User:FuzzyCatPotato

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
<ray comfort voice>

Deep in the rainforests of the Amazon prowls one quite peculiar creature. The natives call it the "Fuzzy Cat Potato", but we civilized folk name it Felistuberosum Labentes. An eloquent name for an eloquent creature.

An eloquent and mysterious creature. You see, the men of science and their labs and their money have yet to explain away the beauty of the Felistuberosum through that atheistic religion, evilution. Natural selection has conquered the rat, the monkey, and -- they say -- the man. [*audibly scoffs*] This is just scientific hubris. Even common sense will tell you, nothing like this could ever evolve.

Look at its head: a fat, oversized cat brain, on top of a weak little potatoid torso. Look at its belly: underneath that filthy fur, the Fuzzy Cat Potato is almost one hundred percent fat. Look at its chest: those tiny lungs can barely breathe, let alone hunt. And let's not mention that this fella produces directed antigravity particles at will.

How could something so gosh darn terrible evolve by accident, from nothing? It can't. That's just the facts, folks. That's just common sense.

If a crap needs a crapper, then a living pile of crap needs a living pile of crapper. Who is that crapper? I believe in our creator: an omnipotent, omniinebriated God.

</ray comfort voice>

The punchline? If the FuzzyCatPotato existed, it would be more solid evidence for God than intelligent design. What are the transitional steps to lepton generation?

Boardmember of the RMF. Contact me at Special:EmailUser/FuzzyCatPotato.

A Felistuberosum in its natural habitat.
Forever vigilant!

Contents

[edit] Pages I use to become Big Brother

I prayed for freedom for twenty years, but received no answer until I prayed with my legs.
Frederick DouglassWikipedia's W.svg

[edit] Essays & userspace

Feel free to edit/move anything in my userspace.

[edit] To do

[edit] A bunch of quotes on RW article quality that I generally agree with

I think theoretically it fits the mission. I don't really remember the answer I gave to it. It's not too hard on paper to report the "facts", the issue with conflicts like these is that both sides have their version of facts which at times differ greatly. Both sides also have media outlets and PR machines whose entire job has been to spin the truth on the ground to the rest of the world, and they've both been at it for decades. There's no scientific consensus to point to or hard logic involved. We don't like to admit it, but "truth" is often written after the fact, in the midst of things, it is much more murky. There is a similar problem with politics "in the midst" of things, not only is it strongly influenced by the emotion of whatever time it is being reported, and trying to actively campaign for a certain candidate using the website as a platform will only lead to issues that really won't be of much consequence after the election is over.
Hentropy
Speaking as an editor for RationalWiki, it depends on the subject.

When they go into true, hard science with little to no social issues (other than conspiracy theorists) like medicine, they are a gold mine. The site has helped me complete projects and find scientific consensuses on issues. They call out pseudoscientific bunk when it occurs, like the aspartame controversy. I would highly recommend RationalWiki portals like "Alternative medicine".

When they delve into pop culture and more sensitive social issues, like politics, sex, etc., the quality may become questionable. Generally speaking, the articles tend to give off a good summary, but at times they can get ideological and accusatory. Sometimes, it can get unscientific, too. Unfortunately, RationalWiki has a policy of trying to make everything snarky, and at times the quality suffers because of it. That said, the articles often are good places to start as they talk in ways that are easily understandable to ignorant and overly emotional people, so they are good to get a general idea of the subject and information at hand but it is not to be taken as a bible.

One thing I really enjoy about RW is their description of fallacies. They list several of them so you can easily name fallacies the next time you are having a discussion with someone.
/u/sega31098
Q: Question, you have a RW account, right? Are you one of the super-ultra-left people, or one of the ones who actually fit the "rational" bill?

A: I’ve seen a few threads on Reddit whinging about RationalWiki leftists, so I can guess your angle on this.

Back in 2008, I called for affirmative action to get more women into the sysop ranks. (This was back when becoming a sysop actually meant something.) So not only am I a filthy leftist, I’m a leftist who’s been on the site longer than 97% of the current userbase. I remember talking regularly with the founding members of RW themselves, and in general they were pretty left-leaning.

Since its founding in May 2007, RationalWiki has never been against or even apathetic to social justice. It was founded to oppose the ultra-conservative Conservapedia, remember. The site’s community from the very start was generally in support of reproductive rights, gay rights, expanded welfare, etc. That list only grew with time, to include the B and T parts of LGBT and deconstructions of privilege.

Libertarians have always whined about RationalWiki’s politics. Radfems hated us for welcoming trans women. Rationalists hated us for criticizing cyronics and LessWrong. More recently, sad male nerds have starting whinging because we oppose GamerGate. If you ask me, that’s a pretty good collection of people worth opposing.
Word^3
Hahah, I popped back to see how things are travelling here, good to see nothing has changed. Pbfreespace swinging his dick around, bickering in the coop over inconsequential shit while the wiki hemorrhages editors etc... But my absolute favourite has to be those advocating for a permanent ban, it may not have worked the first five times but sixth is the charm! Don't ever change RW.
139.130.16.222

the anti-SJW atheists, the SJ atheists, and the antitheists fight over a piddling | this | this | Oddly enough, one of the least crazily-biased critiques of RW

[edit] put this smwher

plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

[edit] Random quote

“The desire of being believed, the desire of persuading, of leading, and directing other people, seems to be one of the strongest of all our natural desires.”

– Adam Smith, The Theory of Moral Sentiments

Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
support
Community
Tools