User talk:141.134.75.236

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
New logo large.png Welcome to RationalWiki, Anonymous editor!

Please see our guide for newcomers and our community standards.

If you are interested in contributing, please read what our articles are intended to be.

While you are most welcome to continue to edit as, and be identified by, your IP address, you might prefer to create an account (they're free!), or log in if you already have one.

If you create an account then your IP address will not be displayed and you will be subject to fewer restrictions as an editor.

Tell us how you found RationalWiki here!

;)
Important Notice: When I use this emoticon, I mean to communicate that I'm 'just kidding' and/or that my intentions are friendly/genuine.
It definitely doesn't imply anything sexual or sensual.
Or does it? ;)  ~141.134.75.236

Welcome to the wiki! Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 17:07, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. ;) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 17:33, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Why don't you take out an account? It's weird to see high-effort posts from an IP. A bunch of numbers doesn't suit you. Star of David.png Radioactive Misanthrope 09:20, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

But I like my numbers! :D 141.134.75.236 (talk) 09:21, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Create an account with the numbers as the account name.

Contents

[edit] "De-censoring"

I think that the proper word for that is "whitewashing", not censorship. Not that it matters much though. But I'd like to see more sources in that article. Looking at the history, it's the creation of a single user.--ZooGuard (talk) 19:44, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Whitewashing is kinda like censoring out bad stuff, but yeah, I guess whitewashing is a more accurate description in this case. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 20:10, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Would you like an account?

If you did, we could make you a sysop too. брэндэн (talk) 22:21, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer, but I'm content with the situation as it is currently. ;) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:23, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Good edit

Thanks. Landmartian (talk) 20:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. ;) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:01, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

[edit] pls make account

i want give rights, but you is IP. Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 21:08, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Aww, but I like being a bunch of numbers. I also suck at usernames. :/ 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:19, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Nothing stopping you from having a bunch of numbers as your username. --TiaC (talk) 22:28, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, but wouldn't that be pretty sucky for a self-chosen username? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:32, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
You could have a username of all punctuation. SophieWilderModerator 22:47, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Sounds kinda interesting at first, but still pretty so-so. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:59, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

A username of "141.134.75.236" would help fight the Actual Username Hegemony and bring justice to millions of stereotyped BONs. Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 00:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

plus the !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! on your edits get old, when you're not clearly insane, like rob or something Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 00:17, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Every IP edit gets marked as a potential wiki-crime? Now that's some serious anti-number racism. >.> 141.134.75.236 (talk) 01:08, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
fite the hegemony, make acct Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 01:12, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Wouldn't registering a username mean I'm submitting to the hegemony? ;)
I'm also pretty sure you can't make usernames that correspond with IP addresses. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 01:15, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
So call yourself User:IP 141.134.75.236. Landmartian (talk) 01:21, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
That only solves the latter point though. ;) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 01:26, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Number usernames fight the hegemony. DOn't question IT Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 02:02, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── plus usernames halp fit teh illuminaughty and kitteh hufferz Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 08:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Omfg just do it Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 15:47, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Protip: Telling people what to do doesn't necessarily make it more likely that they'll do the thing you want them to do. ;) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 15:55, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Since 141.134.75.236 is soooper unhelpful, I think it's time to abuse my power for my personal goals Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 16:08, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
I fail to see how power abuse would convince me to take your suggestion to heart. You're free to give it a go, though. ;) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 16:19, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Ceiling cat already tried the soft sell and it didn't work. Landmartian (talk) 16:22, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Please pardon our error

You appear to have been accidentally blocked by our edit filter system. We apologize for our bot's error, and I have taken action to correct the problem. You should have no further issues. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 02:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Ah, no worries. Thanks for fixing the problem. ;) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 02:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Even if you refuse to submit to my fully reasonable and in no way coercive demands to get a fokken account, I kindly ask that you never ever use ";)" again, because of my personal immediate reaction whenever I see said winky smiley face.

Why? This is why. unless you do want basically everyone on RationalWiki's penis inside you Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 03:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Now that's just silly. It's not because something can be interpreted in a sexual way that all its other meanings need to be completely banned from use out of fear for confusion. And since I'm anti-sex, that particular meaning is obviously not the one I want to convey except jokingly, perhaps. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 03:24, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Are you saying that you're a winky apologist? Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 03:34, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps. ;) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 03:38, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
this video is relevant Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 01:20, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't show any, uh, explicit content, right? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 02:08, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
... Noooooo... Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 02:21, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, notice those #HeGotTheWrongImpression and #Perv hashtags? I guess your link supports my point then. ;) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 02:54, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
JUST CONFORM
TO THE NORM
Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 03:30, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for assuring me that I don't conform to the norm. ;) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 03:54, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Um...

You don't see the problem with a comparison of laws against screwing animals to Jim Crow? Seriously? King Skeleton (talk) 08:55, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Ah, good catch. I just read that as referring to the law not always being a reliable source of morality. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 10:07, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Emotional plea

"Excellent voice acting."

-- New York Tim

"Irresistible."

--FuzzyCatPotato

"If you don't comply with FuzzyCatPotato's demands, you will be universally oppressed and hated, just like mah boy Hitler."

--Franklin Roosvelt

My emotional plea to you. Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 03:44, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

btw just press the little "sound" button to hear it in all its sadness Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 03:45, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Heh, sounds nice. I'm sorry to inform you, though, that emotional pleas really don't work on me. :/
And from the sound of it, those puppies will be crying tears of sad no matter what I decide anyway. :/ 141.134.75.236 (talk) 10:21, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
How can you say no to this?!--TiaC (talk) 10:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
I can say "Aww" to it and rub it behind the ear. Making an account, on the other hand, isn't gonna change anything to the doggy's state of mind. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 10:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

[edit] You seem interested in exactly the same things as David Gerard; including Roko's Basilisk and their chicken coop discussions; sock puppet investigation time.

Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 00:50, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Lol, good luck with that, since I'm not Gerard. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 00:55, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Conservative username troll

The conservative username troll has been around for a few years now, he regularly signs up with trolling usernames and the best thing is just to ignore him. Some of us like to change his name to the opposite of his name. BicyclewheelModerator 15:03, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Wouldn't conservatives be insulted to hear that user called the "conservative username troll"? Landmartian (talk) 15:27, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
And? I mean sure we could get into "Far Right Omniphobic Conservative username Troll" as a name, but it;s a bit long--Miekal 16:49, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Your opinions

On Qur'anic scientific foreknowledge, usually I break up each claim into two sections: The claim text, with quotes from the Qur'an removed; and quotes from the Qur'an. Do you think this hurts its readability? Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 04:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore, I include the entire section of the foreknowledge claim, such as introductions, rather than just the "X is true" portions. Is this good or bad? Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 04:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
  1. As long as the relevant Qur'an verses can be easily accessed through links, I don't think there's anything wrong with that aproach.
  2. Perhaps you can take out some of the less relevant paragraphs. But if anyone wants the tl;dr version, you usually provide a summary of the claim at the bottom of the section. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 13:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Your ethics

Re: "Why does coercion matter, if it produces good consequences?" "Why does slavery matter, if it produces good consequences? See what I did there?" Is there ever a point at which you would accept slavery if it produces good consequences? Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 00:46, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh believe me, at the end of the day I'm a consequentialist all the way. But that doesn't mean we can't declare some things as being immoral in a general sense. I don't think abolishing taxation would be a good idea, but we can at least admit the coercive aspect of it is unfortunate, no? Since you seemed to be dismissing coercion as being morally irrelevant, I replaced coercion with a very similar but vastly more controversial concept. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 11:46, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
So then, why do you believe that coercion (or slavery) morally relevant? Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 22:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Do you think the enslavement of millions of Africans was a morally neutral event then? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 22:48, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
I haven't said anything about my beliefs; I'm merely asking why you think coercion and slavery are morally relevant. Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 23:00, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Because they reduce the coerceds'/enslaveds' happiness, for one thing. They also empower people who have no problem with coercion/slavery, who tend to be more likely to commit immoral acts than people who do have a problem with these practices. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 23:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
So coercion is bad because it violates principles of happiness utilitarianism? Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 23:25, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
It usually does, yeah. Though, speculating where you intend to take this, I'd add that I tend to value happiness that is freely chosen above enforced happiness. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 23:46, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Glorious proposal

come support my thing pretty pls Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 02:00, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Articles for deletion discussion

You may wish to comment on the ongoing articles for deletion discussion about article "John Duffield". Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 02:49, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

*sees the developing drama over the proposed John Duffield page*
*quietly backs away* 141.134.75.236 (talk) 05:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Your thoughts, again

Qur'anic scientific foreknowledge is the third longest page on the wiki. Do you think it would be worth it to break it up? If so, how should it be done? Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 00:24, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I have no problem with long pages, but if you wanna split it up, I'd divide it by subject ("Qur'anic scientific foreknowledge of biology" or "Qur'anic scientific foreknowledge/Biology" etc.) and add small summaries for each subject on the main page. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 05:22, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I worry that the article is too difficult to navigate for when somebody stumbles across a QSF claim, and wants to use the page to rebut it. Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 05:38, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Ah, no prob. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 00:36, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Did you just....

Post a comment on a talk page for an essay that was deleted over a year ago? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 15:40, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Rise, dead posts, and live again! FuzzyDogPotato (talk/stalk) 16:24, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
The title struck the right nerve, I suppose. And it had an empty talkpage beckoning me to fill in the void. ;) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 18:32, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Create an account!

Just adding my voice to those asking you to get an account - it's totally awesome. Also, then you can get a mop and help patrol the wiki from the hordes of wandals at the gate. Tielec01 (talk) 00:11, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, that mop does sound pretty tempting. ;) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 01:19, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
STOP. THE ;) MAKES THAT STATEMETN REAAALLLY WEIRD FuzzyDogPotato (talk/stalk) 01:26, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Pfft. Like I'm gonna do anything sexual with a mop. Hmm, actually... 141.134.75.236 (talk) 01:29, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
inb4 long wood Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 01:44, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Is that a euphemism, good sir? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 02:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Definitely not. The words of Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato are strictly literal and inerrant in all cases; any translations of his non-euphemisms are divinely protected from error and/or euphemistic language. PacWalker 11:58, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Ah, the argument from divinely-ordained literalism. Clearly I have no choice but to accept the obvious truth. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 12:13, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
However, you do have the option to start a schism by declaring his words a literal prediction of euphemisms to be used by another. PacWalker 13:00, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Forgot you were semi-established.

Sorry 'bout that, BON. --Madman (talk) 02:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC)The Madman

Eh, no worries. But really, trying to quiet down the drama doesn't mean people're someone's sockpuppet. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 03:02, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Although I do think it might make you way too damn optimistic in this case. PacWalker 10:48, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Eh, it's not like I'm expecting everyone to suddenly be best buddies and start singing cumbaya. Even if there's very little hope of improving the situation, that shouldn't mean we should throw all effort to out of the window[wp]. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 11:02, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
No defenestration of RationalWiki? I mean I suppose they have already kicked off the war... you have a point though, I guess. PacWalker 11:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I will permaban anybody singing Cumbaya. BicyclewheelModerator 11:33, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Whistling? PacWalker 12:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Argh! Now I really wanna sing it! But I hate singing! Oh, the conflict. :( 141.134.75.236 (talk) 15:12, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
You might be allowed to if you registered... ;) PacWalker 15:56, 25 April 2015 (UTC)



Information icon.svg This is the discussion page for an anonymous user who has not created an account yet, or who does not use it.

We therefore have to use the numerical IP address to identify him/her. Such an IP address can be shared by several users. If you are an anonymous user and feel that irrelevant comments have been directed at you, please create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other anonymous users.

Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support