User talk:Skadooshbag

Did you scale the image down first? It might be too big. If that doesn't work, you can head to RationalWiki:Technical support or I could just try to upload the image for you.—Kazitor, pending 04:51, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, do that pleaseSkadooshbag (talk) 05:10, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll try scaling it down then. Also, remember to indent comments with colons, not spaces. —Kazitor, pending 06:47, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Alright, done. It was only 937 KB and didn't need scaling, so I'm not sure why you were having an issue. Did you create an account after trying the first time, but didn't refresh the page to make it register as being logged in? I have no idea. —Kazitor, pending 06:53, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
 * probably that last one.Skadooshbag (talk) 19:23, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Flat Earth
Q: "Oh, and why do sunrises start ad the top of mountains and gradually climb down, instead of at the bottom and climbing up?" A: !!!..uh..um... [DAMAGE CONTROL MODE ACTIVATED]

Sorry but I don't really get this. Mostly due to the grammatical errors, I couldn't understand what you were trying to point out. 17:52, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

well first, I have somewhat clumsy fingers. it should say "at the top" not "ad the top." second, have you ever watched a shadow climb up the side of a tall building during sunset? I'm basically talking about the inverse.Skadooshbag (talk) 22:18, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Message from the RationalWiki Ministry of Demotion and Personal Impediment
—Kazitor, pending 04:56, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

AiG
It seems there is some confusion regarding the AiG articles. They are not meant to criticize Christianity as a whole, merely the very narrow version of Biblical literalism AiG promotes. I thought I'd try to clarify that, to avoid further edit wars on AiG related articles. 23:53, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I was entirely aware of that. It's just that I, at first, had a misunderstanding as to the precise nature of the argument we were fighting over. I was not trying to defend AiG, merely making sure all our weapons against them were up to code, if you will. I am glad we sorted this out.Skadooshbag (talk) 00:10, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Did you...
...Write Nazi apologia? Because that looks like Nazi apologia. 10:53, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
 * FUCK no! I thought that was common knowledge!Skadooshbag (talk) 04:18, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Knock it off
Stop inserting right-wing bullshit into mainspace. — Oxyaena Harass  19:02, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I support cooping this user. 19:12, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Would either of you like to provide an actual counterargument?Skadooshbag (talk) 19:59, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Phrenology is pretty obviously racist. 20:14, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It was frequently used to promote racist ideas, yes, but the concept of judging one's personality based on how their head is shaped is not inherently racist (but still complete baloney). The nazis used genetics to promote racist ideas, but few people would argue that this makes genetics an inherently racist field. Once the Nazis were defeated, geneticists began pruning away the racist ideas that the Nazis had added; were it a valid science, phrenologists would likely have done the same. An example of an inherently racist pseudoscience would be Melanin theory, which was founded in racism, so someone who tried to prune back the racist ideas would wind up uprooting the entire plant.Skadooshbag (talk) 20:38, 13 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Why are you implying that Nazis were the only significant racists? You are lying grievoisly by omission when you fail to mention the abhorrent scientific racism of the 1800s and phrenology's role in it. 21:27, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) I was using the Nazis as an example. Just like how you're using the picture you just posted as an example. Why are you implying that this picture is the only significant data in all of phrenology? 2)Let's imagine that I was trying to argue that genetics is an inherently racist field of study, and tried to support this by posting a single picture of some racist ideas the nazis had about genetics. Do you see the flaw in logic I'd be making? because that's what you're doing right now. "There are no non-racist elements of phrenology! See? I just found a single example of racist ideas that happened to occur within the field of phrenology!" Or to use another analogy, let's say that some tech illiterate grandpa was trying to argue that the internet is nothing but porn, and then someone else comes along and says "no, it does indeed have a lot of porn, but the internet itself is not inherently pornographic." and then the grandpa retorts by posting a link to a single porn site. That's basically what you're doing right now.Skadooshbag (talk) 21:43, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

If this whole conversation was related to this as well as an attempt at explanation, I don't see a big deal. The reverted edit didn't seem necessary (too vague also, who's "some people"?), but it's certainly not enough to carry these accusations here. 21:55, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

"Udder Fraud"
I see what you did there... 00:17, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

"...the clouds start to rain honey and/or human blood."
Where do we get the monkeys and trolleys? 01:30, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * We get | Grey Goo to build them atom by atom using particles created from Zero point energy. Skadooshbag (talk) 01:39, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hmmm hmm, I see... 01:53, 1 February 2022 (UTC)