RW Article discussion
I figured it would be a good idea because there is a lot of pseudoscience behind it and many naturopathic "physicians" use Homeopathic treatments and maybe mention Cancer Centers of America because they also have Naturopathic Physicians on staff there. Any thoughts on the idea? Because there would be a lot to work with.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 15:09, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- This is different from Naturopathy? I think all you want is a redirect. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:22, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I forgot about that article, never mind on the idea. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 15:30, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Well I did add schools that teach naturopathic medicine to the page.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 15:39, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Knowing there are Young Earth Creationist colleges that teach Biology, Chemistry and Physics (Including Biophysics) I figured an analysis page could be made about their science programs. In it also compare their science programs with secular colleges and universities. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 20:37, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- That needs some serious boots-on-the-ground work to track down syllabuses, course requirements, reading materials, and the like. I can't imagine a substantive article without quite a bit of original research. This isn't wikipedia so original research would be okay, but it's still a lot of work. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:39, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
I will add some links to college websites so research can be done-
- Michigan State University undergraduate programs- http://www.reg.msu.edu/AcademicPrograms/Programs.aspx?PType=UN
- Bob Jones University programs- http://www.bju.edu/academics/programs/
- University of Michigan programs- https://www.umich.edu/academics/
- Harvard University- https://www.gsas.harvard.edu/programs_of_study/degree_programs.php
- Pensacola Christian College programs- http://www.pcci.edu/academics/
I have to go, I am using a library computer, I will add more links when I can.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 21:02, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- Harvard? Really? Michigan State and Uni of Michigan are also respected traditional universities; I can't find anything to associate them with a YEC approach to science. Wėąṣėḷőįď
Methinks it is a Weasel 22:08, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- ^. I suggest you go to Category:Fundie schools and find into about those; your research might also fit better at Fundie school than on its own article. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 22:24, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
That would be a better idea than my original idea, also I was talking about a side by side comparison between good schools and YEC schools. I was not talking about associating good schools with terrible schools.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 15:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- This sounds like a lot of work, but would be a lot of useful work. Go for it - David Gerard (talk) 18:06, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
I will get a start on it, I am going to call it "Analysis of Science Degrees at Young Earth Creationist colleges". If anyone has better names then just reply.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 15:23, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
I will finish the BJU science section tomorrow and then add an analysis section to it. In the article I added course requirements and descriptions from the website. Talk about mind numbing. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 18:28, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Thinking of creating a page on The X-Files. It's a TV show that I'm really conflicted about — on one hand, it's a classic science fiction program that had some great characters and writing (at least until the last couple of seasons) and a huge impact on sci-fi television, but on the other hand, it likely created a lot of conspiracy theorists (especially ufologists) among those who grew up in the '90s, and a case could be made that it was promoting such material. The latter, I think, makes it a good fit for the site's mission, much like the various pages we have on shows like Ancient Aliens.
I've currently got a just-about-complete workspace version of the article here. I talk about how Richard Dawkins and Carl Sagan both disliked the show, while at the same time, one of its own stars was a member of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry in real life, and dismissed any notion that it was promoting woo. I also talk about the Lone Gunmen spinoff and how its pilot episode became unbelievable fodder for 9/11 Truthers. Anything else you think I should add on it? KevinR1990 (talk) 01:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
- I wouldn't say it was promoting such material (it is, after all, science fiction), but you could certainly go into details and draw lines between the show and the conspiracy theorists who bought into it as fact. John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (talk) 08:46, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
- I think I could talk about that when I discuss what William B. Davis thought of the show. Overall, I describe it as something of a mixed bag on that front — on one hand, it was very much part of the conspiracy-theory zeitgeist of its time, but on the other, like you said, it's a fictional program that, outside its own universe, isn't trying to actually say that aliens are abducting people and cutting deals with shadowy conspiracies. KevinR1990 (talk) 15:13, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
- I think that an X-Files article could be useful and on-mission by pointing out where the series help codify and/or popularise particular versions of UFOlogy, such as grey aliens (as opposed to the "little green men" of yesteryear or Spielberg's E.T.) or a specific take on alien abduction or cattle mutilation lore and how X-Files tied it all into a greater story-arch of conspiracy and secret government stuff. I wouldn't be surprised if a comparison of pre- and post-X-Files UFOlogy yielded clear signs that the series' take on these issues became "UFOlogy orthodoxy". Btw, Dark Skies[wp] seems to be from a pretty similar mold, but not as influential as X-Files (though Dark Skies tied aliens more directly to the Kennedy assassination, than I think was the case in X-Files. DS also put a special emphasis on Majestic 12). ScepticWombat (talk) 16:02, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
- Go for it (if you'll pardon the eighties-ism). We have a Star Trek article, and TXF is as missional as that for the reasons cited above. Dark Skies is more problematic, though. While obviously tying itself to the conspiracy mast, it never took off in the same way the TXF did; it's a footnote, really. Bicyclewheel
18:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, I wasn't appealing for a Dark Skies article. It was more something that sprung to mind in the context of popular culture influence on conspiracy theories (and vice versa). I don't know how widespread the Majestic 12 and Kennedy assassination stuff is among UFOlogists anyway or whether Dark Skies made a difference (I doubt it). ScepticWombat (talk) 19:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
- Go for it (if you'll pardon the eighties-ism). We have a Star Trek article, and TXF is as missional as that for the reasons cited above. Dark Skies is more problematic, though. While obviously tying itself to the conspiracy mast, it never took off in the same way the TXF did; it's a footnote, really. Bicyclewheel
- I think that an X-Files article could be useful and on-mission by pointing out where the series help codify and/or popularise particular versions of UFOlogy, such as grey aliens (as opposed to the "little green men" of yesteryear or Spielberg's E.T.) or a specific take on alien abduction or cattle mutilation lore and how X-Files tied it all into a greater story-arch of conspiracy and secret government stuff. I wouldn't be surprised if a comparison of pre- and post-X-Files UFOlogy yielded clear signs that the series' take on these issues became "UFOlogy orthodoxy". Btw, Dark Skies[wp] seems to be from a pretty similar mold, but not as influential as X-Files (though Dark Skies tied aliens more directly to the Kennedy assassination, than I think was the case in X-Files. DS also put a special emphasis on Majestic 12). ScepticWombat (talk) 16:02, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
- I think I could talk about that when I discuss what William B. Davis thought of the show. Overall, I describe it as something of a mixed bag on that front — on one hand, it was very much part of the conspiracy-theory zeitgeist of its time, but on the other, like you said, it's a fictional program that, outside its own universe, isn't trying to actually say that aliens are abducting people and cutting deals with shadowy conspiracies. KevinR1990 (talk) 15:13, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
[edit] 95% of UFOlogy is regurgitated pop culture
Alien abduction reports have increased substantially in the face of any popular movies that feature abduction scenes, and the experiences of the abductees tends to mirror the events in the movies. Close encounters of the third kind was particularly influential.
Singling out X-Files because The X-Files was based on the same conspiracies it fictionalized is kinda silly. Sleep paralysis used to be attributed to completely different myths a century ago. People have always been crazy. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
- Sure, it was based on them, but it also popularised them from the province of a tiny number of cranks to almost a mass movement, with newspaper articles and TV programmes about conspiracies and aliens. Also, saying "let's not write about people being wrong" would end RationalWiki, wouldn't it? Bicyclewheel
19:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
- I think that the point of having an X-Files article is actually strengthened by highlighting such examples as the changing pop cultural attribution of sleep paralysis. It shows how a work of fiction can if not create then at least spread and popularise particular myths and conspiracy theories and do so inadvertently (I doubt the X-Files meant for or expected this to be taken seriously). It illustrates a kind of interdependent relationship between pop culture and conspiracy theory. ScepticWombat (talk) 19:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
- That's pretty much my view right there. The X-Files certainly didn't invent the conspiracy theories it mined for story material — without them, there wouldn't have been a show. And like ikanreed said, the vast majority of ufology is, itself, taken from pop culture depictions of aliens, going back all the way back to how Betty and Barney Hill's "gray aliens" looked suspiciously like the alien from a then-recent episode of The Outer Limits. Nor do I even think that it was intended to popularize or otherwise promote those theories. Most likely, someone looked at that material and thought a cool, scary story could be made out of it. What it did do, however, was act as a "gateway drug" for a lot of credulous people who might not have heard of a lot of that stuff before the show premiered. To this day, it's pretty much the granddaddy of any TV show that's even remotely about aliens, conspiracies, or both (and which isn't set in the future), and if you look at, say, David Icke's stuff about shape-shifting aliens ruling the world (which he didn't really codify until 1999), some of its "mytharc" did in fact trickle back into the conspiracy subculture. KevinR1990 (talk) 00:32, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
- I think that the point of having an X-Files article is actually strengthened by highlighting such examples as the changing pop cultural attribution of sleep paralysis. It shows how a work of fiction can if not create then at least spread and popularise particular myths and conspiracy theories and do so inadvertently (I doubt the X-Files meant for or expected this to be taken seriously). It illustrates a kind of interdependent relationship between pop culture and conspiracy theory. ScepticWombat (talk) 19:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
The text in the edit section for new suggestions is a big block and I can't find where to edit it.
Suggestion is the website "Egomoral"; to give you the rundown its a pedophile website recent featured on FSTDT in several disgusting comments such as this gem:
"Age of consent laws conflict with biology, history and principles of equal rights. The age of consent laws in modern society revolve around cultural taboos, illogical maternal instincts among women voters suffering from Child-Bride-Denial. I say this because the reasoning for age of consent laws is to protect children from being manipulated into having sex with adults since feminism views children as overly emotional and easily swayed. The irony is that men used to use this exact excuse to deny women their right to vote…"- webwub
— Unsigned, by: Akiyama Yuu / talk / contribs 00:57, 17 March 2015
- perhaps start a section in Pedophilia to start with ? Hamster (talk) 20:32, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
There's a few hints here and there on RW on libertarian related pages about statelessness and how awesome it would be, and I was wondering if a page about how shitty statelessness is would fit with the mission of RW. In all honesty, I'm not sure how much cranky woo there is out there on this - my interest stems from studying statelessness in a legal context, specifically the UK government removing people's citizenship and making them stateless. But I'm sure I've heard plenty of libertarian and other woomeisters go on about how awesome being stateless is, which anyone with 2 minutes of research under their belt can tell you is a pile of bollocks. If there's support for a page on this, I'm happy to make a start on it, but I'm concerned that it doesn't really fit in RW. Thoughts? Pascal yuiop (talk) 13:20, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- Seems like a good idea. We touch on it at Somalia, but I think that's about it. Why not also add an entry at RationalWiki:To do list/Suggestions]? Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 13:51, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- Isn't that considered a human rights violation? Landmartian (talk) 14:20, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- Nope - the key word is "arbitrarily". The UK government is permitted to remove your British nationality if the Home Secretary considers that doing so would be "conducive to the public good". Yeah. Previously, this could only be done if you had another nationality to fall back on and wouldn't be left stateless, but the Immigration Act 2014 added another section that permits statelessness 1) if the person has conducted themselves in a manner seriously prejudicial to vital UK interests and 2) they are able to acquire another nationality. 1) is just as dodgy a test as the existing one, and in practice, no 2 is never going to be satisfied. Anyway, legal rant over. The UK government can deprive people of their citizenship, many other countries do too. But statelessness is pretty shit. Anyway, what was I talking about? Pascal yuiop (talk) 15:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- Sounds interesting. Where would a stateless person be deported to? Antarctica? nobsI was in Bagdad when u wer in dadsbag. 19:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- They don't seem to have considered that. The usual tactic is to wait until the person leaves the country (for a holiday or whatever) and then remove their citizenship so they can't come back in. Fine if they have another nationality like in the past, but if you've made them stateless, the host country isn't obliged to accept them like second hand clothes. They would get sent back here. And if they're in this country (which is a minority, but still a problem) then you're right, there is literally nowhere to send them. Even if they originally came from, say, India, India would have no obligation to admit a stateless person into the country so they can attempt to gain nationality. Further, what countries are going to be keen on accepting a person who the UK has stripped of their citizenship on the grounds that they are involved in terrorism, which is usually the allegation? The only country that would let them in is a country where we wouldn't want them to be. Pascal yuiop (talk) 20:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- What I don't get is why unwanted people get deported to the country they were trying to get away from. They're obviously gonna try to get away from it again. Why even waste airplane fuel on that? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:20, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- the host country isn't obliged to accept them ...They would get sent back here.
- Easier said then done. If the UK denies them citizenship, they have no right to return. And I'm not certain the host country can force them to take somebody back. nobsI was in Bagdad when u wer in dadsbag. 22:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- The host country allowed their entry on the basis of their British passport and they therefore have the right to deport him back to the country that issued that passport i.e. Britain. Fairly uncontroversial, but overlooked by the politicians. EDIT - I should say, this relates to when a person is in another country when their British citizenship is removed. If they are in the UK at the time, then you would be unable to deport them to another country because a) now they have no passport and b) no other country is obliged to allow the entry of stateless people, or anyone for that matter that isn't one of their nationals. Pascal yuiop (talk) 22:45, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- Ir's not like a person's without choices, a person could convert to Islam and move to the Islamic State; I think this may be true for converts to Judaism and Zionism as well, but I'm not sure. nobsI was in Bagdad when u wer in dadsbag. 01:58, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- 1) Forced conversion? In this day and age? Also, IS is not a country under international law and therefore you can't deport someone there. Also, it's a SUPER good idea to send someone we think is heavily involved in terrorism TO the mardi gras of terrorism [/sarcasm]. 2) Israel's policy isn't just "be jewish and we'll let you in". Their law states that they can refuse entry even to Jews if the person (1) is engaged in an activity directed against the Jewish people; or (2) is likely to endanger public health or the security of the State. All UK deprivations have been on the basis of national security, so how likely is it that Israel will agree to let the person in? And anyway, what if the person has zero connection to Israel and has no desire to settle there? Even then, you wouldn't acquire citizenship immediately on arriving in Israel, you would still have to apply and Israel could still turn you down - the vast majority of countries have a "good character" requirement for gaining citizenship. Pascal yuiop (talk) 08:18, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- Ir's not like a person's without choices, a person could convert to Islam and move to the Islamic State; I think this may be true for converts to Judaism and Zionism as well, but I'm not sure. nobsI was in Bagdad when u wer in dadsbag. 01:58, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- The host country allowed their entry on the basis of their British passport and they therefore have the right to deport him back to the country that issued that passport i.e. Britain. Fairly uncontroversial, but overlooked by the politicians. EDIT - I should say, this relates to when a person is in another country when their British citizenship is removed. If they are in the UK at the time, then you would be unable to deport them to another country because a) now they have no passport and b) no other country is obliged to allow the entry of stateless people, or anyone for that matter that isn't one of their nationals. Pascal yuiop (talk) 22:45, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- Easier said then done. If the UK denies them citizenship, they have no right to return. And I'm not certain the host country can force them to take somebody back. nobsI was in Bagdad when u wer in dadsbag. 22:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- the host country isn't obliged to accept them ...They would get sent back here.
- What I don't get is why unwanted people get deported to the country they were trying to get away from. They're obviously gonna try to get away from it again. Why even waste airplane fuel on that? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:20, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- They don't seem to have considered that. The usual tactic is to wait until the person leaves the country (for a holiday or whatever) and then remove their citizenship so they can't come back in. Fine if they have another nationality like in the past, but if you've made them stateless, the host country isn't obliged to accept them like second hand clothes. They would get sent back here. And if they're in this country (which is a minority, but still a problem) then you're right, there is literally nowhere to send them. Even if they originally came from, say, India, India would have no obligation to admit a stateless person into the country so they can attempt to gain nationality. Further, what countries are going to be keen on accepting a person who the UK has stripped of their citizenship on the grounds that they are involved in terrorism, which is usually the allegation? The only country that would let them in is a country where we wouldn't want them to be. Pascal yuiop (talk) 20:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- Sounds interesting. Where would a stateless person be deported to? Antarctica? nobsI was in Bagdad when u wer in dadsbag. 19:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- Nope - the key word is "arbitrarily". The UK government is permitted to remove your British nationality if the Home Secretary considers that doing so would be "conducive to the public good". Yeah. Previously, this could only be done if you had another nationality to fall back on and wouldn't be left stateless, but the Immigration Act 2014 added another section that permits statelessness 1) if the person has conducted themselves in a manner seriously prejudicial to vital UK interests and 2) they are able to acquire another nationality. 1) is just as dodgy a test as the existing one, and in practice, no 2 is never going to be satisfied. Anyway, legal rant over. The UK government can deprive people of their citizenship, many other countries do too. But statelessness is pretty shit. Anyway, what was I talking about? Pascal yuiop (talk) 15:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- On an even darker side of things, the Dominican government left around a million people stateless when it ruled that Dominican children borne of Haitian parents are not Dominican citizens based on an obscure interpretation of an even more obscure law from 1920 still on the books. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦
Burning this game would be an insult to fire. 20:10, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, obviously the main thrust of the article would be statelessness in general. First move by dictators to persecute a minority is usually to take away their nationality - Hitler and the Jews, obvious example. Also lots of people get left stateless because children don't get registered or the system is shoddy and migrants fall through the gaps or even just that countries break up (like Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia) and the nationality issues aren't sorted out properly and people get left stateless. Loads of angles to look at, and its pretty horrible being stateless. Hannah Arendt famously described nationality as "the right to have rights". Pascal yuiop (talk) 20:13, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- Guantanamo is relevant. Many (most?) detainees are stateless, either legally or de facto. They can't be convicted (lack of evidence in most cases), released (not US citizens or legal immigrants) or deported (their home countries won't allow them back), so they're just held indefinitely. Wéáśéĺóíď
Methinks it is a Weasel 20:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- Guantanamo is relevant. Many (most?) detainees are stateless, either legally or de facto. They can't be convicted (lack of evidence in most cases), released (not US citizens or legal immigrants) or deported (their home countries won't allow them back), so they're just held indefinitely. Wéáśéĺóíď
- Yeah, obviously the main thrust of the article would be statelessness in general. First move by dictators to persecute a minority is usually to take away their nationality - Hitler and the Jews, obvious example. Also lots of people get left stateless because children don't get registered or the system is shoddy and migrants fall through the gaps or even just that countries break up (like Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia) and the nationality issues aren't sorted out properly and people get left stateless. Loads of angles to look at, and its pretty horrible being stateless. Hannah Arendt famously described nationality as "the right to have rights". Pascal yuiop (talk) 20:13, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- Statelessness "and how great" it would be? Tell that to this guy[wp]. Alsto003 (talk) 20:55, 1 March 2015 (UTC) Alex
Be careful not to conflate different concepts of statelessness. When libertarians (or anarchists) talk about "statelessness and how awesome it would be", they're talking about the ideal of a stateless world: a utopia where there's no government, no taxes, no laws, no borders, etc. Whether or not that's practical or desirable is another question, but it's a completely different kettle of fish from the experience of individuals who are left stateless in a world where governments, laws, borders and citizenship are a big deal. Weaseloid
Methinks it is a Weasel 20:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- Years ago I read a memoir by an American guy who fled to Canada to avoid the Vietnam draft, and then, with the wisdom of an 18-year-old, renounced his US citizenship to protest the war before thinking about how Canada won't just bestow citizenship on an undocumented migrant. So even after Carter's amnesty, it was years before he could go home; he missed his mother's funeral and other key life events because he was stateless and could not cross the border. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 20:40, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
- Perhaps the oddest story I've heard is that of David Hicks. He was an Australian who found himself in Gitmo and he noticed that British citizens had a much better chance of being released than others, and lo and behold he was able to claim British citizenship via his mother. There was a big stink in the UK about this, but in the end the government agreed that he was legally entitled to british citizenship. One day, David received two letters - the first congratulated him on acquiring British citizenship and the second saying that he had been deprived of his citizenship. Pretty dark really. Pascal yuiop (talk) 21:09, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Since it's about two things, it should probably be written about in two places. First in Statelessness, when governments remove citizens' rights to make oppression easier. Second in Statism, to talk about why statism is at least better than the alternative. FuzzyDogPotato (talk/stalk) 00:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- That seems reasonable. I would only feel comfortable working on the former, as it is what I've studied, and leave the libertarian stuff to someone else. Pascal yuiop (talk) 08:18, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
So I recently found these two Wordpress blogs about Young Earth Creationism run by the same person: Rent-A-Friend 2000 and Creation Soapbox. They're full of the Young Earth arguments you've heard dozens of times, a lot of which you've seen in places like this. Here are the two blogs: http://creationsoapbox.wordpress.com/ http://rentafriend2000.wordpress.com/ Should we create an article (Or at least put it on the "To do list")?
- That depends. Do you see them being referenced anywhere else on the internet? There are more creationists than we could ever document, and particular blogs only need to be addressed if they're kinda important in some way or another. Ikanreed (talk) 21:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
- I don't see enough there for an article, but you could add them to the webshite list. --Castaigne (talk) 18:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Was thinking of making an article about it. It's pretty batshit crazy, does it belong on RW? Pascal yuiop (talk) 19:40, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
- Care to share the cliffnotes to us? Zero (talk - contributions) 13:19, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- There's nothing "batshit crazy" about it. The US is an unratified signatory to the Rome Convention. So far as I'm aware, it does not recognize the jurisdiction of the ICC or any other court of universal jurisdiction. US solders might be subject to personal and territorial jurisdiction by engaging in prohibited acts within the territory of a signatory nation, so it's not outside the bounds of reason that the US would do something to "protect" service members. The question is whether federal statutory obstruction of what some reckon ought to be international law with this all-or-kicking-and-screaming-less-than-nothing-and-we-might-even-invade-the-Hague approach is extreme, which it is, and evidences an arrogant and heavy handed approach to the United States' role in the UN and world community, which it does. It also represents a marked departure approach from President Clinton's circumspect approach to signing the Rome Statute and then holding off on submitting it to Congress for advice and consent (my understanding is that it's functionally a treaty under Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution — as such, it might also create problems under Article VI, which makes makes treaties the law of the land just as much as federal law). Nutty Roux (talk) 13:44, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- While I think it is indeed arrogant and ridiculous that the U.S. took this approach to the ICC, I do enjoy this particular line in the WP article on the act (emphasis mine): "The Dutch government reacted mildly to this legislation, which entitled the U.S. president to attempt to violate Dutch sovereignty by force without congressional approval." - Grant (talk) 13:59, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- Yep. Except in the criminal context, where we're familiar with people getting arrested, property getting seized, etc., people don't usually think about how a sovereign enforces the law. For example, it's sometimes surprising to people to learn that civil courts necessarily enforce their orders by the threat of coercive government power where necessary. That means that they can and will simply send the US Marshall or County Sheriff over to take the person into custody to show cause why he shouldn't be fined or locked up for contempt when he doesn't comply with an order, and seize and sell property to pay judgments when he doesn't do it himself. I think the statute represents an expected level of arrogance from the US; and there's nothing inherently surprising about the reality that the US might have to take military action against a NATO signatory or UN member state in order to enforce it. One morally and legally troubling consequence of enforcing the statute to its fullest extent is that any military action under the circumstances would necessarily entail flagrant violent violations of other treaties to which the US is a signatory. Can you imaging the international outrage over the US sending troops to the Netherlands to recover a soldier being held on charges of even heinous war crimes? And you thought the US squandered its good will in the international community by its totally incompetent (and arrogant to the point of being hateful) handling of Iraq and Afghanistan. Nutty Roux (talk) 14:16, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- Indeed. The threat of military or police intervention is largely what keeps states functioning, since I imagine a sizable minority of the population would not bother obeying laws if the state couldn't enforce them. I imagine the Dutch government took the act so mildly in part because, as you say, it's not surprising that the U.S. (or any nation) would take that approach to the act. On the other hand, I feel part of it has to do with the low likelihood of that actually happening in the first place. I wonder what kind of president it would take to risk the kind of international pariah status that would accompany such a move. - Grant (talk) 15:01, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- Yep. Except in the criminal context, where we're familiar with people getting arrested, property getting seized, etc., people don't usually think about how a sovereign enforces the law. For example, it's sometimes surprising to people to learn that civil courts necessarily enforce their orders by the threat of coercive government power where necessary. That means that they can and will simply send the US Marshall or County Sheriff over to take the person into custody to show cause why he shouldn't be fined or locked up for contempt when he doesn't comply with an order, and seize and sell property to pay judgments when he doesn't do it himself. I think the statute represents an expected level of arrogance from the US; and there's nothing inherently surprising about the reality that the US might have to take military action against a NATO signatory or UN member state in order to enforce it. One morally and legally troubling consequence of enforcing the statute to its fullest extent is that any military action under the circumstances would necessarily entail flagrant violent violations of other treaties to which the US is a signatory. Can you imaging the international outrage over the US sending troops to the Netherlands to recover a soldier being held on charges of even heinous war crimes? And you thought the US squandered its good will in the international community by its totally incompetent (and arrogant to the point of being hateful) handling of Iraq and Afghanistan. Nutty Roux (talk) 14:16, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- While I think it is indeed arrogant and ridiculous that the U.S. took this approach to the ICC, I do enjoy this particular line in the WP article on the act (emphasis mine): "The Dutch government reacted mildly to this legislation, which entitled the U.S. president to attempt to violate Dutch sovereignty by force without congressional approval." - Grant (talk) 13:59, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
- There's nothing "batshit crazy" about it. The US is an unratified signatory to the Rome Convention. So far as I'm aware, it does not recognize the jurisdiction of the ICC or any other court of universal jurisdiction. US solders might be subject to personal and territorial jurisdiction by engaging in prohibited acts within the territory of a signatory nation, so it's not outside the bounds of reason that the US would do something to "protect" service members. The question is whether federal statutory obstruction of what some reckon ought to be international law with this all-or-kicking-and-screaming-less-than-nothing-and-we-might-even-invade-the-Hague approach is extreme, which it is, and evidences an arrogant and heavy handed approach to the United States' role in the UN and world community, which it does. It also represents a marked departure approach from President Clinton's circumspect approach to signing the Rome Statute and then holding off on submitting it to Congress for advice and consent (my understanding is that it's functionally a treaty under Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution — as such, it might also create problems under Article VI, which makes makes treaties the law of the land just as much as federal law). Nutty Roux (talk) 13:44, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
All fairly reasonable, I suppose. My objection to it, really, is that the US is essentially saying "Don't you even dare try and prosecute a US citizen for genocide or we'll do anything it takes to release him." Which would be fine if the charges were super-trumped up or the guy wasn't gonna get a fair trial, or things like that, but the ICC is not a scary institution that should be getting such a reaction from the US. And the risk of the ICC actually prosecuting an American is incredibly low anyway, admissibility tests at the ICC are pretty strict, and if the US says it is pursuing investigations in good faith, then the ICC investigation is set aside on grounds of "complementarity". As a final point, I think that WP article could do with rewriting/better referencing - This article suggests the reaction wasn't so mild, though I am struggling to find other articles as my Dutch is as good as my grandmothers. Pascal yuiop (talk) 06:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I’d really like to contribute to the article on the Chinese Room, and maybe expand the coverage of Searle's argument beyond that, but I have some problems with doing so. The article seems to me to be largely a polemic against the CR argument rather than a balanced discussion here. It seems to start from the prior assumption that Searle must be wrong, indeed that he is in some sense part of the 'enemy'. Certainly no neutral point of view as in Wikipedia, even within the brief summed up at the top of the Rationalwiki main page. I hope nobody is claiming that Searle’s argument is ‘pseudoscience’ or part of the ‘anti-science movement’, let alone a ‘crank idea’ or part of ‘authoritarianism’ and ‘fundamentalism’. Then why is the article structured so as to exclude the possibility that Searle might even be right, or at least have something to contribute to rational and naturalistic debate? I notice the comment by Apostate describes these as “our arguments” That sound more like agreeing a party line than open rational discussion. Am I misinterpreting?
Now I think that there may be some misunderstanding or misrepresentation of Searle, and some arguments that are mistaken or maybe invalid. Oddly, not only does it describe all of Searle's argumants against the computational theory of mind, it doesn't even describe the common objections to the Chinese Room! As I say, I’d like to put my thoughts forward, and I think I can contribute constructively, but I’m having trouble seeing how to do this without drastic restructuring of the article, which migh come over as a hostile act. That’s not my intention. Perhaps I could intersperse material sympathetic to Searle or response to some of the argumentation in the existing article, to create a kind of Socratic dialogue?
I’d like comments in response to this, before I spend some time drafting my contribution. Thoughts, please?
Best wishes
Graham Warner — Unsigned, by: Gwarner99 / talk / contribs
- Dunno, but this is what the article's talk page is for - not the Forum space. You might even find that your concerns are answered there. Scream!! (talk) 20:52, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I was checking out the page on Truthout. I'm no big fan but some of the page on that could have been written by Conservadia http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Truthout ...for example the thing about people who are "paranoid" about GM crops. This led me to the page on GM in general. GMO foods are banned in Europe & I don't think it's because of paranoia. The page on GMO foods looks like it was written by an industry hack, no mention of the bans in Europe at all. wtf? Looks like RationalWiki is overreacting to the cranks by blindly supporting the use of GM foods, which is an emotional reaction, not a rational one. — Unsigned, by: LMM / talk / contribs
- Could you be a little more specific? For example, why do you think the European GMO ban isn't paranoid? Or how do you think RW over-reacting? MarmotHead (talk) 03:11, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
- Just read the entries on GMO at the link http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Genetic_modification#Controversy . It looks more like the kind of arguments that climate-change deniers make. Is there any doubt that Europe has good reasons for banning GMO food, given that they are the leaders in effective regulation for public health and safety? (In Europe a chemical food additive must be proven to be safe before use, as opposed to the USA which has an amazingly stupid policy that allows chemicals etc to be used in food until they are proven unsafe.)
- That's all fine and dandy how polity X pursues policy Y but since we are dealing with the subject of science, whether or not a thing is accepted by a government as "safe" (whatever that means here) is irrelevant. If anything, the EU has not explicitly banned GMOs in their collective market just the US has not "banned" Volkswagen XL1 - it's just that products failed to meet regulatory requirements for one thing or another. Second, even if the EU had banned GMOs, they certainly didn't do so on any scientific grounds as no one has yet determined a mechanism as to how GMOs do any harm to the environment or animals, much less any evidence of this harm. Space Turbo (talk) 23:10, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
- The "don't ban or regulate anything, no matter how suspect, until it's proven to kill people" ethos is a kind of mindless pseudo-libertarianism gone amok that is not rational(wiki?) Same for mocking people and putting them into the same category with anti-vaccers or anti-science for wanting to know what is inside the food they eat and wanting some assurances that extreme food alteration, whether by chemicals or at the genetic level, be proven safe before being dumped into the food supply. To many people, it's rational to assume that changing food at the genetic level could have unforeseen negative consequences that might take years to find out or might even never be totally understood.LMM (talk) 04:04, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- That's all fine and dandy how polity X pursues policy Y but since we are dealing with the subject of science, whether or not a thing is accepted by a government as "safe" (whatever that means here) is irrelevant. If anything, the EU has not explicitly banned GMOs in their collective market just the US has not "banned" Volkswagen XL1 - it's just that products failed to meet regulatory requirements for one thing or another. Second, even if the EU had banned GMOs, they certainly didn't do so on any scientific grounds as no one has yet determined a mechanism as to how GMOs do any harm to the environment or animals, much less any evidence of this harm. Space Turbo (talk) 23:10, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
- Just read the entries on GMO at the link http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Genetic_modification#Controversy . It looks more like the kind of arguments that climate-change deniers make. Is there any doubt that Europe has good reasons for banning GMO food, given that they are the leaders in effective regulation for public health and safety? (In Europe a chemical food additive must be proven to be safe before use, as opposed to the USA which has an amazingly stupid policy that allows chemicals etc to be used in food until they are proven unsafe.)
The circumcision page is loaded with outright nonsense. FGM and circumcision remove body parts with different anatomic equivalence. The clitoral hood is the female equivalent of the foreskin, and it's removed to increase sexual function and reduce infection. The male equivalent to FGM is the penectomy, which is performed on patients with penile cancer. To suggest that MRA activists have a valid point with this issue is downright disrespectful to the women who go through FGM.
I made pretty substantial changes to the article, but it was changed back two minutes later with no reason given. Intactivists shouldn't be the kind of people this site promotes. They're conspiracy theorists who pretend to be skeptics, like the Infowars crew, the Amazing Atheist, Joe Rogan, Aaron McGruder, or Bill Maher whenever he talks about medicine.
That said, I won't change the article back until I see some people who want to support this. I don't want to start an edit war.*Asterisk* (talk) 16:43, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
- In my opinion your edit was terrible & introduced lots of red herrings & false comparisons into the text. Trying to line up direct "equivalents" between various male & female forms of mutilation seems like a pointless endeavour that does nothing to improve understanding or strengthen whatever argument you're trying to make. Wéáśéĺóíď
Methinks it is a Weasel 00:18, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
- & BTW, this discussion should really be on the article's talk page, not somewhere else. Wėąṣėḷőįď
Methinks it is a Weasel 00:20, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
- It's as simple as a basic understanding of homology in males and females. We're not different atomic structures, we're not even different species, we're very similar, and it's not that hard to see them by an actual analysis of anatomical structures. Lining comparisons up is one of the most basic elements of critical thinking, and you're acting like it's impossible. If you had any ability for critical thinking on every issue rather than picking and choosing, you'd be able to see that.
- You do have a fair point, though. I'll head to the talk page, and from now on, automatically delete any comments made in this thread.*Asterisk* (talk) 02:52, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
[edit] The clitoral hood is the female equivalent of the foreskin, and it's removed to increase sexual function and reduce infection.
Citation needed. Father Vivian O'Blivion talk
17:14, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
- They're already in my article, but okay. Here's one. Here's another. If you want even more detail, take an elementary sexual anatomy course sometime. Males and females start out the same in the womb before the Y chromosome activates or doesn't activate, so it isn't that hard to find the equivalent parts.*Asterisk* (talk) 17:36, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
- If you want to argue that the prevailing "reason" for the God-knows-how-many FGM's are inflicted on girls every year is to "increase sexual function," you'll have to do better than a random website (with a headline ending in a question mark) and a Wikipedia article. Father Vivian O'Blivion talk
17:40, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
- FGM's an entirely different proceedure from clitoral hood removal, which you would already know had you actually read my edits rather than take one look at the word circumcision and post the Wiki equivalent of "pics or it didn't happen."
- Try to actually read my post this time. FGM, as defined by the NHO, is divided into four general types. The full or partial removal of the clitoris, the full or partial removal of the clitoris and inner labia, the removal of all external genitalia and the fusing of the wound, and a fourth miscellaneous category. All are horrible procedures, but the difference between them and the removal of the male foreskin is what these body parts are homologous to.
- It's not like men and women are substantially different at the genetic level. Up until the SRY gene starts its activation in the womb, men and women are anatomically indistinguishable, so all our sex organs have very close equivalents. For instance, both males and females have gonads, but on the male, the gonads are the testicles, and on females, the gonads are the ovaries. So when it comes to the matter of the various types of FGM, it's very easy to pick out the female equivalents, and likewise with circumcision. FGM Type I on a male would be the removal of the male's genital tubercle, the penis. FGM Type II on a male would be the removal of a male's genital tubercle and labialscrotal folds, the penis and the scrotum. FGM Type III on a male would be infibulation, a horrible procedure that used to be performed by the Greeks, plus a scrotal removal. That said, these are still not exact equivalents, since the male gonads are external, while the female gonads are internal. With the exception of FGM Type I, there is no way to perform these procedures that still allows the male to reproduce.
- "So what," you might ask, "is the female equivalent of the foreskin?" The clitoral hood. Which, like the male foreskin, serves no purpose to the body other than to get infected. The same can be said about tonsils, wisdom teeth, and appendixes.
- So please, if you have any respect for sexual health, stop condoning the retarded comparison of foreskin removal to FGM. They're nothing alike, and the circumcision article on this site is downright misinformation. *Asterisk* (talk) 19:29, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
- None of this has anything to do with the reasons actual FGM is performed on actual women. Father Vivian O'Blivion talk
19:47, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
- I never said anything about FGM being okay. It's a barbaric relic of witchcraft performed for no reason other than paranoid tribalism. It should never be performed on any woman. It also has nothing in common with foreskin removal or hood removal. Now could you actually read my posts for once, my friend? *Asterisk* (talk) 19:58, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
- I did. You said that FGM is performed "to increase sexual function and reduce infection." Now you're saying something else? Father Vivian O'Blivion talk
23:21, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
- I said nothing of the sort. What I said was that the true equivalent to male circumcision for females is the removal of the clitoral hood. FGM is an entirely different procedure, and it's downright offensive to suggest otherwise.*Asterisk* (talk) 02:52, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
- I did. You said that FGM is performed "to increase sexual function and reduce infection." Now you're saying something else? Father Vivian O'Blivion talk
- I never said anything about FGM being okay. It's a barbaric relic of witchcraft performed for no reason other than paranoid tribalism. It should never be performed on any woman. It also has nothing in common with foreskin removal or hood removal. Now could you actually read my posts for once, my friend? *Asterisk* (talk) 19:58, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
- None of this has anything to do with the reasons actual FGM is performed on actual women. Father Vivian O'Blivion talk
- If you want to argue that the prevailing "reason" for the God-knows-how-many FGM's are inflicted on girls every year is to "increase sexual function," you'll have to do better than a random website (with a headline ending in a question mark) and a Wikipedia article. Father Vivian O'Blivion talk
I haven't read a word one this page, but, I just want to say the bible doesn't require Circumcision anymore. But it did, in the OT. Anyway, its proven it's healthy... Pitzy 19:16, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
OK, I don’t know if you people care or not, but your Shakespeare authorship article is slowly being turned into an article normalizing the fringe theory. In fact, one edit moved it out of being a fringe theory, and the fringe theorists’ web sites are being spammed into the article as if they were reliable sources. Since one of the purposes of RW is to document the full range of crank ideas, if the Shakespeare authorship theories are not fringe but merely minority viewpoints, as the article has been rewritten to say, then it does not belong on RW and should be deleted.
As near as I can tell, the article is being rewritten using material from the Wikipedia authorship article that was overturned and rewritten after a long and contentious process. This is most likely because the editors were topic banned indefinitely by the Wikipedia admins after violating the policies too many times.
If you look at the edits from the two main editors (who may even be the same person), you will see that every edit moves the article closer to advocacy while leaving just enough of the original article to try to stay under the radar.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/SnarkMeister
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mythbuster
Now hardly anybody reads RW, so I’m certainly not going to get involved in any type of edit war to correct the situation. My few attempts were reverted and I was blocked without notice by one of the editors who is a main contributor. But I thought you would want to know that the intent of the project is being subverted. My master (talk) 05:54, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- You make good points and the alteration seems to to reverse decisions made on the article talk page two years ago. I'm rolling it back to your version unless there are complaints. WatcherIntheDark (talk) 06:24, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- Same problem with the Jesus myth theory article, it is a very very minority viewpoint and the writing appear to be dominated by advocates of the hypotheses. Given that both Jesus and Shakespeare are accept mostly by tradition nobody seriously defends the idea they don't exist because on the surface it is absurd to suggest otherwise. So our counterist are given a free run. It is a pretty big shambles all round. - π 06:27, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
You also might want to take a look at this: http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_conspiracy_theories&diff=1332499&oldid=1331555. Again, if I reverted, I feel like I'm sure to start an edit war. My master (talk) 15:14, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- I rolled that one back, and reinstated the substitution of a Guardian link
for the Fox link. Will revisit to see if the link thing was a wise choice. Alec Sanderson (talk) 15:30, 21 June 2014 (UTC) - The Guardian link looks good. Alec Sanderson (talk) 15:37, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- Based on the comments I received here, I went ahead and reverted Mythbuster's edit: http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Shakespeare_authorship&diff=1336470&oldid=1336467. My master (talk) 04:55, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Advocating against anti-Stratfordianism is a great cause. You also might want to make an edit on the education section. In Shakespear's day, not only were public schools more rigorous, you studied from sunup to sundown, and didn't have nearly as long breaks as we do in the US. Shakespeare also made some notable errors in his work that show he hadn't been to the places he wrote about. He thought Padua had a harbor, Bohemia had a coastline, France had lions, and Ancient Rome had clocks. I found a pretty good video on the subject http://blip.tv/brows-held-high/shakespeare-month-anonymous-6896889. Hell, this site should probably have a page dedicated to Roland Emmerich. His movies contain as much outright nonsense as almost anyone in Hollywood, including Robert Orci and Oliver Stone.*Asterisk* (talk) 16:27, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
On the site http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Disproving_evolution I see a possible major problem.
Consequently any of the following would destroy the theory: If it could be shown that, organisms with identical DNA has different genetic traits.
This may not be true according to how it is meant. One of the working definitions of epigenetics is the differences in individuals with identical genetics.
Just thought this might be worth bringing up.
Dizredux — Unsigned, by: Dizredux / talk / contribs
Randall Carlson and his Sacred geometry woo are all over the internet but there doesn't seem to be a single dissenting voice.
http://sacredgeometryinternational.com/randall-carlson
According to Sacred Geometry International "Randall is uniquely qualified to interpret the hidden meaning of the great masterpieces of mystical architecture, as well as esoteric and occult ritual and symbolism."
- {{sowriteit}} - David Gerard (talk) 19:19, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
A perfect way to link to bullshit websites without making them more popular. (It's quite widely used, but there might be someone out there who doesn't knows about this. If there's already a thread about it or something, my apologies.)
There is heaps of woo around pets, i've heard of alternative medicine for pets. It's a big industry with lots of money (see link below), no doubt lots of scammers. Holistic Animal Medicines: "In our practice we prescribe a broad range of the natural medicines and have been very happy with the products quality, safety and effectiveness. We particularly value the “naturopathic range” as we have great medical results". - Dr Perrine DVM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-17243094 http://www.holisticanimalmedicines.com/ http://www.animalnaturopath.com.au/ Skinnytony1 (talk) 05:59, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- "Alternative veterinary medicine"?--ZooGuard (talk) 12:53, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- I think some nutty vegan groups (a la PETA, and some others, but mostly PETA fronts) claim cats live longer and healthier on vegan diets. --Raysenn Get the paddles, he's having a cancer! 15:26, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- Homeopathic veterinary medicine is actually a thing, and a particularly odious one - David Gerard (talk) 10:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, I planned on writing an article on this a while back, or at least a section for the alternative medicine article, but it looks like something I must have never got around to. It's definitely worth covering. Wēāŝēīōīď
Methinks it is a Weasel 13:08, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, I planned on writing an article on this a while back, or at least a section for the alternative medicine article, but it looks like something I must have never got around to. It's definitely worth covering. Wēāŝēīōīď
- Homeopathic veterinary medicine is actually a thing, and a particularly odious one - David Gerard (talk) 10:00, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Actually, what's much more odious than homeopathic remedies for pets (whose only "harm", as with any other placebo, is in not actually doing anything at all) is the inadequate regulation (at least within the UK) of over-the-counter chemical treatments for pets, some of which are seriously hazardous. Bob Martin spot-on flea treatment for cats is an especially nasty example: there are literally endless examples from vets & pet owners of cats having severe - often permanent or fatal - reactions to it (e.g. see some of the horror stories posted in Amazon reviews or on the Bob Martin Facebook page) but it's still sold in virtually any British pet shop. ωεαşεζόίď
Methinks it is a Weasel 21:38, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
- I can see this taking off with the inner city hipsters Yoga Time with a Cute Chihuahua Skinnytony1 (talk) 13:23, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I think there needs to be a decently sized article on Eckhart Tolle. He's quite popular, and a lot of people don't realize his connection the New Age movement, Deepak Chopra, and self-help.
I'm tempted to go out and get a copy of his books to dissect and satirize. I know a lot of his interviews contain nothing more than word salad. Anybody got some resources? Feedback?— Unsigned, by: FantasticMrFox88 / talk / contribs
- Quite agree. My cultist former boss, who was all over Tolle, Avatar, and The Forum, gave me one of these books. I was as appalled with it as I was with the Harry Palmer nonsense about "entities". These are widely available, even in English in many European country's public libraries.

00:40, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
- Applause is all I can offer, not even fact-checking. Those are circles where I choose not to sit. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 00:46, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
- I added it to the to-do list. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 01:20, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
- Applause is all I can offer, not even fact-checking. Those are circles where I choose not to sit. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 00:46, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
- Sounds good. What can we do that the Wikipedia article doesn't? - David Gerard (talk) 19:39, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
- The WP article is a serenade. It only mentions relatively erudite criticism from christian theologians, but largely ignores criticism of Tolle's work as what we would call woo: new age nonsense. It also uncritically mentions Oprah going to great lengths to promote Tolle, where others have expressed concern that she's setting him up as a cult leader, or using him to set her own self up as a cult leader. We already know Oprah's no stranger to spiritual pseudoscience. There are also parallels to be drawn between Tolle's philosophy and Scientology/Avatar — he appears to believe in the functional equivalent of Scientology's thetans or Avatar's entities.

20:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- The WP article is a serenade. It only mentions relatively erudite criticism from christian theologians, but largely ignores criticism of Tolle's work as what we would call woo: new age nonsense. It also uncritically mentions Oprah going to great lengths to promote Tolle, where others have expressed concern that she's setting him up as a cult leader, or using him to set her own self up as a cult leader. We already know Oprah's no stranger to spiritual pseudoscience. There are also parallels to be drawn between Tolle's philosophy and Scientology/Avatar — he appears to believe in the functional equivalent of Scientology's thetans or Avatar's entities.
[edit] Some thoughts from an ex devotee to add to this page
Hi everyone, I'm not sure this is the right way for me to go about things but here goes:
I noticed that the page for International Society for Krishna Consciousness is closed - or at least, I can't edit the main (first) body of text. I imagine that some very devout devotees have come in here trying to delete things, or to post apologetic information, or something. Anyway, whatever the reason, there is something I'd like to add to it that I feel is of importance.
It is in regards to the following body of text:
"Although ISKCON is often regarded as having 'gone astray' its often bizarre beliefs and exploitative or abusive practices actually find support in A. C Bhaktivedanta's many books and recorded talks. Among the 'purports' he wrote to accompany the Srimad Bhagavatam he condones rape and encourages child marriage, and he encouraged deception and considered anyone who disagreed with him as "envious," demonic and deserving of destruction."
Firstly I must congratulate whoever wrote that for having so succinctly described the way ISKCON and its founder's writing works. For context - I'm an ex-Hare Krishna devotee - I served them for 2 years and lived in an ashram, studying the books and so forth. I'm very happy to see someone put in just two sentences the summary of what took me about a year to realize after I had left them!
To this area, perhaps at the end of the quotations from Prabhupada's works themselves, I wanted to add that his Bhagavad-Gita "As It Is" (quotation marks my own) was revised into a Second Edition by some of his successors. When I was a devotee, there was also rumour that this same selection of devotees, who formed the editing team at the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust (as far as I'm aware), also revised and edited his other books, principally the Srimad Bhagavatam and the Chaitanya Charitamrita. I've seen first-hand the original 70's Bhagavad-Gita "As It Is," and the newer Second Edition, and have noted the differences. This ties in a little with the saying that ISKCON has "gone astray," and is actually still a point of contention - devotees in my area did not want to talk about it, because if you dug too deep with who edited what and why, you might start questioning the authority of the present-day gurus.
Also, it has been said that Prabhupada's Srimad Bhagavatam has omitted large volumes of text dealing with sexual mysticism and yoga. Unfortunately, I can't verify this just yet; though I still own a copy of his Bhagavatam it isn't with me right now, and it's a very large text. Just tossing it out there to the community perhaps might get some feedback? I'd be interested to know which Bhagavatams are good to cross-reference, or if anybody has done this work before. At the very least, I know that he interprets the parts of the Bhagavatam that deal with sex, mysticism, and alternate paths of yoga practice in a very skewed light. The end result is always, "join my devotees, chant hare krishna, follow the rules."
[edit] Prabhupada's Gita, skewed verses, and why it matters to talk about/satirize it
Another addition I thought of making was a sub-heading dealing with Prabhupada's Gita, "As It Is." There are devout Hindus across book-review websites including Amazon and GoodReads who have rejected his version, on grounds that Prabhupada's polemical writing style, and his constant vilification and condemnation of those who disagree with him, is not in keeping with the true spirit of the Gita. There are also a fair number of deliberately mistranslated (I say "twisted") texts, most notably the "Brahma Havir" verse, Chapter 4, Verse 24. The Prabhupada version can be seen here. By cross-referencing it even with its own word-for-word translations, it is easy to see that the full translation offered, and the purport following, are complete nonsense. It is out of step with what Krishna is discussing before and after, and the reason Prabhupada skirts around it is because the original translation leads to the conclusion that Brahman is everything ("All is One"), a staple of Hindu belief. This verse essentially describes the nature of Brahman and the relationship between religious practitioner, brahman, and the realization of that truth (Tattva). It has been raised as an example of Prabhupada's "dirty translating" in ex-devotee websites. Unfortunately, I can no longer link to my favorite source on this topic, because the author stopped editing. See Way Back Machine's archive of it here: Hare Krishna Women.
Point being: Prabhupada's books themselves claim to be presenting the "true Vedic wisdom," and the "original" Vedic tradition. According to Prabhupada, the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition, from which ISKCON stems (but deviates from), is re-establishing an ancient religion of Krishna worship that supposedly existed before Hinduism diversified and accepted "impersonalism" as a central doctrine. As with all claims of "Truth" with a Capital T, skeptical analysis shows it to be bunk. I find his Gita is a good springboard for dissecting his views, how he put them into practice, and it might be a good way to mention the belief that Hare Krishnas are taught to believe that theirs is the "original" Hinduism, before "impersonalism," and Prabhupada justifies that belief by going to great lengths to conceal any trace of it in the actual texts he claims to present "As Is."
[edit] The Cult of Prabhupada
Probably an even better sub-heading would be one that exposes the cult of personality that Prabhupada created around himself, and that his followers pushed even further after he died. In his books and even in recordings of interviews with journalists, Prabhupada explains that the guru must be treated like God. This has been the basis of how many gurus, especially corrupt ones both past and present, have justified their demands from their devotees, including the giving of money and the hanging on to every word the guru gives.
Nowadays, it is expected in Hare Krishna circles to never question authority. While I lived with them, I could not question or talk back to, or even about, a "senior" devotee, even if their plans were obviously flawed or misguided, or they had no expertise or right to place themselves in authority. Positions of power were secretly vied for and once held, guarded closely by an elite who kept everyone "junior" to them in subordinate positions. All this, despite the scriptures themselves saying that a devotee would rise to spiritual advancement on their own merits and their own pacing, some faster than others.
The most major part of this don't question policy is to not question Prabhupada. It's actually a test of faith to see how many of Prabhupada's more outlandish and outrageous writings you believe. If you believe, for example, in Hare Krishna creationism, you will be one step closer to being initiated by a guru. If you believe that atheists are demonic and deserve destruction, you've almost got your foot in the door to get authorized to be married. That's right - authorized to be married. And if you believe their cosmology, and that we never landed on the moon, well, then you're fit for book distribution! Though there is a small faction of Hare Krishnas today who are questioning Prabhupada, they are frequently silenced and ridiculed in Hare Krishna circles. The most blatant and easily accessible space of fundamentalist Cult of Prabhupada fanaticism is the Sampradaya Sun, a kind of tabloid newspaper for Krishna cultists. The forums are particularly juicy.
The biggest marker of this Cult of Prabhupada, is the way people will parrot his speaking and writing style. Hare Krishnas have a list of jargon words and key arguments, which they try to present in their own words like real students might present an argument or fact they've learned from their teacher, but really, Prabhupada taught them to say it exactly as he did.
Some of these words include:
- "nectar" this service is nectar his nectarian speech was so transcendental
- "jaya" (rhymes with EYE, means joy or victory) I sold a book! Jaya!
- "prabhu" (means master, used to address anyone to try and make yourself look humble) nice work on books, prabhu
- "demoniac" (denotes anyone outside of the faith, really) man, universities have such a demoniac agenda.
- "envious" and "puffed up" (assumes that people's souls are "envious" of Krishna and of devotees, resulting in abusive or "forgetful" behaviour) Scientists are just puffed up, they think they know it all, but really their soul just wants to deny Krishna.
All of these words and their concomitant stock phrases, and in turn the arguments in which they appear (e.g. the Frog in the Well) can be found in Prabhupada's books, letters, and audio recordings. Luckily for researchers, they're repeated quite often, so it's easy to find examples of them. Just browse any part of the internet where Hare Krishnas are openly singing the praises of some book and become challenged (like the comments section of Amazon.com) and you'll see his arguments present, with minor variations.
In the present day, Prabhupada is believed to have even been sent directly from the spiritual world to accomplish his mission of establishing ISKCON. One of my roommates even believed this. It's an interesting process to study for academics, because it might shed light into how prophets, zealots and other such big religious teachers metamorphosis into gods or divine messengers.
[edit] Hare Krishna and Women
I've written a lot tonight so I'll be brief. The most well-known aspect of the Hare Krishnas, and the one I get questioned the most as to whether it's true, is their sexist attitudes and practices towards women. Marriage is controlled, women are seen as a lesser birth than men (and I quote, "less intelligent"). Marriage is presented to young men as undesirable, and sex is strictly for conceiving children. There are also some weird rituals that married couples are supposed to adhere to, including the invitation of a monk and congregation to witness the conception of the child, while they sing and chant mantras, though most (if not all) Hare Krishnas either don't practice that or know about it.
When I was there, we were encouraged to be Brahmacharyas (monks), at least for a few years before deciding to get married. If we came to the organization young and enamoured by the opposite sex, we were told that it was "not a marriage bureau," and scolded for thinking it was an easy way to get a family. If we did get married before accepting monastic life, it was more less treated like "girl pushups": you did it because you were weak and could not go the full mile.
Hare Krishnas are also keen on re-establishing a caste system, though not entirely in keeping with India's current system. There are even farming communities and gurukulas (lit. guru school, founded by Bhaktivedanta Swami and infamous for child sex abuse in the 80's).
[edit] Referencing for all this
All this stuff I've posted are suggestions. I'll spend some time over the next couple of weeks combing the net for some reference material. I don't have my Krishna books on me at the moment, but may be able to get my paws on them over the year. I'm really keen to expand the material on ISKCON and Hare Krishnas on here. I think whoever wrote the page on Hare Krishna Creationism did a bang up job, I'd just like to see a bit more substance and well-deserved satire on the main page describing what they're like.
Thanks for reading through all this! My name is Mr Fox and I'm happy to help in any way I can here on RW.— Unsigned, by: FantasticMrFox88 / talk / contribs
- Glad to see you have some ideas! The page actually isn't locked; you may have just missed the "edit" tab at the top-right corner. So you may feel free to integrate this into the article as you see fit. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 01:23, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
- Hope it's OK that I removed some leading spaces up above, so I could read it without scrolling sideways. Nice to see you here, Mr Fox! Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 01:35, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello all!
I'd like to write an article about AOLAnswers.com/Yedda.com site. Why? Well, it is owned by a major internet company, and it is an embarrassing depository of all kind of crank and nuttery (as well as spam and spyware).
Here're a couple links to the kinda material you can find on AOLAnswers: http://aolanswers.com/questions/senile-clinton-absolute-hope_735763158539730 (Bill Clinton is member of the KKK, and some other nonsense)
http://aolanswers.com/questions/italy-releasing-10-000-people_504141483092959#answer273113782912154 (Hippies are members of MS13 and are hardened criminals)
aolanswers.com/questions/obama-dumbest-man-world-misspelling_518314363268496#answer862107829123173 and aolanswers.com/questions/drunken-muslim-politics-government_504124983377209 and aolanswers.com/questions/told-politics-government-criminals_186537123801192 (Obama is a drunken Muslim hatemonger running around with members of the KKK)
http://aolanswers.com/questions/20-members-seal-team-6-downed_627511317387503 (Obama conspired to let Muslim terrorists kill US Marines)
Would an article about the site be ok? I don't want to waste my time writing something that would end up in a bin.— Unsigned, by: DrJAX / talk / contribs 18:35, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
- It looks like an obscure rip-off of Yahoo! Answers, which is borderline to the mission. Since AOLAnswers seems less popular, I suggest not bothering - the best the article could say is that the site exists and, like other such sites, attracts crap.--ZooGuard (talk) 20:34, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
- What ZooGuard said. Me, I'd just put a note about it on the page for Yahoo! Answers. KevinR1990 (talk) 14:37, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
The article on Christopher Monckton is outdated. It refers to Monckton as member of UKIP while he in fact has been sacked (thank goodness). Here is a source: http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/ukip-wiped-out-north-of-the-border-after-its-scots-leader-is-sacked.22833054
Can somebody adjust the article?
Thanks!
- Done. The article wasn't protected so I wonder why you couldn't do it. Zero (talk) 19:57, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
It seems to be related to a lot of things on this wiki, but there is no trace of it mentioned anywhere.Omeganian (talk) 12:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
- I assume you mean the supposed inclusion of DNA from a previous mate, in offspring of a particular couple, and not the lost Greek epic poem. The mission might be stretched to include pseudoscientific aspects of it, if there are any to be found. Is there woo being promulgated on the subject? Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 16:34, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, if you have something clearly missiony (bad science, pseudoscience, etc) for it, it'd be a fine thing - David Gerard (talk) 10:32, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
I think this site should help the debunk of Gregg Braden with an article. His way of putting science, shamanism, religion and mysticism all in a cup is dangerous, especially in the field of quantum physics and the understanding of consciousness. I saw one slide of his that was pointing to the fact that the universe has a structure similar to the one of our neural system. Is it true? Obviously in that case the thing was towards pointing to a cosmic consciousness and gods.. The obvious pseudoscience shit.
Here's some clue
http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=20811
Gianga23 (talk) 09:48, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I would, but I don't want to do some misinformation here. I'd like some information to clear things up, and show that it's only crank. If this site's about debunking pseudoscience, I think that someone who actually knows about science and serious objective epistemology should do it. I'm a law student interested in science, not a cosmologist or neurologist :D I might add it to de to do list, and wait for someone (with a clue about what he's talking about) tells it how it is.
Gianga23 (talk) 10:37, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Ok I started it, but i'm a noob, now's up to the scientist! Heeelp!
Gianga23 (talk) 10:52, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
http://www.satireandcomment.com/0508conversion.html
It's a joke right? Because there are other articles like this, but they seem fake. If it is a joke, it's an unpolite one too I think. I can't believe that one of the most free of freethinkers could do so. — Unsigned, by: Gianga23 / talk / contribs
- Yes, it is certainly a joke. Look at that website: it's all parody news, just like The Onion. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 10:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- Second paragraph:
- Hitchens, known for antitheist books and an excellent command of the english language, became seriously ill after eating a piece of toast containing an image of the Virgin Mary. "The silliness of it all was rather overwhelming so I bought it on eBay and ate it," Hitchens explained to a fellow patient, who later admitted to being an undercover reporter from Interior Design Magazine. "Unfortunately, too many people had handled the crusty relic and within a few hours I was retching. A week later I'm at death's door from the not so miraculous toast.
- You really had to ask if it's fake?--RationalViki (talk) 13:28, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Sorry :S .. Just misunderstood it, I'm italian so I couldn't capture directly the sense of joke.Gianga23 (talk) 13:30, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
- You shouldn't blame yourself. The headline is shameless clickbait designed to spread on Facebook like gonorrhea in a brothel for a temporary spike in the site's ad revenue. Just about every fake news site aside from the Onion is actively toxic to the Internet. *Asterisk* (talk) 19:42, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello everyone! I wanted to thank this website. It brought my sanity back! I'm not english so I'm sorry if I cannot speak correctly in every way but I'll try my best. Religion and more in general, woo woo have always worried and scared me; i've always had only one "faith": trust in my reason, in the beauty of the world, and the respect of life. But about a year ago i got into the woowoo thing for some months, the quantum woo woo and stuff because i thought it could be the antidote to nihilism or pessimism (not in me, but in general). I was sooo wrong. Trust in mankind, in reason, in freedom and in beauty are the best way of thinking for me, and you guys are responsiblie for having brought these values back to me. Searching for evidence, self-reliance (not without rational foundation), knowing the worth of little things and appreciating the immensity of Nature are to me now the candles in the dark of fear and superstition, the paths traced by man for man, through science and humanism. So thanks again. I have a little question for the scientific experts here. I'm a law student (so science isn't really my field) but I'm just starting to appreciate the wonders of real science, but.. Can someone explain to me in a simple and clear (rational) way what quantum mechanics REALLY is, what is the "observer effect", and the uncertainty principle? Does these studies imply or make valuable mystical or religious views of life or the involvement of human conscioussness in reality? From what I read they do not, but I find such topics, difficult to understand. So I'm asking all you skeptics and rationalists (who are involved in science and thinkin in a good way). Thanks again everyone! — Unsigned, by: Gianga23 / talk / contribs
- What you read is correct. Quantum mechanics is a set of theories that purport to explain how interactions occur on incredibly small scales (and it does a damn good job). However, as a scientific theory, it makes no implications about any views on life, mystics, religion, consciousness, etc., as those implications would not be testable or falsifiable (thus, no real physical theory could include them).
- The observer effect is sort of a hand-waving way to explain the effects of observation/measurement in quantum mechanics. Effectively, a quantum state can be in what's called a superposition (think Schrodinger's cat, which is both alive and dead until observed). Upon observing (measuring) the state, it collapses into a definite state (e.g. the cat becomes either alive or dead, not both any longer). This confuses quantum woo-meisters and sets up the consciousness debate because they think that this makes human observation special. It's important to note that any measurement, human or not, will disturb such a state. It's also worth noting that in some interpretations of quantum mechanics, quantum states are taken to represent the completeness of our knowledge about some physical state (instead of the physical state itself). Thus, a superposition state would simply imply that we don't know what the physical state is with complete certainty (e.g. we just don't know if the cat is alive or dead). Upon measuring, the state "collapses", and our knowledge becomes complete. In this picture, the observer effect becomes completely trivial and not at all mysterious.
- As for the uncertainty principles (since there are more than one), any two non-commuting operators (mathematical objects representing quantum measurements) will have some uncertainty in their measurement. The simple explanation for this is as follows. In classical mechanics, if we know the position and momentum of an object, we know everything about its trajectory. We can map out where it will go, and if we know what forces are acting on the object, we can also update our predictions to account for that as time goes on. Position and momentum are thus known as canonical variables. In quantum mechanics, position and momentum are now canonical operators, and they do not commute.
- The uncertainty principle stipulates that there is a lower bound on the certainty of our measurements in both operators. Thus, if we measure a quantum object's position with 100% certainty, its position state collapses into a point (thus it exists at a single point in space). However, the position and momentum states are related due to this canonical relation, so taking this position measurement also "collapses" the object's momentum state into a plane wave. In other words, its momentum gets smeared over all possible values. The same is true in reverse. If we measure the object's momentum with 100% certainty, its momentum state collapses into a point, and its position state smears over all space (thus, we know the object's momentum, but there's an equal probability that it could be anywhere in the space we're looking at).
- I hope that helps, and if you have any other questions, feel free to ask. - GrantC (talk) 16:03, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you so much for the explanation and sorry for the huge delay in answering,
I think I've understood the uncertainty principles pretty well, but as for the observer effect, I don't get the meaning of "quantum state", "observing" and "collapses".. And you wrote "some interpretations of quantum mechanics".. Is there one more accurate or scientific than the other?
The picture I get is more or less this (for a layman like myself): human consciousness doesn't play any role in modifying or even more creating any reality out there, when you have to measure a tiny object to which quantum physics applies, there are some equations that can make you calculate the probabilty of the position of the object...observing simply means "ah look now we know where the thing is", collapsing means "the thing is here".
So my question is simple and yet maybe trivial... Event though scientific theories as you've said (I don't wholly agree with you on this) make no implication of views on life and so on (I think the behavioural and physical study do make some deductions from how the world seems to us, at least, seen through the scientific method lens), can we actually say that serious and verifiable science falsies (I'm getting a little further here maybe) or makes very very improbable these three theses (or at least doens't confirm them)? "Atoms are conscious" "The universe is conscious" "Human consciousness changes or create external things just by itself."
For what my common sens and the little I now about science and real life they're all false... But what does peer-reviewed science tells us about them? Gianga23 (talk) 14:09, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
- I'll try to answer as best I can. The definition of a "quantum state" actually depends on your interpretation (as does the definition of "collapse"). As for which interpretation is "more correct", that's more difficult. These interpretations, in and of themselves, aren't testable. For example, in one interpretation, you can view the quantum state as a literal physical state. In other words, the quantum state contains all information about what an object is and what its properties are. There exists another interpretation in which quantum states are just states of knowledge. In other words, the quantum state represents how much we know about an object. If you want some other examples, two common interpretations are the Copenhagen interpretation and the many worlds hypothesis, so feel free to poke around Wikipedia for those. Under those definitions, it's really not possible to say which one is more accurate. The underlying science says nothing about that.
- You're correct that consciousness plays no role in this, and the picture you have is good enough. In most interpretations, an "observation" is just any measurement that causes a state to collapse (note that this isn't quite correct; there are measurements that don't collapse states - weak measurement - but that's a very complex subject). In terms of quantum mechanics, a beam of light or a stream of particles hitting a detector is an observation. The same is true for a magnetic field that collapses a spin state. There's no real need for any consciousness to be involved.
- So to answer your actual question, you really have to define what consciousness is. If you believe a quantum state is actually a physical state of an object, then collapse does contain a bit of "magic", in that it's a bit harder to understand what it means. If you believe a quantum state is just a state of knowledge, then collapse is no longer mysterious, and these observations are more like firming up our knowledge about some object's properties. Do either picture suggest that there's any consciousness behind this? No, I don't think so. It's much like the principle of least action. Just because you can use this principle to predict the exact path of a classical particle, that doesn't mean the particle is actively choosing that path.
- It's also worth considering that at the end of the day, your questions aren't falsifiable. However, it's worth noting that at the end of the day, all objects in the universe follow a set of rules (the laws of physics), and these rules aren't broken. If atoms are conscious, then they're all following the exact same rules by choice, which is impressive, given that there's no way they could all be in communication with each other. If the universe is conscious, well we can't exactly go study that, but science also doesn't do anything to support or confirm it. As to your last point, no, there's no evidence at all that human consciousness is special or can change/create things. - Grant (talk) 14:35, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Okok, thanks again. One last question: what's the entanglement? And does it provide a proof for an allaged holistic interpretation of the universe? I've read that a change to one particle is istantenously made to another, but at the same time that energy and information cannot be transferred faster than the speed of light; and if you encode information in a system it destroys the entanglement...but really, what does it mean? Is relativity still true and we live in a universe made of discrete particles that can get in a contact locally, or what?Gianga23 (talk) 15:09, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- Entanglement is a complicated problem, but no, there's no violation of relativity involved. The thing is that no information is transferred when this "spooky action at a distance" (as Einstein called it) happens. Any schemes that involve using entanglement to transfer information all require some amount of information to be sent classically (as you say, encoding information destroys the entanglement), so there's never any violation of the speed of light. As for locality, well... That's more complicated. Theoretically, there's no limit to the distance over which two particles can be entangled. In reality, however, entanglement tends to be a fragile thing, so the entire universe isn't really entangled or anything like that. Current theory suggests, however, that locality isn't necessarily a fundamental rule. More and more experimental tests are stripping away any loopholes that might exist (Zeilinger's being the latest), and it seems more and more likely that entanglement is a non-local phenomenon.
- That said, it's worth noting that this still doesn't provide any proof for any alleged holistic interpretation of the universe. It just means that something we once thought of as a given (locality) may be broken under certain cases (entanglement). - Grant (talk) 16:48, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
It's supposed to have magical healing powers against cancer and the like. I can provide any info about it, and various other alternative medicines such as oregano oil, as my mother is insane and makes me drink it when I'm ill, along with Colloidal silver. Thankfully I haven't turned into a smurf. (Yet) — Unsigned, by: Eggimations / talk / contribs
- Add it to the to do list. On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button:
on the toolbar above the edit panel. (You can indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line.) Thank you. Wéáśéĺóíď
Methinks it is a Weasel 08:03, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! Eggimations (talk) 08:10, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- I think this overlaps a bit with iodine tablets. --Tweenk (talk) 05:34, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
A skeptic and expert geneticist by the name of Razib Khan believes that human races are a genetic and biological construct, we should include his opinion on the topic. Look at Khan's gene expression blog at discover magazine.— Unsigned, by: 70.31.152.52 / talk / contribs
- Oh, look, some fuck who doesn't even have an account, who doesn't even know how to sign his own posts, has an opinion on what "WE" should do. And what "WE" should do is to provide equal time for some obscure racist crank. Eat shit, BoN. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.
00:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
[edit] Obscure racist crank
Any proof for that? That's an ad hominem.— Unsigned, by: 70.31.152.52 / talk / contribs
- Actually I think it was more of a simple insult. --Inquisitor (talk) 01:59, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- It's also completely wrong and has no proof. Razib Khan is a respected geneticist.— Unsigned, by: 70.31.152.52 / talk / contribs
- I personally don't know and don't care. It's not like there's an official, expertly-curated, international database of cranks... so demanding "proof" that someone is a crank is a bit ridiculous. It's obviously an opinion. --Inquisitor (talk) 02:07, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Then that was an ad hominem and there is no reason to NOT talk about Razib Khan in our articles 03:15, 14 October 2013 (UTC)70.31.152.52 (talk) 03:15, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- How is he notable? I see no evidence to suggest that he is. There are many PhD students out there with varying opinions. Tell me why he is special or worthy of comment. - GrantC (talk) 03:54, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- His blog is very referenced, with professors like John Hawks referencing the blog a lot, he is very notable — Unsigned, by: 70.31.152.52 / talk / contribs
- No. What are his ideas that are so notable and worth referencing? --Inquisitor (talk) 05:49, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- His idea that race as a biological construct is true and important.— Unsigned, by: 70.31.152.52 / talk / contribs
- And this great idea has paid off in a sweet blogging gig, has it? --Inquisitor (talk) 06:03, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2011/11/on-structure-variation-and-race/#.UT0Hr1cS6So read and see— Unsigned, by: 70.31.152.52 / talk / contribs
- A run of the mill racist? As if we need another article on another one. --Ray´s Super Fun Hellhole! g͘͡r̸̀a̸̶̡n̶̶͜ţ̡ ̀҉̴̨͡m̀͘͜͢e͡ ̸͟҉̷̢ỳ̸̡̀͞ơ̡̢̡ų̧r̴̀͡͝ ̡҉҉̧̛s̵̕͏̡ǫ̀́͢ų́l̵̕҉ 14:07, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- He's about the most respectable person who the
scientific racistsrace realistshuman biodiversity advocates are fans of. He himself is respectable enough to have a blog on Discover. Appears somewhat saner than many of his racist-as-fuck fans - David Gerard (talk) 19:20, 20 October 2013 (UTC)- I agree, he is respected and we cannot ignore his views because he is notable.— Unsigned, by: 174.95.168.162 / talk / contribs
- He's about the most respectable person who the
- A run of the mill racist? As if we need another article on another one. --Ray´s Super Fun Hellhole! g͘͡r̸̀a̸̶̡n̶̶͜ţ̡ ̀҉̴̨͡m̀͘͜͢e͡ ̸͟҉̷̢ỳ̸̡̀͞ơ̡̢̡ų̧r̴̀͡͝ ̡҉҉̧̛s̵̕͏̡ǫ̀́͢ų́l̵̕҉ 14:07, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2011/11/on-structure-variation-and-race/#.UT0Hr1cS6So read and see— Unsigned, by: 70.31.152.52 / talk / contribs
- And this great idea has paid off in a sweet blogging gig, has it? --Inquisitor (talk) 06:03, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- His idea that race as a biological construct is true and important.— Unsigned, by: 70.31.152.52 / talk / contribs
- No. What are his ideas that are so notable and worth referencing? --Inquisitor (talk) 05:49, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- His blog is very referenced, with professors like John Hawks referencing the blog a lot, he is very notable — Unsigned, by: 70.31.152.52 / talk / contribs
- How is he notable? I see no evidence to suggest that he is. There are many PhD students out there with varying opinions. Tell me why he is special or worthy of comment. - GrantC (talk) 03:54, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- Then that was an ad hominem and there is no reason to NOT talk about Razib Khan in our articles 03:15, 14 October 2013 (UTC)70.31.152.52 (talk) 03:15, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- I personally don't know and don't care. It's not like there's an official, expertly-curated, international database of cranks... so demanding "proof" that someone is a crank is a bit ridiculous. It's obviously an opinion. --Inquisitor (talk) 02:07, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
- It's also completely wrong and has no proof. Razib Khan is a respected geneticist.— Unsigned, by: 70.31.152.52 / talk / contribs
Well, now, do you want to account for his views in order to criticize them as being essentially bigoted and racist in nature, or do you want to account for his views in order to reinforce a biologically-deterministic story about people with darker skin than you? Lemme guess....PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.
14:33, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think there's anything bigoted or racist about his views, Razib Khan does objective science and goes wherever the evidence takes him. If races exist, then only he'll believe in it. The facts point towards that.— Unsigned, by: 174.95.168.162 / talk / contribs
- Keep fucking that chicken. --Inquisitor (talk) 18:00, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
- I'm just saying the truth about Razib Khan, why don't you tell me why you think he's bigoted and racist? — Unsigned, by: 174.95.168.162 / talk / contribs
- No answer, eh? I guess you guys really are operating from a pseudoscientific postion motivated by politics, not the truth and facts. Why do you even call yourself rational?— Unsigned, by: 174.95.168.162 / talk / contribs
- Here's an answer: please sign your posts as per the hints on your page. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.
02:50, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- Still no actual answer? I am waiting 05:42, 25 October 2013 (UTC)05:42, 25 October 2013 (UTC)05:42, 25 October 2013 (UTC)05:42, 25 October 2013 (UTC)174.95.168.162 (talk)
- Still no actual answer? I am waiting 05:42, 25 October 2013 (UTC)05:42, 25 October 2013 (UTC)05:42, 25 October 2013 (UTC)05:42, 25 October 2013 (UTC)174.95.168.162 (talk)
- Here's an answer: please sign your posts as per the hints on your page. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.
- No answer, eh? I guess you guys really are operating from a pseudoscientific postion motivated by politics, not the truth and facts. Why do you even call yourself rational?— Unsigned, by: 174.95.168.162 / talk / contribs
- I'm just saying the truth about Razib Khan, why don't you tell me why you think he's bigoted and racist? — Unsigned, by: 174.95.168.162 / talk / contribs
- Keep fucking that chicken. --Inquisitor (talk) 18:00, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
