RationalWiki:Saloon bar

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

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

What is going on?

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

  1. Donald Marshall's evidence (14:07, 3 May 2016)
  2. How do you have multiple names for an article? (12:00, 2 May 2016)
  3. A site that should be included in the Scopie's Law page (16:43, 30 Apr 2016)
  4. Metaphysics university O O (20:26, 29 Apr 2016)
  5. An ontological argument (08:08, 27 Apr 2016)
  6. Does anybody know what this is about? (22:17, 22 Apr 2016)
To do list


This page is automatically archived by Archivist
Archives for this talk page: Archive list

[edit] Animal Rights

Should we have an animal rights portal? We can include the articles on Pit bulls, Kopi luwak, and animal testing. We can also include the various animal rights groups like PETA, ALF, and ARM.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 16:06, 16 April 2016 (UTC) 16:06, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Sounds fun. How can I help? B4Xiphos (talk) 12:35, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Why not?--Harkinian | Oah! (talk) 12:58, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Sorry for the slow response, but I think the best thing we can do is to start creating more articles about animal rights topics. I will add some to the to do list.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 13:33, 20 April 2016 (UTC) 13:33, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Just make sure you guys stay nuanced and remember to focus on debunking. Animal rights look different in different parts of the world, and there is a lot of extremism and propaganda on all sides. Especially among ALF-type nuts. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:42, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Where do we want to start? I am not a fan of the radical "fur/meat is "murder"" crowd. However, I do not support cruelty to animals, nonsensical whaling, sport/trophy hunting/fishing (keep in mind I do hunt and fish, but I use as much of the animal as possible, I don't kill more than I will use, and I don't "catch and release" [i.e. torture small animals for sport]). B4Xiphos (talk) 07:55, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
A good start would be to focus on animal rights figures who all mostly invoke appeal to nature, naturalistic fallacies, in addition to extreme primitivist and unscientific views. Candidates I propose are Gary Yourofsky who is notorious for being an over-the-top misanthrope and recently has spouted vile racist sentiments towards BLM activists and Palestinians because apparently it is morally reprehensible to focus on your own survival over that of other animals. Then there's "Freelee the banana girl" who has a popular YouTube channel. She once advocated an extreme unhealthy version of raw foodism where you are supposed to only eat dozens of bananas a day only to back out of it and now advocating the equally unhealthy "raw till four" diet. She has also somewhat celebrated last year's earthquake in Nepal because it is justice for the totally unrelated event in India where people sacrifice thousands of animals, going so far as calling it a form of "karma". There's probably way more but these are some of the better examples. NameThatNobodyTakes () 09:35, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
ZOMG! I had no idea who "Banana Girl" was, but I stumbled upon a post on Instructables where she was giving "instructions" on how to be a "fruitarian". It was of course DAF, but I read it out of morbid curiosity. Needless to say, the comment section went from talking about eating delicious fruit, to breatharianism pretty quickly. I am going to see what I can look up and start sandboxing an article. B4Xiphos (talk) 09:09, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
I started sandboxing and suffered some brainbreak... Researching this is going to be torturous because I can only take so much stupid in one day. Also, I have never Wiki before, so it is a learning process. B4Xiphos (talk) 12:51, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
If you want to cut some of the workload I can assist you in your work (if you so desire that is) as I consider myself somewhat knowledgeable about veganism and I have been planning to write articles about the topic anyway. NameThatNobodyTakes () 17:37, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
I started (barely) working on an article about banana girl. I am putting it in the food/diet portal. Sadly, my filter here blocks the banana girl debunked website which I have a feeling would be a like a cliff notes saving me lots of time watching her vapid YouTube channel. I am having a devil of a time finding that Instructables post I first ran across her on. It had some relevant information (in text!, I can't stand videos) because she explained her diet woo and then crossed into some weirdness talking about how people evolved to eat fruit (we should introduce her to ray comfort, she thinks we evolved to eat fruit [and bananas are her fruit of choice], and he thinks fruit [bananas] were created to be eaten by people [never mind that pesky fact of #Horticulture] I think it would be an interesting meeting of the "minds". Who knows? Maybe sparks would fly between Banana Man and Banana Girl, and they would run away together to a remote part of the planet with no internet access. A guy can dream right?). When I find her fruity (yes, pun) comments about animals and those deaths in Nepal I will figure out a way to link that in with the animal rights portion we are supposed to be working on >.> You may help as much or as little as you want. I didn't get much done yesterday because other things came up to distract me. B4Xiphos (talk) 05:03, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
There's no way she would ever run off to an island to lead a primitivist life, which means voluntarily giving up the glorious internet because she's an absolute narcissist who thrives off the poor souls who adulate her. Could you provide the link which you can't access? Maybe I can access it (as long as the site is not filtered because of scamming). I also did some little research this morning, but I'll start posting them at your sandbox's talk page from now on.NameThatNobodyTakes () 20:14, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to edit the sandbox. you don't have to put it on the talk page unless it is something you are unsure of. This is my first stab at a wiki entry, so I know it isn't going to be perfect. freeleeexposed.co.uk/tag/freelee-the-banana-girl/ blocked by my enterprise filter as "uncategorized" B4Xiphos (talk) 03:51, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Votes on unresolved matters

The coop on Kugelschreiber was just closed as inconclusive. Hurrah! What the coop has exposed, however, was a sheer lack of clarity on several important matters. To avert ceaseless discussions on issues which apparently lack a previously established mob consensus (but should probably have one, see ceaseless discussions), let's vote! (talk) 23:22, 17 April 42016 AQD (UTC)

[edit] Should sockpuppets inherit penalties?

[edit] Yes

  1. (talk) 23:24, 17 April 42016 AQD (UTC)
  2. --JorisEnter (talk) 23:26, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
  3. Yes. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 00:06, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  4. Yes Petey Plane (talk) 00:22, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  5. This seems like a no-brainer to me. Carpetsmoker (talk) 03:38, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  6. Fuck it. Ban them all. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato Moderator (talk/stalk) 03:44, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  7. --Owlman (talk) (mail) 03:57, 18 April 2016 (UTC) 03:57, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  8. With a preponderance of circumstantial evidence, yes. It should include the mod's ability to check IP addresses, but need not (and that can be evaded) since that idea seems to scare the bejeezus out of so many.---Mona- (talk) 06:09, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  9. Yes. It's pointless blocking otherwise. The exception would be if they're so completely changed that they don't get caught, but even then they'd be advised to keep quiet about it and the assumption should be block without substantial extenuation. Annquin (talk) 08:50, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  10. As long as it's an open-and-shut case of sockpuppety. As is often the case. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:33, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  11. Blindingly obviously - David Gerard (talk) 12:34, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  12. Yes, but if time has passed and trolls have embraced resocialization after a punishment, we should give them a pass if their sockpuppet accounts will show remorse after being exposed and when they have been acting sane and rational since their return.NameThatNobodyTakes () 13:02, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

[edit] No

  1. What if a returning editor behaved well, made contributions, etc, but was then discovered to be a sock? Not talking about Kugel, just presenting a hypothetical. Lord Aeonian (talk) 01:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
    Then they should admit to their crimes and show remorse. Hopefully, the mob will then show forgiveness in return. (talk) 01:48, 18 April 42016 AQD (UTC)
    While this is theoretically possible, actually getting some sort of punishment at RationalWiki requires *significant* effort and some serious long-term problematic behaviour. Behaviour that's very unlikely to be fixed with just a new account. Carpetsmoker (talk) 03:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  2. No. Sock hunting is a mug's game that creates far more drama than it prevents. If an editor's behaviour warrants sanctions, then act / block for that behaviour. If it doesn't, then STFU and leave them be. I know it's difficult for some of you idiots to countenance that you might not be able to permanently vanquish your "enemies", but frankly, that's a personality flaw to be addressed in your own time, and not inflicted on the wiki at large. Robledo (talk) 23:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Goat

  • There needs to be reasonable cause for suspicion. We can't have sysops firing shots in all directions like Pbfreespace3 & JorisEnter did & nebulously citing "ban evasion" as a reason. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 07:06, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  • What the Modstelid said. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 20:04, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Should ban/bin evasion be penalized?

[edit] Yes, with a nice long block

  1. As I mentioned above, actually getting some sort of punishment at RationalWiki requires *significant* effort and some serious long-term problematic behaviour. Trying to get around said punishment means the user has not understood what exactly the problem is and means it's highly unlikely that they will learn. So fuck 'em. Carpetsmoker (talk) 03:42, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  2. Fuck it. Ban them all. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ Moderator (talk/stalk) 03:44, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  3. If you have been banned/binned and you don't have the decency to accept your punishment and live with it, then fuck you.--JorisEnter (talk) 06:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  4. As long as it's an open-and-shut case of sockpuppety. As is often the case. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:33, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  5. Yes. Seems obvious. Ban them all & let goat sort them out. Bongolian (talk) 04:03, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Yes, with a short block

[edit] Yes (unspecified)

  1. Proportionate to the length of the block. Banned/binned for serious offence, crush them, short ban/bin, meh. Annquin (talk) 08:50, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

[edit] No

  1. I'm not going to vote yes until I understand what the penalty would be. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 00:07, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
    If the vote above this concludes with a yes consensus (which seems likely at this point), it'd mean an extra penalty (probably in block form) on top of the inherited penalty (which would probably also be applied to the original). (talk) 00:19, 18 April 42016 AQD (UTC)
    Well gee frickin yeah, I got that part. I want to know specifics. Is the person banned for a short period? Slapped on the wrist? I need to know before I can vote affirmatively. I support this in theory. But it's like saying "Should robbers be punished?" Well yeah, but I don't think they should all be burnt at the stake or drowned in the ocean. There's a huge difference that warrants further explanation. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 00:22, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
    Added a few more specific options. Feel free to add more options/add more detailed specifications for block length as you see fit. (talk) 01:19, 18 April 42016 AQD (UTC)
  2. How would you prove it? (I'm presuming admins here are not checking IP addresses - similar to Wikipedia) If someone wanted to avoid a block on a wiki, and they acted not obnoxiously, it's very easy to do and should not be discouraged. Objective (talk) 20:41, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Goat

  • Again, there needs to be reasonable cause for suspicion. The arguments put forth in recent coop cases that "if I don't know who this B0N is I'll just assume it's a banned editor" and "it's on a dropdown menu so it's fine to do this" are stupid & irresponsible. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 07:06, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  • What the Modstelid said. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 20:05, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Does the community need to approve of penalization when rules are clearly being violated?

[edit] Yes

[edit] No

  1. We don't need a coop case for everything. ;) (talk) 23:29, 17 April 42016 AQD (UTC)
  2. no, many are obvious Petey Plane (talk) 00:24, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  3. Less coop, more action. Carpetsmoker (talk) 03:42, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  4. Fuck it. Ban them all. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato Moderator (talk/stalk) 03:44, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  5. --Owlman (talk) (mail) 03:57, 18 April 2016 (UTC) 03:57, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  6. Moderators need to step in more often and force people to the talk pages under penalty of catapult moderator protecting the page and/or binning and/or desysopping. After some blows have been dealt there for atleast a few days, it's time to coop. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:33, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  7. Theres always a possibility of a brigade of a vote on these things Sandflapjack (talk) 02:33, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Goat

  • Some consistency here would be nice. The same users who were outraged that JorisEnter could be stripped of blocking powers he was using irresponsibly (namely Mona & Joris) were pretty quick to strip another user of sysop tools s/he hadn't even used at all without seeking any community support. ŴêâŝêîôîďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 07:06, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  • define 'clearly'. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:18, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Does Kugelschreiber walk, swim and quack like an Arisboch? (not a policy or penal vote)

Just curious what people think. ;) (talk) 23:22, 17 April 42016 AQD (UTC)

Haven't been around enough to say, but this can probably be checked quite easily by just checking the IPs/browser info/etc. End the speculation, and get some conclusive answer. Carpetsmoker (talk) 03:44, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
It's obviously Arisboch, but "they" have a sacred rule against anyone checking the IP address. Apparently, that would usher in the anti-Christ and the End Times.---Mona- (talk) 07:13, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
the on going drama in the coop would suggest to me it isnt obvious. Probable, but not obvious. The certainty with such flimsy evidence is troubling. As for check user, IPs can be used to find out all kinds of stuff, particularly when narrowed down to a university or place of work. Is this site set up to handle such information? No it is not. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:50, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
WTF? Why isn't this site "set up to handle such information?" Permitting a few techie to access the info to determine a sock is not an End to Privacy as We Know It. And yes, it is bleedingly obvious that Arisboch is the Kugel cretin. Only someone who doesn't want to see it will fail to. ---Mona- (talk) 02:10, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
yes of course, anyone disagreeing with your shrill assertions must be in denial. IPs taken with information gleaned from what is posted here on this site can be used to dox indivuals, or just as bad, enough to dox the wrong person. This on its own is an erosion privacy that is unacceptable to me. As far as i am aware, there are no systems in place that would prevent any person, be they tech or mod, from accessing said information for some friviolous reasons like your witch hunt, beyond super pinky swearing that they wont. It is certainly not something the Mods were voted in to doAMassiveGay (talk) 10:01, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Let me just point out how incredibly simple it also is to still stay anonymous despite CheckUser. Forcing CheckUser is a bit like the government claiming that they'll catch the terrorists if they get to read all the cleartext internet data. Meanwhile, terrorists can move to encryption for free, fast and easy, at the click of their mouse. It's not like CheckUser is this ultimate tool of justice. It's ridiculously easy to bypass it. Like always with these things - the people that WILL be identifiable with CheckUser are the ones that don't bother hiding. I.e. good and decent editors, who then risk getting doxed. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:40, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Of course CheckUser isn't foolproof, but if you ban and/or severely ratelimit open proxies and other IP addresses that have no business being tied to a browser (e.g. Amazon EC2 and such) then it *does* make things quite a bit moer difficult. In the end, very little (if anything) if foolproof. That doesn't mean it's not a good idea. Carpetsmoker (talk) 12:06, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
what privacy policies do we have here? How robust are they? What kind of data protection agreements do mods or techs have to make? The effectiveness of check user at preventing trolls is neither here nor there if there is nothing in place to prevent abuse of check user. I certainly wouldnt trust it in the hands of some of the those loudly demanding its implementationAMassiveGay (talk) 12:57, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Yes

  1. The quacking. So much quacking. (talk) 23:25, 17 April 42016 AQD (UTC)
  2. --JorisEnter (talk) 23:26, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
  3. Quack Quack Quack. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 00:07, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  4. Mister Punch may say, "O no I never!" as much as he likes, but everyone paying attention can see what's what. SmartFeller (talk) 03:12, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  5. Fuck it. Ban them all. FuzzyCatPotato of the Freeform Hailstones Moderator (talk/stalk) 03:44, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  6. Not that it matters. This site welcomes banned-user socks with open arms. Because this site is operating per insane "rules." Expel this sock? He'll be right back and we can have five more fun coop cases with that version, and tons of drama. It's how this wiki rolls.---Mona- (talk) 05:20, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  7. Yes, and FCP's protection of him is ridiculous - David Gerard (talk) 12:44, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

[edit] No

  1. Monopolies are boring Lord Aeonian (talk) 05:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Goat

  • If the "Yes" on Kugel being Aris vote is the majority and the "Yes" vote on socks inheriting penalties is the majority will that result in his bannig or does he get grandfathered?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 03:57, 18 April 2016 (UTC) 03:57, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
    Only time will tell. ;) (talk) 04:13, 18 April 42016 AQD (UTC)
    Broadly, I couldn't care less, and the only way all of this mutual bitching and moaning affects me in the slightest is the mental filtering I have to do with Recent Changes to find edits I actually give a crap about. I really am turning into a grumpy old man. Bah humbug. Worm (talk) 13:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Ban everyone involved

So not content with cluttering up recent changes with Coop nonsense the usual suspects are now smearing their feces all over the Saloon Bar. Ban them all. Acei9 09:51, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Honestly though, do you realize what authoritarian floodgates you'd be opening if we made 'you were involved somehow in making RecentChanges/the Saloon Bar look not-nice' a legit ban reason? (Also, filtering out the RationalWiki-space from RC isn't complicated, you know.) (talk) 17:06, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Ban everyone

  1. David Gerard (talk) 12:35, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  2. Let's blow this fascist popsickle stand! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:37, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  3. After watching this, being banned would be a blessing. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 13:38, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  4. Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius.'Legionwhat do you want from me 15:33, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  5. Leuchtende Liebe, lachender Tod!--JorisEnter (talk) 15:34, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  6. KABOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!!!!!!!11111--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 16:21, 18 April 2016 (UTC) 16:21, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  7. Egalitarianism at its best! (talk) 17:07, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
  8. Do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it do it Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar?~) 02:18, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
    ...I'm late to the party, but I've been asleep for several days. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyar?~) 02:40, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
  9. MAIM KILL BURN. MAIM KILL BURN. MAIM KILL BURN... Mata a todos Ɀexcoiler Кingbolt Noooooooo! Look! Up there! 18:55, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

[edit] What does a sock look like?

It has one hole and a kind of cul-de-sac. That's also what a sausage looks like before it's finished. Broadly speaking, my ear has similar features. I'd love to ban socks of nasty people, but when we say "looks like a duck, quacks like a duck ..." do we ban platypi too? Penguins? Disney characters? MarmotHead (talk) 17:47, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Can I make an article on al-Farabi?

Al-Farabi was a Muslim philosopher who wrote extensively on political theory, he was the first to work from Plato's political ideas and create a variant for an Islamic state and society. He wasn't really an apologist so it doesn't seem missional, but I noticed we have a page on Immanuel Kant and other philosophers which do not debunk anything. I'm also planning to write a page on al-Ghazali, who was an apologist and originated the kalaam argument, along with contributing to the end of the Golden Age of Islam, which would be more missional. Lord Aeonian (talk) 00:24, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Al-Farabi is more missional than 75% of current RW articles. FU22YC47P07470 Moderator (talk/stalk) 00:47, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
I didn't know you were into Schlafly statistics, Fuzzy. ;) That said, I think the wiki could do with a bunch more articles on Islamic scholars, both the 'good' ones as the 'bad' ones. (talk) 00:55, 22 April 42016 AQD (UTC)

Ok, it's settled. Time to create another sandbox which will languish off and on as motivation comes. I still have to update the Dawah Man page with more funny stuff he's done, recently he said that Universities are designed to make people "doubt their faith in Islam." How he doesn't hear himself is beyond me. Lord Aeonian (talk) 01:37, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

What motivates you? Do insults motivate you? If so, I'll try.
  • ahem*
Dear Sir,
I wish to inform you in the most ungentlemanly of language that it has come to my attention that your hygiene is rather lacking, due to your apparent allergies to something known as "soap". Your mother was a woman of loose morals and looser clothing, and remains quite popular with the lads for reasons I do not wish to sully this letter going into. Your father always had the distinct aroma of what can only be described as wine of less than commendable quality. Your grade school teachers should be severely punished for having made the misfortune of meeting you. Your more private parts are of an embarrassing shape and/or size for your gender, and your sexual orientation if revealed to your parents, would be quite shameful.
If your parents were even capable of shame.
Which is most unlikely, given their utter lack of dignity.
Speaking of which, please tell them I send my regards, and ask your father if he had ever read the works of Gibson. I did enjoy my most recent discussion of that series with him, and would like to pursue it further. Also he's a real cad and you should be ashamed to have been sired by him.
Please take these uncouth words to heart.
With everlasting regards,
CorruptUser (talk) 05:34, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Now please make a good article, that sounds like someone I might be interested in :P.
I have to make this article, update the Dawah Man article, add the inverse Kalaam to the cosmological article, finish my Surah Like It sandbox...Lord Aeonian (talk) 23:59, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Alright, it's finished, everyone can read it here.Lord Aeonian (talk) 19:12, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Maydole's Ontological argument

Many theists are claiming that Maydole's version of the ontological argument from the The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, which is summarized here, has never been responded to. I was wondering if someone skilled in logic and philosophy could look over it and document this specific variant on the ontological argument page.

Maydole's full 40 page document can be viewed here. Maydole spends a substantial amount of time critiquing the other ontological variants before presenting his own towards the end, which he calls "The Temporal-Contingency Argument."

It would be a great asset to the wiki of anyone skilled in formal logic could put a refutation of this specific variant on our page, as I said. Also, is it the same argument we recently saw in this forum post, by chance? It seems quite similar, but with some words changed around. Lord Aeonian (talk) 23:37, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Sure, I would support this endeavour. This particular argument looks atleast as weak as the argument that appeared in our forums. Already at T2, Maydole's proof appears to bluescreen. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:54, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Maydole's full work in an interested read, at the least. Perhaps someone could do a sandbox where you and some others cooperatively take it apart? This may even deserve its own page, as the fine tuning argument does. I know more than a few people who think the Blackwell Companion, and this argument in particular, are the be all and end all of rational argument. Lord Aeonian (talk) 01:51, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
His premise T5 "If everything exists for only a finite period of time, and there have been only finitely many beings to date, then there was a time when nothing existed". Suppose time is circular, so that the distant past comes after the far future, and vice versa. If that were true, then everything that has ever or will ever exist will only exist for a finite time, since the total duration of time itself would be finite; furthermore, that would be compatible with there having been "only finitely many beings to date", since if there are finitely many beings back to the next instant (fully around the circle of time), that would be all the beings there has ever been or will ever be. But that does not require that at any particular time nothing exist; there could have been something (whether matter, or energy, or a deity, or whatnot) existing at every moment of time. Hence, T5 is false. Zack Martin talk 21:36, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Wouldn't that just mean the argument requires an A theory of time, like the kalaam? Lord Aeonian (talk) 05:50, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
I think we need to keep two issues distinct (1) Is the future "open"/"undetermined"? (2) Is the "flow" of time one of its fundamental features, or just something apparent or illusory or confused? The distinction between A and B theories fundamentally speaks to issue (2). But, my suggestion of "circular time" (see e.g. Nietzsche's eternal recurrence), it presumes a negative answer to (1), but it doesn't presume any particular answer to (2). If time is circular, then maybe its apparent "flow" is merely an illusion or confusion (B theory), or maybe its apparent flow is a real and irreducible feature of it, a further feature beyond its circularity (A theory). I agree by adding more premises about time the argument can be at least somewhat saved, but the more premises you add, the more opportunities to challenge those premises. Zack Martin talk 07:57, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
The essence of Maydole's argument, is that if there is some possible world in which T1 through T14 are all true, then then a supreme being exists in this world. Now, he classifies some of T1...T14 as merely possible (they are true in some possible world, whether or not they are true in this world, and even though there may be possible worlds in which they are false), and others as necessary (Maydole believes they are true in every possible world). Now T5 he classifies as one of those "self-evident analytic truths which are true in every possible world". Now, I agree that T5 is necessary, in the sense that it is true either in all possible worlds or in none; however, unlike Maydole, rather than necessarily true, I say it is necessarily false. In order to conclude that T5 is necessarily false, we don't need to be convinced that my hypothesis of circular time is true in the actual world, simply that it is true in some possible world. If circular time is true in some possible world, then T5 is necessarily false, hence Maydole's entire argument fails. Zack Martin talk 08:41, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Ah ok, thank you for explaining. Do you think RW should try to make an article on this, since the more educated theists swear by it? Lord Aeonian (talk) 19:21, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Trump is a much better advocate for poor citizens compared to Obama

And I'd lump the Clintons, but not Sanders, with Obama. Obama is a shill for open immigration and permissive work visa policy including H1-B and offshoring. This hurts the poor who don't have significant stock holdings in American corporations (which is the working and non working citizen population under the 50th or or maybe more percentile of wealth). It's no wonder why these people want to vote for Trump over Clinton. They're voting their interests. Obama and the Clintons have decimated the notion that the Democratic Party is of the working class. Sanders' support for illegal immigration, but not offshoring and H1 B visas, shows he is half right on wanting to restrict cheap foreign labor from being used to make American products.

I honestly believe most people who oppose illegal immigration and offshoring/work visas are really worried about economic harm as opposed to increase in crime (e.g. Mexico is sending over their rapists.). Cheap foreign labor benefits American corporations, not American citizens. Thus, only shareholders, who may not even be Americans, benefit from cheap foreign labor. Objective (talk) 22:56, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Why does immigration hurt poor people? Why does free trade hurt poor people? Just for reference, keep in mind that the global number of persons in poverty is decreasing, that the average and median incomes are increasing, and that the world as a whole has its highest levels of immigration and free trade, ever. HairyFelineTuber Moderator (talk/stalk) 00:27, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
[EC] And here's the charts to prove it:
Free trade: exports are up and trade agreements are up
Migration: foreign-born residents are up
Average income: income is up
Povery: is down, by multiple measures
Inequality: guess what? also down
And, in case you need final proof: free trade demonstrably helps the poor the most
Ffffs. Damn closed-marketeers. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο Moderator (talk/stalk) 00:41, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Is really Mexico, as a nation, organizing and literally sending over "their rapists"? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:38, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Global income inequality may have gone down, but not US income inequality. (Without minimising the harm of illegal immigrants perpetrating sex crimes, Trump was engaging in rhetorical hyperbole). Objective (talk) 00:59, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, and how the hell do you blame that on immigration? Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. Moderator (talk/stalk) 01:03, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
I think he's trying to point out that when the labor market swells, wages go down...or, in reality instead of theory, wages just never go up. Lord Aeonian (talk) 01:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
This and also when offshoring or plants are moved overseas. Objective (talk) 01:10, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
@Aeonian: Pft. It's still increasing [1][2], just not fast enough to keep pace with increased expenses. If there's a reason for that, blame the facts that the minimum wage hasn't increased ennough, that education budgets haven't kept pace with GDP, and that healthcare in the US is clusterfuck. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato Moderator (talk/stalk) 01:12, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps, but it's a meaningless endeavor. There won't be a human driven economy in thirty years, provided the markets embrace the most efficient solutions (they will), and neither Trump nor Bernie can stop the violence that will characterize the transition period. Lord Aeonian (talk) 01:15, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Pft again. Don't call it 30 years, that's unrealistic. Maybe 50 at soonest. And even then: Who's gonna design the robots? Who's gonna run the buildings that the robots work in? Who's gonna do the research that goes into DoctorBot's heuristics? Humans. Highly educated humans. Hence why we need a fucking hell of a lot more college-educated humans. FuzzyCatPotato of the Freeform Hailstones Moderator (talk/stalk) 01:35, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Repeating the same crap. There are coding algos now that write and bug test themselves and their software, self-driving cars soon, etc. Most forms of work can be broken down into a repetitive or semi-repetitive task that a deep learning computer, linked to the internet, could do much better than a human. Those tasks which couldn't be automated are in highly variable jobs, like that of a buisness CEO. Do you think everyone will become their own CEO? Doubtful. Thirty years. Lord Aeonian (talk) 01:40, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Yea, and how common are those algorithms? Who writes those algorithms? And, are you willing to put up with, say, airplanes and cars "debugging", while the descendants of 150 people are suing you? Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. Moderator (talk/stalk) 01:53, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── There are people who aren't mechanically inclined or good at programming. There are people who aren't cut out for college. They still need to have a place to live and work and get by and raise their families too. The problem with all of these trade deals is that they make Western workers compete with workers in Bangladesh and Malaysia. That must stop. And we need to start thinking in terms of why we even endure the economy as it is now constituted. Why do we tolerate markets? Why do we tolerate finance? Why trade? Muster enough political will and they can be abolished. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 02:27, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

These are quite interesting questions Smerdis which I have been thinking about for a while. Resolving them implies the complete restructuring of the way the world economy works, but I sorta feel that we are approaching the point when resolving these issues may be forced upon us.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 09:03, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
To be replaced with what? -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 20:03, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
I have absolutely no idea. What fun.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:46, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
They can work as security or police.
Also, good news about Bangladesh; they already hit rock bottom wages years ago, and their wages are starting to rise. Really we just need to get people to stop breeding like rabbits and we should be fine. CorruptUser (talk) 05:11, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

[edit] We need you!

Hello obsessive fanboys! We need you to help us analyze religion in pop culture in this new article on how religion is portrayed in pop culture, if you are an obsessive fanboy of a certain series, or are willing to analyze various forms of media, WE WANT YOU! Bubba41102The place where you can scream at me 20:40, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Is anything allowed in these articles even ultra obscure Japanese video games? Because this seems like the attempt of making very generalized TVTropes articles, not that I would be against it though.NameThatNobodyTakes () 20:54, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
It'd be best to limit it to only media where an interesting aspect of religion is portrayed. EG: Warhammer includes a purge of all human religion by an atheistic emperor who ironically becomes a worshipped god himself. FU22YC47P07470 Moderator (talk/stalk) 21:41, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Also, those articles definitely need better names. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! Moderator (talk/stalk) 21:41, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Nice picture! Though, I very highly recommend that these articles be merged into one single article. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:43, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
@revThat is what it was originally, but then everyone was like "This is quite a big undertaking, you should probably put it in seperate articles" so i did, and now i am being told it should be back at one article. we should probably vote on this, but right now i am too lazy to make one, so i will do it later. Bubba41102The place where you can scream at me 22:20, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
@fuzzy yeah i couldn't think of a better name at the time, so for now their names are going to be extremely ugly. Bubba41102The place where you can scream at me 22:23, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
You thought right before people told you what to do. I can't fathom a good reason to keep these as separate articles, honestly. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:28, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

For now, they are merged to: Portrayals of religion in pop culture. FuzzyCatPotato!™ Moderator (talk/stalk) 00:29, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm still trying to see exactly what the mission angle is on this.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:47, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Very on mission. It is a documentation of popular media's interpretation and portrayal of the supernatural. It covers 1, 2, and 4 (especially) of our purpose. Petey Plane (talk) 16:02, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
The missions are: 1.Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement. 2 Documenting the full range of crank ideas. 3 Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism. 4.Analysis and criticism of how these subjects are handled in the media.
The article is just a list which does nothing to further any of them. You might just as well create "Portrayals of homeopathy in science fiction" or "Portrayals of ALT MED in TV Series" or "Portrayals of cryptozoology in comic books".--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 06:53, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
The problem I think isn't missionality, it's that it could easily turn into a pile of garbage. Though it hasn't yet - David Gerard (talk) 17:46, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
I can't see it as anything useful. The subject of religion within popular culture is potentially limitless, what with religion having been a feature of virtually every society & being heavily reflected in societies' cultural output. Meanwhile this listicle establishes its reference points in the opening paragraph as D&D + Star Wars, & the rest of it is minutiae from a few fantasy video games from recent years. I can't see this going anywhere other than as an arbitrary fancrufty trivia list, like a TVTropes page as someone pointed out above. ЩєазєюіδWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:15, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Maybe RW could limit the cruft by requiring that each example must be a clear example of a page on religious apologetics and religious tactics that RW has -- eg, the piece shows why god of the gaps is flawed. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο Moderator (talk/stalk) 19:24, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Cannot add sources due to edit warring.

I am attempting to add several sources (see the edit history) for this page, however the local zealot wants the content to remain unsourced so as to push an agenda. I am not adding any content, only sourcing that which is there already. Any advice? Lord Aeonian (talk) 18:52, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

And here we go again! Blitz (Complaints Box) 21:59, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
My advice would be to put the material on the talk page rather than continue edit warring. It's not a race. Chill out and leave it for a while. Then go on the dark web and hire a hit man. Annquin (talk) 23:16, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Note that one sources quotes "LordEmpyrean". Said user elsewhere on reddit identifies himself as Aeonian. He's literally using himself as a source. Typhoon (talk) 08:52, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Archiving

The archive bot doesn't seem to like archive templates that are on one line (or that don't include the essentials). Please use:


Admittedly, search is not essential -- but damn handy for looking through archives. Thank you. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. Moderator (talk/stalk) 02:18, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I had been wondering why Archivist wasn't doing much.--JorisEnter (talk) 08:49, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Brazil

I wish to make some contributions about Brazil.

Someone can help me in improving this new page?

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ideological_patrolling — Unsigned, by: Nicoliver / talk / contribs

Please sign talk page entries using four tildes like this: ~~~~ or by clicking on the sign button: SigButt.png, on the toolbar above the edit panel. Thank you.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 06:53, 1 May 2016 (UTC) 06:53, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
I hate to say this after the last time a Brazilian started creating articles here, but I think you'd be better off writing in Portuguese. Your English isn't that great and that makes your writing difficult to understand. Spud (talk) 07:39, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Monthly stats

April 2016 Users: 886 (-118 (-11.75%) from May 2016 | -59 (-6.24%) from April 2015.) April 2016 Edits: 15151 (+1125 (+8.02%) from May 2016 | +29 (0.19%) from April 2015)

Overall, April 2016 represents 0.0555% of RW's total recorded 1,596,079 edits.

Users down, edits up.

Alexa numbers up, in viewers and site rank. Quantcast US numbers down, 142.9k to 131.5k views. Compete numbers down, 636423 to 469796 views. Notably, none of these are very precise.

There's a worrying downward trend in 1+ edit users and 3+ edit users. Any ideas what's up? FuzzyCatPotato!™ Moderator (talk/stalk) 14:28, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I have an idea on why this could be happening. Perhaps blocking non destructive users for no reason could be contributing to this downward trend.--BellsofSorry (talk) 11:18, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Viruses and tumors are small; ergo, they are harmless

Prime "common sense" antiscience. — Unsigned, by: FuzzyCatPotato / talk / contribs

Protons, neutrons and electrons are all super duper small, so all observable matter can be safely ignored. (talk) 19:12, 1 May 42016 AQD (UTC)

[edit] HTTPS

Could rationalwiki run over HTTPS? you can get certs for free (https://letsencrypt.org/) and i think it would be a good contribution to the site Threadnaught (talk) 20:12, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

another thing I need to get to (probably https at the LB) - David Gerard (talk) 00:33, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

[edit] What's the big deal with Larry Wilmore saying the N-Word in the context he did at the end of the WHCD?

It's not as if the white conservatives don't call Obama the N-word everyday regardless if a black American uses that word or not. Objective (talk) 21:10, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Not everyone looks up to white conservatives as a moral standard. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ Moderator (talk/stalk) 21:51, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
A lot of Willmore's set probably read funny at the writers table but did not come off funny in front of the audience, e.g. the excruciatingly endless Zodiac Killer callbacks. I suspect the "Yo Barry" closing was intended to be taken as heartfelt, but given the disjointed trying-too-hard nature of the rest of Willmore's material, it just came off as kinda weird. Leuders (talk) 22:16, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
I thought that it was a pretty good roast but the Zodiac killer joke went on way too long. I don't really care that he used the n-word but I know some people think that it should never be used in any context in any form because they don't want to normalize it. Oh if any is curious about his appearance at the dinner here is a link.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 00:59, 2 May 2016 (UTC) 00:59, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Some of his material was actually good but too uncomfortable for most of the audience. Some simply didn't land. And some was born bad. The overdrawn Zodiac killer lines are among the latter... Pizzameister (talk) 23:34, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Why does Conservapedia have this article?

"Chuck Norris on the topic of obesity" Perhaps even worse, it links to exemplary articles such as "New Atheism leadership's problem with excess weight" and "Overcoming obesity with the aid of Christian faith." I'm trying hard to take these guys seriously, but it can be very difficult. Lord Aeonian (talk) 23:39, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

take these guys seriously
Because Conservapedia:Conservative, that's why. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ Moderator (talk/stalk) 01:00, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Conservapedia? what's that? Flannan Isle (talk) 10:29, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Chuck Norris doesn't get fat... he waits... or something. Petey Plane (talk) 13:16, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
"I'm trying hard to take these guys seriously" Ummmm ... why?--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 07:18, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
So who's gonna do the side-by-side comparison of fat atheists vs fat Christians/conservatives. What's Trump weigh these days? Annquin (talk) 08:16, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Although the New Atheist leaders claim to be pro-science, 3 out of 5 of these atheist men have had issues with being overweight as can be seen HERE and HERE and HERE

So... Reasoning 101. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:13, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Makes perfect sense to me. Just needs to add the conclusion ... "Therefor GOD exists!"--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:17, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Possible sidebar addition and new project pages

When certain classes of people (libertarians+conservatives, theists, conspiracy theorists+antiscience pushers+pseudoscience believers) view RW, they each tend to have a certain reaction. Respectively: it's biased, it just hates [religion], it's a shill. Now, there are legitimate criticisms thrown at RW -- especially its bad pages. But meeting these criticisms head-on seems worthwhile. I thought that a sidebar addition might help:

*Common questions
**[[RW:WP|Is this Wikipedia?]]
**[[RW:SHILL|Are you a shill?]]
**[[RW:BIAS|Why are you so biased?]]
**[[RW:BIAS|Why are you so rude?]]
**[[RW:VIEW|What's your viewpoint?]]

RW:SHILL would discuss RW's volunteer funding, its tech details, the RMF, and mention the shill gambit; RW:BIAS would discuss RW's ScientificPOV and SnarkPOV biases; RW:VIEW would briefly express the common beliefs of most RWians (presumably pro-science, anti-religion, and broadly liberal) and that RW is open to comment and criticism; and RW:WP would be a page with the text "No", with "What is a RW article?" linked as "and here's why".

Thoughts? Are some good additions, and some not? HairyFelineTuber Moderator (talk/stalk) 20:45, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea. Wouldn't the addition of another five points to the RW sidebar make it rather long however?--JorisEnter (talk) 21:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
I wouldn't put all of those in the sidebar - we're talking about a near-negligible proportion of the readers. Perhaps a simple "What is RationalWiki?" link to RationalWiki - David Gerard (talk) 22:41, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
I also think that elongating the sidebars would be a bad move. But the idea is good, very good indeed. How about an Intercom-style message displaying on all article and talk pages for users that aren't logged in? It could have a "Got it" button too that hides it? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:05, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Also, it doesn't have to be cluttered - it could just say "Welcome to RationalWiki." or "About RationalWiki." in huge, blue (cause link) font, which leads to the above info when clicked. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:15, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
I was also considering moving the Twitter/Blog/Facebook stuff down below the toolbox and culling the Intercom and Forum links, since they're very rarely used. Although it'd be bloated, the sections that most people use would be up top.
The intercom is an interesting idea. A permanent intercom message would be kind of gross, though -- it'd be right before people read the text. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ Moderator (talk/stalk) 15:34, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

[edit] Curley Effect

So, there's this hypothesis written by some Harvard PhD students, about the "Curley Effect", named for Boston mayor Curley who chased out the non-Irish-American citizens from his city via high taxes in order to stay in power. I read the paper and got a bit intimidated by the weird math. I'm a mathematician IRL, and when I say you have too much mathamancy in your paper... Anyhoo, the basic gist goes like this. Politicians solidify power by, excusez mon Francois, fucking over their opponents' base until only their own remains, even if that means fucking over their own base. A devil's deal sort of thing for the voters. We already have an article on this sort of thing, Iron Law of Institutions. Nothing new here, politics as usual.


This paper is getting heavy promotion by rightwing nutjobs, because it provides a scientiferric justimication for "HAH! Dem Demz iz alwayz razing taxez on us harred-werking folk! In der natchure!" So the question becomes, should it be a simple addition to the Iron Law article, or its own separate piece? CorruptUser (talk) 05:40, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

that's such ridiculous garbage. Just compare it to the forced deportation of immigrants to the US, which is surely an even more effective Curley effect.
Beyond that, this just repeats that stupid idea that Republicans are "hard-working" while Dems are lazy moochers. Worth debunking in its own right.
And it'd be worth discussing how one product of taxes, welfare, primarily goes to Red States, how welfare itself doesn't go to any political ideology more than others.
FU22YC47P07470 Moderator (talk/stalk) 11:37, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Mathamancy, I love it, the perfect word for some of the crazy people that use a lot of math sounding things without really understanding how it works. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 13:11, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Someone is an [erfworld.com Erfworld] fan. :P. StickySock (talk) 13:33, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Personal tools