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

What is going on?

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

RationalWiki:Forum
  1. Plant neurology? (19:21, 20 Nov 2014)
  2. Academia edu (04:44, 20 Nov 2014)
  3. WIGO World Archives (07:37, 19 Nov 2014)
  4. 2014 American Midterms (06:58, 19 Nov 2014)
  5. Is there any truth behind the book Grain Brain? (14:28, 18 Nov 2014)
  6. Facts proving Equal-Pay? (14:32, 14 Nov 2014)
To do list

Contents


[edit] Laughing at conservative Americans

There has recently been a series on Finnish TV called The Norden where Americans have been given a taste of Scandinavia, so far they've done Prisons and Religion. The Religion one took a fundamentalist preacher from Georgia and exposed him to Swedish godlessness, enjoy the incredulity. Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member Moderator 00:12, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I've just watched the religion one. I can't really say that Pastor Marty McClane made me laugh (except when he said "MOOS-LIM"). It looks like the programme makers went out of there way to choose a very calm Conservative Christian preacher who wasn't going to yell at people that they were going to Hell because they didn't believe the exact same thing as him. I did find it interesting that all those Swedish people said "No" without hesitation when they were asked if they believed in God. I'd like to see something similar done in Britain. I'm certain you'd get a lot more people thinking about it for longer and a lot more people saying "I'm not sure" and things like "I believe in something but I don't want to call it God". Spud (talk) 12:15, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Let the 2016 elephant show begin!

Considering 2012, we're two months behind already. Osaka Sun (talk) 09:15, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

One thing we should probably try to keep focus on this time is not writing it in present tense and focus on more important candidates over every possible one under the sun. Unless somebody feels up to going over it afterwards :P--Miekal 15:55, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
The Other Wiki is maintaining a list. It is fabulous. Osaka Sun (talk) 17:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
One of them is photographed with a Confederate flag in the background. Heh. I wonder if Huntsman will run again... just to make things interesting (if he gets any sort of fighting chance this time).
Anyway, what about the Dems? Is Clinton pretty much an inevitability at this point? (Agrajag (talk) 20:19, 17 November 2014 (UTC))
Unlike Romney (when "no" for him means "maybe"), Huntsman is staying back and I'd say wisely. Clinton is an inevitability. Osaka Sun (talk) 20:36, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't see a Confederate flag there on TOW. Some vexillological particulars: [1] (Tennessee state flag) [2] (Ohio state flag) [3] (Confederate flag) [4] ("Stars and Bars" battle flag) Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 20:48, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I was referring to this guy, but that seems to be the Ohio state flag draped oddly. Anyway, any ideas on who'll be the Dem. VP nominee? I'd like to see Warren push Clinton to the left, but I wouldn't like to see Warren wasted as VP. Maybe Biden? I don't recall any bans of VPs having more than two terms, and I just love that guy. Failing that, I hope it'll at least be someone interesting - not particularity enthused by Clinton, personally. (Agrajag (talk) 21:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC))
There's no rule against Biden being VP again. However, I don't see that happening. For better or for worse, Hilary is going to have to distance herself from the Obama administration a bit. To some too strong an association will seem a liability. Having Biden on the ticket might alienate those people. I can't see her picking Warren either. Maybe it is just me, but I don't think a completely-female ticket is going to fly for a lot of voters. That being said, I have no idea who she would bring on. I can't say Charlie Crist is a viable option. It would be cool if she were able to get Huntsman on a ticket since he's not crazy. It would turn some heads and be a nice, uniting ticket. AyzmoCheers 21:13, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Have you not heard the rumours? Osaka Sun (talk) 21:20, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
[ec] Ah, OK. I was wondering if that might be the one... I've added it to the gallery. Is Biden unelectable as president? I like his style. Warren seems real enough to go places too. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 21:23, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
I see what you mean about the all-female ticket. As for Huntsman, though he is more in the Eisenhower than the Reagan vein, he is a flat-taxer, so that damages his sanity rating a little. Also, this guy is worth noting. America needs its own Screaming Lord Such. Rahm Emmanuel is sane and has good name recognition. Some people are even saying that George Clooney will run. No comment on that one.(Agrajag (talk) 21:32, 17 November 2014 (UTC))
No. Biden is a gaffe machine, Rahm Emmanuel is Josh Lyman and Warren is too liberal for now (but expect her to wield much larger legislative influence). In a demographically-historic election (a Madam President after a black POTUS!) you need to have a Southerner, or at least someone who can appeal to the South, to balance the ticket. Osaka Sun (talk) 22:21, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
"American Election 57: The Return of Jimmy Carter" - Coming November 2016.(Agrajag (talk) 22:31, 17 November 2014 (UTC))
I don't know if he's unelectable. He makes a lot of gaffes but he also has a lot of knowledge and experience. For me the biggest detractor is his age. I'm of the mind that there should be an age max, as well as minimum, for the presidency. I don't want another president with dementia. Biden is pretty old and would be the oldest president at inauguration. I don't welcome that idea. But no, no conflict with him serving as vice president since he hasn't served as president for two terms (the only qualification required for VP is that they can serve as the president). AyzmoCheers 22:57, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
The fix is in: Walker/Rubio (just getting that on the record a priori). Biden will be as old as Reagan was he became demented (take your pick which he is being referred to). What if Hillary decides not run? Anyway, the American people are sick of being silenced into submission by accusations of bigotry, so I doubt they will fall for this Democratic strategy after being silenced and intimidated for 8 years. Nice try, but it won't work again.
@Agrajag: Ohio is a confederate state? what kinda drugs are you on? nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 02:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Walker can barely even speak (but when has that stopped candidates before!) and Rubio, well... the bigotry accusations aren't exactly coming out of nowhere, you know. And being silenced and intimidated? You've been shouting from the rooftops what you've wanted for 8 years! Osaka Sun (talk) 04:53, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
@Nobs The drugs of odd flag drapery :D. The fold made the Ohio star appear to be on a bar. Anyway, I can't see Walker having much centrist appeal - he hasn't exactly endeared himself to labor supporters, and the center is what they'll go for if they have any sense. He does, however, have free name recognition from the recall. As for Rubio, I think that they'll want to keep him where he is for now instead of killing his career in the VP office. (Agrajag (talk) 18:09, 19 November 2014 (UTC))
What about this guy? I hadn't heard of him before, but he sounds pretty sensible. (Agrajag (talk) 18:12, 20 November 2014 (UTC))
Do not fuck with Jim Webb. Osaka Sun (talk) 18:49, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

[edit] good books?

I'm about finished with Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy. Got any suggestions for books to read when I'm done with it? Greatnecro (talk) 11:35, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

The Lone Ranger and Tonto Fistfight in Heaven. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 11:40, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Harry Harrison - Bill, The Galactic Hero; and, The Technicolor Time Machine. ProblemChimp (talk) 13:47, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Assuming you've got some sort of kindle ereader then just go random. Let's face it, most books nowadays cost less than a pint of decent ale and if you find that a book isn't to your taste - well, not every ale is a winner either. In addition most e-book sellers have a "people who bought this also bought..." bit and, by following that, I've found all sorts of gems.
So, why no actual recommendations - because I have no idea what you like (beyond HHG). But you have and it's so easy to find it. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 13:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Incidentally the British Amazon suggests that those who bought HHG also bought Pratchet, George Orwell and Catch 22. You could do far worst than read any of those. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 14:04, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Hard to pass up the chance to recommend more top tier British satirical sci-fi/fantasy: the Discworld series by Terry Pratchet. Ikanreed (talk) 14:41, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
I enjoyed the HHGTTG thing. Must learn to forget to hit the ground some time. More recently, I've become a fan of William Gibson. For those who have been out of it on anxiety meds for the last couple of decades or so (see his novel, Zero History[wp], for how that could work) Gibson is the fellow who wrote "Johnny Mnemonic". If you start with "Neuromancer" you will find what it means to say, "Case, mon, Garvey a tug." Continuing through the trilogies will take a while. Wouldn't mind going through them again, me. Alec Sanderson (talk) 14:59, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Ibn Khaldun[wp], Muqaddimah. nobsIt all depends what ISIS is.
Michelle Cliff's No Telephone to Heaven is a good read.168.91.255.100 (talk) 20:37, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

[edit] I cut into my sleep schedule for this

I just finished a massive overhaul of our bioidentical hormone replacement therapy article. I think it's ready for Silver status, but I'd like other people to weigh in on it first. Star of David.png Radioactive Misanthrope 12:03, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, neat, I learned something. Ikanreed (talk) 14:42, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Bit short, but looks solid. Hey, go for it - David Gerard (talk) 12:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Looks good. Nullahnung (talk) 13:44, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Is this related to some sort of crazification factor?

Where is the other 20+ percent of unemployment coming from? ThiehWhat is NOT going on? 17:38, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

It's an extension of stalled wage gains since the recession. Decades of pre-2008 inequality + high oil prices + high health care costs + high education costs = Malaise. Osaka Sun (talk) 23:30, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
U.S. Dept. of Labor churns out a monthly Unemployment rate based upon a household telephone survey which asks, "are you presently looking for work?" The disillusioned, disadvantaged, drug addicted, and hopeless say, "no", which places them on the "workforce ineligible" list, which makes them subhuman, and they don't count in the number. Same as a deadbeat sitting on his ass collecting unemployment who is not activiely looking for work, however they must purger themselves weekly to attest they are looking for work just to draw benefits. In a nutshell, "The Unemployment Rate" is quack-economic science designed to cater to politicians needs, not econometric science. nobsIt all depends what ISIS is. 02:26, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
"In a nutshell, 'The Unemployment Rate' is quack-economic science designed to cater to politicians needs, not econometric science." I wonder how you would rate the methodological quality of the unemployment rate if we had this discussion sometime around 2004-2007, when Bush was just re-elected and unemployment was still under 6%. Probably very differently. Osaka Sun (talk) 04:54, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
"Same as a deadbeat sitting on his ass collecting unemployment who is not activiely looking for work" -- is the alternative a deadbeat sitting on his ass collecting unemployment who is actively looking for work?168.91.255.100 (talk) 20:42, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

[edit] We've upset the American Thinker

Perhaps we should talk about it on the American Thinker page. Apparently we don't pick on Leftists or left-wing conspiracy theories at all. ClothCoat (talk) 19:53, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

American Thinker - link added to save anyone else the physical exertion of typing it in. I assume that is a commode that AT is sitting on? Very appropriate. ProblemChimp (talk) 22:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

[edit] To mainspace?

I think Essay:The_Biblical_position_on_transgenderism has enough material to be mainspace. Aye, nay? Any thoughts? What title should I give it? FuzzyCatTomato Life is far too important to ever talk seriously about. 23:37, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd check DeMyer's Second Law of Internet Debating for formatting/elaboration. Just saying. ThiehZOYG I edit like Ken! 01:24, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
It's not bad overall (though it does look like mostly quotes), but it could do with a few tweaks if you mean it for mainspace. You've repeated some text (in the "God hates crossdressers" and "God hates long-haired males" sections). You've also confused some terms when using the phrase "male-to-female transvestites" to describe post-op transsexuals. Transvestites are cross-dressers: men who wear women's clothes, or vice-versa. They aren't necessarily transsexual (gender dysphoric) and it's unorthodox (& potentially transphobic) to refer to a post-op transsexual as a transvestite (which would imply she's still a man, just dressing up as a woman).
The essay also seems a little unfocused on whether it's really about what the ancient authors of the Bible believed about transgender people (which is kind of loaded question since they wouldn't have understood the concept in those terms, if at all) or whether it's about what Christians in our own time can or should believe. Also, who are Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance & are they really a source worth quoting? From looking around their website, it looks like they probably just exist as a website & not much else. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 01:51, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Forgot to add: I don't think much of the argument that "By this logic, one should never do anything that wasn't part of God's initial creation or ancient Jewish society . . . This would preclude Christians from flying airplanes or reading books". Believers look to the Bible for guidance on how to serve God & interact with other people, not what technology to use. WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 02:05, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
@K61824, I'm not sure what you mean.
@Weaseloid, thanks. I fixed the transvestite/transsexual mistake and altered the repeated text. The topic of the essay is on what Christians "should" believe, I suppose. "Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance" is the official name of http://religioustolerance.org. I removed said argument. FuzzyCatTomato Life is far too important to ever talk seriously about. 02:15, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
OCRT are pro-religion but generally a pretty okay source - David Gerard (talk) 12:18, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

[edit] YEC and expansion of space and starlight problem

Question: If difference in the rate of expansion of space can be used to explain the Horizon problem, what is stopping YEC to use the exact same method to explain the starlight problem? A stream of photons being stretched in space is probably still a stream of photons. ThiehMonitoring virgin birth experiment 01:19, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that we have methods to check the distance of extra-solar (and extra-galactic) bodies, and those methods suggest distances far larger than 6000 ly in the case of some of the farther out bodies in space. You would need a massive amount of inflation to account for this, as bodies that started at 6000 ly away 6000 years ago would have to move out to many billions of ly away in that period of time. We can fairly reasonably conclude this didn't happen because inflation on that scale within such a recent time frame would definitely leave a trail.
There is, of course, significant evidence suggesting that after the first bout of (potential) inflation when the universe was young (the proposed solution to the horizon problem), the expansion began to accelerate in a much more "controlled" manner. Specifically, we can roughly equate the rate of expansion at different points in the universe's history to the relative energy contributions of matter, radiation, and dark energy during said periods. For the most part, everything after inflation is proposed to occur (very early on after the Big Bang) checks out pretty well. - Grant (talk) 05:45, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support