User talk:FuzzyCatPotato/LogicMaster777QuoteGenerator

Epic & Spot On
Exactly What It Says On The Tin. ScepticWombat (talk) 20:10, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

So.....
I can't think of anything that underscores Nutty's problems with this Wiki's current community more than a template with which to troll somebody that this Wiki doesn't get along with. I thought, or hoped at least, that the vanishing importance of Conservapedia would've gotten rid of such childishness. Yellow (talk) 04:52, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * (1) Humans do this thing. It's called fun. Apparently you don't do said thing.
 * (2) "Underscores" is right, rather than "supports" or anything broader, because this template makes up an incredibly small amount of current work done on RationalWiki. Why not go hate on mainspace edits instead? 08:43, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "Humans do this thing. It's called fun. Apparently you don't do said thing. " Yes, I do it. But when it comes to trolling people for "fun," I understand RationalWiki isn't the best place, because they are trying tom do something outside of having "Fun."
 * '"Underscores" is right, rather than "supports" or anything broader, because this template makes up an incredibly small amount of current work done on RationalWiki. Why not go hate on mainspace edits instead?"' Because mainspace is only a very minor symptom of the problem. The much greater symptom of the problem; the problem here being an aversion of RationalWiki to actually debunking cranks in exchange for RW throwing out memes and harassment to scare off those we disagrees with. While showing off our E-penis can be fun, it does dick all to show off that, yes, we can and do engage with people we find detestable. Moreover, in engaging in dialogue with said people, we make a stronger case for our POV than they can possibly make for theirs. So, with that, let me pose the following question: What have you done to prove to LogicMaster777 that our methods of reaching conclusions are better than theirs? Yellow (talk) 10:08, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It is very clear you have never tried talking to LogicMaster777. It's like bashing your head against a brick wall of willful ignorance and semantic arguments. People have tried arguing with him for weeks. He has now progressed to odd wordsalad about magic jewelry and statist wizards. At this point, ridicule is a fine response that will help the many users who wasted their time on him let go of their frustration.--TiaC (talk) 10:54, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Yellow, for a (distasteful) taste of the real thing, try following FuzzyCatPotato's links in the General notes section to LogicMaster's various mile-long screeds. I think pretty much everyone who has engaged with LM has stretched well beyond the necessary minimum courtesy. I also hope that LM will confine his ramblings to his own talk and user pages, and any debates he cares to start or keep adding to, rather than the recent spillover into the chicken coop or Talk:Statism. I really don't care about LM cluttering up his personal pages, but if he intends to engage in actual dialogue, he also needs to realise that when you're told the same reasons for why you're wrong by a wide variety of people, you need to at least consider the possibility that you've got the wrong end of the stick, rather than crying "STATIST OPPRESSION!!!!1!" or "YOU'RE ALL JUST STATIST SHEEPLE!!!!1!" and then simply repeating the same stuff you got called out on over and over again, which pretty much what LM has been doing for the last couple of weeks. ScepticWombat (talk) 12:01, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I kind of agree with Yellow here. This is the sort of smug self-congratulatory endeavour that makes our site look pathetic to any potential newcomer or casual reader. 14:13, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree it's stupid. But it's in his user space and if we begin to censor that then abandon hope all ye who ... Scream!! (talk) 15:08, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yellow, sorry for the anger before.
 * Reasons I created the page:
 * (1) It's funny, in the same way that the Schlafly Quote Generator is.
 * (2) It's for the purposes of Turing testing. The Schlafly Quote Generator fooled Conservapedians, because Andrew Schlafly is so predictable. If LogicMaster777's arguments are so predictable that they can be simulated, then it shows that he/she isn't really adding new or useful arguments.
 * @Yellow:
 * You talk about new editors having an aversion to actually debunking anyone. I don't think I fit that bill. I've added hundreds of thousands of characters of text to the "Qur'anic scientific foreknowledge" article, and plan to add more. I've begun writing (and porting) criticism and analysis of the Qur'an in the "RationalWiki:Annotated Qur'an" project. I've created "Template:Qur'an" to make it easy to link to said page for future debunking. Recently, I've created the "Vaginal steaming" article, to debunk the woo that surrounds it. There are many more examples. My article here is just the result of watching too many editors run into the brick wall of an uncaring LogicMaster777, rather than any "aversion" to debunking. 15:50, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * @Yellow (and ostensibly Weaseloid and Scream!!):
 * If this quote generator is fine to delete (except for being in userspace), should we delete the other ones? Should we delete the bingoes? Should most of Funspace die? I ask, because it's the logical extension of such a decision. 15:56, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Funny? Not funny in the same sense as the Schlafly Quote Generator. If you're claiming you're serious about the Turing testing bit, consider that this whole exercise stands out as unique among responses to editors the groupthinkers dislike and the obvious purpose is to ridicule and upset him, especially if you even thought about sticking it in a discussion with LogicMaster, which is as artless an admission of failure as anyone who drops "I thought this was RATIONALwiki! Drink!". In other words, I don't believe you're responding in good faith. At all. What's with RWian's having to "win" discussions? Are you capable of admitting you're wrong? Nutty Roux (talk) 16:34, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * At FuzzyCatGuy: no, that's not the logical extension. Funspace is mostly unfunny junk but it's not in the same ball park as things like this that only serve to collectively taunt a site user.  16:41, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * @Weaseloid: Fine. Why are the other quote generators fine? 16:47, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't read you closely enough. One reason they're fine is that they're not presented solely to ridicule current editors, they were presented in the spirit of fun, and there was near unanimous consensus that they were fine. How can you justify ridiculing someone's argumentation with such a non sequitur — how does your suggestion that all these other things ought to be deleted if yours is say anything about the merits of whether your template is appropriate in the first place? We all engage in ridicule and pointmaking when we get tired of hammering away, but to do it in the context of actually ridiculing someone's rhetorical skill and then fight to defend it is sad. And yes, I'm sure I've done it too, but whether I'm the biggest asshole and hypocrite in the world also has nothing to do with your template being stupid. Nutty Roux (talk) 16:52, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

We're having a swell time, aren't we?
@Nutty's 2nd comment: (1) Not presented to ridicule current editors: True. The other quote generators were presented to ridicule current editors on another site, which somehow makes them better.

(2) Presented in the spirit of fun: Not sure how this is supported.

(3) Near-unanimous consensus: This doesn't change whether or not something is ridicule.

(4) To ridicule rhetorical skill: Funnily enough, the template doesn't mock LogicMaster777's ability to write - it mocks what he/she has written, exactly like the Schafly Quote Generator.

Furthermore, I'm not defending this temlate by defending other templates - the question was (to Weaseloid), if this template is bad, shouldn't the others die with it? I defend this template as ridicule and as useful for Turing testing. 17:12, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * @Nutty's 1st comment:
 * How is are the two different?
 * Why do you place me into the group of the "groupthinkers"?
 * No, I wasn't planning to put it into an actual discussion, because it would be difficult to tell what the results were.
 * Why do you assume that I'm lying to "win" a discussion?
 * I believe that I am able to admit I'm wrong. I do not, however, believe that I am wrong here.
 * 17:25, 1 January 2015 (UTC)