flaw: it appeals to the worst side of human nature, our sadistic capacity for taking satisfaction in another's suffering. Hence it becomes questionable whether the punishers are really morally superior to the perpetrator."

Ok, fair enough, but what the hell can we do? Shouldn't we at least "avenge" the victim? — Unsigned, by: 186.250.69.236 / talk / contribs

Why? ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 22:05, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
You have any other better ideas?
Focus on turning criminals into productive members of society. Because which is better; a society that has less crime, or a society that tortures people? As much as I'm in favor of torturing people, I'd rather have lower crime. CorruptUser (talk) 23:42, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
It is a good idea, horewer, good luck in convincing people to that, people believe that criminals should be punished, for instance, people delight themselves on thinking how the prisioners are going to punish the new prisioner, especially if it's a rapist. Telling them that punishing the criminal is not the best idea will earn you lots of enemies. The problem, therefore, is convincing people. — Unsigned, by: 186.250.69.236 / talk / contribs
What your argument proves, instead, is that there's no real difference between the convicts in the pen, and the solid citizens still walking the streets. I will cheerfully concede that this point is true. All of us are inherently evil, all of us deserve nothing but punishment, and "there but for fortune go you and go I." It is exactly as you say: people delight in the sufferings of prisoners in jails, and proposals to make them suffer more are perennially popular. A democracy must feed this hunger for torment somehow; give the people enough say in government, and this is what they'll tell you they want. So really, it doesn't matter who you punish or execute. May as well do it by a lottery. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 03:10, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Weaseloid, you asked why. If someone commited a crime against you or a member of your family, wouldn't you want to see the bastard suffering?
Yes. But as a member of society who doesn't know where in society I'll land I want the best possible society. So I'll ask you a question. Would you rather live in the society where there's a 1% chance you'll be mugged with a baseball bat but the mugger will spend 20 years being viciously raped, or the society where there's a .25% chance you'll be mugged with a baseball bat but the mugger will spend only 1 year in a mental health center? CorruptUser (talk) 21:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
20 years being viciously raped... That's real harsh, wouldn't wish that for my worst enemy, not to mention it's really, really immoral, unethical too. Why is it that the percentage is higher on the latter and will the 1 year solve anything? By the way, is there a third option? And which one of those alternatives, if I may ask, would you prefer to live in?186.250.69.236 (talk) 02:31, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I pick option 1, but then, I'm a bit of a sadist, and I'm in favor of "vengeance for vengeance's sake." Thanos6 (talk) 03:58, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Umm, .25% is a quarter of 1%. As for 20 years being raped? That's American prison (well it varies; some are worse than others). And forget morals and ethics, getting raped is a good way to spread disease, and really, there's no advantage. CorruptUser (talk) 04:07, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
TThat the carcerary system is extremely flawed, and that paying an eye for an eye does not solve anything, and we just get two people half-blind is undoubtful. But we need to do something with the criminals, we cannot simply give them a slap on the wrist and tell them to not do this again.186.250.69.236 (talk) 22:37, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanos6, are you serious?186.250.69.236 (talk) 00:30, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Yep. I view retributive vengeance as an end in itself, it doesn't have to be a means to anything. Thanos6 (talk) 10:16, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Are you some kind of psychopath?186.250.69.236 (talk) 02:31, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I don't think he's being serious CorruptUser (talk) 02:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

[view] [edit]

RationalWiki images

I don't speak english very well, sorry. Escreverei a mensagem em português, seguida de uma versão resumida em inglês.

A minha participação no RationalWiki se resume ao projeto Babel: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Category:Babel

Meu inglês é horrível. Só sei ler em inglês.

Eu quero melhorar o que já existe, especialmente a página em português: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Category:Portugu%C3%AAs

O Psiram, da Alemanha, possui os mesmos objetivos do RationalWiki e verbetes em inglês, em francês e em outros idiomas: https://www.psiram.com

É normal existirem verbetes em outros idiomas. O português é falado em países como Brasil, Portugal, Angola, Cabo Verde, mas existem muitos brasileiros no Japão (dekasseguis), no Canadá, em Portugal e em outros países. Eu discordo que o português seja uma língua que ninguém consegue entender. É uma das línguas mais faladas do mundo.

Estou planejando melhorar o RationalWiki para atrair novos usuários e já entendi que o RationalWiki possui um objetivo: combater a negação da ciência e outras ideias absurdas; mas falta um verbete sobre "o que o RationalWiki não é" (em português), um tutorial com as regras do site (em português) etc. Eu posso escrever e traduzir as primeiras versões.

Não sou um usuário mal-intencionado.

- Pergunta: Por que as imagens no verbete sobre o Olavo de Carvalho foram apagadas?

LeandroTelesRocha (talk) 03:35, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

English:

My participation in the RationalWiki is only in the Babel project.

Question: Why the images in the text about Olavo de Carvalho were deleted?

LeandroTelesRocha (talk) 03:41, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Because they were screencaps of people's Facebook accounts. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 03:50, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
O.K. No problem. LeandroTelesRocha (talk) 05:03, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
[view] [edit]

California Water Crisis

You all know about the drought in California and how there is little water left, what I am trying to figure out why the California state government did not build desalination plants to begin with. I know it would run into money and environmental issues but it should be done. It would be easier to deal with the cost of said plants than people moving out of California and trying to find places for them to live. Thoughts? --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 20:19, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Desalination tends to be at least an order of magnitude more expensive per liter than conventional water treatment and typically more energy intensive than pumping water from another state. It's not an easy answer for the most populous state in the nation. Cheap, effective desalinization would end water shortages all over the world, but we don't have it. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:37, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
We could theoretically build reverse osmisis facilities to provide drinking water for everyone, but not enough to farm with. Especially not enough for California to grow food with. Especially not enough for California to grow said food in order to feed it to livestock. And especially not enough to do something stupid like have a lawn in a desert. Really, I don't care what neighborhood associations say, lawns should never be required in areas prone to drought. What about "non native plants"? Because if you need to water your grass for it to survive, it isn't a native plant. Oh and especially not enough if you plan to power your desalination plants via "biomass" or ethanol, i.e., powered by the crops grown using the water you obtain from desalination. CorruptUser (talk) 20:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
It's not unheard of to ban watering lawns - and the examples I know of aren't even from a country as droughtstricken as California. ScepticWombat (talk) 21:49, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, in the south and east of England the hosepipe ban is almost an annual occurrence. 86.184.43.115 (talk) 14:22, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Christ I'm turning into a Daily Telegraph reader. Hellllp! 86.184.43.115 (talk) 14:23, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Such bans are also a staple of a good hot summer in Denmark. ScepticWombat (talk) 14:49, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I have a sneaking suspicion that the California thing is only the start. The whole Colorado River basin is getting iffy and that crosses several states so getting consensus is complex. However, as Climate Change is a liberal myth there is no need to worry, none at all. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 15:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

[view] [edit]

Biggest crooks in the healthcare industry?

In my honest opinion-

  • 3- Dentists
  • 2- Surgeons
  • 1- Naturopathic/Chiropractic Physicians (I say they are tied).

Who is your top crooks in healthcare? --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 15:25, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Dentists and surgeons are crooks? FuzzyCatPotato™ (talk/stalk) 15:33, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
They're overpriced, to say the least. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 16:51, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
To be honest with you, I've never quite trusted dentists. This has mostly to do with their prescription of horrific treatments for symptomless problems. I've never had a pain in my mouth that was so bad that I'd consider the drill the lesser evil. Local anesthesia is a joke; you still feel the heat, smell the smoke, and know exactly what's going on. If you're drilling holes in my head put me under for it.
The problem is that increasingly the entire medical profession is remaking itself in the image of dentistry. Most of the physic I eat is aimed at forcing various blood and other test results between the lines. Of the four pills I take daily, only one relates to anything I've ever complained to a doctor about. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 03:29, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
It's kinda remarkable how they'll go "OMG your gums are infected!" when they notice their sharp instruments are making it bleed. Yep, that blood is totally not your fault, dentist. >.>
It's also noteworthy that dentistry could be made obsolete by people just wearing something protective on top of their teeth when consuming substances. Just think of all the money we could save! 141.134.75.236 (talk) 07:09, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I remember this past October (2014) I had sharp pain in a broken tooth (note- a tooth the dentist broke) and I went there three times and they did nothing, so I went to a different dentist to find out I had a badly abscessed tooth. Yeah, I would have to say Dentists are crooks.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 14:42, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Incompetence =/= crook
Overpriced =/= crook
Treating symptoms you haven't complained about =/= crook
Lieing = crook 32℉uzzy, 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 23:12, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Overcharging everything (and not always bothering to even do a decent job) because people have come to accept/expect that dentists = expensive isn't a particularly honourable means of getting by, though. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 18:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Number one crooks by far in not only healthcare, but anything everywhere is INSURANACE COMPANIES!208.29.163.248 (talk) 21:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

What makes you say that? CorruptUser (talk) 21:58, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Oh, ya known. All sorts of Heresay and Conjectures...which are *kinds* of evidence. And lets not forget Anecdotes. Plenty of anecdotes of Insurance companies being dicks. 208.29.163.248 (talk) 01:12, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I gotta say, no one else in the healthcare industry is making the choice to purposefully kill patients. And many of them pay out for alt-med treatments. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:18, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

This is an odd amount of hate for dentists

Fun fact: infected gums and cavities are both directly associated with physiological stresses that can take years off your life. When they say "Wow your gums are infected, start flossing more" they aren't selling you anything. You can buy your floss anywhere. in particular, heart disease killing you young is a big concern. Another study showing the same.

Ugh. I need to floss more. 18:16, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

When a dentist is responsible for cutting out a gap in one of those big incisors in the upper jaw to 'fix' a teensy irregularity on it and filling it with something that falls out after a moderate amount of time and you're too poor to have that big gap fixed or sue the dentist, try not to be resentful. Really! It's kind of hard to make a good impression on potential employers when smiling at them makes them go "HOLY FUCK WHAT HAPPENED TO THAT TOOTH". 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:21, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Here in the USA, we're increasingly struggling with the idea that if you get sick, it's all your fault from not living right. This is used to stir up resentments and resist taxpayer funded medical care. Health is a "personal responsibility" now, which is just cant for "you're liable for punishment." My perception is that dentists started this: the patient of your typical dentist gets the impression that he thinks that all of life's rich pageant is viewed through the pinhole of what's good or bad for your teeth. We probably do need an article on healthism. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 20:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Health is complicated. But your teeth do matter, and daily personal care is comparatively simple. None of that means that when something does go wrong, it's your fault. Just that no one can floss for you. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 21:25, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
That's just it. I find the difference between "no one can floss for you," and "it's all your fault if something bad happens" that flossing is supposed to prevent, is elusive. And this dynamic gets reproduced endlessly in the media: a weekly scare about some bugbear ingredient in food, an endless stream of body-shaming, a glut of unsolicited advice about diet and exercise. The intertwining of moralism and health is one factor slowly eroding the prestige of physicians. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 04:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Oh come on, I'm just repeating advice that countless medical professionals have given and providing a bit of scientific context as to why. If you don't floss, I'm not judging you. If you do floss, I'm still not judging you. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 13:07, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
[view] [edit]

Chiropractors

The other day I found a book about Chiropractors at a thrift store and I was shocked to about what the book said. In this book Chiropractors claim they can treat mental illness, how in the hell does cracking someones back "cure" them of mental illness? --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 15:28, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Realigns their quantum balance with their biometric energy. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 18:58, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, if their painful back was causing them mental anguish, I guess. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:03, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Just for fun read the history of chiropractic- it's intriguing how Palmer obtained his "insight" into the cause of ALL disease after horsing around with a guy and apparently, restoring this person's hearing after hitting him in the head and twisting his neck. One observation, a failure to consider all possibilities and instantly generalized into a system! Just as intriguing- Palmer thought of chiropractic as a religion in some ways... let's see, a novel event, jumping to conclusions, a generalized world view... religion... hmmm... Socdoc (talk) 19:20, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I have been to a Chiropractor a few times for back pain last year (Considering that was the only thing my insurance would pay for) and at first I felt great because I was hunched over and I had a hard time moving my back but the pain returned afterwards. So all in all, it was a waste of time and I would not recommend it. Hell I would rather go to a Naturopathic "Physician" than a Chiropractor for medical problems and that is not saying much as they are almost as bad as Chiropractors. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 14:30, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

[view] [edit]

Help a n00b

Is there a way to send a message to a specific user? I've been over the help and tech support pages already.— Unsigned, by: Shocker551 / talk / contribs

Wiki conventions say you go to User_Talk:TheirUserName, and edit the page, they will receive a notification that you have done so. If it's a private matter, there are email features available as well.
In addition, please sign your posts with four tildes ~~~~, ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:06, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
[view] [edit]

Something interesting I found on the BJU website one time when I was doing some research for an article

I do not remember which one but there is a BJU "science" staff member who actually teaches for a North Korean university, they were actually proud enough to put it in the staff bio. I was shocked at how horrible their science programs were but when I read that, I was in total disbelief. That would be the same as if a Jewish person worked for the KKK or a gay person supporting Russia.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 18:42, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

It's not like teaching is some kinda harmful activity. Educating people who might not have a chance to learn what you're teaching them any other way shouldn't have some nationalist inflection on it. It's not like those kids can control the nature of their government. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:47, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
[view] [edit]

I'm not sure where I should put this.... *sigh* Newbie Incoming!

Hey everyone! As I mentioned on the "How I found RationalWiki" Page, I've been a lurker for so long that I don't know exactly how I found the site in the first place (Probably through something SPLC related).

I am (obviously) very much of a rationalist; I also define myself as a "Philosophical Libertarian" (Basically someone who believes people have the right to do whatever they want to do as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others IN MORALITY AND ETHICS ONLY, I don't support Libertarian economics because it's extremely stupid) and my religious views are in-between a hard Agnostic and a soft Atheist.

I've looked at this site more times than I can count, and I'm somewhat of a fanboy for you guys. I hope you'll like a new addition! — Unsigned, by: Amon / talk / contribs

Nice to meet you.
So... about being a "philosophical libertarian", what you've described is literally the original definition of the political term "liberal". "Libertarian" is a neologism that isn't actually a linguistically valid derivation of the latin root "libre", to describe the relatively recent notion that laisez faire economics derives from some ethically sound place coming from the single-principle ethical system of "freedom". I don't want to police your self-identification, I just thought I'd share my thoughts about the term you chose. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
I never thought of that, you're right. It ought to be libertatian. At any rate, welcome to the site! - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 00:45, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Etymology often enough ignores the actual stem of words. This is even more so the case when words derive from Latin because the nominative case often differs from the stem used in all other cases. E.g. we say homicide, not hominicide. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 05:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
I hate to be pedantic, but 'libre' is French. The Latin word is "liber". Also, while you can certainly argue that -arianism is a pretty redundant construction (it's a compound of 3 suffixes for crying out loud), its use is pretty accepted in the English language and libertas is a proper Latin word, so I'm not sure where you get the notion that it's not a linguistically valid derivation. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 04:27, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
If in doubt, English is not a linguistically valid derivation. Insist on The Authentic PIE™. PacWalker 04:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Man, this forum seems a bit dead, doesn't it?186.250.69.236 (talk) 02:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
[view] [edit]

How to go about engaging Holocaust deniers and other ignorant people?


So it seems that according to research, arguing with facts only makes people believe their position even more firmly, regardless of what the facts say. Experience IRL and OTI confirms this for me and, I'm sure, for you all as well. So what manner should one go about engaging these people without accidentally strengthening their positions by citing facts? Asking questions? How do I do that without accidentally finding myself JAQing off or making them get defensive again? Also, what questions could I ask Holocaust deniers specifically, that would cause them to rethink their position on the Holocaust? I don't necessarily expect a clear cut answer but at the very least, maybe we could think of ideas that might have at least some degree of promise. Nah'meen? I'm just trying to rethink my approach to dealing with these people and come up with a fresh way of engaging them without relying on things that don't work out well or cynically just throwing in the towel. I'd REALLY appreciate your feedback.

Thanks! — Unsigned, by: Mr. Grimm / talk / contribs

"Your position is demonstrably false. As you are clinging to a position that any reasonable person knows is untenable given the overwhelming evidence, all of which is easily accessible and comprehensible to any person with a high school education, and thus demonstrating a total lack of intellectual integrity, I have no reason to continue this conversation with you. Have a good day." Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 18:46, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm with the flower child who's getting on in years. Holocaust denial comes from a place of choosing to not answer the questions they're asking. The huge surplus of material education that we, as a society, go way out of our way to provide(and for good reason) about the Holocaust is not hard to access. They don't even remotely have any sincere questions about the Holocaust, but instead have a purposeful program of disinformation they're interested in pursuing, usually in the name of an unstated racist ideology. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:15, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
So, what? Are you saying there's just no hope with these people? That's kid of a depressing thought, considering how numerous they all are... Why do these people hate the jews anyway? They say it's because they believe Jews are in control of everything and yadda yadda yadda, but if they only believe that stuff to promote their anti-semitism, that'd mean they were anti-semites BEFORE beliving that stuff and if they're anti-semites BEFORE believing all that, than what causes them to hate Jews? (User: Mr. Grimm) 7:51 PM, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
I wrote out an answer, but then decided I was speaking from an un-authorative place in an authoritative tone. I've only dealt with these people on the internet. I don't know how to approach real life ones. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:08, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Ah. OK. Well, I'm just wondering these things because the sheer ignorance of Holocaust Deniers, Anti-Vaxxers, Climate Changer Deniers and 9/11 "truthers" is just mind-boggling and it makes me wonder why they refuse to admit the truth. I mean, with Climate Change denialists and 9/11 "Truthers" I feel I have a good grasp. But others? Not so much. Maybe anti-vaxxers. I think maybe they just wanna feel smarter than doctors or some shit and/or because they worship celebrities like Suzan Serandon and/or because they listen to their dumbass friends too much. But Holocaust Deniers? Not a clue what their deal is and why they hate Jews so much... (User: Mr. Grimm) 8:21 PM, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Let's science this a bit. There is a attribute called "conspiratorial thinking", that describes a likelihood of believing in various major conspiracy theories. That characteristic correlates to both a lack of interpersonal trust and economic hardship. In general, conspiracies tend to take the form of expressing problems in a framing of outgroup threat. People different than you and I who cause the problems you and I face for their own purposes. Jewish people, unfortunately, become a common target because they're well integrated with western society, and thus tend to be outsiders "inside" organizations that are seen as nefarious. In spite of how tempting it is to go with the "they think they're smarter than us" explanation, I don't think that's really it. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
In my opinion, it depends on who the other person is and their relationship with you. Is it a close friend or loved one who have those views? A boss? A coworker? Someone on your bowling team? A random person on the internet? Is this view something they keep to themselves, or is it something they are very vocal about? Noir LeSable (talk) 19:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Hmm... Good point. In most cases, vocal. I'm just trying to figure out a way to get these people to be honest for a change. And not just Holocaust deniers, Climate Change deniers too. And Anti-vaxxers and 9/11 "truthers" Actually, Climate Change deniers and 9/11 conspiracy nuts are the most common form of conspiracy dipshits that I encounter in everyday life both OTI and IRL, now that I think about it. (User: Mr. Grimm) 7:46 PM, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm not saying that there's just no hope with these people. I'm saying that I have a very limited amount of fucks left to give, and I thus give them only after careful consideration with an eye on maximizing their effectiveness. My mental health can no longer afford the pain and frustration that comes with giving a fuck about every ill-informed mouth-breather with whom I cross paths.Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 20:09, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough.(User: Mr. Grimm) 8:21 PM, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't interact with such nuts since, lucky me, the place I work is full of real scientists (except for the one creationist). However, I've heard that once mild homophobes are exposed to non-scary out-of-the-closet gay folk, their homophobia drops. Analogously, I wonder if casual non-threatening subtle fact-dropping would have an impact on your targeted brand of idiots. MarmotHead (talk) 20:42, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
To use the example of Holocaust deniers; you must first discern what kind of Holocaust denier they are. Is their claim that they deny that organized killing of Jews took place? Is it that the number killed was lower? You see much in the same way that there are different types of feces there are different types of Holocaust deniers or "skeptics" as they prefer to call themselves. In order to effectively refute them and hence make them look like an idiot you have to know what kind of holocaust denier you are dealing with. If they claim that there was no organized campaign against Jews, question them about why Jews died disproportionately compared to the rest of the civilian population. When they say something that is genuinely stupid (even for a stupid person) you must ridicule them for it. For instance, I saw one particularly boneheaded assertion from a denialist that the execution chambers of Auschwitz were too small for six million to be gassed in it from in the period of only four years. The denialist was literally operating on the premise that Auschwitz was the only death camp to exist and that the Nazis only murdered Jews in death camps. If I was confronted by that person I would call him a clinical idiot who should have googled "Treblinka", "Dachau", "Bergen-Belson", "Warsaw ghetto uprising", etc... before he intellectually embarrassed himself. If they claim that there was an organized campaign but say that "only" four million died rather than six million you should not only confront them with census data, but also point that even if "only" four million Jews were murdered that still qualifies as a genocide. If you are confronted by someone who praises Hitler and laments that he did not "finish the job" and yet denies that the Holocaust happened, call them out on it and make fun of them for saying obviously contradictory things. Than there is always the chance that you will be confronted by the more absolute Holocaust deniers who claim that no organized campaign existed and that Jews died in no more disproportionate numbers than other civilians during the war. In that case you should be the one to ask them questions. I know this is going to sound controversial but never hesitate to use dark humor to lampoon these people, remember the quote from The Acharnians by Aristophanes: "Comedy too can sometimes discern what is right. I shall not please, but I shall say what is true". Ask them why it would appear to a casual visitor in Poland that there are currently more dilapidated Synagogues in that country than there are Jews, ask them why and how around six million people could just go "poof", ask them if they can bring forth and identify all of those actors who posed for all those "staged" photos. When they make BS excuses coldly refute them with facts like that they will than have to deny by claiming that it's all a conspiracy by "TEH EV1L ZIONISTS". Refute them with math and census data. I have seen naive people on the internet get converted by these idiots and other idiots for other idiotic causes and that is the reason why we should not ignore them. Basically there are a lot of naive and guiltless people in the world, and they can easily be converted by crackpots, that is the reason we must ridicule them, to make it is clear and apparent to those people that the crackpot before them is genuinely an idiot. Hence the goal when dealing with Holocaust deniers and other groups of peoples disconnected from reality is not get them to see their own stupidity, but rather to get others to see their stupidity. Alsto003 (talk) 06:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC) Alex
In conclusion, when confronted with these sorts people, you should make your facts reveal that these people are the idiots they truly are. This may require very exhaustive refutations to explain as if to a five year old, why their arguments are stupid. But it is worth it, and the reason why it is worth it is because it will keep the cranks on the edge of society where they can't actually do any damage. Alsto003 (talk) 06:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC) Alex
[view] [edit]

People vanishing to thin air

Is there an explanation for this? An example video:

http://www.donotlink.com/e4y2


When I googled it:

http://www.donotlink.com/e4y3

Example crackpot article:

http://www.donotlink.com/e4y4

I have yet to see a non-crackpot explanation. I've seen soem people claim rapture, some claim UFOs, the Government, etc.— Unsigned, by: 71.222.58.94 / talk / contribs

No one is clicking your links because they represent tedious time wasting. No one is buying your "Just asking questions" schtick either. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 14:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Goddidit Super Dude,What does mine say? Sweet! 07:22, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

The problems are: (1) Nobody cares. (2)Youtube is fairyland.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 18:15, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
For anyone who may come across this thread in the future, the first link is a news story about "mysterious disappearances" in U.S. National Parks, positing 400 disappearances "under unusual circumstances". A line that I think is pretty telling is that most of these disappearances are described as "children disappearing from right under their parents' noses". Horrifying, but that's what kids can do if you don't keep a close eye on them. Other "unusual circumstances" (for example, shedding clothes) do have perfectly logical explanations (see: Dyatlov Pass Incident).
Also, if you're thinking the other users here being a bit harsh on what appears to be an innocent question, check the contribs on the IP OP. He's been posting a mess of gobbledygook in the order of magnitude of millions of characters long, that amount to be nothing more than "Google, copy results, paste results." Noir LeSable (talk) 15:58, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
[view] [edit]

Reputable sources needed!

I'm working on a project, and I need reputable sources about the applications of particle accelerators. If you people have anything like that, I'd really appreciate it. Thanks! 107Ag 02:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

[view] [edit]

Genuine openmindedness

Other than the Schafly variety of open mindedness, that is to say "Believe what I do uncritically or you're close-minded", an open mind can be considered a good thing. But as humans, we suck at it. What's a good, moderately objective self-test for being open to different ideas? What does it look like to try to be open to viewing things a different way, without being credulous? ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:44, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Have an effective devil's advocate, kinda like the null-hypothesis used in scientific discussions? Even if it's yourself, just try to earnestly defend the opposing viewpoint, to get an idea of the general mindset. Trick (talk) 20:55, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
The hypothesis/null hypothesis/test driven approach seems like a good first pass, but what I find is that I more often end up with strawmen that outrage those I'm talking to. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 21:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
I guess it would depend on the length of the discussion, in some respects. If it's something that comes up frequently I suppose you can dedicate a little bit of actual time and study to immerse yourself in the topic at hand, kinda pretend you're part of it to get the experience of it. It's extremely woo-ey, but there's something called "Chaos Magic" that uses this principle for their "magic." They adopt a view or religion and live it rigorously for a short time, whether they believe it or not, just to see if it actually works for them, and to fully understand it. The rest is pretty nonsensical, but their methodology is admirable. Trick (talk) 21:24, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
[view] [edit]

Help

I am feeling lonely right now. School is cold, and home is hostile. I am sad and hurt inside. I need someone to talk to, anyone. Please.

ok, whatsup ? 198.98.209.150 (talk) 22:43, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps this is stupid, but I used to listen to Automatic for the People by REM a lot. That's helped me before: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijZRCIrTgQc Samstr (talk) 00:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Email me and I'll give you my number and we can talk. You sound pretty unhappy. Nutty Roux (talk) 02:00, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Throw me an e-mail. I don't have a cell but I'm easy about most Internet communication. --Maxus (talk) 02:34, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
drop me an email if you wanna talk to an old guy. Hamster (talk) 00:02, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
please post an update that you are talking to someone. Hamster (talk) 03:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Update: I'm better now, I just needed to vent online. Thanks for thinking of me, though.

[view] [edit]

Woo, crank, hokum, etc

Seems you're doing yourself a disservice by using those words. It would appear resorting to ad hominems and blanket statements is not a really good-way of debunking stuff.

Maybe you could actually address un-scientific stuff by scientifically disproving it, and don't address at all stuff that makes absolutely no sense?

But then, everyone needs a hobby and talking garbage about others to make themselves feel good :^) — Unsigned, by: 85.179.169.85 / talk 12:39, 25 February 2015‎

See tone argument. Alec Sanderson (talk) 14:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
We're taking increasing pains not to talk garbage about "others"(i.e. people) lately, but the words you mention describe garbage ideas. And sorry, pseudoscience is shit, dog. If there's someone who we're criticizing in that way, please let me know. I'm trying to help fix those problems. Ikanreed (talk) 14:49, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
It's not an ad hominem to describe someone as a crank for holding crank ideas. An ad hominem would be to claim that they are cranks and that therefore their ideas can be dismissed. If someone promotes pseudoscientific ideas in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence, then designating them as cranks is simply an accurate description. It doesn't exactly help matters that crankery (or woo, for that matter) tends to go hand in hand with conspiracy theory (as the "explanation" for why everyone else are wrong). Part of debunking is that you don't really have to keep debunking PRATTs or PIDOOMA. ScepticWombat (talk) 15:07, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Regardless of whether it's an ad hominem or not, we're still trying not to call any people cranks. Ikanreed (talk) 15:12, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Then you'd better mozy over to the crank article and delete its list of "Famous cranks", or...? ScepticWombat (talk) 15:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Fuck. Ikanreed (talk) 15:49, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
And possibly this section of the crank magnetism article, too (though I guess it could be argued that RW simply lists these people as exhibiting crank magnetism while not explicitly calling them cranks) ScepticWombat (talk) 15:53, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
[view] [edit]

This is what someone's response was when I ask them how he knows for certain God is real.

Prepare thyself for the cringe-worthiness:


"For me, took tragedy and the will to seek. Also over time as I got my faith back, look up to the stars, look how they're placed in the sky. Random? No. That is a creator my friend. Just look at the design as you see them in the sky. Spontaneous complexity out there? I just look at this world and I can't see the world without a designer. Evolution was created to destroy our faith and destroy God. It used lies to do the deed. You want to believe that a hot primordial soup cooled and all the organisms of life evolved from a big bang in the sky? What's believable to you my friend. Look in the mirror. You beautiful fine tuned body is not a freak of nature and you did not come from a big bang in the sky and you didn't come from a cooled primordial soup, you are a designed body in the name of God, in God's image. God is real. And he's your guide to salvation. Did you know a single bacteria is more complex than the space shuttle? Again. Evolution is a false hersey to destroy the creation.

"Matthew 7:15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. Don't listen to the false teachers.

"If you read the Bible, research the passages, research the world wide flood, research the true age of the earth. , research the resurrection, research the historical Jesus, research the accuracy of prophecy. The Shroud of Turin has never been disproved. It has 3 major aspects. It has 3D components when you look at the negative. Even more astounding, is that the negative becomes the positive when you look through a "negative film" it's in reverse. WE know what it's not, it's not a paitning, it's not a drawing, it's not a photograph. The carbon dating was skewed due to the part they tested was contaminated. CArbon dating is one of the worst ways to date anything, it's hardly accurate when you study it, especially when you have any contaminants. Like a test I saw they tested a living snail, it was dated 27,000 years old. Atheists use the carbon dating to erase the other fasciting aspects that can't be explaiend and they deubunk it. That's the problem with atheism. They think one test rules out the other dozen. Don't think that way. Dig deep into your soul.

"I recommend going to Answers in genesis online. It was instrumental in my path back to the my faith. I can tell you my specific story how I found my faiht if you want. Just let me know."


He then posts the following image:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-KzsF4NfwTwc/UFl9HFiKBLI/AAAAAAAADqo/hvkvQkeF__o/s1600/NEWTON1.jpg


And he further spouts:


"Atheists believe that 1 billion or 20 billion years ago (no one can tell you when, because there were no witnesses) the Universe exploded into being. Now think about this; what is the opposite of being?

"Non being or....Nothing.

"Do you know of anything that came from nothing? Look around you...Did any thing in your room explode out of nowhere? If you can describe nothing then it is no longer nothing, it is something. There really isn't any such thing as nothing. It is just a word that we use to describe the opposite of what something is. Do you have a headache yet?

"I love logic!

"So, now to sum it up. This is atheism; nothing + nothing= something. It isn't possible because something can't come from nothing.

"Then they say that at the point of explosion which was a mass of cytoplasm or after the explosion-(which came from nothing) OOPS! They forgot the "law of Inertia" (look it up later)-then the Universe gradually evolved into what we are today.(this is called spontaneous generation)

"I forget the proper order: single celled organism, fish, lizard, bird, monkey , ape, Human-something like that.

"The problem is that we have never seen a single celled organism evolve into any thing other than a single celled organism. There is no physical evidence of a human being born from an ape. plus apes still exist and lizards still exist.

"It's kind of a really bad theory! What do you think?"

-_- — Unsigned, by: Dr. Skeptic / talk / contribs

Yawn. Ok, you've convinced me - evolution, gravity, chemistry or whatever is false. Now please do the far more interesting thing and prove that God exists.--Coffee (talk) 08:41, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
He seemed to be really impressed with Dr. Skeptic's body. Fonzie (talk) 21:56, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
  • look up to the stars, look how they're placed in the sky. Random?
When I look at this all I see is the cross of Jesus. nobsI was in Bagdad when u wer in dadsbag. 23:34, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
[view] [edit]

Happy Valentine's Day 2015!

Hey guys! As you know, this is Valentine's Day, as it does on 2-14 each year. Some of you likely have, you know, someone, and some of you don't. If you do, then treat them extra special, for my sake. If not, and you feel bad about it, then post here. I'll send you a virtual hug and a personalised message based on what I know about you. This is where you go to feel better. Best wishes! OVERLORDSupplicate yourselves before me! 04:50, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Really? No replies at all! This makes me really sad. OVERLORDSupplicate yourselves before me! 19:48, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

[view] [edit]

The Bone Clocks or Singularity

So I recently finished The Bone Clocks by David Mitchell and I really enjoyed it as entertainment, and I've also read his other work Cloud Atlas so I was already primed to give him an halo of credibility (they don't let just anyone write 2 books!). But at the end of the book, without giving too much away, mankind is doomed to regress into a "endarkenment" with society breaking down and restricted geographically due to energy shortages.

I have also read The Singularity is Near by Ray Kurzweil (back in '06), and after reading that (being a freshman in college) I immediately accepted this as mankind's inevitable future, going to so far as to tell everyone and anyone I met about it, and why they should be excited. I bought into all of it, hook line and sinker, and only in the past few years have come to question a LOT of what he predicts (mostly after reading his book "Live Long Enough to Live Forever" which probably helped pay for his kitchen remodel, for all its practical value).

I know the truth doesn't lie directly in the center of anything, but I'm having difficulty managing my expectations by holding these two ideas in my head.

The idea that we're progressing towards incredible powers of prediction and computational power is so nice because it means the current state of a tech obsessed society will remain in place. But I think this is just something young people expect, and that as you get older you realize that things are not as neat and orderly and a lot of what we have is because someone WANTED it to exist, and not something that we should just expect to be around forever, or even improve.

The idea that we're living on borrowed time though touches to a lot of what I learned growing up in a Baptist household, of course the expectation was "at the end of this time things will be so much better" which is not the case in this situation. Plus my brain is primed with words like "peak oil" and "global warming", and the intro to the movie "Interstellar", and maybe that's just what Mr. Mitchell is tapping into, and I shouldn't think that society will break down simply because we don't have a viable alternative energy right now.

I know that Bone Clocks is a work of fiction, and that TSIN is a product Mr. Kurzweil is selling, and that beyond these two outcomes are plenty of other possibilities, and that regardless of these outcomes, I'll still have to worry about staying alive, and providing and caring for those I love, and all the "normal" things that make us human. But I do feel like the Singularity would make doing these things easier, whereas worrying about who I'll be farming for (and how to avoid rape gangs) does not, so I just want some rational advice as to for which I should plan.

Edit: reading the RW page for the Singularity helps me come to grips with a lot of this, also, I noticed I should be using proper formatting, I can try to add markup linking to the RW pages that I'm discussing. Oktegon (talk) 02:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

[view] [edit]

RationalWiki in portuguese and other languages.

Please, I'm not speak english very well. LeandroTelesRocha (talk) 17:23, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Welcome. It seems we currently have only one article posted in Portuguese: aquecimento global. There are a few in other languages here: category:babel. ωεαşεζόίďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm an awful English Monolinguist, so I can't help. Feel free to make any Portuguese pages you think you can do justice to. Ikanreed (talk) 20:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
[view] [edit]

What are the odds? What is your explanation?: Opinions requested

Okay, so I wanna tell you guys a weird personal anecdote. You're free to question my honesty, but I'm not trying to convince anyone that magic is real or stuff. All I'm asking is: If this happened to you, how would you react? How would you explain it?

So, my brother was showing me some card tricks - ya know, pick a card and I'll guess what card it is, that sorta stuff. After a couple of those tricks, I told him I'd show him a real card trick. So I took a pack of cards with the back of the cards facing upwards and spread it across the floor. Now I said I'd reveal the colour (black/red) and the number/identity of some random cards on the floor. So I put my hand on a random card, concentrated on it, said whatever came up in my mind and flipped the card. How many times I got it right? About 5 times. But here's how often I got it wrong: exactly 0 times. That's right, I got it right at every attempt. I was getting seriously spooked so I stopped flipping cards. Seriously, what the hell? My brother obviously thought I was cheating somehow..

Honestly, I wasn't using any sort of trick. Is my subconscious perception and memory so flawless it could tell which card was which just from the identical-looking backs of the cards? Cards on which I had focused zero conscious effort to memorize them I might add. Did my subconsciousness access some Akashic-records kind of deal? Did I crack the code of reality? Was some reality-bending deity messing with me? Really, what would you think? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:18, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Whatever the underlying cause, the chances of this happening by pure chance are between 0.00000026% and 0.00000032%, depending on what you did with the card once you identified it. Those chances are really low but they're not 0. Congratulations, you were in the right place/time to experience a notable unusual thing. MarmotHead (talk) 21:45, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
My best guess is that they're not being honest/precise about what happened. While improbable things happen, their phrasing suggests an incorrectly reconstructed memory. "About 5 times" is pretty ambiguous for something like that. You could remember, for example, the cards drawn as a pattern started emerging. Ikanreed (talk) 21:49, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, I admit my memory's a bit sketchy. It happened about 10 years ago. Maybe I already stopped after 4 cards, but I'm pretty sure it was either 4 or 5. I'm 100% sure I didn't have incorrect guesses, though, so yeah, that was freaky. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:19, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, weirder things have happened. The odds of winning the lottery jackpot are about ten times rarer than the odds of doing what you did, and we still get people who win lottery jackpots every so often. Heck, we get a number of people who win *two* jackpots. Noir LeSable (talk) 22:28, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Phew, two jackpots. Maybe I should start buying lottery tickets then, with my luck. >.> 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:52, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Weird things happen, but also memory isn't 100% reliable for every moment in our lives. Not that people are lying...it's just brain shorthands. Studies about witness statements of things that happen in front of them are often inconsistant. It can be affected by information after the fact, internal biases, and misattributation. Memory can also be affected by how people ask certain question.
Not to personally say anything about anyone, it happens to all of humanity, but if the doubt is about memory, low probability, and reality itself...the first one I would not question is reality. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 22:36, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm rather confident I'm not remembering it wrong, though. But what would you do if this happened to you? Would you think you're hallucinating/dreaming it maybe? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:52, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
I do the same with dice rolls during games/board games, and occasionally with trading card games. These things happen, really. Trick (talk) 23:00, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Sure, if you try guessing what cards/dice rolls you have a lot, you might end up guessing a sequence of them correctly, but the one time in your life that you try this you get 4/5 right with no misses? I know it happened and I still think it sounds unbelievable. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 23:07, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
I have certainly remembered things wrong and been corrected, even exaggerating the event. I got heads 10 times in a row on Saturday trying to just flip a coin for a place to eat. I really didn't want heads but I just kept flipping. Not something you expect to see normally, but I didn't expect that one event one day out of my life showed I could bend reality. Sometimes, it just happens.
Also, if it just seemed like a reality bending event any time in the last 10 years...what made this event that didn't repeat itself suddenly seem relevent recently? -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 01:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Even if it's something my memory made up from scratch, that's still irrelevant to the question I've been asking, though.
I just thought "Hey, I've been editing this rationalist wiki for a while, I wonder what they'd make of this one really weird event that happened to me." 141.134.75.236 (talk) 01:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I have a problem with this story. If you didn't know you could do the "trick" before you did it... then why would you even bother putting on this demonstration for your brother?--Inquisitor (talk) 23:18, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I was just bluffing, really. I didn't expect my attempt at "winging it" to actually work. >.> 141.134.75.236 (talk) 23:23, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Given the odds of this happening by chance I'm much more inclined to believe that you aren't remembering it incorrectly. How old were you ten years ago? Memory is a fickle thing. My mother-in-law, despite being otherwise apparently mentally sound, has this odd habit of relating detailed anecdotes about the family from the distant past (20-60 years ago) that while plausible mundane and inoffensive are often strongly denied by everyone else who was there. She isn't lying and is certain that these things happened, but they definitely didn't. Marlow (talk) 23:59, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I was in my early teens (not that young people can't have memory problems, though). Eitherway, I remain certain that this is a thing that happened. Look, you're free to write off my anecdote due to doubts over my memory or doubts over my honesty. I'm not asking people to accept my anecdote as true based on my word, I'm just asking: if this were a thing that happened to you, what would you do? How would you try to explain it? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 00:14, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I'd assume I was misremembering it. Childhood memories are prone to confabulation. I'd also try it again. Maybe you have magic powers, but if you can't repeat it, it's either misremembered or maybe, just maybe extremely lucky. When I say misremember, I don't necessarily mean you constructed the whole event, just that maybe you are forgetting some pertinent part. What you are missing might not seem like that much of an issue, but could change the odds from 0.00000026% to 1%. Maybe you saw the cards before you laid them out and had some idea where certain card were. Marlow (talk) 00:31, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Except that's completely different from how I remember it. I didn't just lay them out, I spread them out randomly across the floor (kinda like this, but with playing cards), and made my bro help me with that. That was a pretty pertinent part of the "act", actually. Even if I'd known what the last couple or first few cards in the pack were, I couldn't have known where they'd ended up. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 00:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
I know my memory of the sixth grade is pretty fuzzy. Your memory of the event is admittedly imperfect; was it four or five times? So keep in mind that just because you don't remember forgetting something doesn't mean that you didn't. You asked for what we'd think if it happened to us as you described, my answer is I'd chalk it up to a decade old confabulation. On the other hand if just happened I would certainly search for a rational explanation which might be more apparent to an adult rather than a child. You're clearly convinced so only one last thought before I leave you to you new found magic powers, was it a fresh pack or one that had already been used? Marlow (talk) 01:29, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
10 years ago, and in your teens? That's long enough ago to be able to implant radically extreme, totally false memories Ikanreed (talk) 01:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
@Marlow It wasn't a never-opened-before newly-bought pack if that's what you mean, but the cards looked newish/not-used-a-lot.
@Ikanreed Does that also apply if you've had quite a few instances of recalling the event spread out over those 10 years? Not that all this you-must-be-remembering-it-wrong stuff is actually relevant to my "What if this [just] happened to you?" question. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 01:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
"What if this happened to you?" is an easy question to answer. Unlike you, I would not have quit flipping cards because I got "spooked". I woulda been all like "Oh snap!" and would have kept going until my luck ran out. Then I'd calculate the likelihood of something like that happening. Then I'd spend the rest of my life whipping out the story whenever something odd happens "You think that's strange, there was this time I..." --Inquisitor (talk) 03:30, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Let's be clear here, I've done something exactly like this, and I am not suspicious of it in the slightest. I decided to pretend to know my girlfriend's 4 digit password(she got it from a random number generator) for her phone and got it exactly right. First guess. And, while a 1 in 10000 chance of happening, isn't surprising because 1 in 10000 events will happen every 10000 things that happen in your life. Some coincidences do occur. And in spite of having that similar event in my recent life, I still suggest that your memory of the event has been inflated by recall. Ikanreed (talk) 04:34, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

The other day my girlfriend had the idea to play the lottery, picked out numbers (our baby's due date, not random), and decidedly did not buy a ticket. The next day she found out she would've won $500 because she got it right. These things happen. Trick (talk) 13:10, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
[view] [edit]

Talk in the MH17 article

Hello. I added some information to the talk page of the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. I found a lot of evidence supporting other versions. Please, help me review this information. See you around. --Martinroosp (talk) 02:43, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

[view] [edit]

Most ignorant people on the internet contest

So, because I've seen some deep human fecal matter on the internet, I decided to create a place to compile them all. So, post the people who you think are the most ignorant on the internet here. Even if we are talking about ignorant people, please respect their privacy and don't use their real name,

So, first entry: A guy who replied to me on Youtube about holocaust denial and the fact that Stormfront is a neo-Nazi forum:

Some of the things he said:

Stormfront isn't a "pseudo-neo-Nazi" forum. It is a website for those who are committed to the survival and well being of White/Europeans, that includes, White Nationalists, Pan Europeanists, National Socialists, Christian Identity etc or those without any ideology who are just there to learn. As opposed to the anti White mainstream media. They need to be biased in favour of us because everyone else is biased against us.

When I hear just as many cries for the deaths of White/Europeans in labor camps and death camps all over Russia and eastern Europe. And when the Jewish leaders of the Soviet Union who ordered that genocide are held up to scrutiny by the world, named and shamed for what they are, in the same way the National Socialists have been, then and only then I might have some sympathy for what happened to Jews. (The innocent Jews at least).The fact is many Jews were trying to overtake Germany with Communism in the 1920's and if they'd succeeded they'd have killed more than 6 million Germans. That is why I am glad Hitler came to power when he did. Even though I'm not a National Socialist.I'm White/European, English and German and I love my people, I wouldn't want to see them suffer under Communism or any other oppression no matter what, even if it meant they had to ethnically cleanse Jews to prevent it.

So, what are your most ignorant persons? If you really have nothing to read...If you have really nothing to do... 00:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

[view] [edit]

God does not contradict most of Science

I believe I am making a thread right now.

Anyway, I would like to say that Science and God don't have to be battling it out together. If a scientists would just give up a few IDEAS that have never been PROVEN in existence ( Evolution................) and realize there is no reason to believe the bible is FAKE...Hey, maybe you and me could get along.. Also.. I don't know..I just want this to be a place where we can learn to agree on some things, and talk about our differences.  :) Yeah...I suppose a Christian and an Athiest have quite a lot of differences. Ha. But besides God, perhaps were extremely similar to each other. Pitzy 20:07, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay, we're going to go all the way back to incredibly basic concepts here. Define "science". Tell me what it is. I promise this is leading somewhere. Ikanreed (talk) 20:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Meh, well, I guess I was trying to say the only thing God contradicts is the things that contradict the Bible.. So things like the sciences of the body, chemistry, and stuff like that are not sinful or anything. (Unless your just test subjects. Just kidding. I think that's illegal) So like, I guess an evolutionist is a scientist? Probably. yeah. That's sounds right. So that is one science that contradicts God, but as a WHOLE most of the things are fine... : But seriously, I would sincerely want to know...What is your biggest problem with Christians?Pitzy 20:16, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

No, I don't mean "list some sciences, please." I mean what is science, itself? What does the word mean? How can you tell if a given idea is scientific or not? Ikanreed (talk) 20:33, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment: I agree with what Goolgle said. Do you think that contradicts God? I don't, not really. Pitzy
(You're still not signing your posts properly. Four tildes)
Okay, to continue this trail I'm leading you on: where does the word "proof" show up in the concept of science? Ikanreed (talk) 20:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Adressing the "What is your biggest problem with Christians?"

I have no problems with Christians. Many friends, family, and colleagues are Christian. They're human. To me, Christianity simply one way to be wrong, in a world filled with many. Mistakes are easy to make and ones about the nature of the universe, in and of themselves, are harmless.

Christianity is wrong. Not in the way murder is wrong. But in the way thinking the moon is made of cheese is wrong. It makes assumptions, and then doesn't check the facts, but day-to-day it those assumptions aren't that big a deal. I'm wrong about a lot things too. And if I knew what they were, I'd stop being wrong about them.

To say I have a problem with Christians is like saying I have a problem with people who can't solve a system of quadratic equations just because I can. It'd be stupid.

I and many others, including some Christians, do have a problem with some things done in the name of Christianity. Bigotry against gays. Violence against those of other faiths. Bombing abortion clinics. Passing laws that protect no one from harm in order to save them from "sin". Ikanreed (talk) 20:33, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Just to add, evolution being true doesn't mean Christianity is false. There are Christians that accept evolution as true, which is proven to be true via...well, the full list in Branches of science you have to ignore to believe in young Earth creationism. Not all Christians are young earth creationists. The OP casting them as such is not correct. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 20:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Trust me, I know not all Christians are creationists I can safely say that all CORRECT Christians are not evolutionists, though.Pitzy
I'm pretty sure they'd say the same thing about themselves as you are about yourself, what's your point?--Miekal 20:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Seriously, I don't get why so many devout Christians insist on denying evolution. It's really as simple as "organisms inherit some traits, the environment they live in determines which traits help the organism in surviving and procreating". If you don't like the suggestion that humans evolved from apes, then just posit that God created humans seperately from other animals. You don't need to throw the whole concept of evolution in the trashbin. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 17:52, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
But, see, the problem is without literal inerracy, what exactly defines the bible's level of accuracy? That raises uncomfortable questions for the people who are taught to never question anything. There's a contempt for people who aren't absolutely certain they're right about things they're wrong about. The inerracy crowd calls them "Cafeteria Christians" Ikanreed (talk) 17:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm aware that the biblical literalists think they're the only "true" Christians (which is pretty hilarious, given the way the current biblical canon came to be). But even if you take the Bible literally, with all its stated acts of creation, that doesn't mean animal species can't start evolving once they're created, as the laws of logic and the observed existence of inherited traits would seem to necessitate. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:32, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


My point is the Bible gives no record of Evolution. Also, the link that guy gave...If God is Eternal, I think he can defy all of the stuff on there. I mean, creating something out of nothing pretty much makes a scientist not believe in God, if they are not a Christian and don't believe in miracles. Pitzy

But, for, of course, the fact that even it could be defied, there'd be no reason to the substantial evidence that exists. Why have hundreds of millions of years of fossil strata, even if you could defy their existence through omnipotence, they're there. Same with starlight that gives evidence of having the same composition of the sun but is apparently billions of years old.
Sure you can just say "I can imagine anything being possible", but that's just an incredibly petty ignorance and a refusal to ask why it's there at all. Ikanreed (talk) 19:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC) Have you ever wondered if I believed the world was billions of years old? Pitzy 18:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Parodist

Come on guys. It was fun for a while but this editor is obviously a parodist.--Coffee (talk) 20:56, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I have nothing better to do til 6 --Miekal 20:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Nah, they're actually 14. A parodist would do better with wikiformatting and the like. Ikanreed (talk) 21:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Mmmmm - Parodist or child??? I'm still inclined to go parodist.--Coffee (talk) 21:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm befuddled. Pitzy
We know.--TiaC (talk) 22:09, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
[view] [edit]

Cult of Satorn: A Conspiracy Theory


Cult of Satorn: A Conspiracy Theory (the original rant)


OK, before you remove this, and dismiss it as Conspiracy Bullshit, please listen up.

I'm not a Conspiracy Theorist. And no I'm not pulling the "I follow facts not theories" Bullshit. I actually don't believe any Conspiracies without evidence, and the evidence for most of them is laughably absent. I have yet to find evidence for the ones I saw.

Now, onto the reason I posted this: yes, I know its YouTube. And I know it has the Illuminati in the title, but that's not what its about. It about something called the Cult of Saturn. The Illuminati is must a word Religious nutters throw around for every society.

The Cult of Saturn is a Society that worships er... Saturn, or Satan if you're conspiracy Theorist. If you watch the video, you'll notice something: Symbolism in everything. And its stupid.

The video seems to give some story about why the x and cube are satanic symbols, and proceeds to show a LOT of symbolism. Last night I was tired as fuck, so I worried about it, but I'm well rested now, and found its stupid.

Basically we play God in Minecraft. The cubes are what makes the worlds, and that's a satanic symbol. Portal 2, the companion cube, Rubik's Cube, Sega Saturn, Xbox, etc.

As you can see, its pretty dumb, however, a surprisingly large number of people believe this! Yet I see no skeptic or debunking place mention it! No articles on /r/Conspiratard, NP article here, no quotes on Fatdt.com, etc. Why? Is it that recent?

Believe me, this cult has a LOT of Conspiracy lord, and its alleged symbols do too.

Watch the video and tell me what you think.70.210.133.228 (talk) 19:26, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

FYI: We don't remove Forum namespace content unless it brings potential legal consequences to rationalwiki.
The problem here, with your reasoning, is that your definition of "evidence" is a bit off-kilter. Presenting some kind of concrete evidence of some real thing that you then use to fabricate a tenuous connection between two things unrelated things on poorly reasoned grounds isn't evidence of that greater connection. Say, for example, I give evidence that many neonazis keep copies of Mein Kampf. Then I give really reliable evidence that many public libraries often have copies of Mein Kampf. I have thus used empirical, undeniable evidence to make two things clear. But if I then imply that public libraries are neonazis, I'm just bullshitting you on a tenuous connection. Ikanreed (talk) 19:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
OK, but why don't I ever see this on non Conspiracy websites? It seems I've seen every theory except this one on them. And when I submitted it to /r/Conspirators, they removed it saying "If you keep posting fgarbage (According to our totally subjective opinion) then we will ban you."
Why is this??? Its kind of creepy. The theory kind of bugs me, after I watched the video, (Did you?), and then no other site even MENTIONS it? Wikipedia doesn't even mention it! Its creepy!
I just want the theory in the video debunked SOMEWHERE... But I can find anywhere, and seeing all the conspiracy sites talk about it doesn't help.--70.210.133.228 (talk) 21:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
It's a conspiracy theory thrown together from random elements. You gotta understand that throwing together some bullshit takes a lot less effort thank debunking it. There are thousands of uncontested conspiracy theories out there, because they're just nonsense. Ikanreed (talk) 21:10, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


Wow, yes there are stupid theories out there that are uncontested, but this one is PLAUSIBLE, and still uncontested. Why don't you guys be the first? Because all you skeptic sites think you have it figured out, so show us! Debunk this!--75.175.72.63 (talk) 07:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

"Plausible"? I'm sorry, but which dictionary are you using? Fine, I probably shouldn't be doing this as I'm beginning to suspect from your language that you're actually a believer/troll pretending to be "skeptical" in order to attract views (Edit: Thought the two IPs were the same, but the 75.x.x.x one is a known conspiracy theorist. I apologize.), But fuck it, I've got an essay I need to procrastinate on. It's not a complete examination, just stuff I see wrong in my first pass of the video and what you had posted.
  • "a surprisingly large number of people believe this! Yet I see no skeptic or debunking place mention it!" -- Maybe because it's that obscure, and the video you posted is of such terrible quality as to be laughable? I mean, c'mon. (Also, there's a lot of interconnect with stuff that we have articles on, such as the Illuminati.)
  • Right off the bat, this conspiracy theory takes a Christian perspective of the world and assumes Christianity to be true (e.g. the existence of Satan). Most of the conspiracy sites I see reposting it make the same Christian claims, citing Bible verses and whatnot. I don't mean to start a theological debate here, but if you're trying to convince a largely agnostic atheistic rationalist group that your theory which is not only Christian, but highly non-mainstream Christian, is true, you're gonna need a helluva lot of extraordinary evidence, starting with the central foundation of proving that the Bible is the accurate word of God. Without that, you aren't going to last long with that house built on the sand, mate.
  • Mort the Chicken -- Yeah. A highly obscure PS1 game by a small-time dev which was almost universally panned in game review magazines is going to "program and influence minds". You'd think a massive international conspiracy would have a better budget.
  • Hexagon automatically means cube -- The video states that the hexagon on Saturn is actually "a two-dimensional cube, which is a three-dimensional cube". Er, a hexagon is a hexagon. There aren't even any internal lines in the Saturn photos (that aren't drawn on afterwards) to suggest any sort of hexagon-cube relationship. And anyways, the hexagon an explained, entirely natural phenomenon -- no Satan magic needed. Seems like this guy is obsessed with equating hexagons with cubes for no apparent reason aside from "it kinda looks like one if you look at it a certain way".
  • The cube is everywhere -- Of course it's everywhere. It's a fucking cube. It's one of the most basic shapes in the world. You might as well suggest that there's a conspiracy surrounding spheres because they show up everywhere too.
  • Satan, Saturn, Morning Star -- Again, based on Christian theology. Prove your favorite translation of the Bible first and then come back to us with this. Even so, it's Lucifer and Venus that the Morning Star represents in Hebrew, not Satan and Saturn.
  • The cube represents space, square represents space, circle represents time -- Does it now? Why?
  • Pyramid from high place is a square, NEWS is North East West South, blah blah blah blah blah -- Now you're just dumping random symbolism on us with no connection whatsoever.
  • Bill Gates is evil, because vaccinations. -- Anti-vaccination movement
  • The cross is actually an X -- Christian (pseudo)theology. Still no idea what the hell Xs have to do with cubes.
  • Xs are everywhere -- Of course they're fucking everywhere. It's an extremely simple shape. Put two lines together. That's an X (unless it's a T). It's not any sign of any fucking conspiracy any more than the color blue is.
  • Matrix -- Good movie, terrible representation of real life. The guy is also positing the cube is an actual thing somewhere now rather than an Illuminati-perpetuated idea.
  • Leylines -- Ley lines
  • Rituals on entry points bringing hell on earth -- You'd need to prove that these "points" even exist first. Or that these rituals do anything. Or what this nebulous "energy" is ('cause even solar radiation will out-energy the body heat of a few people walking in circles).
  • It's all a ploy to turn us away from [Christian] God -- More Christian theology.
...Okay, I don't see the point in me watching any more of this drivel. I think I'll be ending up repeating most of my points as it continues on (and I need to get to sleep anywho). Go back and read what Ikanreed posted as well. It's a load of tenuous connections based on elementary school geometry and Christian theology. Noir LeSable (talk) 10:20, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Oh, it's this theory again. He's right on the fact it's pretty obscure, but the reason is probably because if you believe geometric shapes are proof of the Illuminati, the it's pret6ty much impossible to not draw a satanic symbol.
I watched the whole thing. So after it explain the Cube, and X drivel it goes into a bunch of symbolism... the Xbox, something about Islam, etc. And then, when it gets to Minecraft it claims we "Play God" by building worlds... with Cubes (They're satanic remember?)... Then It goes into Portal with the Companion Cube, which is actually a saturn cube (Hopefully they don't find the Game Theory where the cube is actually filled with deal test Subjects), and then the transformers movies and how the Allspark, which creats all life, is (You guessed it), a saturn Cube.
So, Cubes have a very big role in media? And Xs? Ok... They're basic geometric shapes. ANd let's face it, they look pretty awesome. If that sounds like a Cliche (Definitely is), I'm sorry, But going to TV Tropes is VERY fun and time consuming, however going there to turn their Tropes into Conspiracy Theories (Assuming this theory is Recent, since it's so obscure) isn't proof of a conspiracy.
So, the Sega Saturn is symbolism now? Internet Explorer? To this guy, apparently (He cites them!) In the end, he just goes into momntage of the symbols in media.--サトセレ (talk) 16:46, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I won't spend a huge amount of time looking through it...but it looks like all the crap that's spewed by Gorillia199 on Youtube. He is very funny to watch, but sad when you realize he's burned out his brain with drugs to the point where he is no longer competant to make decisions in the eyes of the law. Anything with a geometric shape is part of some conspiracy of satanic alien reptoids. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 15:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Explain the Rx symbol in the Pharmacy industry then.--75.175.72.63 (talk) 18:12, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
It's an abbreviation for the Latin recipere (to take). Marlow (talk) 19:06, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, in several languages the Latin recipere is directly visible in the word for medical prescription, such as the German "Rezept", the Swedish/Danish "recept", Norwegian "resept", or the Italian "ricetta". ScepticWombat (talk) 19:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
I am kind of wondering what kind of horrible satanic conspiracy is in the two letter combination "Rx" that can have at least one person scared. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 20:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Rx looks like rex. Rex is a common name for fictional dogs. Cerberus is a fictional dog. Cerberus is from hell. Satan is from hell. Rx means Satan. Duh Ikanreed (talk) 20:26, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
I was thinking that a doctor writes out something on a pad that has Rx on it and what is written on it actually appears later and does something. Like a waiter writes stuff down on their pad and magically what you order appears a little (or quite awhile) later. It's like those pads magically summon what you ask for! -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 20:30, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
No, the Rx symbol has the x in it. That's what he meant. In fact, it looks more like the cross is an x. The end is longer because they needed to put Jesus on their satanic X. I guess the porn industry is proof of IlluminTi because XXX. The Latin and Cyrillic alphabet is proof of the Saturn cult?

And something in the videos about the holiest place for Islam being a cube, and their main prayer place in a Mosque is a cube. And something about Jerusalem worshipping cubes putting it on their heads.

Mort the Chicken was fucking horrible. If the Illuminati wanted to program satanism Into children, they did a terrible fucking job.

Irony:Mort the Chicken actually is frightingly agreeing with him i n the cutscene. With the three block the rainbow cube (Antichrist) saying "NWO" WHEN THEY COULDVE PICKED ANY LEGTERS!!!! AND more symbolism in that cutscene too lazy to explain.

Meh. Amusing, I guess. The kind of thing that freaks me out when I'm sleep deprived but waking up wondering why the fuck I believed it.

Still, make an article on this conspiracy. We already knew how stupid these guys were, but THIS STUPID? There's even a fucking site exposing this conspiracy. Cubes, circles, xs, squares, what the fuck?

Theyve finally done it. Tthye became dumber than the "Illuminati confirmed" meme. Its that video where you desperately hope that the play the x files theme SOMETIME, because you desperately hope its a parody.

Wait, he said X files is Illuminati because X.

I'm embarrassed to be the same species as them. Someone make an article on this Conspiracy. — Unsigned, by: 67.5.226.10 / talk / contribs 08:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)


Satanic Cult

(This rant was moved here from Talk:Time Cube#Satanic Cult, courtesy of ScepticWombat)

TIME CUBE IS A SATANIC SUTURNIAN WORHIPPING CULT!
Timecube is run by a schizophrenic called Gene Ray, correct? Nope! That's a lie to keep you brainwashed by HAARP!
https://www.google.com/search?q=timecube+satanic&oq=timecube+satanic&aqs=chrome.0.69i57&client=tablet-android-verizon&sourceid=chrome-mobile&espv=1&ie=UTF-8#q=time+cube+satanic&spell=1
What Time cube is ACTUALLY doing is sbhowing the doctrine of the Saturnian Cult. This is important. You've seen the cube in popular media: www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBTDmrdh9Nk
And it was decoded: Http://www.illuminatiwatcher.com/decoding-illuminati-symbolism-saturn-black-cube/
Its EVEL SATANIC WORSHIP! I've done this research for years to come, and I have come here to expose the world for what it really is.

The above rant was originally posted by GoodFight310, who, as I've explained on the Time Cube talkpage, bears more than a passing resemblance to the BoN who started this thread (both rants about nonsensical Saturn-centred conspiracy, posts YouTube clips and can't actually spell "Saturn"). ScepticWombat (talk) 08:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

This is good stuff. It's pure, uncut, pharmaceutical-grade crankery. The mind that believes this must be an exciting (albeit cramped) place to live. --Inquisitor (talk) 08:52, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

30000 Guillotines in America!

More rants from GoodFight310, collected here for a general view into his personal crank magnetism, this time it's about mass guillotining which is apparently just around the corner in the good old U.S. of A. (moved here from Talk:Guillotine, surprisingly):

http://shariaunveiled.wordpress.com/2013/06/19/why-did-the-u-s-government-recently-purchase-30000-guillotines/
http://www.almightywind.com/whatsnew/081701guillotines.html
http://irregulartimes.com/2014/07/24/fact-check-did-georgia-pass-a-law-allowing-guillotines-to-be-used-for-executions/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/07/22/guillotine-firing-squads-better-than-lethal-injection-says-prominent-federal-judge/
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/witnesses-to-a-botched-execution
You seem reluctant to mention that, hmm?

As before, this rant was brought to this thread courtesy of ScepticWombat (talk) 10:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Even if they did start using guillotines for executing the death penalty, would it really be that bad? It seems pretty quick and painless and it's probably a lot cheaper than what they're using atm. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 10:12, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Probably the guillotine is no more "cruel and unusual" than lethal injection (especially when the latter is botched), and if the victim is sedated to the point of unconsciousness prior to getting the chop, I'd guess they're basically equivalent. The difference is the mess that comes with beheading, which is probably the "gruesome factor" preventing the adoption of this technique for fear that the "blood 'n guts"-effect will turn people off (and against capital punishment). But hey, I'm not a fan of capital punishment in any form, so it's all kind of hypothetical pro et contra to me. Actually, our guillotine article already mentions arguments in favour of the guillotine by a federal judge no less. ScepticWombat (talk) 10:25, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
The biggest problem with guillitines is their history is almost defined by use to kill known innocent people. That's an image no pro-death penalty people want to invoke either. Ikanreed (talk) 15:12, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

/r/CONSPIRATARD IS A SHILL

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gt3lSP6mVgI

Last night I posted this video to the subredit Conspiratard. Thee just simply removed it and INSTANTLY BANNED ME WITHOUT AN EXPLANATION! I messaged them asking why they banned be instantly without giving a reason, and they STILL HAVENT ANSWERED BACK!

I decoded to do the same on Fundies say the Darnedest Things, however THEY STILL HQVENT ANSWERED MY MESSAGE CHALLENGING THEM TO DEBUNK THE SATURN CULT! They told me to go to JREF FORUMS. However, I figured out why they wanted me to go there from this video.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHBS5Zd4t-k

http://911blogger.com/news/2010-02-12/jref-forum-posts-comprehensive-characteristics-pseudoskeptic


JREF FORUMS ARE SHILLS as those sourcesnpoint out. The second source of mine 9/11 blogger) is a great source for 9/11. It makes claims I've seen so one debunk.

So why do they just randomly ban me like this and not give me a reason??--GoodFight310 (talk) 16:39, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Because you're posting contextless youtube videos in the most annoying possible way, and accusing people who are engaged in typical website moderation of being shills.
That is to say, you are acting completely bonkers and people aren't taking you seriously as result. Nominal suggestions: don't become fucking obsessed with random off-the-shelf conspiracy theories. JREF is 0% shills. They're just not crazy.
EVERY TIME YOU CAPITALIZE WHOLE PHRASES FOR EMPHASIS A GRAPHIC DESIGNER DIES. Ikanreed (talk) 16:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Because the purpose of /r/conspiratard is mocking people like you, not giving them a platform?--ZooGuard (talk) 16:52, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Then why the fuck did they not give me a reason? I even mocked the video to see of they wouldn't accuse me of being nits, but no the ban me! Instantly! ::They gave me no reason and they refuse to reply to my questions of why they banned me!
Why would skeptics ban users instantly if they knew the theory was not true?--GoodFight310 (talk) 17:39, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
They don't owe you any explanation or debunking at your demand. Your attempts to appear to a be curious observer rather than a believer in this ridiculous conspiracy theory are transparent and disingenuous. Marlow (talk) 17:49, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
To follow up on this, you're not the only one who's "happened" on this strategy for promoting stupid nonsense. Ikanreed (talk) 17:52, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


9/11 Website

And now our ranting conspiracist friend, GoodFight310 (who has now learned how to sign, good boy!), is moving on to 9/11-crankery, wonder what'll be next? Anyway, enjoy:

This website proves 911 is an inside Job!
http://911blogger.com/news/2013-03-09/international-law-marc-9-2013-episode-261
http://911blogger.com/news/2013-12-08/how-debunk-wtc-thermite
http://911blogger.com
http://911blogger.com/news/2013-01-26/why-all-americans-should-care-about-holy-land-foundation-case
http://911blogger.com/news/2013-03-03/americans-nazi-germans-don-t-notice-all-our-rights-are-slipping-away
Also, did you know Cheney admitted he lied about 9/11?
http://911blogger.com/news/2013-09-10/ben-swannreality-check-more-americans-are-rethinking-911-september-10-2013
http://911blogger.com/news/2014-03-25/holocaust-mind-control-and-911
http://911blogger.com/news/2013-09-16/911maps-ultimate-911-tool
http://911blogger.com/news/2014-08-30/william-binney-former-nsa-technical-director-signs-ae911truth-petition
http://911blogger.com/news/2014-07-27/cia-director-george-tenet-facilitated-911
There is much more evidence on the site you guysndidnt "debunk" in this article.--GoodFight310 (talk) 18:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Once again this episode of Crank Magnetism - The GoodFight310 Series was brought here (from Talk:9-11 conspiracy theories) by your friendly crank collector, ScepticWombat (talk) 21:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


A CHEMTRAIL PILOT SPEAKS PUT!

Chemtrails, of course! I can't believe that GoodFight310's crank magnetism hasn't latched on to this nugget yet. So I thought I'd bring it here (from Talk:Godlike Productions) as yet another episode of Crank Magnetism - The GoodFight310 Series - enjoy! ScepticWombat (talk) 08:11, 16 January 2015 (UTC) http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message2760044/pg1

http://lunaticoutpost.com/showthread.php?tid=505568
VISIT THE SITE! Another one also speaks out about HAARP --GoodFight310 (talk) 01:01, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Unfunny troll.--Madman (talk) 01:07, 16 January 2015 (UTC)The Madman
Great way to dismiss the evidence. That's like us calling everyone who disagrees with us a shill. Your excuse is "Why has nobody spoken out" and someone did.--GoodFight310 (talk) 01:11, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Whitney Houston in HELL!

In this brand new episode of Crank Magnetism - The GoodFight310 Series, our friend GoodFight310 branches out into bizarre ramblings about Whitney Houston being in hell(?!? For what, I wonder?) This latest episode was brought out of the waste paper basket for Talk:Near-death experience by your friendly crank collector, ScepticWombat (talk) 08:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

6:34 Linda's vision of Whitney Houston and her own parents in hell!
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=gJK8VMWHJ4yOyATeooDgAw&url=http://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DsCuLpk58ZYA&ved=0CB8QtwIwAA&usg=AFQjCNGq4OpNTjEBkZsyjO3JujcN0E57Zw
A MESSAGE from WHITNEY HOUSTON in Hell to Her Mother
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=55O8VNepDM2yyASFxoCoAw&url=http://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DLwWSaQUH1hs&ved=0CCUQtwIwAg&usg=AFQjCNGgoWHYfu_oEUeRALVmNlHcPt8Glg
Whitney Houston Speaks From Hell: “Jesus, Please Have Mercy! Let ...
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=55O8VNepDM2yyASFxoCoAw&url=https://rapturewatcher.wordpress.com/2013/12/19/whitney-houston-speaks-from-hell-jesus-please-have-mercy-let-me-go-back-to-the-world-and-tell-people-that-you-are-real-let-me-tell-these-musicians/&ved=0CDYQFjAG&usg=AFQjCNFCg7oMrglvo1QIOkrAsCSKj1mExQ
I 'Saw' Whitney Houston, Gaddafi In Hell – Survivor | Red Pepper ...
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=ZZS8VKGrGNKTyASwzIHQAg&url=http://www.redpepper.co.ug/i-saw-whitney-houston-gaddafi-in-hell-survivor/&ved=0CDkQFjAH&usg=AFQjCNEP79l6IduKsOZ16AFxg7fetoODKQ
Linda's vision of Whitney Houston and her own parents in hell ...
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=ZZS8VKGrGNKTyASwzIHQAg&url=http://tune.pk/video/2756994/linda-vision-of-whitney-houston-and-her-own-parents-in-hell&ved=0CDwQFjAI&usg=AFQjCNFTJ09bX62OOrO05mktRP7Zj0KYaA
Top 10 People Who Made It Alive Out of Hell - Toptenz.net
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=ZZS8VKGrGNKTyASwzIHQAg&url=http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-people-made-alive-hell.php&ved=0CD4QFjAJ&usg=AFQjCNHl8Z_c-EcFXkA8eoKMph_jS8Hm6Q
LINDAS VISION OF WHITNEY HOUSTON AND HER OWN ...
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=ZZS8VKGrGNKTyASwzIHQAg&url=http://www.stafaband.info/download/mp3/lagu_lindas_vision_of_whitney_houston_and_her_own_parents_in_hell/&ved=0CEEQFjAK&usg=AFQjCNGcbPHgVvMXIbA55_IE1vw2m1tSAQ
Linda's vision of Whitney Houston and her own parents ... - Godinterest
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=ZZS8VKGrGNKTyASwzIHQAg&url=http://godinterest.com/list/20391/1628833/lindas-vision-of-whitney-houston-and-her-own-parents-in-hell&ved=0CEMQFjAL&usg=AFQjCNE--0LgnoYIqZ6VsjxJbW5_RuEwfA
https://www.google.com/search?client=tablet-android-verizon&espv=1&q=whitney+houston+in+hell+youtube&revid=639793532&sa=X&ei=ZZS8VKGrGNKTyASwzIHQAg&ved=0CEcQ1QIoAA
https://www.google.com/search?q=whitney+houston+and+parents+in+hell&oq=whitney+houston+and+parents+in+hell&aqs=chrome.0.69i57j0&client=tablet-android-verizon&sourceid=chrome-mobile&espv=1&ie=UTF-8
https://www.google.com/search?client=tablet-android-verizon&espv=1&q=is+whitney+houston+in+heaven+or+hell&revid=786883119&sa=X&ei=lpW8VMegO8__yQTusIDwAw&ved=0CEgQ1QIoAQ
https://www.google.com/search?q=whitney+houston+and+parents+in+hell&client=tablet-android-verizon&espv=1&source=lnms&tbm=vid&sboxchip=Videos&sa=X&ei=lpW8VMegO8__yQTusIDwAw&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAg
Why do you deny these testimonies? Many people saw hell. Even a 4 hear old kid saw his parents in hell! Why would he lie about that!?GoodFight310 (talk) 05:29, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

TORTURE IS COMING TO AMERICA!

After the extensive detour in the previous episode of Crank Magnetism - The GoodFight310 Series, our protagonist ranter now returns briefly to more familiar ground: The U.S. going to hell in a hand basket. Apparently our favourite ranter was in a hurry and forgot to sign his name this time, but I assure you this is genuine GoodFight310 stuff. This mini-rant was rescued from the trash can at Talk:Torture by your friendly crank collector, ScepticWombat (talk) 08:52, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=2bS8VMihFZe2yATIpYKADA&url=http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/torture.html&ved=0CDwQFjAJ&usg=AFQjCNF-9Twxak3vbsXjkUtjVSQMjpyj8g
http://www.borderlandbeat.com/2013/06/the-story-of-soldier-who-was-tortured.html

Cruel?

(copied from Talk:Hell#Cruel? in order to have the full set here - ScepticWombat (talk) 11:04, 19 January 2015 (UTC))


Bullshit. Hell isn't cruel. God decides what is moral. Not you guys.

Yes, hell is forever. What is it like? Emotional, mental, and physical torment, forever and ever. A trillion years are not even a second. People are already there, begging for another chance, but they already had a chance. They're going to stay there, forever.

Many people had visions of hell. Demons came and told us about hell. One South Korean made a documentary of her experience In hell. One punishment for men for sexual sins are animals gnawing on your genitials. Bestiality will have demons twist your body until you drip blood. Blasphemy will have your tokngues nailed onto a table and lava poured onto them. Forever and ever... Masturbation will have your penis sliced... Over and over...

You guys ridicule and scoff at what I'm saying now, but you'll see. Satan has decided you.

A demon on the April and Wayne show described the worms in hell. Exorcized people on Emmanuel TV described hell. Many MANY revelations.

Cruel, unbearable torture.. For ever and ever. Never ending. You all are going to end up that way if you do t repent. You say a moral god wouldntmdo that? God makes the morals! You don't!GoodFight310 (talk) 09:21, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Just a suggestion... It might be wise to visit a specialist about these sadistic masturbation phantasies of yours. --Irian (talk) 09:41, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
I like how you start by saying "Hell isn't cruel" and end at "Cruel, unbearable torture.. For ever and ever".--TiaC (talk) 09:54, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Are you OK GoodFight310? I mean, a fairly long post on a talkpage which actually sort of addresses the article's topic and no YouTube links seems so... out of character for you. Also, isn't it a bit tricky to pour lava onto a tongue, even if it's nailed to a table (rather superfluous I'd think, why not pour the lava directly into the blasphemer's mouth a la what Genghis Khan did to the governor of Otrar[wp]?). And unless hell has the kind of "grow extra inches"-power that would put even spam mail to shame, I think that, even if slicing very thinly, penis slicing would hardly last that long... ScepticWombat (talk) 09:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Here's the link of what I'm talking about:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=b-C8VOv5Eoi2yQSekoHoAg&url=http://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DdWXkBBIaiVc&ved=0CCEQtwIwAQ&usg=AFQjCNEqOGqv2hxZjNCKb1z4qy4EPYL1hQ
Hwa Hi Jung of South Korea saw these punishments in hell. She painted all of what she saw.
Here someone attempts to call her a false prophet:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=P-G8VOHBPJKmyASN34J4&url=http://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DnYMaTxt4yB8&ved=0CCQQtwIwAg&usg=AFQjCNGaPTSF4a9vEkoN7reYd8IqY_siag
However, they fail to do. You can we Hwa Hi Jung's reply in the coments.
For more info on her, do a Google search:
https://www.google.com/search?q=hwa+bi+jung&oq=hwa+bi+ju&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j69i57j0l2&client=tablet-android-verizon&sourceid=chrome-mobile&espv=1&ie=UTF-8
Watch the video she made. Its very intriguing. Her paintings from the video are found here:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=P-G8VOHBPJKmyASN34J4&url=http://junghwabi95.picsart.com/user/tags&ved=0CCcQFjAD&usg=AFQjCNG6dX5b8r0a45ra2jSZ6TS4XDdy8A
Time is short. Repent.GoodFight310 (talk) 10:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Ah, that's the GoodFight310 I know. Phew, you really had me worried there. Good to see you back in shape. I've copied this in Forum:Cult of Satorn: A Conspiracy Theory so it sits right alongside your other posts. ScepticWombat (talk) 11:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

JAY Z IS SATANIC!

Listen to Jay Z's song "Lucifer"! Forwards there are sections that are complete gibberish! Backwards however, the gibberish is actually such comforting messages as "Murder Murder Jesus 666"! This is blasphemous!

I remember when I was at least able to enjoy music because I was aware of the messages in it, and thus immune. These days, artists are so openly blasphemous its obvious the Illuminati run the world!

Listen to the Jay Z song. Its there. Its PROOF the Illuminati exist!

Motorola is currently preparing the Mark of the Beast as well!--GoodFight310 (talk) 15:24, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

93Purple cats on toast! Mars is a chair! EEEGOOOLLL345!!! Elvis O'Bama for Satrap of the Four Fours! Splink!!!!!!!93 BicyclewheelModerator 16:14, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

ILLUMINATI SYMBOLISM IN YO GABBA GABBA

So I decided to sit down this morning with my kid to watch TV with him and spend time with him.

However, when he started watching Yo Gabba Gabba, it seemed... Different from most shows for his age. It had these symbols... I know not every show has them, and ones that do could be parody (Gravity falls), but this one gives no reason!

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=0He-VKn_BYmxyQTN94CwCQ&url=http://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DR6HRCvTQpq4&ved=0CB8QtwIwAA&usg=AFQjCNHbwlGHq02Kpl7LDoMqf74he8BN3w

I went online to see if anyone else saw them and this person looked through the show and found them when seeing if he would buy it for his kid. He saw them too, though he got the meaning for the Peace Sign wrong (Its not the cross of Nero, although the true meaning, while nothing to worry about, is pretty depressing). Everything else is spot on.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=rHm-VO_BEMulyASp4oCYBA&url=http://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DpT8SMpP4-Vg&ved=0CCIQtwIwAQ&usg=AFQjCNGjqSBnDaFK8MxEWIeSGoAFpgRbfA

This is another video explaining more (pardon the lame pun in the title)

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=6Xm-VM7GH8y3yAS9lYCwDQ&url=http://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DPAWLFE6BZw8&ved=0CCUQtwIwAg&usg=AFQjCNEIZ45I7SJuU-u39eLbajmAdc3KHw

This person addresses skeptics claims about the symbolism.

https://www.google.com/search?q=yo+gabba+gabba+illuminati&oq=yo+gabba+gabba+ill&aqs=chrome.2.69i57j0l3&client=tablet-android-verizon&sourceid=chrome-mobile&espv=1&ie=UTF-8

No one speaks out?

This discussion was moved here from Talk:Conspiracy theory. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 20:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

You claim that such huge Conspiracy Theories like Chemtrails, Illuminati, Extortion 17, etc. Don't have NY whistleblowers, however many have spoken out.

Ted Gundersen, Chip Tatum, Kristen Meghan, Charles Strange, LA Toya Jackson, Roseanne Barr, Brice Taylor, Paris Jackson...

Those are a small number of people who have spoken out.--GoodFight310 (talk) 20:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

yep, uh huh, sure. Ikanreed (talk) 20:30, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
They speak out in the same way mental patients do. It's hurts your claims to champion that all of these people are right about conspiracies when they can't agree what happened, who did it, and why. It's better evidence this is just made up. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 21:12, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

FEMA whistleblower

This discussion was moved here from Talk:Federal Emergency Management Agency. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 01:03, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jf8zTyBsWyI

Someone from FEMA is currently in hiding because he has proof 9/11 is a hoax!

You see, the reason there are no whistleblowers for these conspiracies, unlike PRISM, is because they're too dangerous to be known!

A Police Officer named Jack McLamb also blew the whistle, even proving Herbert Hoover knew about the NWO!

Not only that Officer Jack McLamb exposed FEMA camps, and the whistleblower I linked to shows exactly how determined they are to keep 9/11 a secret!

You may ask why they put the 9/11 whistleblower in hiding... That's because he had video evidence 9/11 is a hoax! The reason Jack McLamb is in hiding is because it would be too obvious if they went after him after the situation with the 9/11 whistleblower.--GoodFight310 (talk) 03:33, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Didn;t you say there were no whistleblowers? How can Officer Mclamb be a whistle blower?--Miekal 05:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

No. Where did I say that?--GoodFight310 (talk) 05:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Third Line. "You see, the reason there are no whistleblowers for these conspiracies, unlike PRISM, is because they're too dangerous to be known! " right away followed by "A Police Officer named Jack McLamb also blew the whistle,!"--Miekal 06:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, let me clarify: The reason there are no whistleblowers for these conspiracies that ARE REPORTED BY THE MEDIA is because the conspiracy theories are too dangerous to expose. Meanwhile, Officer Jack McLamb is a whistleblower, however 9/11 and FEMA Camps are too dangerous to expose, so he gets no attention by the media. PRISM had a whistleblower that the media paid attention to because it was safe to expose.--GoodFight310 (talk) 07:43, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Your video is going to be 5 years old this year. If it's to big to expose, some random 2 minute youtube video is not going to be how it gets out. --Miekal 07:48, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Here's something for you to chew on GoodFight310... let's say you were the head of The Evil Conspiracy and wanted to track everything citizens were reading. Libraries and book stores are too anonymous. Booklets and pamphlets can be printed on home equipment and can be distributed anonymously as well. So what do you do? Why you set up a means of distributing information electronically. That way you know who writes what, and who's reading it. You're tracking it all. Better still, you provide them with a video service that allows the duped sheep to "bypass" the traditional media you already control. Since you can filter what get uploaded, there's no chance of the The Truth seeing the light of day. It's perfect.
So maybe The Truth isn't to be found on the clearly Illuminati-controlled YouTube. --Inquisitor (talk) 01:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

something about the temple mountr

Temple Mount

www.youtube.com/watch?v=df3vbyTFqHw



www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9cJ0VZ-oK8

Temple Mount Global Masonic Control

atruthsoldier.com/tag/fema/

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=fejAVNSGKcPjoATko4DICw&url=https://kimolsen.wordpress.com/2013/07/11/a-testimony-how-god-rescued-me-from-bill-johnsons-cult/&ved=0CD8QFjAJ&usg=AFQjCNGR1lRU-VI2f3w_c_Mw02G5nxLykg

https://mysteryoftheiniquity.com/category/news/page/9/

mysteryoftheiniquity.com/2013/page/15/

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=oujAVOHsMJGuogSUxIII&url=http://article.wn.com/view/2005/10/16/Court_wont_let_Temple_Mount_group_lay_cornerstone_of_Third_T/&ved=0CDQQFjAF&usg=AFQjCNE6E4MDf-BJr_mziOF4bbXj6phC8A


https://www.google.com/search?q=temple+moint+shut+down+%22edifying+others%22&oq=temple+moint+shut+down+%22edifying+others%22&aqs=chrome.0.69i57&client=tablet-android-verizon&sourceid=chrome-mobile&espv=1&ie=UTF-8#q=temple+mount+shutdown+%22edifying+others%22&spell=1

https://www.google.com/search?q=temple+mount+shutdown+%22edifying+others%22&client=tablet-android-verizon&espv=1&biw=962&bih=553&source=lnms&tbm=vid&sboxchip=Videos&sa=X&ei=CunAVLeAIszvoATKuoC4BA&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAw

I just want to point out how funny I find it that they're copy/pasting the google link. As if they have never read the articles/watched the videos themselves, but thought the title of the article fit and posted it. Noir LeSable (talk) 16:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I've done it before, to my shame. It's a was a choice when some dumbass throws out a "citation needed" about easily researched basic facts. But, since then, I've decided if something merits a response, it merits a serious response. Ikanreed (talk) 16:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
[view] [edit]

Which logical fallacy is this?

The logical fallacy I'm trying to identify is the one that underpins pretty much all science denial. Basically, its the idea that because there is pressure to form a consensus, scientific consensus is meaningless, and not only that, but the factual data behind the consensus must all be a lie concocted by the scientists who are trying to pressure others into consensus. It underpins everything from global warming denial to vaccines cause autism, flat earth to creationism, homeopathy to walking talking murdering GMOs.

An example would go a little something like this: Sure, we have data to prove gravity, mostly us not all floating off into space, and other planets exhibiting the same behavior in a mathematically predictable way. But there is pressure to conform to the scientific consensus isn't there? There are a small contingent of professionals who think the data is wrong or biased, aren't there? We weigh less in some places than others, namely the moon, don't we? Some scientists opposed it at first before they were pressured into consensus, didn't they? Therefore, gravity is wrong, Isaac Newton was an ideologist hack, and my opinion trumps all your facts.

I hesitate to call this argumentum ad populum because the argument is basically the inverse, declaring the majority consensus wrong. And its not straight up denial either, because they aren't declaring the phenomenon itself wrong, simply the theory that explains it. I guess it *could* be argument from authority, but the person making the argument usually has no authority to argue from, so I think I can rule that out too. But its pretty obviously a fallacy of some sort. -Seankurth (talk) 02:36, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is even an informal logical fallacy, but "simply" an unholy marriage of (a variant of) anti-intellectualism and conspiracy theory. The assumption is basically that the majority opinion among scientists can't be a consensus reached through debate and reason, but must have involved coercion/conspiracy, and therefore scientific consensus is wrong. ScepticWombat (talk) 09:08, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Galileo gambit is what you're looking for. 31.210.187.253 (talk) 15:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Not a fallacy. It's technically reasonable to suggest that sociological factors may drive a consensus of any sort. Where it falls apart is that they refuse to engage with further information that is more than available enough. If the complaint existed in isolation of rampant ignorance, it would be okay.
Much like it would be okay to insist that science can always be overturned by new evidence, as a strictly hypothetical response to the insistence of accepting the basic facts of global warming, if that behavior were isolated from the fact that there are important policy implications of the facts as they stand, and that the position they are taking (Global Warming is wrong) isn't what that articulation entails. It's a false distancing on "principle". Ikanreed (talk) 15:35, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

«1..1»(1 total)

Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support