RationalWiki:Epic debate

Despicable
I'm sorry to always be the one to bring dissent to these forums, but I find the front page news item about chatting with a Mormon to be absolutely despicable. 'Nutball' is not a term I would consider using to describe anyone's religious faith. Their beliefs should not be mocked in a pluralistic society which is supposed to place great value on tolerance.

I think some of you guys really need to grow up, and take a good long look at yourselves in the mirrors and see where your conscience lies.

As ever, the perennial critic MarcusCicero 18:22, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
 * Yes 'Nutball' is bad. 'Persons of low IQ' is much more politically correct. Susan  purrrrr  18:33, 13 March 2008 (EDT)


 * I would agree with your critique, as far as it goes, Marcus. All religions/cults are equally silly.  Of course the magic underwear thing does leave them open for some ribbing.-- [[Image:Asclepius staff.png|8px]]-PalMD -- 18:39, 13 March 2008 (EDT) (As I readjust my Tzitzis.)
 * I agree. Maybe we could at least try to pretend to be better than that other group of people? -- AKjeldsen Godspeed! 18:41, 13 March 2008 (EDT)


 * Fuck you Susan. Having read some of your posts on this website I'm sure you wouldn't find it very nice to be insulted by someone saying you had a low IQ. Where is the common respect and tolerance and most importantly pluralism that is supposed to underpin a modern democratic and Liberal society? I've noticed a growing trend in this place that is becoming more and more hostile to different ideas, faiths and concepts. Its not even a matter of trying to appear better than CP, its a matter of common human decency and if none of you can see that then none of you are worthy of reasonable discussion. MarcusCicero 18:56, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
 * That seems a little harsh, but Ok. Sure, some of us prefer the "touchy-feely" approach, but some of us don't.  Since no one is here to convert anyone to anything, it doesn't much matter.  Toes get stepped on every day.  Shit happens.  Susan may call someone a cult-following fucktard, AK may call them somewhat misguided in their search for truth and peace, and I might call them delusional.  Oh well.-- [[Image:Asclepius staff.png|8px]]-PalMD -- 19:01, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
 * I believe that belief in Big JuJu in the sky (for a mature individual) is indicative of either reduced intelligence or Really Bad Upbringing. In order not to judge the parents & teachers I would rather assume that the holder of such beliefs is less than Genius in the intellect department. Susan purrrrr  19:02, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
 * Your just as bad as them. MarcusCicero 19:04, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
 * I must respectfully disagree with both of you. I don't think religious folks are necessarily stupid or poorly brought-up.  I do think we are genetically predisposed toward religion.  Some of us escape that.  I don't think feeling badly toward religion makes someone as bad as the fucktard christofascists.-- [[Image:Asclepius staff.png|8px]]-PalMD -- 19:06, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
 * For God's sakes, Susan, why not blame the parents and teachers? -- 19:09, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
 * Susan, we know you think that. But expressing it the way you do tends to make what are often very interesting discussions of religion and its followers rather unpleasant to peruse.  At some level I may think many religious concepts are, well, fictional, most of the religious people I know, especially the moderates around this site, are not fictional.  Overtly attacking and insulting them when they aren't trying to convert me or change my government is not exactly going to make friends.  YEC, of course, is another matter. human  19:11, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
 * As anyone who studies theology can tell you, being smart does NOT prevent anyone from having insane beliefs--it just means they can rationalize those beliefs REALLY WELL. --Gulik 22:26, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

break 1
I value the free flow of ideas and insults this site allows, even if I don't agree with the content or the tone. Arguing about religion requires a thick skin.-- -PalMD -- 19:12, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
 * Respectfully, Peter, as an atheist you're not the target here. You're not part of the minority. I think those of us who are, and this is certainly true for myself, do not find being called unintelligent on a regular basis a particularly inspiring experience. -- AKjeldsen Godspeed! 19:15, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
 * Good point.-- [[Image:Asclepius staff.png|8px]]-PalMD -- 19:16, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
 * Your right, arguing about religion does require a thick skin. My atheism fortunately prevents me from feeling personally offended by any anti-religious remark on this site. Mormon and Christian belief is very easy to refute in an entirely logical sense but logic doesn't form the basis of either religion. religion is an affair of the heart, of the soul, it is something that lies deep in the persons unconscious and maybe that actual belief in something which in my view isn't there actually offers a form of salvation in itself. Mocking and ridiculing peoples most earnest and sincere beliefs is simply ungentlemanly and not conducive to a healthy discussion. I hope my position on this is a little clearer, and a proper debate without SusanG's polemics would be welcomed. MarcusCicero 19:18, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
 * I completely agree with your analysis that religion is "...an affair of the heart, of the soul..." and I'd love to see more open debate. I think folks like Susan react to the way we are treated in places such as CP.  To change the topic a little, you and I argue that religion is faith, while others, such as the Apologists, argue is is completely rational, and that atheism is irrational.  Makes for lively discussion.-- [[Image:Asclepius staff.png|8px]]-PalMD -- 19:21, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
 * "You don't use your MIND to think about your religion!" --Rev. Ivan Stang. --Gulik 22:26, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
 * While i agree with PalMD, i do think that the mainpage should maintain bit more neutral tone, nutball might have been bit too much.  In discussion pages tho i love to see sparks fly. Timppeli  19:19, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
 * I agree with Timppeli. "According to" should not sink to the low quality level of half the wigo@cp entries I see.  Perhaps that is the discussion we should really be having here? (not to silence the other one - maybe I should have created a new section...) human  19:26, 13 March 2008 (EDT)


 * I'm a bit late to this, but could someone link me to the diff in question? 19:36, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
 * Here, not added by a particularly surprising figure. Anyway, way to spark up this debate again, just randomly insult a good fraction of this group as believing in a 'Big JuJu in the sky', and drawing the conclusion from that that we are all either of 'reduced intelligence' or have had a 'Really Bad Upbringing'. Why not draw a 95% correlation between belief in religion and mass murder, while you're at it? Also, political correctness jokes? Please? --מְתֻרְגְּמָן שְׁלֹום
 * I can say with 98% certainty that Godwin's Law will be invoked before the sun sets in Alaska. Godspeed.-- [[Image:Asclepius staff.png|8px]]-PalMD -- 19:45, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
 * Doc, you are not only a fascist, but a Hitler-loving Nazi to boot! (figured I'd get that part of the flame war out of the way) human  19:48, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
 * , you !-- [[Image:Asclepius staff.png|8px]]-PalMD -- 19:49, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
 * You --מְתֻרְגְּמָן שְׁלֹום
 * Oh, God Big JuJu in the sky. Not the templates. Anything but the templates. :-( -- AKjeldsen Godspeed! 19:55, 13 March 2008 (EDT)
 * Why not? They form the closest thing we have to the sageing and destruction of an unruly thread. --מְתֻרְגְּמָן שְׁלֹום
 * I should say that would be reason enough in itself. -- AKjeldsen Godspeed! 20:07, 13 March 2008 (EDT)


 * All religions/cults are equally silly. - PalMD
 * I humbly beg to differ. They might all be equally illogical, but some are MUCH sillier than others. (As a Discordian SubGenius, I know which ones I think are silliest... but Mormonism, with its belief that the American Indians are one of the Lost Tribes of Israel, is pretty high on the list.  And Mormon Archaeology bears a strong resenblance to "Creation Science", in that you have to be a True Believer to get any results with it.) --Gulik 22:22, 13 March 2008 (EDT)


 * Personally I am of the belief that some religions are more or less reasonable (and therefore 'rational') than others. Since most religious folks are perfectly honest folks with genuine feelings, just like you and me, and since they have reasons behind their faiths that are to a certain extent rational, then we ought to afford people and their faiths a certain level of respect. Of course, there are certain persons to whom certain amounts of vitriol and resentment are justified, but those are, of course, exceptions. GrandSoviet 00:21, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

break 2
I agree with all of the above. -- 01:17, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
 * RA, that's fine, but please don't refactor talk pages so drastically. Let us pick our own indents.  Thank you. human  01:23, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
 * You all do such a terrible job of it, though. You are supposed to indent one further than the post you are responding to. Everyone here just indents one further than the last post, regardless of whether they are actually responding to it.  While this makes for a neat cascading effect with the posts, it gives no indication of who is responding to what. I was raised on Uncyclopedia with the first format, and it drives me nuts to see anything else.  -- 02:51, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
 * I'll stop if you want me to, but only if I get to pester you all endlessly about the proper posting format. -- 02:52, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
 * I want you to. We have our own silly style here, and it mostly works.  We undent when we want to.  We really don't need the indent police to redo an entire talk page for us, thank you.  One or two comments where people got their numbers of colons wrong, fine.  But refactoring a whole talk page implies editorial powers over those who posted as they wanted to. Which no one has. Oh, and you learnded it on Uncyclopedia?  Guess what.  This is not Uncyclopedia, is it?  It's RationalWiki, and we pride ourselves on our irrationality!  Happy Pi Day, by the way! human  04:31, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
 * I knew you were going to say that... Ah, I'll stop. And a Happy e Day to you, too.  : )  -- 05:38, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

I posted the news item, and I stand by the 'nutball' description. You do realise what Mormons believe, right? If you though regular Christians had some ridiculous beliefs, then the Mormons have them beat by a country mile.

Yes, we live in a pluralistic society, but what part of that should prevent us from taking the piss out of people? Hell, by your standards we might as well stop taking the piss out of Conservapedia. If you can find something about my atheism worth mocking, then please go ahead. You'll find it pretty hard to offend me. If I believed that elephants flew through the sky by flapping their ears, you'd laugh at me. If you believe that a prophet transcribed a holy book from tablets of gold while hiding behind a sheet strung up across the room, I'll laugh at you.

If you wish to stifle free speech to the point where it is considered wrong to laugh at religions then why stop there? Lets not criticise the deeply held beliefs to neo-nazis either! Their beliefs should not be mocked in a pluralistic society! Every view point is equally correct! Oh, and just as a postscript, Fuck you too. -- 10:56, 14 March 2008 (EDT)


 * Not mocking something is not equivalent to accepting its correctness. Tthe reason nobody takes the neo-Nazis seriously is because they can be shown to be wrong, not because they are repeatedly insulted.
 * When was the last time somebody was convinced of something, or felt welcome to debate their position, after being told "fuck off, you're stupid"?--Bayesyikes 11:23, 14 March 2008 (EDT)


 * Let me turn that around for you. When have you seen people accept a position on faith when it was universally hailed as laughable? I couldn't give the slightest monkeys if a Mormon chooses to remain a Mormon. What I do care about is that they inflict the disorder on others. What reasonable debate can you have with people who believe that 200 years ago a convicted fraudster really was contacted by angels and transcribed a book from supa seekrit gold plates that just happened to look like it was plagiarised from the KJV Bible? At least other religions have the mists of time to hide the embarrassing details. I think you've failed to understand the British culture. As Bill Bryson noted, Americans have no equivalent phrase to "taking the piss." It's not our culture to accord unearned respect to people by default. Contrast "mate" with "sir/ma'am" as the default form of salutation. -- 11:38, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
 * To expand on that line of thought, what reasonable debate can you have with people who believe that a bit of bread and a drink of wine can turn physically into the flesh and blood of Jesus every Sunday? Or that all living things have a soul that is reincarnated after death? Or that besides objective reality, there exists a spiritual dreamworld that affects the social reality of those in the real world? -- AKjeldsen Godspeed! 11:49, 14 March 2008 (EDT)


 * Since you ask, the transubstantiation belief is more ridiculous than the Mormon belief, since this is objectively false, rather than false judging by the balance of evidence. If someone wanted to debate that with me, what else could I do but laugh at them? However, I don't believe it is necessary to have a literal belief in transubstantiation to be a Christian. As for reincarnation, well there's no evidence one way or the other. On the teapot principle there's not a lot going for it, but it's hard to find fault with believers. -- 11:56, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
 * But most religions have, almost by definition, some aspects that are going to appear unreasonable to non-believers. Isn't the logical conclusion of this that a reasonable debate with religious, or even spiritual people, is not possible at all? And where does that leave our pluralistic society? -- AKjeldsen Godspeed! 12:21, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

break 3
I'm a latecomer too, and doing a million things, so forgive me if I reiterate points that've already been made. Quae cum ita sint, I agree with MarcusCicero. If we're going to blast CP for using "liberal" as a swear-word, it's incumbent upon us to not do the same thing to our opponents. While I agree that it may be hard to debate with some fairly odd theist notions, we owe it to ourselves and our commitment to free debate to try our very best to suppress our own disgust (or politely express it) while engaged in said debate. Is the comment gone from the main page? Otherwise, I would modify it. Thanks for keeping us honest, MarcusCicero.- 11:55, 14 March 2008 (EDT)


 * Do you not see the difference at all between saying "All liberals are deceitful" and "All liberals believe in thing X, which is laughable?" -- 12:02, 14 March 2008 (EDT)


 * I'll concede that it's difficult to conduct meaningful debates when it comes to religion. More often than not, I think the participants just end up having to disagree, but at least there's some interesting discussion that can result in at least a greater understanding of what makes the other side think the way they do--even if the result is that you wind up believing that they're just delusional.  It isn't about giving people unearned respect.  It's about basic communication, recognizing that not everyone sees the world the same way, and trying to understand why, all in an effort to improve one's own intellectual standing.   If all everyone does is scream vitriolic language at everyone who disagrees with them, then nobody achieves anything.  Furthermore, in debates that can be resolved "meaningfully", I reiterate that insults are not required to "win".--Bayesyikes 12:07, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
 * I'll go further - telling your opponents, no matter who they are, to 'fuck you' suggests a paucity of credibility. Likewise, saying that 'all theists are inherently more stupid than atheists', as Susan did above. That would fall into the first of your two categories, Jeeves. --מְתֻרְגְּמָן שְׁלֹום
 * Some edit conflicts have moved this down from where I intended to put it but here's my take.
 * The Nazi thing is probably not a good example but some people do hold sincere beliefs about things most people here are quite happy to mock; homeopathy, angels, chakras, ley lines, crystals etc. just as strongly and in some cases instead of religion. As Gulik said above, smart people can believe really dumb things; Linus Pauling and Vitamin C for instance. Love can cause all sorts of self-deception and I myself have been mocked on account of that. There is no right not to be offended. Religions offend each other all the time but somehow atheists are not expected to offend any of them? To a rational person some religions have a degree of rationality, personally I have a lot of time for Quakers and low-church Anglicans. However, I find that a lot of Catholicism and Orthodoxism strays well into the realms of superstition and animism.
 * Mockery can be a cheap shot but it also challenges us to examine our beliefs, political, social and religious. If peoples' beliefs are strong enough then mockery should be like water off a duck's back. This is Rationalwiki not Cuddlywiki. I am still waiting for one of our believers to post a rational justification for their religion rather than some nebulous faith in Jesus or God. Pluralism may involve tolerance of other people but just how tolerant of other people's delusions must we be before calling them on it? [[Image:jollyfish.gif|25px]]Genghis  Marauding 12:14, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
 * P.S. The last bit is meant to encompass more than just someone's faith. Tony Blair's justification for abetting the Iraq War for example. [[Image:jollyfish.gif|25px]]Genghis Marauding 12:31, 14 March 2008 (EDT)


 * I'd say that falling short of making personal attacks on one's opponents would be a start. --מְתֻרְגְּמָן שְׁלֹום
 * What sort of rational justification in particular are you looking for? -- AKjeldsen Godspeed! 12:19, 14 March 2008 (EDT)


 * AK, I was rather thinking about how someone justifies their religion, not just whether they believe that God created the universe or think Jesus preached a cool message, but why they go a long with a specific set of beliefs and rituals, and if they follow a major religion then do they follow it to the letter, or just pick the bits they think are right? [[Image:jollyfish.gif|25px]]Genghis  Marauding 12:39, 14 March 2008 (EDT)


 * Since this isn't about personal attacks, I'm not sure what you're getting at. I called Mormonism a nutball sect, which I believe to be a pretty accurate description. What I didn't say was that any or all Mormons are nutcases, which may or may not be true. -- 12:26, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
 * You said 'fuck you too'. I would allege that's a personal attack, even if in response to something. Also, above, SusanG claimed that all religious people are inherently less intelligent - that is an example of it. --מְתֻרְגְּמָן שְׁלֹום


 * I can't believe what I'm reading from some people. First of all, all people, by default, deserve respect, because all men are born equal. People can only then -lose- respect by doing something despicable, but simply believing in superstition and myth is not despicable by any means. The reason that we have to respect other religions in a pluralistic society is because religion isn't going anywhere anytime soon, so we all have to deal with one another's beliefs in at least a nominally polite, dignified manner. Anything else breeds resentment, and no one here can convince me that that is a good thing. You can disagree with someone's beliefs, and you can explain 'why' you disagree, but sometimes these things go nowhere and you just have to agree to disagree. This is fine if you're simply disagreeing over whether one is obligated to go to church on Sunday, because these beliefs are mostly innocuous. Ever heard of the phrase, "Live and let live?" However, obviously if someone believes that we should kill all the Jews, then their beliefs are malign and worthy of the most contempt. Rational people are considerate people. GrandSoviet 12:26, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
 * Eh? Did your parents never tell you that respect is earned, not given? People deserve equal treatment under the law, be they rocket scientist or creationist. What they aren't entitled to is equal respect. -- 12:30, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
 * And how exactly would that 'respect', or lack of, manifest itself? --מְתֻרְגְּמָן שְׁלֹום
 * I don't care what my parents said. I have come to the conclusion that all people deserve respect unless they do something to prove that they do not, in fact, deserve it. You could say that people "earn" my respect simply by being people, just like me. By your logic, I don't need to be respectful to any stranger on the street and can just push my way through a crowd, hurling insults at people unless they do something to prove their worth to me. GrandSoviet 12:35, 14 March 2008 (EDT)


 * Erm, that's called being polite, or not being a total dickhead. It's part of what you do if you want other people to respect you. You would not seek the advice of a stranger on the street, or ask them to help you with an important task as you would with someone you respect. -- 12:41, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
 * Now we're arguing over semantics. I see politeness as an integral part of respect. A problem I see with your definition is that I respect Barack Obama, but I wouldn't ask him to drive me to the airport, and although I will respect a random person on the street, I do not necessarily trust their wisdom. Also, I'm not respectful to people just because I want them to respect me, but because I think it's the right thing to do. GrandSoviet 13:00, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

break 4
Roll over Aristotle, there's a new kid on the block and his name is Jeeves! MarcusCicero 12:35, 14 March 2008 (EDT)


 * And now you've displayed your evident intellectual superiority over me, do you have anything worthwhile to add? -- 12:39, 14 March 2008 (EDT)


 * Why, I'm sure he could call you a nutball, or to 'fuck you', since we aren't entitled to equal respect here. --מְתֻרְגְּמָן שְׁלֹום


 * Yes, you may have noted he's already quite good at telling people "fuck you." So much for the moral high ground. And he's quite welcome to call me a nutball, as long as he has a reason. Bonus points if you can offend me. -- 12:45, 14 March 2008 (EDT)


 * Why Jeeves why get so worked up? I was merely mocking you, which is of course our universal right in a free pluralistic society. Say for example I'm a hardline Christian who believes that when I die I'll see all of my family and friends who have died. Surely your obviously superior intellect would view me as inferior in this hypothetical situation. I've nothing more to add other than what I've already written. Your little strawman argument ('Neo Nazis are people too, why not protect them!') is indicative of the type of response I'm likely to get from you, and I'm convinced having a discussion with you on whether people deserve respect will be a waste of both of our time. Besides, I'm sure you'll be pawned by other more energetic and enthusiastic members. MarcusCicero 12:47, 14 March 2008 (EDT)


 * So, explain to me please why exactly it is that religions should be insulated from mockery but a political ideology like nazism should not? It this is such a weak straw man as you claim, then it should be no trouble for you. -- 12:50, 14 March 2008 (EDT)


 * Well first of all, I'm interested to know if your really believe that religion and nazi-ism is comparable. Secondly, as long as any religious person isn't forcing their beliefs on me, why should I care what they get up to? The difference between Nazi-ism and Religion is that generally Nazi's are fascists. The entire thought process underlining nazi-ism is one of central control of people and their lives. The central thought process behind Christianity specifically but religion broadly is that we are all Gods children. They have no intention of hurting me, so why should I have the right to call them a 'nutball'? It all harks back to that little idea that as long as I'm not physically affect by someone then why should I care? Nazi-ism strives to physically affect me and therefore is open to ridicule.
 * P.S-And frankly, I don't give a flying fuck if Susan was offended by me telling her to fuck off. She offended 95% of the worlds population with her previous remark, and she deserved to be told to fuck off. If you couldn't tell before, I like using swear words. They really express disgust better than anything else. There is no moral high ground here, I just expect people to be treated equally and not be ridiculed for having a religious belief. MarcusCicero 12:57, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
 * Comparing "religion" and "Neo-Nazism" is like comparing "furniture" and "Ford trucks." Nazism is a -specific- political ideology with -specific- beliefs, whereas "religion" is a broad, categorical term. I wouldn't say that one shouldn't ridicule a -particular- religion that -- for example -- says that children should be sacrificed to an angry God. GrandSoviet 13:06, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

By the way, I'm going to be out of town for the next couple of days, but hopefully this wonderful discussion is still here when I get back. :) GrandSoviet 13:07, 14 March 2008 (EDT)


 * Way to contradict yourself: "I just expect people to be treated equally and not be ridiculed for having a religious belief." Isn't treating people equally either mocking them or not mocking them equally if they hold any stupid belief? What does it matter if it's religious? And yes, when it comes to falsity of belief I find Mormonism and Nazism to be on a par. This is not to say I don't recognise which is the more dangerous ideology, but I'll be damned if someone is going to tell me I'm entitled to mock one and not t'other.


 * You have the right to call a person or entity 'nutball' if you wish, it's called free speech. If you seriously believe that religious ideas don't affect you, then you must be wilfully blind. I'll note again, what I said was Mormonism is a nutball sect. This is not a personal attack on Mormons as individuals, but a collective attack on their beliefs.


 * I love how you draw a distinction between fascism which is about controlling people's lives and Christianity. What on Earth is Christianity for if not controlling people? Controlling how they eat, drink, worship, conduct their lives and who they do it with. While you may or may not believe that the control exercised is to please a very real God, you certainly cannot deny that the central element is control. -- 13:09, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
 * MarcusCicero says: "I just expect people to be treated equally and not be ridiculed for having a religious belief." And then objects when people point out that fascism is a belief. Ok. What about people who believe that the earth is 6,000 years old for religious reasons? Is it fair to call these beliefs ridiculous?--Bobbing up 13:13, 14 March 2008 (EDT)


 * Christianity is a willful control. Members are free to leave if they disagree. Fascism is well, fascism. Jeeves, my entire point is that it is absolutely detestable to label an entire group of people 'nutballs'. The last thing I want to to do is to get into a giant, never ending discussion with someone who is scarily close minded on whether people are worthy of respect. Many, if not most of the members who replied to this agree. (I was surprised at that) I think the only reason you are arguing so much about this is because you are the one who did it. MarcusCicero 13:16, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
 * My point is you said: "I just expect people to be treated equally and not be ridiculed for having a religious belief." .  Does that mean we should not call creationism ridiculous? --Bobbing up 13:19, 14 March 2008 (EDT)


 * Come off it, that's a distinction without a difference. If you live in a fascist state you're more than welcome not to believe in fascism and to resist fascist control. The consequences may be that you end up pushed against a wall and shot, but nobody is forcing you to be cowed subject. The same is true of Christianity/Mormonism. You may strongly disagree that hot drinks aren't allowed, and you may decide to drink tea and coffee. The consequences may be that you burn in hell for all eternity. There is no method yet developed that can force people to believe anything. It's all about consequences.


 * Why is it detestable to label a group of people nutballs? Surely it should depend on the circumstances. If they are indeed nutballs, it's nothing more than stating the truth. I don't believe that stating the truth is in any way detestable. Do you have a reason to believe that Mormonism is not a nutball sect? It may well be the case that I'm only arguing with you because I'm the one who wrote it in the first place, but I still stand by my statement. Mormonism is a nutball sect, this is my position. I happen to believe it is an easily defensible position. -- 13:27, 14 March 2008 (EDT)


 * "I don't believe that stating the truth is in any way detestable." Sounds more like Andrew Schlafy than a 'rational' person. Using 'truth' as an excuse to remove your personal responsibility to treat others as equals is absolutely despicable. You and I both know that Mormonism is pretty crazy. But as long as it is voluntary I see no purpose in calling them retards. Its simply acting the wanker and its truly despicable. MarcusCicero 13:34, 14 March 2008 (EDT)


 * Are you sure you wouldn't like to compare me with TK instead? That's more usual. Again, you're ignoring what I wrote. I said Mormonism was a nutball sect, not that any specific Mormon or all Mormons are themselves insane. Your whole argument seems to hinge on the idea that this was a personal attack on someone when it clearly was not. We seem to have no fundamental disagreement on the idea that Mormonism is crazy. You just seem to favour not saying out loud. -- 13:39, 14 March 2008 (EDT)


 * So would it be alright for me to say that all Jews are evil? Or that all African Americans are criminals? After all I'm talking about them as a group, and that excuses me, right? MarcusCicero 13:48, 14 March 2008 (EDT)


 * 'The worlds fastest growing nutball sect' (or something like that) This would imply their followers are nutballs. Oh woe thee who would look at life from a faith based perspective! Imagine a world where we would all live with cold hard science. I remember a few South Park episodes that dealt with that. MarcusCicero 13:51, 14 March 2008 (EDT)


 * If you could prove it was true, then why not? The point about racism and anti-semitism is that it is that they are not based on fact. If all Jews were evil, then saying so would be no more controversial than saying the sky is blue. In your words, Mormonism is "pretty crazy", but when I say Mormonism is a nutball sect, I'm despicable. Your faux outrage here does you no credit. -- 13:54, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

Way to go Wormtongue, you really are attempting to twist everything into a file manifestation of what it really is. Thats twice in this thread you've resorted to semantics because your argument is getting thinner and thinner. Anyway, my view that Mormonism is pretty crazy (Like all religions when you look at what they fundamentally believe) is a personal view that I have. I'm not going around calling its adherents 'nutballs' or calling their faith 'the fastest growing nutball sect in the world'. I'm not standing ontop of a big building, roaring to world that I THINK ALL RELIGIONS ARE WRONG. This is not my place to do so, and constantly attacking people of faith, or saying they are of below par intelligence or worse again, claiming they are insane, is not in anyway comparable to what I said in the previous reply. Really, give it up man, this is a long cold road to nowhere for you. MarcusCicero 19:41, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

break 5
"Erm, that's called being polite, or not being a total dickhead. —Jeeves" Doesn't this logic deny the ethical argument of inherent dignity in humankind? "All people should be treated with dignity" was a major component of the civil rights movement and one of the most powerful arguments against Nazi Germany's anti-semitic laws. (I'm not counting the Holocaust as part of this example, which was evil for very obvious reasons apart from the dignity argument. I mean the laws passed before they progressed to outright genocide). -- 13:14, 14 March 2008 (EDT)


 * Ok, I would just like to respond to the distortions of what I've actually wrote. I do not believe it is wrong to disagree of even hate religion. What I don't agree with is labelling an entire group as nutballs. We are all entitled to counter arguments, but it must be done in a reasonable, insult free fashion. Of course, I'm just waiting for Bob to say 'but you told Susan to fuck off' and my answer to that is that when someone makes a blind polemic, the only rational response is 'fuck you'. And thats my belief, so don't mock it ;-) MarcusCicero 13:19, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
 * Actually no, I think that I've sufficiently repeated the point that, in my opinion, telling people to "fuck off" weakens your argument. So I'm not going to repeat it here. (Is there some implicit contradiction in this post?)--Bobbing up 13:42, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
 * I would agree that flinging an ad hom does not strengthen anyones' position, although sometimes it feels good---like a good shit.-- [[Image:Asclepius staff.png|8px]]-PalMD -- 13:53, 14 March 2008 (EDT)


 * "Christianity is a willful control. Members are free to leave if they disagree." I think this is a very naive view of religion, it's not a golf club. Children are indoctrinated from birth to follow the rules of a religion.  Having been told that you will burn in hell if you stray from the one true path it can take a great amount of psychological trauma to reject a religion. I have had more than my fair share of relationships with Catholics who have struggled to overcome their perceived guilt to know that you don't just walk out the door and forget about it.  [[Image:jollyfish.gif|25px]]Genghis  Marauding 13:59, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

I still occasionally go to Mass around Catholic holidays, as much as to please my mum as to meet neighbours from my village I hadn't seen in a long time. But thats not the issue. People can vote with their feet. Its the same as being part of an association, every group has its own internal rules. You can either choose to abide by those rules or walk. No-one is forcing someone to be a Catholic. The issue of childhood and religion is a good one to argue, and you certainly have a point about its significant affect on a young person. However, most debates on this issue ('Religion to kids is Child abuse!') borders on the hysterical. I was raised in a Catholic family, and freely left the faith on my own choosing. And my father was pretty hardline (I live three miles from the border with northern Ireland, and my part of the country saw some action in the Troubles) so its fairly ridiculous for people to say that teaching religion to kids is Child abuse. And don't call a lifetime of experience of naieve. MarcusCicero 19:31, 14 March 2008 (EDT)


 * Not everyone has the wherewithal to shake off the conditioning of their early years. You are fortunate if you have been able to do it, but there are many different personality types and people respond in different fashions. Just because you were able to do it does not mean that everyone else would find it so easy, to believe otherwise is naive. It's like people who give up smoking, alcohol or drugs, some people find easy but others have a terrible time. Have you never wondered why everyone else hasn't seen things the way you did and left the church? Because people are different. Conditioning is a very powerful thing.  Young elephants are trained not to wander by having a rope and stake attached to their leg. When they are adults just a small stake is used, they could easily pull it out, but they have been conditioned to think that is not possible. A similar thing can be seen with Stockholm syndrome. Your own experience is not transferable to everyone else. [[Image:jollyfish.gif|25px]]Genghis  Marauding 19:59, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
 * Have you considered the possibility that people choose to remain in a church simply because they like it or because it provides them with something they need in their lives? -- AKjeldsen Godspeed! 20:01, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
 * Of course many people find some comfort in religion or even the social aspects of a church, but that doesn't mean that there aren't people who are torn between rejecting their religious upbringing in part or in whole, and the fear that if they do they will be consigned to eternal damnation. In Islam apostasy is one of the worst sins that you can commit. [[Image:jollyfish.gif|25px]]Genghis Marauding 20:12, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

Interlude
OK, my turn, FWIW. First, all people, period, deserve to be treated respectfullyat first. If they demonstrate unconscionably unpleasant behavior, well, you can take the high road, or tell them to.

The non-Apologetic view of faith shared by many (but certainly not all) is that faith requires, well, faith, and that it is inherently irrational, and that there is nothing wrong with that.

Given that faith is faith, one could argue that all faiths are equally irrational, but from an outside perspective, some beliefs are just weirder than others. For example, regarding transubstantiation: as a non-christian, I view the absolute physical interpretation as untenable, but the symbolism an interesting---to literally take God physically into you is an interesting ritual.

Being a theist, or a mainstream Christian, does not require you to be anhistoric---it allows you to have a real view of history, science, etc. Mormonism, while popular, has some very odd ideas about history which if taken literally are demonstrably false. YEC Christianity requires complete rejection of reality.

All beliefs are subject to examination, and, yes, mockery. That doesn't mean it's always a good idea to flat out call someone a fucking idiot (no matter how tempting it is). For me, given a normal level of crankiness, I don't start throwing ad homs unless someone's beliefs are actually dangerous (in my judgment).

I think certain Hassidic Jews who think that a rabbi can determine the coming of the Moshiach by his bowel movements are complete fucktards. But I'd rather post the facts and let others laugh without me saying "what fucktards".-- -PalMD -- 13:28, 14 March 2008 (EDT)


 * I agree. Although I might add that good rhetoric requires taking the high road and not flinging ad homs around.  Also, I'd like to add that atheists suck at Rogerian argument.  Especially antitheists.  -- 13:36, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
 * Depends on the goal of the rhetoric; agreement, intimidation, insult, consensus.-- [[Image:Asclepius staff.png|8px]]-PalMD -- 13:44, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
 * I was taught that rhetoric is by definition the art of persuasion. Anything else is just polemics.  -- 13:48, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
 * It's a definition thing, then.-- [[Image:Asclepius staff.png|8px]]-PalMD -- 13:51, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
 * To continue from above, that's exactly what this "debate" is—polemics. It's people screaming at each other.  Which may or may not be a cathartic experience for everyone involved.  -- 13:53, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
 * Taking a good shit is cathartic; heated debate is sometimes done as group masturbation, which can also be cathartic.  I have no interest in converting theists into atheists, but I do like a good discussion.-- [[Image:Asclepius staff.png|8px]]-PalMD -- 13:54, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
 * Oh. I was about to propose moving this to .  I'll leave it, then.  -- 13:56, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
 * Of course this isn't a debate, it's a pub/bar argument. It was never set out as a debate, it was somebody voicing an opinion. I agree with AKjeldsen (talk pages passim) that there is no proper conflict resolution on this site, and until there is then we will have these lengthy and perhaps pointless discussions. [[Image:jollyfish.gif|25px]]Genghis Marauding
 * Well, as three respected sysops (well, at least you two are : ) ), sitting here by ourselves in this (page) section, why don't we discuss making a conflict procedure? -- 14:16, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
 * As a non-respected sysop, I have to ask do we need one? Seems to me this conflict resolved itself fairly well. Nobody was terribly offended, and the only cost was a few megabytes of data got transferred. I'm not terribly bitter that AK removed my news item, although I disagree with the reason. -- 14:21, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
 * Actually, we did pay a heavy price. We lost Susan.  -- 14:42, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
 * Hrm, I failed to notice that. Wouldn't the solution then have been to ban MarcusCicero for a spell yesterday then? -- 14:46, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
 * I believe it was Human who set her off, with these comments: .  She got seriously pissed.  She blocked herself for 5 years, asked to be de-sysoped, and started purging on-site references to her as an IP.  She then unblocked herself just to delete her Essay:Credo, and informed everyone that she was DONE with RationalWiki for good on her userpage.  She then disappeared and hasn't come back yet.  -- 14:57, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
 * If she were an immature teen, I would have brushed this behavior off. But Susan is a mature, worldly woman of 60+ years.  I fear this is more serious than that.  -- 15:00, 14 March 2008 (EDT)


 * She'll be back. Mormons believe silly things. MC can be a bit of a tool. This is stone cold funk. That is all. --Robledo 15:07, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

Damn glad I was too busy to get involved in this shitstorm. Whatever got said, I do hope we haven't lost Susan - she's one of the best around here. I do think (glancing over the debate, I have read barely any of it) that the Americans in the debate ought to keep in mind the famously "robust debate" tradition of the British Isles, where hurling insults at your best friends is considered a display of fondness - "You old cunt, you're such a fucking wanker!", "Awwww, thanks, you big soft shite". It isn't often that Americans hear their Congressmen roaring "would the Honorable Gentleman From Lower Dampening like to wipe his arse with today's proceedings" and the like. Mind you, the corollary is also true, and Susan - you do have to be able to take it if you're going to give it.

Somehow we ought to try to avoid repeating the sins of CP and causing editors to leave, slamming the door behind them. Hell Damn Susan, you didn't even leave a proper Parthian Shot! DogP  17:12, 14 March 2008 (EDT)


 * The basic rule for how to treat others can be found fairly wide spread:
 * Matthew 7:12 -- So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.
 * Thomas:6 -- Jesus said, "Don't lie, and don't do what you hate, because all things are disclosed before heaven.
 * Talmud, Shabbat 31a -- What is hateful to you, do not to your fellowman. That is the entire law; all the rest is commentary.
 * Mahabharata 5:1517 -- this is the sum of duty: Do naught unto others which would cause you pain if done to you.
 * Udana Varga 5:18 -- Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful.
 * Analects 15:23-24 / Doctrine of the Mean 13.3 -- Tzu-kung asked, Is there a single word which can be a guide to conduct throughout one's life? The Master said, It is perhaps the word shu. Do not impose on others what you yourself do not desire'
 * Mencius 7A:4 -- Mencius said: "All things are prepared within me. If I reflect on myself and find that I am sincere, shouldn't I be overjoyed? If I conduct myself on the principle of reciprocity, will my search for Humaneness not be close at hand?"
 * Shayast-na-Shayast 13:29 -- Whatever is disagreeable to yourself do not do unto others.
 * Epistle to the Son of the Wolf, 30 -- And if thine eyes be turned towards justice, choose thou for thy neighbor that which thou choosest for thyself.
 * Yoruba Proverb (Nigeria) - One going to take a pointed stick to pinch a baby bird should first try it on himself to feel how it hurts.
 * The Golden Sayings of Epictetus XLI What you shun enduring yourself, attempt not to impose on others. You shun slavery-- beware of enslaving others! If you can endure to do that, one would thing you had been once upon a time a slave yourself. For Vice has nothing in common with virtue, nor Freedom with slavery.
 * And so, the point of that? Whatever you respect, be it old religions or philosophers, eastern or western, lost or living - the basic underlying statement of how you should treat another person is treat them with respect.  At the very top of this discussion - that was lost.  We need to set the example for how to behave if we are going to suggest others should behave in a similar fashion.  In particular, don't disregard someone's faith or beliefs with a wave of the hand and calling them a 'Nutball' or a 'Persons of low IQ' if you do not wish to be called the same by them.  We have deplored this behavior on Conservapedia, and it is likewise deplorable here.  One need not believe in any God or god to understand this.  --Shagie 20:48, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

Late add-on
I believe that belief in Big JuJu in the sky (for a mature individual) is indicative of either reduced intelligence or Really Bad Upbringing. - Susan

Susan's comments had nothing to do with mormons or christians or any other specific group. She said anyone with any kind of belief in god is of lower intelligence. The truth is that neither Susan nor anyone else here nor anyone else at CP knows for sure how life happened, what happens when we die or if there is or was a god.

Something DID happen and the evidence is all around us. How we interpret the evidence is the difference between us. There is no proof that there is not a god, it's just the conclusion some people draw. There is no proof that there is a god, it's just the conclusion some people draw.

It is irrational, unfair and boorish to repeatedly claim superiority over those who come to different conclusions.

Debating the merits of different belief systems, that's another matter... &mdash; Unsigned, by: 204.187.154.49 / talk / contribs


 * Just a point---God and "not-God" are not equally probable explanations for existence. If God exists, its existence should be a testable proposition, and while the probability of its existence is non-zero, the probability of its non-existence is quite a bit higher.-- [[Image:Asclepius staff.png|8px]]-PalMD -- 15:15, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
 * Ah, but only the natural can be tested. God, is by definition, supernatural.  -- 15:18, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
 * Then its existence is even less probable, if such a thing is possible.-- [[Image:Asclepius staff.png|8px]]-PalMD -- 15:19, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
 * Why bother worshipping a god that never does anything? (My personal answer, for my unprovable gods is "because it's FUN", but for too many religions, that's not so.) --Gulik 15:21, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

I agree. Maybe god has died or moved away (with no forwarding address) or just stopped giving a damn. I can't see a purpose to believing. But that doesn't discount that it might have existed. 204.187.154.49 15:32, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
 * (edit conflict) Not necessarily, PalMD. The fact that we can't "test" the supernatural is only proof that we evolved for the in natural world.  -- 15:24, 14 March 2008 (EDT)


 * The natural world is all we have. Reality is consistent with itself.  All the rest is (imaginary) commentary.  Since God doesn't come around to tell us his wishes, we are left to a human understanding of him, making the idea of god non-supernatural and testable.-- [[Image:Asclepius staff.png|8px]]-PalMD -- 16:01, 14 March 2008 (EDT)


 * How very non-NOMA of you PalMD!--Bobbing up 15:26, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
 * NOMA just means that religion and science have the potential to coexist harmoniously. It is possible.162.82.215.199 15:41, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
 * I'm not so sure PalMD. Your suggestion that we could (presumably) use science to test for the existence of god sounds rather non-NOMA to me.--Bobbing up 15:58, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
 * Not at all. Religion is faith.  Believe whatever you want, just acknowledge that the "real world" is governed by predictable scientific laws.  If you are a YEC, you don't believe in NOMA.  If you are a typical Anglican, you probably live NOMA.-- [[Image:Asclepius staff.png|8px]]-PalMD
 * But you say "If God exists, its existence should be a testable proposition.". And I agree.  But NOMA holds that we cannot test for God - it maintains that concepts of God must be outside of science and cannot be tested. And that is why I say your comments are non-NOMA, though, as I say, I agree with them. --Bobbing up 16:11, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
 * Good point. I guess what I'm arguing that if god exists, it is testable, but since he doesn't, people can believe whatever they want as long as they don't screw science.-- [[Image:Asclepius staff.png|8px]]-PalMD -- 16:13, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
 * Gulik - one line of thought goes thus: God, the maker of the universe who set it all in motion (be it branes colliding or snapping His fingers or what not) created the universe for a reason. This reason was to create something that is perfect (for whatever definition of perfect that God (not man) uses).  And thus, we, his creations, should be thankful that we exist and are part of His plan.  By setting up the initial conditions for the universe He has done everything that can be done, and by definition, everything that will ever be done. That is one line of thought.  If I understand (parts of) Judaism correctly, God has been unable to do anything directly in the world since the temple was destroyed and has instead been forced to act via suggestion. --Shagie 15:33, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
 * Interesting, is there any evidence for this?--Bobbing up 15:44, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
 * Yes. The fact that god does nothing anymore! 204.187.154.49 15:48, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
 * Convincing. But I can't help feeling there's an element of circularity there somewhere.--Bobbing up 15:51, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
 * Damn. I felt sure that would convince you 204.187.154.49 15:56, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
 * Once again, there is no evidence of God/gods, so any belief it based on faith. Any understanding of god is strictly done with the human mind in the real world, and is therefore testable like any other hypothesis.-- [[Image:Asclepius staff.png|8px]]-PalMD -- 16:00, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
 * I agree with you PalMD, but I'm sure that you're moving away from your usual NOMA position there.--Bobbing up 16:02, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
 * How does one test for the existence of god? 204.187.154.49 16:04, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
 * Come up with a hypothesis and test it?-- [[Image:Asclepius staff.png|8px]]-PalMD -- 16:08, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
 * I think I'm simply proving my atheism, and a reason for it. If someone tells me they believe in god, but that belief that belief is a separate part of their personality that doesn't affect the way they treat reality, well, Sie gezundt.  Just because one of their beliefs is irrational doesn't mean all of them are.-- [[Image:Asclepius staff.png|8px]]-PalMD -- 16:06, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
 * I fall just short of being an atheist because I can't prove that there is no god. Or was no god. I think it's unlikely, but still I can't consider faith to be irrational. 204.187.154.49 16:20, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
 * I think the majority of atheists would agree with you in part. Proving a negative is very difficult.  But can you prove that Thor doesn't exist?  Would faith in him be rational?--Bobbing up 16:23, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
 * That's the downside of Pascal's Wager - you don't know which god you should be believing in! [[Image:jollyfish.gif|25px]]Genghis Marauding 16:28, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

<-

It probably becomes irrational when you start attributing characteristics to god. Once you say god is a man with a hammer, or a man with a set of rules, or a bunch of men and women - then you are stepping beyond interpretation of existance into the realm of imagination. I hope that makes sense. 204.187.154.49 16:48, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
 * I'm not sure. If yo imagine a god with zero attributes then he becomes even more difficult to disprove. But why would anybody worship such a god? Does the God most people believe in have zero characteristics?--Bobbing up 17:24, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
 * You're right. I wouldn't worship such a god and neither would most people. But that's as far as I can rationally believe. There are things that exist in this world that have no relevance to me but I still know they exist. I just don't worship them. 204.187.154.49 17:36, 14 March 2008 (EDT)


 * Spinoza's argument suggested that God had every attribute and thus was in effect, the universe as a whole. Fun reading if you want to tackle it. The 'God exists' part is "PROP. XI. God, or substance, consisting, of infinite attributes, of which each expresses eternal and infinite essentiality, necessarily exists." --Shagie 17:43, 14 March 2008 (EDT)


 * Oh noes, you brought up worship! I can't see the point in worshipping any sort of really omnipotent god. OK if s/he was some minor demi-god then I suppose s/he might get a minor ego-boost form a bit of kow-towery. But really, the most powerful thing in the Universe demanding some sort of obsequience? Quite honestly, the gods that people make up for themselves are not all that nice are they? [[Image:jollyfish.gif|25px]]Genghis  Marauding 17:58, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
 * Right. So God created man in his image so that man could worship him and he gave man free will so that man could make mistakes and then beg forgiveness? What kind of plan was that? Exasperate me!<font color="#649CD6">Sheesh! I said what? 19:39, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
 * Requiring worship is something that has been ascribed by various visionaries (whatever their source of visions. The demands of a higher power have all been recorded by people who want to keep others in line. When playing The Sims, do you require your sims to regularly pay homage to you?  For that matter, do the sims know your plan?  Worship can range from "oh please don't smite me today, get that guy over there who has his foot under the stall" but rather "the universe is great and we are conscious, thank the one who made it so." The former is a bit more personal than the latter. Each religion has its own variations on these themes.   --Shagie 20:13, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

Closing Arguments
Oh God I wish we had our own CP WIGO that monitored you guys. "Look at them, sniping and snarking at each other!", "Oooer, I wouldn't want to be in Human's shoes right now". "Oooh, she's gone, she's gone!". Of course we can't admit to peeking, so we won't.  But we'd love to. Iis1stConservapediaSockMonster 21:14, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
 * I agree. I would be well if we could all just agree that Baal is the one true god, sacrifice a goat, and get on with it.  No bother to think.-- [[Image:Asclepius staff.png|8px]]-PalMD -- 21:22, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
 * CPSM, check out RationalWiki:RationalWikiWiki. They don't quite have a wigo thing going on, but they do report our antics. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms">human  21:26, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

Wait, so Human was the reason she left? Or was it MC? TmtamesP 21:45, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
 * She left because she left. I even saw Jeeves suggest I get banned for it. The truth is she is all too ready to throw the dirt but doesn't know how to take it.


 * To close, I'm glad the news item was taken down, and amazed by some of the statements I heard from a few of the members of the site (It was like watching a reverse CP for a moment), but encouraged by statements from some of the more thoughtful, interesting ones (AK/PalMD/AmesG/Grand Soviet etc.)


 * In relation to the swearing, I've never seen such an amount of passive aggressive reaction to me telling someone to fuck off. Swearing is in an Irishmans blood and I honestly think there is a fundamental difference in cultures when it comes to that. Susan deserved to be told to fuck off. Anyone can look at the edit history to see what she said to deserve it.


 * Thats all I'm going to say on the matter(s) MarcusCicero 21:50, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
 * Eh, fuck off! Oh, and have a nice evening.-- [[Image:Asclepius staff.png|8px]]-PalMD -- 21:53, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
 * Someone suggested you get banned? That's pretty stupid. And she has said that same thing to me before also. I didn't care. Strange she takes such offense. TmtamesP 21:54, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
 * It was Jeeves and he was joking - he suggested it be done in the past tense. As in, for your punishment, timmytappyamsper, I will block you for three hours yesterday. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms">human  21:56, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

Ah... Just re-read it there. Sorry Jeeves! MarcusCicero 21:59, 14 March 2008 (EDT)

PS Conflict Resolution is a ridiculous idea
This isn't Wikipedia and we don't need an arbitration committee or anything like that. Its not like productive work is actually done on this site ;-) MarcusCicero 21:52, 14 March 2008 (EDT)
 * You say that because you weren't the one driven off the wiki. And besides, the purpose of formal policies is to not to assist the loud ones like you, but the quiet ones who would otherwise be run over by the other editors.  -- 01:51, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
 * No one was "driven off the wiki". One editor got in a snit and decided to make their point via absence rather than argument or discussion. And she wasn't exactly a "quiet one with no voice".  That more likely describes our friend Barbara Shack, an enigma to many and not a big talker, but a prolific editor. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms">human  01:58, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
 * Dammit. I just knew you guys were going the mix the statements together.  I should have stuck a qualifier in.  But anyways, my second statement was a separate point about a hypothetical situation, having nothing to do with Susan.  And that point still stands.  -- 02:04, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
 * You're right, sorry for the conflation. Maybe you should have left off the first sentence, since it had no basis in reality.  The second, however, is a good point.  We have quiet editors?  Well, maybe we will, someday :) <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms">human  02:10, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
 * Specifically, I had in mind the dozen or so users here who mostly just read the wiki, particularly WIGO, but almost never edit. Users like Fretfulporpentine, Arcan, PlantB, Matt, and Lardashe.  -- 02:45, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
 * If only you really knew of what you speak. [[Image:jollyfish.gif|25px]]<font color=Blue>Genghis Marauding 03:45, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
 * Yeah, but is was Me who committed the Sin, and, hopefully, atoned for It. Jesus, where Is My Father now in this Moment of Torment? <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms">human  03:57, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
 * ...Was that addressed to Human or to me, Genghis? -- 04:34, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
 * Rather belatedly - you. [[Image:jollyfish.gif|25px]]<font color=Blue>Genghis Marauding 18:48, 21 March 2008 (EDT)

The final solution: The RationalWiki Soviet is formed!

 * * mounts the platform* Editors! Comrades! MarcusCicero is absolutely correct! We do not need to follow in the failed footsteps of Wikipedia, even as it drags it own ponderous, decaying corpse towards the brink of disaster, worn down by the endless bickering of admins and wikilawyers and other such creatures of darkness! We do not need to accept a demeaning servitude under some reactionary bourgeois arbitration committee that means only to stifle us in the execution of this, our most glorious mission! No! But what do we need, I hear you ask! I shall tell you, comrades! What we need is to bring our beloved Mobocracy to the logical next stage: We must establish a true People's Soviet to give a strong voice to the oppressed masses and to provide true, enlightened leadership in this, the hour of our greatest struggle! Fellow editors, lurkers and vandals alike - comrades! - let us join together on this heroic march towards the inevitable dawning of a new age! Let us embark on this magnificent quest that beckons us! Let us establish the Soviet and let the rays of the new sun shine down on the accomplishments that are yet to come! The people's accomplishments! OUR accomplishments! Long live the Soviet! -- AKjeldsen Godspeed! 19:18, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
 * You told me you don't edit wikipedia, except to correct a typo once. How do you know wo much about it? TmtamesP 19:22, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
 * I may not edit, but I read, watch and study. -- AKjeldsen Godspeed! 19:28, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
 * You study wikipedia? You read arbitration archives? Something is up here.  I think you are not being completely truthful.  TmtamesP 19:31, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
 * I... may have been reading an archive from time to time. And Wikitruth. And WPReview. Occasionally. ... But that's not the issue at hand here, fellow editor! The important issue - that issue which we all need to focus on - is the establishment of our glorious Soviet and the inevitable victory of the people! All power to the Editor's Soviet! *waves flag* -- AKjeldsen Godspeed! 19:35, 15 March 2008 (EDT)


 * You've skipped some steps. First we must form the first interrational, and debate endlessly about what form the glorious future will take. -- 19:38, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
 * Yes, I had hoped we could get those over with quickly - in the interest of efficiency, of course. -- AKjeldsen Godspeed! 21:47, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
 * First we must liberate the means of production from the bourgoisie.69.222.64.216 20:39, 15 March 2008 (EDT)


 * To the barricades, Tovarich!!!-- [[Image:Asclepius staff.png|8px]]-PalMD -- 19:23, 15 March 2008 (EDT)


 * Don't forget! We need to form international branches of the Party! -- 21:33, 15 March 2008 (EDT)
 * And liberate the tyopsis from the grandma police! <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms">human  21:49, 15 March 2008 (EDT)

DID SUMBODY SAY SOVIET??? *cossack dance* GrandSoviet 15:06, 16 March 2008 (EDT)
 * Somebody did indeed, tovarich. Join up today and revel in the wonders of cossack dance, unlimited supplies of vodka, and the inevitable glory of the editors' revolution! -- AKjeldsen Godspeed! 20:04, 20 March 2008 (EDT)
 * Wait a moment... if this is the editors' republic... that means... that means, as sysops, we're all bourgoisie! YOU FOOLS!  YOU'RE REVOLTING AGAINST US!  -- 13:59, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
 * Just don't teach the rabble how to make those French guillotine-y things. Oops.... <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms">human  14:37, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
 * Editors, pay no attention to the ramblings of this agitator! Sysops are just as much editors as are any of us, and will have their rightful place in the glorious society to come! This is not a movement against the sysops, but for the Mobocracy, a glorious struggle to save it against the forces of darkness and wikilawyering that threaten to subject it to their own interests! -- AKjeldsen Godspeed! 17:31, 21 March 2008 (EDT)


 * Shame! What does it mean to be free if editors must beg leave of Monsieur le Vicomte to edit so much as a tenth piece of a page? I tell you brother, if we are to declare the commune we must be prepared to dispose of the Ancien Regime utterly and completely and by any means necessary. -- 17:52, 21 March 2008 (EDT)


 * Step number one. We should all study the beautiful language красивий язык of Mother Russia the Soviet Union. Леушкаsuperstitious animist 17:46, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
 * Great! Now we can look forward to seventy years of failure, repression, inefficiency, boring archtitecture and crap cars. Plus ça change, ... [[Image:jollyfish.gif|25px]]<font color=Blue>Genghis Marauding 18:56, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
 * But we get to seize the moral high ground from the corrupt, capitalist West! -- 18:54, 22 March 2008 (EDT)