2015 Fundraiser

Help us beat last year's record of $7100!

Awesome! We are half way to our goal!
Goal: $7,200 Donations so far: $6687.20
93%
Free speech isn't free. Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate today!

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.
Friends.gif For previous conversations see the automagic barchives. Invision-Board-France-355.gif

What is going on?

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

RationalWiki:Forum
  1. Ted Cruz as a presidential candidate (10:45, 28 Mar 2015)
  2. How to go about engaging Holocaust deniers and other ignorant people? (06:38, 27 Mar 2015)
  3. Madokaism (16:13, 26 Mar 2015)
  4. Tom Murphy's Physics article on why we will never go to space, is he right? (20:12, 25 Mar 2015)
  5. The current state of RW's community (08:55, 25 Mar 2015)
  6. I have an idea for a new article (18:28, 22 Mar 2015)
To do list

Contents


[edit] Question The Ides of March edition

Is there a philosophic, moral, maxim or proverb that states "If any world where intelligent life arises has NOT jettisoned religion by the time it develops nuclear weapons, then that intelligent life is an evolutionary DEAD END!"


Cause I am fixin' to call the above "Momper's Law of Evolution" C®ackeЯ C®ackeЯ 04:46, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Not about religion alone, but ive seen it floated about divisive things in general--Miekal 05:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
That maxim makes no sense. Why should nukes mean no religion? Why should religion mean evolutionary dead end? What the hell is an evolutionary dead end? Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 05:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
If the majority of the intelligent species of the world where this happens STILL believes in some deity or other when their culture advance science to the point of being able to conceive, develop, manufacture a working fission bomb then the science outpaced the moral/philosophical and whatever religion will bring about the end of that species.
That's what it means.
C®ackeЯ
Beyond being something somebody might potentially use the bomb against somebody else over, i don't see how "religion in the nuclear age" = science outpacing morality". Take out religion and we still have plenty of other reasons to drop a nuke on somebody else, including sheer boredom. Religion isn't special here. --Miekal 05:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
But it is religion, rising up to crush the blasphemers that ends up killing us them!
C®ackeЯ 06:03, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Considering that the only nuclear weapons used in war were dropped by the secular United States for non-religious reasons, I'm with Miekal. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 06:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Considering that Ronald Reagan, of all people, signed the first treaty to reduce the number of nuclear weapons, I'm also with Miekal. BicyclewheelModerator 14:31, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
That is a remarkably...unlearned and shallow view of religion, actually. --Castaigne (talk) 04:20, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
there was a science fiction story that said something about if a planet has not acheived a single world government (maybe like united nations) by the time it gets nuclear weapons it usually blows itself up, but nothing specific to religion. Hamster (talk) 15:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
WOO HOO! Anyone up for a Butlerian Jihad? In all seriousness, nuclear weapons seem to have done more to help world peace than harm it. Conventional weapons and mass drafting are more than capable of ending civilization, and our pre-nuclear ancestors knew as much. They had a particular fear of poison gas as a civilization-destroying mechanism. Even Hitler (having experienced its affects first-hand) was afraid of the stuff. The story "By the Waters of Babylon" (one of the earliest and best examples of the post-apocalyptic genre), written shortly after the destruction of Guernica, features what appear to be biological weapons, firebombing, gas, and air power creating a post-civilizational wasteland. The society in Brave New World is established following a nine-year-long war with biological weapons. People were plenty terrified of war before nukes, and nukes seem to have prevented war. Mutually assured atomic destruction preserves peace. We never went to war with the USSR, and a damn good thing it was too. Anyway, nuclear jihad/crusade doesn't seem particularly likely at this point. Neither Pakistan nor Iran have or are likely to have enough ordinance to end civilization, let alone the species. Perhaps "any civilization that discovers fossil fuels before climatology is doomed to fail"?(Agrajag (talk) 17:02, 15 March 2015 (UTC))
We seem to have gotten away from the use of military-grade pesticides, but that might be just because the action isn't in areas of leafy cover so much any more. For a while, anti-missile systems were banned by treaty, since they supposedly were a destabilizing influence. I do not know if research in that direction played a part in the winding-down of the cold war, but it sure pumped a lot of tax dollars into the likes of Martin Marietta, Raytheon, and even GTE. By the way, your spell checker may have hyper-corrected "ordnance." Alec Sanderson (talk) 18:59, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
It has to be remembered, though, that while Hitler was averse to using poison gas on the battlefield or in bombardments, as were the other combatants of WWII, the British had had no qualms about (possibly) gassing rebellous Iraqis in 1920,[wp] or stopped the French and Spanish from gassing Berbers in the 1920s,[wp] or the Italians from gassing Ethiopians in the 1930s.[wp]
I seem to remember reading somewhere that Hitler may have gassed a Jew or two... 208.29.163.248 (talk) 02:44, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Godwin Bingo! I claim my $5. ProblemChimp (talk) 00:06, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
I see the problem with WMDs as similar to the claims prior to WWI about war's increasing cost and destructiveness being a deterrent: It works fine until the day it suddenly doesn't (for whatever reason) and then all goes to hell in a handbasket. ScepticWombat (talk) 19:14, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
The nuclear weapons don't necessarily cause our extinction per se but are "used" here only as a milestone, a marker for determining how best to go forward.. Take it as a "warning" if you will. I should also mention that in my mind "religion" here means "religion that is powerful enough to inform and motivate nation-states' international actions. We're always going to have a certain percentage of the population that engage in certain irrationality. It is only when that irrationality (in the guise of "religion") trumps otherwise sound international relations that we need worry. 19:30, 15 March 2015 (UTC) C®ackeЯ
I'm with Agragag, nuclear weapons have done much for world peace. We've progressed, or evolved, to butcher knifes, beheadings, and selling female slaves. nobsI was in Bagdad when u wer swirling in yur Dads' bag. 20:51, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
"It is only when that irrationality (in the guise of "religion") trumps otherwise sound international relations that we need worry." I think that's being overly optimistic and ignoring the circumstances of the actual "close calls" in terms of avoided nuclear war we've seen until now. In the various U.S./Soviet cases religion was pretty much a non-existent factor and in the case of India/Pakistan it has at most been of indirect importance (as one of the underlying factors responsible for Indo-Pakistani tensions). ScepticWombat (talk) 19:37, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Remember your lore!
In nearly every interplanetary sci-fi story (there are exceptions I think) the dominant spacefaring species has already worked out it's planetary squabbles. Even of they've kept their "religion" that religion has already crushed the opposition (religions)!
But is still follows that ANY religion that cannot accept new information will eventually conflict with reality. 20:01, 15 March 2015 (UTC) C®ackeЯ
@Cracker - Are you kidding? Remember how many fucking religions there were in Dune? The author dedicated an appendix to the religious history of the inhabited universe. Its pretty much the theme of the series. Hell, even Stargate had loonies with nukes in it.
Anyway, what I'm saying is that, while the chances of fanatics getting hold of nukes in the Middle East is not insignificant, it won't be nation-states that set the big one off. North Korea and Iran are run by lunatics, but not by suicidally insane lunatics (yet).Even if the Iranians get one (which they won't), they probably wouldn't use it. While it should be noted that both Juche and Islam embrace apocalyptic confrontation between good and evil, people in control of nation-states are generally too happy with the status quo to want to just say "fuck it, it all must go". Nuclear weapons (in the event of a Juche or Pakistani implosion/collapse) might help end the world by triggering conventional bloodbaths or exacerbating environmental degradation, but they won't be solely responsible. (On the bright side, all those great nuclear war songs may become suddenly relevant again.)(Agrajag (talk) 21:19, 15 March 2015 (UTC))
(ec) It's always struck me as fairly obvious that intelligent life will always and everywhere be a self-limiting phenomenon, with or without nukes, and with or without religions. We're still driven by programming we can't control to be fruitful and multiply. And, despite what the libertarians say, there is only so much stuff in the world. Eventually we will make oil or some other commodity so necessary for our current way of life that when we find out we're out of it and that somebody else has some, we're going to figure out a way to take it. Another nuclear war seems a certainty; when have people ever invented a weapon and failed to use it? I suspect these dynamics are common to any form of life imaginable: they're all going to reproduce and consume resources to do so. There is a simple reason for the silence of the universe; intelligent species flame out too quickly to develop interstellar travel or contacts. - Smerdis of Tlön, If you burn with an inner fire, you are already damned. 19:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
So we overshoot the carrying capacity. Does that mean total extinction, or maybe "just" a drastic population bottleneck at the rebound? 19:53, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Assuming the latter, the material culture of the survivors probably isn't going to include reasonable prospects for space travel, and the cultural culture of the survivors will probably strongly feature the notion that technology is inherently evil. - Smerdis of Tlön, If you burn with an inner fire, you are already damned. 01:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
[EC] Did somebody say "cockup before conspiracy?" Amateurs discuss tactics and strategy, while generals speak of logistics. Global reach takes a fair-sized bureaucratic system, coming with its own brand of inertial misguidance.
Still, it's worth being on the watch for nationalistic fanatics cloaking themselves in the trappings of some One True mystic system or another. As power grabbers go, they can be nasty and persistent. Alec Sanderson (talk) 19:53, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I was thinking of Hanlon's razor, but also about apparently rational decisions (almost) leading to rather nasty consequences either through mistaken assumptions, miscalculations, misinterpretations or simply bad luck. ScepticWombat (talk) 20:16, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
People have tried atheistic ideologies as proxy religions. They still ended up with tyrannical bureaucracies, personality cults, and even incorrupt bodies[wp]. - Smerdis of Tlön, If you burn with an inner fire, you are already damned. 01:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Yeah, I am mainly just fucking around

Still, we need to get rid of religion in general. SOON! 00:03, 16 March 2015 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

Fundamentalist "Our god or to hell with you" yes, but in general? Not really a priority. --Miekal 03:31, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Right. Religion that kills people and breaks things.C®ackeЯ
I have a simplification to propose: killing people and breaking things needs to go. Religion's relationship there is a weak one.
Believe me, I understand the urge to be radically anti-theistic, to take the world's ills and pile it on that one really crazy thing that almost everyone believes. But every kind of idea can be wrong, not just religious ones. And every wrong idea has ways of leading people to do irrational and harmful things. And rather than police ideas and tell people "You can't be wrong like this", I'd say a mission of education and progress is the best approach. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 13:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Any ideology can be used to kill. I'd consider racist ideologies to be more dangerous, as there's no real room for compromise there. Most religious people today (such as yours truly) don't advocate genocide or killing unbelievers. For that matter, how many people have been killed in the name of democracy? (talk) Meshakhad 18:22, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Depends on how you count.--Arisboch (talk) 00:50, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
An exception: I'm not aware of any deaths in the name of personal pacifism, even if military pacifism has a few. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
My political platform is to exterminate everyone who has a username including non-Roman characters. ProblemChimp (talk) 23:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't want to go to the camps... Σigma (talk) 00:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
What about Arabic numerals? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Serious question here - why? Does it serve a practical purpose to eliminate religion? Also, are you willing to do what it takes to do so? Religion can be eradicated; just give me enough time to pile up bodies and wield death technology. But do you really want to do that, to do what would be required to achieve your goal? Do you have the courage of your convictions in the matter? --Castaigne (talk) 04:25, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
I've toyed with the idea that the same "insanity" (let's just call it this for right now) that gives rise to creativity, (to envision how to turn a big, old log into a canoe, say) is the same as the "insanity" that sought to explain how we got here and who might be responsible, (gods). We know that these early attempts to figure out these basic queries were mostly wrong, yet there persists a remnant that takes (later) attempts totally seriously and if "you don't believe 'the truth' then my God wiill kill you, and I am the thing that She uses to do that" <<<THAT needs to stop faily soon. C®ackeЯ 17:04, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
So you're in rebellion against God. BFD. nobsI was in Bagdad when u wer swirling in yur Dads' bag. 03:10, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
if I felt such a thing existed I would most certainly be in rebellion. I don't so I'm not. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:50, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
If "rebellion against God" means "wanting to see evidence before believing an invisible wizard magicked the whole universe into being" then yeah, me too. BicyclewheelModerator 14:03, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
What? Think you're special case, or something? Think you've stumbled upon a novel or unique idea? Think the human race, since its origins, has lived in darkness and ignorance until now, when you discovered and enlightened us that there is no god? Keep deceiving yourself.— Unsigned, by: someone who doesn't know what evidence means / talk / contribs 07:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Ted Cruz

Can somebody please explain (after all the kerfluffle over Obama) how Ted Cruz, who was born in Canada, to Cuban immigrant parents, qualifies as a natural born citizen, able to run for Pres? PsyGremlin講話 09:47, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Because the average Birther probably thinks that Canada is the 51st state. Vulpius (talk) 10:15, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Because he's not brown. Duh. Queexchthonic murmurings 10:18, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
His mother was a US citizen? Wiki has her born in Delaware. Worm (talk) 10:20, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
In words, if born to immigrants or otherwise citizens of the USA, the where doesn't matter anymore. I know this is dumb but roll with it. Zero (talk - contributions) 10:28, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Because the birther nonsense was BS from the get go which right wingers would never try to peddle when it comes to "one of their own". Cruz's mother was (is?) a {"a U.S. citizen who lived in the U.S. for more than 10 years as required by the Nationality Act of 1940,"[wp] so it doesn't matter that he was born abroad any more than does Obama's parentage or even birth place (his mother fulfilled the same criteria as far as I can see).
As a loose translation of a saying of my home country goes: "Standards are good, but double standards are twice as good". ScepticWombat (talk) 10:31, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
But I thought - parentage aside - you had to be born in the US; that that is the first criterion to qualigy to run. That's why there was some doubt about John McCain being eligible because he was born in the panama Canal, or something. The birthers only bought up parentage after the Hawaii birth certificate showed up. PsyGremlin講話 10:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
IIRC, that 'natural born' phraseology is part of whatever text is that talks about presidential eligibility, but was not a term of art at the time (or even is now). It's not exactly clear what it's supposed to mean. It's not quite consistent with nationality, at least, as a naturalised citizen probably wouldn't qualify. Birthers tried to claim it meant whatever it needed to mean to disqualify Obama, ignoring precedent and common sense. On its face, however, it would seem to mean that anyone who has been a US citizen since birth would qualify, regardless of where their mother actually dropped sprog. Queexchthonic murmurings 11:20, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Seems the qualification for Pres only says "No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States" and here's a good breakdown of what a NBC is. Too bad Orly Taitz didn't read that bfore wasting all the money in court. PsyGremlin講話 11:35, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
No, no, 'natural born' clearly refers to people born through natural means. I.e. people born through caesarian sections or, more futuristically, incubated in artificial wombs can't be presidential candidates. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 19:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Don't go around giving the Birthers of the future any ideas.--Arisboch (talk) 19:11, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
It also helps that he's white. Well, as white as anybody named Cruz can be. - Smerdis of Tlön, If you burn with an inner fire, you are already damned. 12:18, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Oh, there are Birthers on Free Republic who claim he's ineligible. And then other Birthers who claim he is eligible through this or that contortion. And all of them are ignored by the Cruzites, who are don't give a damn about that because Cruz is the next coming of Reagan.
Is anyone else as happy as I am about Cruz being a nominee? I really, really hope he wins the primary. It would create the most entertaining election since 2008. --Castaigne (talk) 17:21, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
I think it is great. The crazy is gonna get out of hand this cycle. I'm kinda interested in his lack of experience though. He has about as much political experience as Obama did when he ran and Republicans went crazy about that. AyzmoCheers 17:27, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Will this be any crazier than Palin or that pizza chain guy who didn't know what Uzbekistan was? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 17:31, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Oh, much more crazy. A Cruz campaign is going to be like a combination of Family Feud, Hee-Haw, Genesis' "Jesus, He Knows Me" video, and Teabagger Central all rolled into one. He's already tried out his speeches to groups outside of his base; the jokes and hoo-rah phrases that get laughs and applause from CPAC leave everyone else flat. --Castaigne (talk) 17:52, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
So, Cruzing will be crasier than Paling or Caining due to being more wingnuttery but perhaps less obviously and breathtakingly ignorant (to even the Republican faithful)? (Cue: "I can see Russia from my house" and the Pokémon President with the "Sim City tax plan") ScepticWombat (talk) 00:13, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
To answer the specific question, anybody can run for president, to serve as president is a different question. Zillions of idiots (to wit, Dennis Kucinch, Carol Mosley Braun, Orrin Hatch, Ralph Nadar, etc etc) run all the time, i.e., solicit funds for a campaign war chest which then is used for purposes other than running for president. Fundamentally, it's a loophole Congress wrote into Campaign Election Laws whereby politicians have exempted themselves from fraudulently soliciting tax-deductable donations from the public knowing there's not a snowballs chance in hell those funds will ever be used for the purposes the public was solicited for. nobsI was in Bagdad when u wer swirling in yur Dads' bag. 03:29, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
I've always found the amount of money swirling around for US elections somewhat obscene. I imagine the sheer cost of running puts limits on who can realistically run and have a chance. Are there limits on how much a candidate can spend, or is it just go for broke? AMassiveGay (talk) 13:26, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
"Are there limits on how much a candidate can spend...." Why don't you move to North Korea, you fucking communist? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 17:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
In Presidential elections, there are matching funds available from the US Treasury to a Parties nominee if he so chooses. If the nominee takes the funds there is a cap or limit. In recent decades, nominees of both parties have had no trouble raising unlimited funds. I'd be hard pressed to name which candidates in the past 30 yrs have accepted matching funds. Matching funds are not available for other federal elective office. Some municipalities and local govt have experimented with spending restrictions, but for one reason or another these laws usually fail and are repealed or overturned.
The more interesting aspect is what is done with a candidates "war chest". Fundraising is a never ending process. Candidates routinely retire from office, with millions still sitting idly which was intended for their next election. They cannot convert the money over for personal use (as in the cases of Jesse Jackson, Jr. And John Edwards, for instance). The money must used for "political purposes", meaning the person who raised the campaign donations is free to donate to other candidates for public. In my state for example, a former high-profile Cabinet Secretary returned from Washington to run for Governor. He quickly raised $8 million to run. $2 to $3 million would have been quite sufficient; $5 million would be overkill. So the candidate appeals to the public for donations for him to run for office, but then channels donations to other candidates for State House, which insures he's going to get a rubberstamp legislature, bought and paid for. There's a zillion other examples of how this system can be abused. nobsI was in Bagdad when u wer swirling in yur Dads' bag. 19:57, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

[edit] An unsolicited testimonial

I got an email today from one of my contacts, not a RW editor:

Thank you and everyone at RationalWiki

I noticed on Face Book that a friend had commented on an article maintaining humans are a special creation, because of our fused chromosomes, among other nonsense. I couldn't find his comment, but enjoyed the many geneticists and biologists machine-gunning their New Age fluff.
So, R.Wiki to the rescue: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Collective_Evolution

I began pasting on the thread every bit of the site's woo-woo Chopra-type stuff I could find.

I can't claim any credit except for pointing him towards RW. Some of you other editors can, though :-D ProblemChimp (talk) 23:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I too enjoy seeing people using rationalwiki for its intended purpose. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 13:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Trolling Andy? Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyarnyar~) 16:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
There's a vast world outside Andy, and we do in fact MAKE IT SLIGHTLY BETTER! - David Gerard (talk) 23:23, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
There's a whole WORLD out there deserving of being trolled.
My contact now tells me that he knows Barbara Forrest - who, according to him, was the first to spot the cdesign proponentsists <ahem>issue</ahem> in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. ProblemChimp (talk) 00:40, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Interview with a former employee of Kent Hovind

Blog post of an interview of with a former employee of Kent Hovind.--(Narky Sawtooth is paranoid that Cms13ca is paranoid) (talk) 23:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

If I'm PaRaNoId, ThEn WhY aM i ThE oNe ScRaTcHiNg My ThRoaT? *scratches* Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyarnyar~) 02:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Kenneth R. Miller

Does Ken Miller[wp] deserve an RW article? a scientist who happens to be RC, and who sticks his thumb in the eyes of creationists and IDers. I think so, but it's a bit out of my field. ProblemChimp (talk) 01:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, he is cited and/or mentioned in a number of articles already. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyarnyar~) 03:07, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Well yes but - that's not the same though, is it? And, the WP article has to comply with NPOV. ProblemChimp (talk) 00:27, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
When I said "Well, he is[...]", I meant that as in "he's certainly noteworthy enough." Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyarnyar~) 01:28, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

[edit] A warning: new edit filter added

I've added a new rule to the edit filters that is supposed to prevent the conspiracy-links spammer to post again 2MB of links to some talk page. I've tested it, and so far there's been only one "true" hit (see the recent entries in Special:AbuseLog - the log message is "Conspiracy links spam"). I'll be watching it, but please keep your eyes peeled too, and report any problems to RationalWiki:Technical support - either new forms of the same user's spam that the filter is not catching, or genuine edits that are wrongly disallowed by the filter. It's supposed to affect only anonymous/non-autocomfirmed users.--ZooGuard (talk) 10:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

So, what's the rule on the filter? Just an upper volume limit? ℕoir LeSable (talk) 18:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
No. Let's just say it's more specific than that. It will also prevent that user from posting less than a kilobyte of links. :)--ZooGuard (talk) 18:51, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
What's up with the userpage spam trips? Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyarnyar~) 21:12, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
A lot of userpage spammers? And a few unfortunate newbies that get caught between the cogs. I'm not the one to complain to about that anyway, I've created only one filtering rule so far. :)--ZooGuard (talk) 21:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Oh shit, that's my plan for world domination scuppered again. ProblemChimp (talk) 00:31, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

[edit] California's Drought

So does this mean that California is doomed? Cause at this point it sure looks like they are. Alsto003 (talk) 03:21, 29 March 2015 (UTC) Alex

Canada has lots of water. They will sell it to the United States. Even if they do not want to. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 03:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt

I find this extremely entertaining binge television. It's on Netflix; it's from Tina Fey. It strongly resembles 30 Rock in many ways, and it's obliquely missional because it features a doomsday cult. It's also very quotable, and full of Firesign Theatre style detail work. If stereotypes played for laughs offend you you will not enjoy it. It's a resolutely cheerful black comedy, which is itself an achievement. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 04:29, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Inappropriate manipulation of peer review

From Biomed's blog BicyclewheelModerator 19:36, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

They should've posted a list of retractions to go with it. I would've liked to see if there was an underlying connection between the papers abusing process. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 13:04, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

[edit] English or Latin?

We've got Affirming the consequent and Argumentum ad hominem. Should we use the English names, like Argument by repetition instead of Argumentum ad nauseam, for consistency? FuzzyCatTomato (talk/stalk) 19:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Is consistency necessary? Some of these things are better known by their English names, and some by the Latin. What of it? BicyclewheelModerator 19:49, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
FCP, Is English your first language? Ad nauseam is what literate people call it. See what google has to show for "consistency" and "hobgoblin." 75.133.2.98 (talk) 19:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Because Lating sounds cooler?--Arisboch (talk) 19:59, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Latin for "until you puke" is way cooler. 75.133.2.98 (talk) 20:02, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Because it sounds less icky, being written in a dead language?--Arisboch (talk) 20:07, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Consistency isn't necessary, but it helps our articles have predictable names. Yes, English is my first language. Certainly people use argumentum ad nauseam, but that doesn't mean we should. I'll bow to the coolness factor, though. FrizzyCatPotato (talk/stalk) 20:20, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
To go way back to the most basic of answers: all terms for technically correct logical deductions(in predicate calculus) have latin names. Latin was the language of choice for logic so long that it got itself embedded in that process, just like it did for law and medicine. The terms of art, lacking good reason to change, just kinda stuck around. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 13:06, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

[edit] We won't get Poe'd again

We should've done this first, dammit. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 21:33, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Added to the link section of the article on Poe's Law. Anywhere else?--Arisboch (talk) 21:43, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support