User talk:Reverend Black Percy/Archive5

Hayek
Why do you want to revert the edits?
 * Aside from the fact that he did share his Nobel Prize with his ideological polar opposite, Gunnar Myrdal? Which is, by the way, hilarious? Don't blank in our articles, plz. Also: Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:09, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

unacceptable actions/assburgers
ur constant reverting demonstrates an abuse of ur sysopship, and very likely ur position as a mod because ur authority indubitably contributes to the intimidation effect while reverting, if you revert me again, you master debater, I will definitely LANCB and the wrath of the proletariat will be brought down upon you, bourgeoisie scum, capitalist pigdog TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 22:17, 21 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:20, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe this is a. a micro-aggression against my Islamic heritage and b. I feel racially abused and intimidated who can I report this to? TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 22:23, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:24, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Sysops have no authority over normal users. Please read the rules and understand them. 22:31, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Careful, CheeseburgerFace! YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO FEED HIM AFTER MIDNIGHT!! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:32, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * [[File:Snapshot 20161121.JPG]] TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 22:34, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Godwin.jpg Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:36, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Reverend White Percy TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 22:38, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Nein, nein, nein! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:40, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * *blushes* you made me drop my sceptre- btw that triggered meme is officially DANK TheAmazingSkeptic (talk) 22:43, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Bye
Is there anyway that i can block myself, buddy?--Sofer (talk) 00:32, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Please reconsider if you're about to LANCB. As someone who has rationally taken issue with BG's style of writing, I was hoping to get an idea of your view regarding the whole issue in the coming days. I'm very saddened to hear that you plan to leave instead. I can't stop you from leaving, and I respect your choice, but I very much hope to hear more from you about all this. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:41, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Regarding the blocking, nope. I could reinstate your sysop if you promise you won't attack BG with it. I'd like to honor your wish of atleast being able to block yourself. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:43, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm very sorry man, but i took my decision. You can block me instead. [[File:Friends.gif]]--Sofer (talk) 00:47, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Aww man, don't make me do it. It's like having to shoot your friend before he turns into a zombie. ;__;
 * Could you atleast check back in a week or something? Let things clear up a bit? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:51, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, i mean.... we both know about his... "style of writing". I don't see the point to talk about it. Regarding the discussion, i expressed my opinion too well in the talk page (seriously, there's a lot to read...).--Sofer (talk) 01:01, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * So let me read it. Take a break for like a week and check back. I'll post my findings to your talkpage. K? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:27, 23 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Ok, i have to sleep. Good night [[File:Yawn.gif]][[File:Wave.gif]]--Sofer (talk) 01:29, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Same here man. Give me a couple days! Peace buddy Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:31, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * So... you're not going to block me even if i ask you, aren't you?--Sofer (talk) 17:32, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Doubt it, but I can. 16:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * OKay, will you allow me to block myself?--Sofer (talk) 17:46, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe 16:50, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

BAD
Feel free to move that stuff to Bold and Determined! :) 19:59, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Also omfg the "intro" page is hilarious. 20:00, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Wow — great moves, Fuzzy! Keep it up! Proud of ya By the way — could you make us a manosphere/broscience/paramilitary woo nav template? Pretty please with sugar on top? With something like a curling bicep, shurikens, dollar signs and a spartan helmet? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 05:02, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I mean... mrm... 17:08, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Silver nonimation participation
Hello. Because you've shown interest in the past, please consider contributing to the discussion of the Deep Web article's silver nomination discussion. 03:52, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Owlman has a problem with me
Can you please tell him to stop? Worzelpete (talk) 23:22, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Yo help me too
I thought their was a specific way to put a specific part of a page in a category? If so can you place this and this under the authoritarian moonbattery category or at least tell me how to do it (I didn't see anything on the help page for it)? Also thanks for cleaning those up and making them actually interesting to read, I'll try to write more when I get some free time. ClothCoat (talk) 23:27, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I still think we would be better served by creating a third position category instead of bloating pages with overlapping categories.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 23:30, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Generic Ban Evasion
Nothing new. 𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈 (talk) 13:35, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Could you please unbin me?
I seem to have been binned and stripped of all my user-rights. I hope you will restore me to my rights so that I can revert shit-edits like those to Lacy Green. Worzelpete (talk) 23:50, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Done. Go forth and sin no more. (And for the record, I wish you didn't canvass multiple people to unbin you in parallell.) Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:47, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry. And thank you. Will my sysop rights be granted again? Worzelpete (talk) 01:55, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Since you were set to sysoprevoke by Owlman, that means you will need the assistance of a moderator to regain your sysop. I'm not a moderator, so I couldn't help you regardless. Your blankings to the Apartheid page did concern me, though — not for any reasons related to the topic, but because the outright removal of over 10k symbols from any article is almost never an improvement to it. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:59, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I must have hit the wrong button by mistake there. When I wanted to undo my mistake, it had already been undone. Sorry for that. Though the topic does seem to merit a discussion by wiser minds than mine. Worzelpete (talk) 02:08, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I am new here...
Hi,

I am new here. I see that you have reversed my edit on Laci Green. I have tried maintaining the tone of the entire article. Which part of my edit do you think is "misogyny"? Rational1 (talk) 17:55, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi there! Welcome to RationalWiki. I've replied to you here. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:21, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

About the idealism edit
Hey, sorry I removed that part of the article. I've done goofed. I just didn't see much of a point to it but you did clarify why it should stay. Again, sorry for removing it, hope your perception of me doesn't change because of that mistake. :)--WMS (talk) 18:55, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about that, lol. You'll always be my big, bold, beautiful baby boy! I'm always happy to see you make edits! Worst case, they're reverted — just like for everyone. No problemo. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:59, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you RBP, I very much appreciate your words of kindness :) .--WMS (talk) 19:11, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
 * And I yours! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:13, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure
I'm not sure of some things. What do you think of my ideas on my talk page? Did I do the message thing correctly using "@" in front of your name? Or is there another trick to making sure someone knows you've messaged them. Is that a message or notification or something else? It seems silly to bounce between talk pages when one will do. Sorry for my ignorance. I don't do this often and have only delved into this wiki back end discussion/talk area for about 3/4 of a year. Thanks in advance. ~  JasonCarswell  (talk)   18:38, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello again! Actually, adding an "@" doesn't do anything particular on RW. I do it when there's replies from multiple users right above me, in which case I write "@username" to denote who I'm responding to. But aside from that, there's no need to use an "@" when replying to a single user. Also, the so-called "ping" feature that works on Wikipedia doesn't work here, either. In short, if you want to reach people on RW, you have to do it manually. Hope this helps. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:43, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Very good to know. I'll look for the "ping" on WP.  Thanks for the insight and tips.  ~  JasonCarswell   (talk)   19:00, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Also, when I'm done my draft should I just copy/paste over the existing article or is there another process? ~  JasonCarswell   (talk)   19:05, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The point of the draft is that it is a draft — meaning, when/if you feel "done", if you feel that you would like your draft to be considered for mainspace (meaning: replacing the non-draft Corbett article), then please contact the community (via the Saloon Bar, for example) and ask us to take a look at what you've written and so on. But for now, the idea is that you work on your draft instead of the mainspace Corbett article. You don't want to get rolled back, and I don't want to rollback, so it's for the best to split things up like this for now. Thank you and goat bless. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:08, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


 * It's not really a draft - more a sandbox. (I should really learn how to play in the sandbox.)  I already wrote the article months ago.  Every now an then I add to it.  This time I was adding but was interrupted.  Just sayin.  It started promising, but unfortunately the results weren't as creatively fun as I'd hoped.  I think it ends up having too much to do with where you stand.  Regardless whether you believe everything governments or theorists tell you, the opposite side will take it seriously with a side of offense, unless it's absolutely ludicrous.  Take a look if you like User:JasonCarswell/JamesCorbett.  Unless I'm missing something, I still like my newer opening paragraph with the recent JAQ addition with better suited positioning of the same links.  ~  JasonCarswell   (talk)   22:15, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Gratitude
Thanks for editing my comment into paragraphs so that people will be more inclined to read it and comment... hopefully. I am probably the most prolific RWikian to be almost completely ignored. That's probably because I keep it long and weary and because I am writing in the shadows rather than edit our 'front window' viz. our article pages and thus engage myself in editing conflicts, the inevitable result. A result which in turn also results in more attention, a stimulus which we all require and in which we all flourish. At any rate, it is encouraging and consoling that at least someone bothers to structure what I write even if not comment. But notwithstanding my trivial personal grievances your own work as editor must be really frustrating at times. There's a great deal of wandals and irrationality running amok here. An identity troll just blanked the 'cultural Marxism' page. I vow to help how I can as I get more accustomed with the wiki format. Gewgtweg (talk) 13:24, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

What's your opinion on free will?
As you saw earlier, I asked FCP the same question. You clarified that we don't know if the world is deterministic or not. So what's your stance on free will RBP? Determinism, compatabilism, libertarianism, incompatibilism or any other? I'd like to know :). Thank you in advance.--WMS (talk) 19:40, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, that's a tough nut. For all the philosophy I've covered, I've yet to actually dive deep into free will.


 * I only own one book that I think is specifically on the subject, and that's Free Will by Sam Harris. It had an interesting discussion, if nothing else. I recommend it, as long as you don't treat it as some kind of be-all end-all book (it's quite short; but it raises some questions in a way that is stimulating). He also has an interesting talk about free will here, and I obviously recommend you watch it. Here he is in another talk on free will — though I haven't seen them, so I don't know if he covers the same ground in both. But first, watch the stuff I'm linking below.


 * Instead of buckling down and chosing a side on the topic of free will, I'm going to toss you two very basic videos on the topic, from CrashCourse. I'm not saying you "need" them — I'm just saying that they're good for raising some of the questions, too. Determinism vs Free Will and Compatibilism.


 * So, is that all I had to offer? Well, no. I'm very interested in closely related topics — epistemology, philosophy of mind, et cetera. So I'm going to toss you two other videos which, while not squarely on the topic of free will, I still believe will have interesting consequences for your understanding of free will (and they do touch upon it). The first one is by In A Nutshell (formerly known as Kurzgesagt), and is called What is life? Is death real?. The other is from CGP Grey, and is called You Are Two. I believe these two videos might interest you greatly. I hope all of this is of any use, and thanks for asking! All the best buddy, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:05, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for answering RBP, the videos you've linked are quite thought provoking and very interesting. This is quite an interesting topic and I appreciate the information you have told me :).--WMS (talk) 20:54, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I also ought to ask, do you agree with Sam Harris' stance that we are not, in any way, responsible for our actions? Don't get me wrong, I do believe that a lot of our decision making is based on the environment, past experiences, neurological actions and such (although I hold the belief that if some neurones or what not did the action, I still classify it as my action- the stance changes if the action was affected from the inside but from something that was not meant to be there e.g. tumours, mental illnesses). He seems to be quite a hard determinist and, although I find what he says thought provoking, I don't necessary agree with everything he says (that's not bad, is it?). I think we should be accountable for our actions (in different measures, as the crash course video showed towards the end of the video). So, do you agree with Sam Harris?--WMS (talk) 21:14, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, I've yet to actually absorb the discussions on free will to be able to place myself anywhere in it. I'm just running the default position for now — suspension of judgement pending further data (meaning, in anticipation of the day where I can sit down and start to really study the sides of the issue). As my practical position right now is suspension of judgement (pending an understanding of the field) regarding free will, I run by the "naive view" that free will exists, people are responsible, and so on. I've just really yet to hear it all out.


 * What I will say is this, however — to further nuance the topic. You ask "Do I have free will?" and about what I think and believe about things, and so on. That leads to philosophy of mind, which I'm more versed in. Before we ask if we have free will, we should perhaps ask who we are? In fact, if we're going to talk about something having free will or not, we're implying a something with will (free or not) — a mind. So, what are minds?


 * In an effort to understand some necessary things surrounding free will, I'm tossing you the following assorted videos (all of them were hand-picked by me for you, so it's not a random dump, promise! They're relevant ) on identity, philosophy of mind, and related topics just to help you spin some cool thoughts about this marvellous universe we all briefly share (and try our best to comprehend):

In A Nutshell

 * 1) What Is Something?
 * 2) What Are You?

School of Life

 * 1) Why You Shouldn't Trust Your Feelings
 * 2) What is the Stream of Consciousness?
 * 3) Higher Consciousness

CrashCourse

 * 1) Batman & Identity
 * 2) Personal Identity
 * 3) Arguments Against Personal Identity
 * 4) Personhood
 * 5) Where Does Your Mind Reside?
 * 6) Artificial Intelligence & Personhood

QualiaSoup

 * 1) Substance Dualism (Part 1 of 2)
 * 2) Substance Dualism (Part 2 of 2)

Vsauce

 * 1) What Is Consciousness?
 * 2) Is Anything Real?
 * 3) This Is Not Yellow
 * 4) Is Your Red The Same as My Red?
 * 5) YOU LIVE IN THE PAST
 * 6) Did The Past Really Happen?
 * 7) Why Do We Feel Nostalgia?
 * 8) Why Do We Dream?
 * 9) What is Déjà vu?
 * 10) What Can You Do Without a Brain?
 * 11) Our Narrow Slice
 * 12) What is Random?


 * Take the time to check these out some day, skip the ones that bore you, and just ponder as best you can! It will enrich your philosophical life All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:53, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you RBP for responding again, it's a fascinating topic free will. Thank you for listing videos, I'm sure they'll expand my knowledge- I have actually watched some of them previously (mainly Vsauce, in a nutshell and crash course) but the other ones are completely new to me. When I'll find some spare time, I'll watch the videos (and re-watch in some cases because, as you said once, "repetition is the mother of all knowledge"). Thanks again, after I finish watching the videos (which might take a while because it's mock-exam week) I'll report back to you RBP :).--WMS (talk) 22:16, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I love the Vsauce vids! Almost as much for Michael as for the content. But not quite. B) talk 00:41, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Neat; please enjoy the content posted above (Vsauce and otherwise). Michael has great intensity — I'd bet you a Coke that he meets the criteria for ADHD, heh. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:47, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Moore Trump Quote Mining
I thought it was topical and relevant to the day, potentially worth discussing. Otherwise I would have left it there to be discovered whenever. I'm apolitical. I don't care for Trump or Hillary. They're both evil sides of the same rigged establishment system pretending to be a choice. (30 types of cereal or shampoo is choice, though owned by the same monopolies.) I have the feeling you don't like my contributions. Sure I'll learn the ropes as I go, but I won't go very long if I keep getting minimized. Just sayin. ~  JasonCarswell  (talk)   04:12, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Hey Man
So I'm pretty tired after seeing just how far the rabbit hole goes for Pizzagate conspiracy theorists, because my morbid curiosity got the best of me, but any general advice you would give on managing ADHD as an adult? Diogenes of Wilmington (talk) 04:21, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Confused
I added a reference from the Bulletin for Biblical Research and "However, some denominations of Christianity treat monolatry and henotheism as different things from monotheism" with a reference to the Monotheism article. You reverted it with the comment "You're doing that thing again where you let "text inside brackets" substitute for handwritten article text. Don't." But I thought we were (if possible) to keep the main text of the article as short as possible with references to back up the statements otherwise article become TLDR messes. The only "text inside brackets" was a link to the relevant article. So what am I missing?--BruceGrubb (talk) 13:25, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

MGTOW Talk page
Could a suitable page be created for the Look-at-mes, trolls, 'same to you with tomato sauce and other school playground insults' writers to be banished to (for suitable lengths of time) so the can amuse each other, leaving the rest of us to treat it as a normal article. 86.191.125.164 (talk) 23:21, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me about the Vandal Bin.
I completely forgot about that feature. I'm used to straight-up blocking spammers for a while on other wikis. TheMyon (talk) 22:29, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Vandal Bin
Hello, I would like to know why I have been placed in the vandal bin. Thank you.--Ontological (talk) 11:33, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello! It seemed a reasonable guess that you weren't here to actually discuss the issues based on your blanking of page content, followed by another nonsensical revision after having been explicitly (and politely) asked to provide reasons for your edits — normally done on the relevant talk page — by another editor. Considering that the article subjected to your advances was the one on the ontological argument — your username being "Ontological" — further suspicion arose. My hope is that there will be probable cause for you to be removed from the vandal bin as soon as possible, based on your upcoming actions. Note that the vandal bin, unlike the block function, does not censor you in any way. It just keeps you from starting an edit war, which appeared to be imminent. My advice would be writing up your complaints on the talk page for the article in question. Thanks in advance. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:28, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not quite certain why that is a nonsensical revision and I feel that your suspicion is unreasonable considering my two edits. I will take your advice about the talk page and try to continue editing here. Thank you.--08:43, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Politicus USA
Fake news 15:12, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

MGTOW Discussion conclusion
This is the conclusion I have come to after discussing MGTOW with various people on the talk page: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Men_Going_Their_Own_Way

All the statements made by me which put MGTOW in positive or neutral light are anecdotal, there's no substantial evidence.

Also, all existing statements present on MGTOW page that puts it in negative light is also anecdotal - there's no substantial evidence.

I would request you to remove protection from the page so that I can make the required changes - i.e., removing all statements for which no substantial evidence is present. Rukmaniahuja (talk) 17:17, 16 December 2016 (UTC)


 * This isn't rationality. This is insanity. You cannot hold on to believes that are supported only by anecdotal proof while you discredit opposing views because they only have anecdotal proof. At best, you can edit the article to say "only anecdotal proof is available in regard to this topic" and allow all anecdotal statements regardless of weather they put it in good light or bad light. Rukmaniahuja (talk) 16:10, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Standardized formatting for all pages
I think that we should define and adopt a standardized format. All articles should be re-arranged to be in accordance with this format.

For example, articles on individuals and organizations can have these sections:

Introduction Legitimate Criticism Illegitimate Criticism Unresolved Criticism (for criticisms on which the Rationalwiki community has not arrived at a conclusion yet - best arguments from both sides to be mentioned) Concluding Remarks

Kindly note that something like this in mass scale is already implemented on wikipedia. For example, just go through the wikipedia articles of hollywood actors.

We should discuss this idea with the frequent and creditable editors around here. Rational1 (talk) 11:51, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Mercola's Censorship
I don't have a source. I only have my experience in commenting on his blog. But, I think you'll find anyone who posts a dissenting comment on his blog will get the same treatment. Try it and I trust you'll restore my edit. 68.42.32.128 (talk) 22:18, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

You've been nominated as a moderator
04:22, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

A hopefully readable and concise due reply created at the instigation of your allusions to my contributions on the Hegelian debate page
The 'debate' was essentially an opinion page since nobody would (and could) really bring up a directly and consequently opposing view. Instead, all that was written was more or less converging or nearly overlapping. I am aware of how odd or presuming it might sound, but I have reasons to disagree with simply everything written by everyone there.

Yet, as awesome as disagreeing can sometimes feel for us 'skeptics' or whatever, I would have been unable to reply to everyone to the extent I wish. Even if I only chose to direct my rebuttal to one person it would still naturally grow to be humongous and be neither read nor understood.

Had I proceeded in this manner, the opinion of the community would pin this on my inability or unwillingness to exercise self-restrain. In reality, even if I had limited myself to brief, 'point-by-point' axiomatic, declarative statements and follow the path of laconic virtue I am directed to, these would still fail to be understood precisely because of their being brief and not in spite of it. Allow me to say that someone asking of me to compress a gigantic noetic mass to a small volume is not the best idea.

The underlying reason as to why we are faced with this admittedly awkward situation is simple. The contributors evince a lack of sufficiently clear and well-founded historical perception on all fronts of the subject matter. This includes not just dialectics, Hegel or philosophy and the history of ideas in general but also Marx, Marxism, Communism etc. These are highly technical and complex matters and folks treat them in a manner that doesn't transgress the boundaries of the superficial and provincial. It's truly more or less folklore.

I fully and completely understand that personal pride will take up sword and reasonable reservations about my character will inevitably sprout up against such a humiliating remark on my behalf for so many people.

My work on dialectics is 1000+ good pages worth. It is not muddled with loquaciousness but instead strewn with concrete and solid material; an extremely heavy bulk of primary and secondary literature is methodically processed and made to adhere and cohere in order to pave a well-built and secure road leading to an all-round knowledge of the subject.

My odd grammatical structures might be seen in a new light once I inform you that the language I choose to write my prose is German even though it's not my native. These synthetic structures, reminiscent of good old Latin, are very comfortable in arranging clauses into a neat order as you wrap up the extremely complex task of a 'grand synthesis of dialectics'. In my English (also not my native), this natural tendency tends to 'spill over' and unnecessarily challenges the reader. I will do my best to fight it back and apologize.

I am here to produce an extremely voluminous synthetic work which will help gain an education on things I happen to know much about and the community frankly does not. The incoherent presentation style of Wikipedia or some random book, (or polemic tract by say, Russell) cannot help someone gain a deeper understanding of dialectics. Contrary to your view, it does make perfect sense from the perspective of formal logic. This is not a positive prejudice. I am not a fan of Hegel's philosophy or even 'philosophy' itself (and no fan of Marxism either by the way). But still, I must repeat that I possess deep technical knowledge of the subject and will prove to the community that this claim is far from an empty boast.

Will the person that's charmed the most by gazing at the starry skies make the most keen-eyed of astronomers? Will he who most loves his fellow human beings be the greatest surgeon? You see, sometimes the way to knowledge is moral distance. So my scientific knowledge of dialectics doesn't correlate with existential-moral investment in it. But on the other hand, moral distance doesn't mean hostility and mockery. As long as we call or think of dialectics pure 'bullshit' and Hegel as some mutation of a human being or half-crazy then this only proves one thing: our ignorance.

Irony and 'the snarky point of view' are amusing things for short entertaining articles on some human caricatures the likes of Sarah Palin, Ann Coulter and Donald Trump or for exposing assorted quacks and charlatans. But when we try to apply such an attitude to matters that require technical expertise, hardcore discipline and firsthand knowledge of the sources, we become cranky ourselves. All the best. Gewgtweg (talk) 01:13, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Jesus Christ on a stick! That headline alone took me two minutes to read. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:20, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * "I am here to produce an extremely voluminous synthetic work which will help gain an education on things I happen to know much about"
 * I sincerely hope you are not going to produce this "extremely voluminous synthetic work" on this wiki.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 13:49, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Why not Bob? I guess Bobs do not usually care much about learning. Ok seriously now, I appreciate any help or counsel you can offer with making my texts more readable. Unless of course you are too bored to help, Bob. Lending a hand with manual labor might perhaps suit a Bob better. Ever heard of Bob the builder? Gewgtweg (talk) 15:08, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I offered suggestions on exactly these points on your talk page a few days ago.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:07, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I meant essential help. My essays are not perfect. You could read them and then make specific suggestions on what could be altered to facilitate a smoother reading experience. Once my synthesis is posted, you could do the same thing. Pardon me, however, but I have grounds to believe that unfortunately you lack the propensity of exertion required for this task and as such we shall be bereaved of your valuable counsel in future. Sad. Gewgtweg (talk) 18:01, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * OK. Cool. Goodbye.--Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 19:51, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

No hard feelings, but please be truthful
PB is correct. Conveniently, all evidence was deleted, despite that the relevant links were to public and official sources, a Medium article written by Person A and on blog network owned by Person B. This alone tells you everything. The people themselves see no problem with the views they expressed, and host on their own blogs, and for which they were critisized. Further, a stronger accusation and real defamation was in article space (which was baseless and which I asked to remove). So curiously, the situation is 180 degrees distorted. I was against such inclusions! This was the reason why I brought up the other cases, and I tried with argument before (the context was being hypocritical). When Fuzzy finally deleted this article space smear, the reason for “going there” was resolved anyway, so in addition a banning achieved nothing. What's more, If the reasons cited here were correct, you'd also have the curious situation that Statement X is okay in article space, but when you repeat it in talk space, for example to point out hypocritical doublestandards, you can get banned for it? — this cannot be right. Think about it. Since my statements contained nothing that was not also in article space, you cannot ban someone for writing something similar. Too bad, there is also this flaw. And finally the claim that the ban was reversible is utter bogus too. It was never an option. It would require to grow a spine and stand up. To his credit, Fuzzy did this, but ultimately went with the groupthink flow. The ban was long coming, and multiple (and unsual) attempts from sock puppetry, frivolous COOPs and even “glitches” were tried before. Bonus: don't let them tell you this has to do with Left-Right Wing views. That's ludicrous, too. Chomskyian-Sokal leftist is neither a “classical liberal” and certainly not conservative. Be sceptical, and protect contrarians in the future, instead of singling them out and abusing them (or pretending they are all the same outgroup team). If you want to contact me, feel free to use board mail. This worked. Generally, they deleted the evidence, no reason to believe them. Scepticism 101. And removal of names or specific wording was possible. No hard feelings, but stick to the truth. (this sock was originally and legitly created when the “glitch” happened, but of course I respect the ban). ~  02:13, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

The socking thing
Yes, I'm the primary advocate of banning malicious sockpuppets, even if they appear to be on my side. That's why I asked Bongolian to lock the page so IPs can't edit it. Although, I guess I can do that myself. 21:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Or not. I guess sysoprevoked people can't protect pages. Oh well, I'll ask for it to be done. 21:12, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You insisted on reinserting a wall of text, which wasn't even about the moderator election, from Aneris, a user who is supposed to be banned for legal reasons. Yet when users you don't know say some negative stuff about you, it's a lock & block situation.  21:57, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello,Reverend. How do you like taking care of the Imperium under the false emperor? Not so sunshine and rainbows, is it?
Because I, as a Marine of Khorne the Blood God will offer you something that shall be even better than serving a corpse emperor; the mighty strength beyond what humans can achieve. Plus no sorcery, since we don't like magic (at the very least, don't use it to fight battles for you). Also, no woo like that alternative medicine (Tzeentch's own undoing) and no hedonistic pleasures (Slaneesh should've been killed already, damn weak flop). Khorne asks for bloodshed but it is highly recommended you kill non-combatants last (and painlessly) becuase Khorne has no use for cowards who can't pick a good fight.

'Attack' is the only order worth remembering.-Khârn the Betrayer Maim!Kill!Burn! 03:36, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Could you quit acting like such a twit please? As a fellow 40k fan this is just plain embarrassing behavior. MyNameIsMudd (talk) 03:44, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but the Imperium does little to help you. I NEED BLOOD. Maim!Kill!Burn! 03:56, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * @MyNameIsMudd Agreed, nothing wrong with 40k — I even tried my unsteady hand at painting the figurines when I was 14 or so. I suspect my Ultramarines could've passed for smurfs. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:23, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * @K0rnsbl0d Archiving this under "cringe" Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:23, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the help!
Thank you very much for helping with the Dr.Sal article, your edits are brilliant and hilarious- had me laughing for quite a bit! :D Again, thank you for the help: it's very appreciated :).--WMS (talk) 02:39, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Glad to be of service, my friend — like always. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:35, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Email
Check! 03:17, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Patience, grasshopper. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 07:48, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Something you might be interested in
This is a version of the kalam argument which answers the usual problems with the kalam with the idea of creating new concepts of looking at reality, defining them, and then revealing (surprise!) that reality, when viewed like this, features God by definition. The concepts in question are "Conditioned Reality" and Unconditioned Reality," which I had never encountered before and so googled them to see if they were actual concepts in philosophy... only to find they only exist in similar apologetics.

But besides its sheer length and complexity (big words = true!), what is interesting about this one is that it explicitly rejects the usual Abrahamic God and argues for a form of pantheism instead - very odd for a Islamic piece. This is because the author is an Ismaili, a member of a obscure Shia sect. The Shia are known for their often loose adherence to core ideas like the Abrahamic God and the literal value of the Qur'an, a metaphorical/metaphysical trend which historically led to the early development of Sufi Islam before it became predominantly Sunni during the Ottoman rise. The author of this piece argues elsewhere that Muhammad did not literally hear from Jibreel, and that the Qur'an is not the word of God but rather Muhammad's own composition based on insights delivered to him by God. Although none of these concepts are new - the author references the neo-Classical school and you can see my page on al-Farabi to see the same ideas - they are certainly considered kufr (heresy or unbelief) by most Muslims, Shia or otherwise. I rarely encounter these perspectives elaborated in any length, so it piqued my interest along with the argument itself.

Anyway, we have some gems:

...the scope of empirical observation is limited and will eventually reach a boundary. God is changeless and immutable. Therefore, He cannot be empirically observed by definition. This does not entail the non-existence of God, it entails the limited scope of empiricism as a method of knowing.

Certain physicists such as Lawrence Krauss and Stephen Hawking have inappropriately and deceptively referred to empty space or the quantum vacuum energy as “nothing”; but this is simply no the case since the vacuum is not nothing, even empirically speaking. The quantum vacuum contains unstable energy subject to the laws of physics.

The only logical alternative to theism is naturalism or physicalism – the belief that physical reality is all there is. However, there is much stronger support for theism than naturalism – for three reasons. Firstly, there are no deductive or empirical arguments for naturalism. Naturalism, as already mentioned, relies on empiricism which is unprovable and circular in its own logic. Furthermore, there is no way to actually prove or argue, from observations within the natural world, that the natural world is all that exists. Indeed, it is the atheist – not the theist – who holds his naturalist position out of ‘blind faith’ in the absence of good reasons or evidence. Naturalism, far from being a reasoned position, is merely a prejudice or assumption that one arbitrarily adopts.

Secondly, naturalism is self-refuting because under the assumption of naturalism, the human mind is reducible to the brain which has evolved through natural selection for the sole purpose of survival and not to discover objective truth. This means that all thoughts, ideas, and intellectual worldviews are the result of brain neurobiological events that occur as the brain’s responses to stimuli and genes. As such, all ideas held by a person – under naturalism – are not held because of their truth or rationality but simply because of brain chemistry. This casts great doubt as to the accuracy of human scientific conclusions and knowledge in general – since it could only correspond to objective reality by some improbable miraculous coincidence. Under naturalism, it is the atheist who has “blind faith” that his own mental and intellectual convictions should be trusted in the first place.

Finally, naturalism ultimately amounts to saying that ‘things are just there’ as a brute fact without any final explanation because of its refusal to admit of anything beyond the natural world. Atheism at the end of the day is simply not provable and this should cast doubt on the very rationality of atheist belief which truly amounts to blind faith.

(The author also makes the usual mistakes of saying that (essentially) science relies on faith, atheism is making a absolute negative assertion, etc)

Contrary to what many modern people believe, the existence of God can be rationally and logically demonstrated: faith in God is not a matter of ‘blind faith’ or taqlid...Unconditioned Reality (God) is not bound by logic; but Logic bounds whatever we can say and know about Unconditioned Reality. So when we follow the logic, we reach the inevitable conclusion that there is one and only one Unconditioned Reality and all other Realities are Conditioned Realities dependent upon Unconditioned Reality.

And my favorite (emphasis mine):

But Unconditioned Reality, by definition, has no cause and cannot be composed of any parts whatsoever.

And in case you were wondering, despite the enormous advantage of using terms which make the desired conclusion true "by definintion," the argument still fails to save the underlying kalam's logic from the usual problems. Lord Aeonian (talk) 23:24, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot, buddy! Yeah, it's ridden with problems allright. I might write a debunking of it if I get the time. And hey, since you're a person who seems to understand that WLC-type arguments don't fly... Mind helping me out here? I'm arguing against a crypto-apologist, whom I'd accuse of being a sophist, if only his arguments were sophisticated to begin with (yes, that is in fact where we get the word!). All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:31, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry habibi, I learned long ago not to bother arguing with individuals, especially on obscure internet pages. It's a hopeless endeavor. I try to focus on making meaningful refutations of the most common and the most sophisticated arguments, so that myself (and anyone else) can just link them when the need arises. It's much more efficient in the short run, and the only feasible thing that would work in the long run considering how many people still believe in these superstitions. Ideally, we would have a page for every known argument, long enough to encompass and debunk every variation of the argument. This sounds like an impressive task, but considering how most of these arguments are semantic variations of the same logic it really wouldn't be difficult - certainly not as difficult as debating every religiot on the planet individually.


 * My advice here would be to finish debunking this guy's argument, and then write the whole thing up into a page (or if we already have a page, document this specific instance). That way, future people won't need to personally re-invent the wheel and retrace the steps. If you're interested in deconverting the guy himself however, a clever way to go is to assume god exists and then force him to prove his religion out of the all the rest. The existence or non-existence of god is a theist's favorite topic because they do have some leeway philosophically, unlike the impossible task of supporting any given religion. Don't fight on the ground that favors your opponent. Lord Aeonian (talk) 21:36, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

The socking thing
Yes, I'm the primary advocate of banning malicious sockpuppets, even if they appear to be on my side. That's why I asked Bongolian to lock the page so IPs can't edit it. Although, I guess I can do that myself. 21:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Or not. I guess sysoprevoked people can't protect pages. Oh well, I'll ask for it to be done. 21:12, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You insisted on reinserting a wall of text, which wasn't even about the moderator election, from Aneris, a user who is supposed to be banned for legal reasons. Yet when users you don't know say some negative stuff about you, it's a lock & block situation.  21:57, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello,Reverend. How do you like taking care of the Imperium under the false emperor? Not so sunshine and rainbows, is it?
Because I, as a Marine of Khorne the Blood God will offer you something that shall be even better than serving a corpse emperor; the mighty strength beyond what humans can achieve. Plus no sorcery, since we don't like magic (at the very least, don't use it to fight battles for you). Also, no woo like that alternative medicine (Tzeentch's own undoing) and no hedonistic pleasures (Slaneesh should've been killed already, damn weak flop). Khorne asks for bloodshed but it is highly recommended you kill non-combatants last (and painlessly) becuase Khorne has no use for cowards who can't pick a good fight.

'Attack' is the only order worth remembering.-Khârn the Betrayer Maim!Kill!Burn! 03:36, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Could you quit acting like such a twit please? As a fellow 40k fan this is just plain embarrassing behavior. MyNameIsMudd (talk) 03:44, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but the Imperium does little to help you. I NEED BLOOD. Maim!Kill!Burn! 03:56, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * @MyNameIsMudd Agreed, nothing wrong with 40k — I even tried my unsteady hand at painting the figurines when I was 14 or so. I suspect my Ultramarines could've passed for smurfs. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:23, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * @K0rnsbl0d Archiving this under "cringe" Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:23, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the help!
Thank you very much for helping with the Dr.Sal article, your edits are brilliant and hilarious- had me laughing for quite a bit! :D Again, thank you for the help: it's very appreciated :).--WMS (talk) 02:39, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Glad to be of service, my friend — like always. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:35, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Email
Check! 03:17, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Patience, grasshopper. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 07:48, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Something you might be interested in
This is a version of the kalam argument which answers the usual problems with the kalam with the idea of creating new concepts of looking at reality, defining them, and then revealing (surprise!) that reality, when viewed like this, features God by definition. The concepts in question are "Conditioned Reality" and Unconditioned Reality," which I had never encountered before and so googled them to see if they were actual concepts in philosophy... only to find they only exist in similar apologetics.

But besides its sheer length and complexity (big words = true!), what is interesting about this one is that it explicitly rejects the usual Abrahamic God and argues for a form of pantheism instead - very odd for a Islamic piece. This is because the author is an Ismaili, a member of a obscure Shia sect. The Shia are known for their often loose adherence to core ideas like the Abrahamic God and the literal value of the Qur'an, a metaphorical/metaphysical trend which historically led to the early development of Sufi Islam before it became predominantly Sunni during the Ottoman rise. The author of this piece argues elsewhere that Muhammad did not literally hear from Jibreel, and that the Qur'an is not the word of God but rather Muhammad's own composition based on insights delivered to him by God. Although none of these concepts are new - the author references the neo-Classical school and you can see my page on al-Farabi to see the same ideas - they are certainly considered kufr (heresy or unbelief) by most Muslims, Shia or otherwise. I rarely encounter these perspectives elaborated in any length, so it piqued my interest along with the argument itself.

Anyway, we have some gems:

...the scope of empirical observation is limited and will eventually reach a boundary. God is changeless and immutable. Therefore, He cannot be empirically observed by definition. This does not entail the non-existence of God, it entails the limited scope of empiricism as a method of knowing.

Certain physicists such as Lawrence Krauss and Stephen Hawking have inappropriately and deceptively referred to empty space or the quantum vacuum energy as “nothing”; but this is simply no the case since the vacuum is not nothing, even empirically speaking. The quantum vacuum contains unstable energy subject to the laws of physics.

The only logical alternative to theism is naturalism or physicalism – the belief that physical reality is all there is. However, there is much stronger support for theism than naturalism – for three reasons. Firstly, there are no deductive or empirical arguments for naturalism. Naturalism, as already mentioned, relies on empiricism which is unprovable and circular in its own logic. Furthermore, there is no way to actually prove or argue, from observations within the natural world, that the natural world is all that exists. Indeed, it is the atheist – not the theist – who holds his naturalist position out of ‘blind faith’ in the absence of good reasons or evidence. Naturalism, far from being a reasoned position, is merely a prejudice or assumption that one arbitrarily adopts.

Secondly, naturalism is self-refuting because under the assumption of naturalism, the human mind is reducible to the brain which has evolved through natural selection for the sole purpose of survival and not to discover objective truth. This means that all thoughts, ideas, and intellectual worldviews are the result of brain neurobiological events that occur as the brain’s responses to stimuli and genes. As such, all ideas held by a person – under naturalism – are not held because of their truth or rationality but simply because of brain chemistry. This casts great doubt as to the accuracy of human scientific conclusions and knowledge in general – since it could only correspond to objective reality by some improbable miraculous coincidence. Under naturalism, it is the atheist who has “blind faith” that his own mental and intellectual convictions should be trusted in the first place.

Finally, naturalism ultimately amounts to saying that ‘things are just there’ as a brute fact without any final explanation because of its refusal to admit of anything beyond the natural world. Atheism at the end of the day is simply not provable and this should cast doubt on the very rationality of atheist belief which truly amounts to blind faith.

(The author also makes the usual mistakes of saying that (essentially) science relies on faith, atheism is making a absolute negative assertion, etc)

Contrary to what many modern people believe, the existence of God can be rationally and logically demonstrated: faith in God is not a matter of ‘blind faith’ or taqlid...Unconditioned Reality (God) is not bound by logic; but Logic bounds whatever we can say and know about Unconditioned Reality. So when we follow the logic, we reach the inevitable conclusion that there is one and only one Unconditioned Reality and all other Realities are Conditioned Realities dependent upon Unconditioned Reality.

And my favorite (emphasis mine):

But Unconditioned Reality, by definition, has no cause and cannot be composed of any parts whatsoever.

And in case you were wondering, despite the enormous advantage of using terms which make the desired conclusion true "by definintion," the argument still fails to save the underlying kalam's logic from the usual problems. Lord Aeonian (talk) 23:24, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot, buddy! Yeah, it's ridden with problems allright. I might write a debunking of it if I get the time. And hey, since you're a person who seems to understand that WLC-type arguments don't fly... Mind helping me out here? I'm arguing against a crypto-apologist, whom I'd accuse of being a sophist, if only his arguments were sophisticated to begin with (yes, that is in fact where we get the word!). All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:31, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry habibi, I learned long ago not to bother arguing with individuals, especially on obscure internet pages. It's a hopeless endeavor. I try to focus on making meaningful refutations of the most common and the most sophisticated arguments, so that myself (and anyone else) can just link them when the need arises. It's much more efficient in the short run, and the only feasible thing that would work in the long run considering how many people still believe in these superstitions. Ideally, we would have a page for every known argument, long enough to encompass and debunk every variation of the argument. This sounds like an impressive task, but considering how most of these arguments are semantic variations of the same logic it really wouldn't be difficult - certainly not as difficult as debating every religiot on the planet individually.


 * My advice here would be to finish debunking this guy's argument, and then write the whole thing up into a page (or if we already have a page, document this specific instance). That way, future people won't need to personally re-invent the wheel and retrace the steps. If you're interested in deconverting the guy himself however, a clever way to go is to assume god exists and then force him to prove his religion out of the all the rest. The existence or non-existence of god is a theist's favorite topic because they do have some leeway philosophically, unlike the impossible task of supporting any given religion. Don't fight on the ground that favors your opponent. Lord Aeonian (talk) 21:36, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Delete my account.
I can't be part of a community that uses illiberal methods against those who don't fall in line. If you can, delete my account,. or tell me who I need to contact for that purpose and let's be done with it.Levi Ackerman (talk) 14:28, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Or you could just accept that you were wrong.--JorisEnter (talk) 14:40, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, but leaving and never coming back is so much easier. Lord Aeonian (talk) 20:26, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * , still butthurt, I see? So much so that you have inserted yourself into my affairs. Lol. Now you're just following me around, like a limpet up a whale's arse. Boy, I must have really done a number on you. I have that effect o people, you see. I imagine you're all the way on the other side of the world from me, yet I have managed to get under your skin. Lol. How is your massa (which is how slaves pronounced "master" in the antebellum era), Aneris, by the way?, wrong about what exactly? Just because a majority believe something doesn't not mean it's right. The majority of Americans don't believe in man-made climate change. The majority of Americans believe in the existence of a God. , just put me out of my misery. I spend way too much time here anyway. It's time to unplug and go back to the real world. So, to paraphrase Elizabeth Warren, "delete my account". Either that or I use my 30 minutes window of editing to restart my edit wars. By the way, how about me putting you in the vandal bin. Lol. That was pretty funny. Wasn't it?Levi Ackerman (talk) 13:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I wrote in the now archived coop case that I wasn't sure whether Levi was deliberately baiting other editors or whether he just have an obnoxiously aggressive way of responding when challenged, but his latest contribs are definitely making me lean towards the former interpretation. ScepticWombat (talk) 13:17, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I know he refused to debate before editing a page again and continued his edit war, because he considered someone was "a garbage of a human being". I don't think we're the illiberal. Diacelium (talk) 13:21, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Accounts can't be deleted but the closest thing possible can be done.--JorisEnter (talk) 18:36, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Congratulations!
You are now a moderator. With great power comes great partying. Nerd271 (talk) 00:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks a million, buddy!
 * I believe the time to "get jiggy with it" has indeed come, as it were. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:54, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Congrats, possible comoderator.- 01:09, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Right back at ya, Slick! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:11, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure whether congratulations or commiserations are in order, but either way, Rev., ENJOY! ScepticWombat (talk) 06:32, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Wombat! I'm doing my part! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:34, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Wombat! I'm doing my part! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:34, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Scientology troll
Ahhhhh, you should've feed the troll, consumed his time being frustrated with people on the internet! I think it would be better at trying to stop him from being influenced by that cult. Applesauce (talk) 13:01, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * As with stoners on your couch: if you feed them, they never leave. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

My first time being called a shill!
http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Barrie_Trower&diff=1772439&oldid=1769320

It finally happened! I've been called a shill! Ooooo, I longed for this day for so long :D. I hope you, FCP and the rest of RW are proud of me :,).--WMS (talk) 22:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Aww, shucks — my little Skeptic's growing up so fast * wipes tear * Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:32, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Update MediaWiki soon please
The gadgets have been down for days. :(- 04:19, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It remains my top priority as board member. In the meantime, I've alerted the proper authorities. I'm sure any information you could provide on the specific issue would be helpful to our dear gadget inspector. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 04:52, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

What am I doing?
good question, what am I doing? I'm doing nothing but minor edits and provide citations.&mdash; Unsigned, by: GreatPerson / talk / contribs
 * Let me give you four words: Sign. Your. Fucking. Posts.--JorisEnter (talk) 11:43, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Even minor edits can count as vandalism. Get a hold of yourself in time, please. And sign your posts — it's not rocket surgery. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:46, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

You were right
A lot of the internet communists seem obsessed with Hegel, even though his philosophy was... iffy. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:13, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Remember how I'm into analytic philosophy (the methodological opposite of the old-timey Deepak that is German idealism)? Well, no wonder that TOW has this to say in its summary of :


 * If it's true that they managed to fashion a Marxism free from bullshit is another question entirely (and irrelevant, really) — but notice what the criticism from the Hegelians non-analytical Marxists was centered on:


 * The Hegelians gasp in disbelief! Empiricial validity?! Logical consistency?!


 * ...Yeah. Those are kinda good foundations for literally any theory, methinks — no matter how humble in scope (and never mind if your theory's ambition is to describe the ultimate march of the spirit of the ages of the ultimate idea of the divine!!).


 * Y'know, that stuff — basic empiricial validity, basic logical consistency — instead of Lysenkoism and false consciousness and Geist and what have you. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:03, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but I guess I didn't really realize that e-communism was so laden with obsession with one specific(non-communist) philosopher. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That e-communism was so laden with Hegel? Buddy, forget e-communism for a moment; all of Marx-derived communism has historically been just as Hegel-laden. It all was, going back to Marx himself (and Engels). They were both Hegel-laden to the brim. And as Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy informs us, both the critical theorists and the western Marxists have reacted to Stalinism by literally implementing more Hegel into their systems (the thought of not wanting to end up like Soviet Russia was nice, but come on...). Also, not to repeat myself, but when one's actual snarl words are "logical consistency" and "empirical validity", one has gone full Hegel. Never go full Hegel. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * See... going "Oh yeah, there's an ideological ancestry here, that definetly calls back to the Hegelmeister, and you'd expect to see remnants of him all over the place". What I found surprising is that they seem to actually value Hegelian... everything.  ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 22:14, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * As a fellow non-Ufologist, I find that to be rather surprising as well. But again, it's like with biblical literalists or whatnot — they insist that "behind" all the impenetrable prose is the real truth of everything hidden in clear code. You know? And the long-winded and obscurantist scripture (be it religious or Hegelian) is basically just a projection surface at that point. It's like with Gegtweg's posts — he thinks a rambling 22k symbol entry on a talkpage is the essence of clarity. To me, it comes across more like the essence of word salad. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:30, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for helping with my Earth Angels draft
So far, this will be the only debunking of Earth angels on the web; I can't find another.- 00:53, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No problems! Also, it really needs a "Discussion"-type segment. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:46, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Wuddya think?
The pre-Euro material may be to big or outside just a currency competition article. Is the material worth re-working? cause some of could probably end up being used elsewhere, like in the Euro article maybe, or somewhere about exchange rates, or inflation. nobs 15:27, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm sure it could be useful — assuming the information contained is correct. While I merely skimmed the text, it was enough to realize that the entire portion used not a single tag. You know how it is, old timer — gotta bring the sauce as well. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 18:53, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

The following individuals would benefit from enhanced interrogation
Reverend Black Percy 20:55, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "Oh dangit I'm under my own spell... I-I'll do whatever you want Percy" Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:21, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Come on Reverend. Spill the beans!! Shabi  DOO  14:44, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Remove all the colored chalk
WTF does that mean?- 22:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I vaguely recall that being a line from the Simpsons episode. The image and quote for the template are from the Simpsons episode Lisa the Vegetarian.
 * Principal Skinner: Uh oh. Two independent thought alarms in one day. The students are overstimulated. Willie! Remove all the colored chalk from the classrooms.
 * Groundskeeper Willie: I warned ya! Didn't I warn ya? That colored chalk was forged by Lucifer himself.
 * 03:22, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

In a nutshell

 * "That colored chalk was forged by Lucifer himself!!" Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:50, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "That colored chalk was forged by Lucifer himself!!" Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:50, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Does God exist?
I had the most advanced supercomputer in the world search the universe for "God". This is what it found:



- 18:56, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The second most advanced supercomputer in the world, after the brain of William Dembski — and it says God exists. Checkmate, Atheist! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:28, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd be concerned about a 301 permanently moved(you know, like the goalposts are) ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 01:12, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Or maybe it's a 503 God unavailable.- 05:24, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Cooped
I have cooped you. Hipocrite (talk) 16:18, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

MFW the above

 * Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:21, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:21, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Saloon bar tips
Hello friend, I just wanted to ask if it would be allowed to post on the saloon bar what happened at my school. I mean, there's a lot of political conversation going on right now and it seems a bit out of place to post a (near enough) anecdote on there. What do you think RBP?--WMS (talk) 20:46, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Go right ahead, buddy. I mean, if you want me to offer some "writing advice" before you post it to the Saloon Bar, paste it here first, and I'll give it the ol' eye. But you're free to post anything you wish to discuss with the larger community to the Saloon Bar — that's what it's for. If RationalZombie hasn't gotten in trouble for overposting there yet, then everyone else knows they can post freely to the Saloon Bar. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Haha, thanks amigo for letting me know. Also, if you could give this a read to just check if it's eligible enough, I'd be very thankful- after all advice from you is always best advice.
 * Anywho this is the post (it is a bit long, sorry for that)
 * I go to a very dysfunctional school (well, at least student-wise, the education itself is pretty damn good) we have Neo-nazis, sex offenders (no joke), racists shouting "deport" and and the N word to migrants and black people (one of whom is my friend, he gets really mad when I point out his behaviour) it's all a bit of a shit show in all honesty. Anyway, we can add "alleged school shooters" to that list now I guess. Basically, a guy and a girl have been doing some quite worrying stuff on Facebook (although I still think they just wanted to be controversial for the sake of being controversial): the girl has a fixation with Dylan Klebod calling him a "real man" and always sharing photos of him. She also shares videos of the columbine shooting with pumped up kick playing in the background a bit too frequently. I'm not sure about the guy too much, but supposedly he is a bit quirky from what I heard. Anywho, the guy posted today's date as his status update (this happened yesterday by the way) and then the girl commented "I know who I'm going to kill first". Later, a person I known asked for clarification of what the hell they were on about and he got sent a screenshot of a group chat; the chat consisted of the guy putting a picture where Dylan and Eric are about to commit suicide and he said something like "do you want to do this tomorrow?" She replied with "yeah, post the date on Facebook". Someone got concerned about this entire fiasco and they reported them to a teacher, causing them to get internally excluded. Mind you, this is Britain, it's very difficult to get a hold of a gun here yet, people were still very terrified about what those two were doing. I posted this here because I want to know if you guys have any thoughts of this entire scenario.
 * So, what do you think friend?--WMS (talk) 20:58, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

A soak and a scrub
I go to a very dysfunctional school (well, atleast student-wise — the education itself is pretty damn good). We have Neo-nazis, sex offenders (no joke), racists shouting "deport" and the N word to migrants and black people (one of the shouters is my friend; he gets really mad when I point out his bad behaviour to him). It's all a bit of a shit show, in all honesty. And we still need to add "potential school shooters" to the list;

Basically, a guy and a girl have been doing some quite worrying stuff on Facebook (although I still think they just wanted to be controversial for the sake of being controversial). The girl has a fixation with Dylan Klebold, calling him a "real man" and constantly sharing photos of him. She also shares videos of the Columbine High School massacre — with pumped up music playing in the background — a bit too frequently. I'm not too sure about the guy, but supposedly he's a bit quirky (from what I heard).

Anywho, yesterday (on the 25th) the guy posted today's date (the 26th) as his status update, to which the girl commented "I know who I'm going to kill first". Later, a person I know asked for a clarification of what the hell they were on about, and he got sent a screenshot of a group chat in reply.

The chat consisted of: the guy showing a picture of Dylan and Eric about to commit suicide, and saying something like "Do you want to do this tomorrow?", to which the girl replied "Yeah, post the date on Facebook".

Someone got concerned about this entire fiasco and reported them to a teacher, causing the two to get suspended. Mind you, this is Britain. It's very difficult to get a hold of a gun here, yet people were very terrified about what those two were doing. I posted this here because I want to know if you guys have any thoughts about this entire scenario. I didn't want to take too much freedom with the text, but I think this helps readability. Please, please, change anything in my "revised" edition that isn't right — you're the one telling the story, and I have no way of telling if my adjustments have hurt the narrative (though I have tried to keep them non-intrusive). If you're happy with this text, all you need to come up with is a headline, then post it to the Saloon Bar. Disconcerting story, this. I'd have tipped off the police in a heartbeat, myself (for everyone's sake). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:12, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, by "internally excluded, you mean something like "suspended", right? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:13, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for the help RBP, and yes it is quite an unnerving thing that happened. Also, yes, they were suspended; I just called it "internal exclusion" because I think that's what the others called it too. Anyway, thank you again for the help friend :).--WMS (talk) 21:22, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No problems! Worth thinking about next time — spacing rules (when reading and writing alike)! All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:24, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I will compadre .--WMS (talk) 21:26, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Take care, buddy!

 * No, you weren't coming off like Gish. A high fever is dangerous; don't wait till the last minute to see a medical professional! Take care, pal!


 * Nice video of Boris; it explains rather simply how Putin took power. Bongolian (talk) 20:19, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Saw your reply on your talkpage, I'm just slow to reply right now because Niburu pulled me in. I appreciate the well-wishing, though!


 * I'm going to put some pizza on that fever now, I'm sure it'll help. And yeah, it's not a medical emergency. The fever I keep refering to reflects much more of a, shall we say, "severe cognitive fog" (causing me confusion, giddiness and loss of equilibrium) than it reflects an actual core temperature rise above what is simply considered fever (circa 39 degrees celsius).


 * Regarding Boris — yup. He was a classic allright. For all his failings, his moment together with Bill Clinton — truly signifying the end of the cold war in a purely emotional sense — always makes me smile. I can't help it. Heads of rival superpowers with nukes aimed at each other, and they're laughing it up like best buddies. As a man who appreciates simple nonsense, there's something profoundly human in that clip... Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:06, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

A banker, a banker!!
Thanks for your comment on my talk page. So, what you're saying is, the people who hold your viewpoint are allowed to edit the "crisis actors" page, but the people who don't are "vandals" who should keep their viewpoints to the "talk" page? Such rational behaviour! So, how do *you* explain the video with the car getting blown up and all the people rushing in, pretending to be injured?
 * Did you just accuse us of being "MGTOW tossers"? You do know we're not exactly MGTOW supporters here, right? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:55, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Baby doll butt syringe darts
Have you seen the h3h3 video about a guy who uses syringes on baby dolls? The video is disturbing yet hilarious (in the "why would anyone think of doing this" kind of way). If you have, I'd love to hear what you think of if. If you haven't, you should definelty go watch it as it is truly something out of this world.--WMS (talk) 23:14, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I seent it. This part sums it up for me I'm glad Ethan and Hila are socially conscious YouTubers, who actually cover the type of shit that kids might otherwise start watching. I mean, Ethan doesn't pretend to be anything but a comedian, but he's actually a meaningful consumer advocate as well, that guy. Thankful for it. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:23, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I wholeheartedly agree RBP, the h3h3 channel is (in my opinion) the best YouTube channel as it provides great comedy and they point out all the different wrongs on YouTube- Ethan and Hila are like the YouTube quality control which is a very respectful position (whether they're aware of it or not). Thanks for giving your opinion on this subject friend .--WMS (talk) 23:33, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Anytime, buddy — you got it! All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:50, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

We have a bias tag for articles?
Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ just got a message added that says "Please research the article's biases. Whatever is on mission should be sourced, and what is not should be removed." But POV states "RationalWiki does not use Wikipedia's well-known "Neutral Point of View". "; so what exactly does " biases" mean in the context of Rationalwiki? Yes, I agree that the article is way too long and rambles on a bit but given some comments I haven't got clue one on how to fix it.--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:38, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Off mission
Not trying to be off mission, fun banter is kind of my modus operandi. I thought about it, I will try to not get too stupid on the mainspace.Gaul Dernitt (talk) 06:09, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Autism
Are you questioning logical thinking as an autistic trait --90.203.0.224 (talk) 23:11, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You seem to be confusing having an with being a Vulcan from Star Trek. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:19, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * As somebody with Asperger's syndrom, I think it's fair to say that autists may prefer trying to use logic in more situations than non-autists do because we have a disadvantage at using emotional problem solving (is that a thing?), but that's closer to blind people relying more on their hearing because they... well... can't use their eyesight, obviously. I can't talk for everyone, though, and maybe it's a personal propensity in my case. --Imaginative username (talk) 01:43, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Look... I totally see what's being meant in the colloquial sense. And it's also very true that: an ASD =/= features of a person that are wholly negative.


 * But the fact of the matter is that there is no neurobiological developmental disorder which causes the affected people's cognition to suddenly "be logical", or even "moreso" than that of neurotypical people.


 * "Being logical" isn't even really a feature that one could have, per se. Logic is a construct and has to be learned. While there's always the question of being more or less innately predisposed to enjoying (and thus practicing, and thus improving at) any given activity (e.g. like being better or worse at maths), the fact of the matter is that no aspect of the thinking process actually falls under the umbrella of logic.


 * Logic is a language (and as such, a tool), just like mathematics is. But it's an invention of the brain, external to the mind itself. In fact, there are several different logics, just like there are different programming languages, each with its own applications and quirks.


 * Conflating logic with cognition quite literally means placing the carriage in front of the horse. Logic is a product of the human mind, not the other way around. And the human mind is not logical; it's arguably not even that rational — and that goes for everybody, with or without an ASD.


 * People with ASDs struggling with so-called relative to non-ASD peers doesn't translate into people with an ASD somehow being "less illogical" than said peers. Human beings simply do not operate in terms of logic — and there's no person yet diagnosed with "not being human" (self-diagnosed nonhumans aside).


 * Personally, I happen to have ADHD — and while ADHD is not an ASD (ADHD has its own spectrum), ADHD is in fact an example of a neuropsychiatric developmental disorder. As such, I have enormous sympathy for the hope (and even need) to find positive sides to one's disorder as well — of bringing up strengths as well as weaknesses; "features" deserving of attention alongside the limitations, especially in the face of today's overwhelming stigma. Trust me when I say that I realize full well that many of the typically negative aspects of one's disorder aren't even really all that unequivocally negative in the first place.


 * People with ADHD, for example, are certainly known to start countless projects, often at all hours, which typically go unfinished in the end. In a sense, people with ADHD come up with tons and tons of ideas. The thing is, however — even that feature of ADHD doesn't actually make a person creative. Sure, having lots of ideas may indeed be helpful, in the way that it shapes interest — just like having an ASD can shape interest enormously. Whatever the human mind practices, it gets better at, and ADHD certainly means practicing how to be a YOLO "spontaneous entrepeneur" of sorts. Even so, this doesn't make ADHD any less of a disorder.


 * But the fact of the matter remains. Separated from the healthy discussion on nuance in the public perception of neuropsychiatric developmental disorders, there is the odd (and quite frankly false) suggestion that not lacking relative emotional intelligence in itself constitutes a form of "irrationality". It certainly does not. Having an ASD does not make one "logical", psychiatry applies even to the behavior of logicians, and — indeed — human cognition itself is not in any way a function of logic. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:29, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Now, that's an exhaustive summary of the relation between ASD and logic. Unluckily a bit too long for the autism page :D --Imaginative username (talk) 04:52, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I gave it the old college try Reverend Black Percy (talk) 05:16, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Sounds like somebody has never backed up a trailer. Put your hand on the bottom of the steering wheel and brake often, you'll get used to putting the horse behind the carriage in no time.
 * Also this made me blush, don't tell anybody.Gaul Dernitt (talk) 08:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

So we should just have the negatives of the condition on the page as opposed to the positives, because from my experience as well as Bill Gates, Albert Einstein and Steven Spielberg, the positives greatly outweight the negatives --90.203.0.224 (talk) 09:01, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

https://psychcentral.com/news/2016/10/14/why-people-with-autism-are-more-logical/111138.html --90.203.0.224 (talk) 09:40, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Bruh
Percy it's time to unban TheAmazingSkeptic. 66.65.75.21 (talk) 14:53, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Edit Warring
We have another visitor!! Outside the talk page, though, I did want to mildly protest the claim of "edit warring." Or, at least, give myself a mild defense. I think I deserve at least some consideration. If somebody reverted, I always started a conversation in the talk page and directed people to it in my next change; additionally, I would not remake my changes after starting the conversation unless somebody re-reverted with no input on the talk page. -- Bertrc (talk) 18:18, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

The kook hour on shortwave
...and companion drinking game is now in progress. irc.taphouse.org channel #area51 listen on shoutcast http://www.splatterbox.us:5110 Cheers, Cosmikdebris (talk) 01:07, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That's awesome, thanks! I'm hearing that woman talk right now. And you never explained when to drink! By the way, don't miss this. I just posted it. It's relevant to everything, insanely. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:12, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Feel free to stop by the irc room if you like. The drinking game is when she mentions a paranoid conspiracy theory (belch). --Cosmikdebris (talk) 01:15, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Cool, but I don't have IRC installed. What's the fastest way to join your room? There's likely some browser client, right? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:17, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Found a browser client, I think. But this link gives me 404? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:17, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Try this: http://splatterbox.us/chat51.html (it's safe) --Cosmikdebris (talk) 01:21, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Help
I caught a BoN blanking the Milo Yinnapoulos page, and I tried reverting his edits. I think I might have screwed up the restoration. Could you please help?RoninMacbeth (talk) 17:38, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi! I'd be glad to help, but it seems like Fuzzy already took care of it. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:08, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

No problems there
Crank's fine with me since it ties in with the humor policy so no argument there. I didn't think activist was "flattering", in as much as just basically a job description, but I'm fine with how you worded it.--BrittanyPBone (talk) 19:27, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, s'all good in the hood! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 19:28, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Edits to the Theodore Beale article
Hi, if you have the time could you look at my explanation of the edits to the Theodore Beale article at the bottom of the talk page - I explained the changes made and how no information was deleted, since Hipocrite said it was a whitewash, even though other editors had looked at it and said it was an improvement.

(He seems angry that I removed the term 'white supremacist' from the Infogalactic article and assumed my edits were 'whitewashing', even though the original Vox article never called him a 'white supremacist' anyway - I did find some links which possibly describe his views as 'neo-fascist' or 'white nationalist' though, so they might fit in the article instead.

--BrittanyPBone (talk) 19:23, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Question
So if I make a account can i ues my mane? I just thought do to the nature of this site it would most likely be a no. (Or because I'm a mgtow)
 * Hey, sorry for missing this. You mean, if your account name can be something akin to 4chäņfâģ? I see no problem with that. Nor a problem with you being a MGTOW. We welcome people who are willing to debate constructively and the likes. I don't get the impression that you're a bad guy, and I don't want to seem like a dried up ol' pupper chasing you about with the signature thingy. So as far as I'm concerned, welcome aboard — please just try your best to sign your posts; it's for archive purposes and to help people know who they're replying to. Thanks, 1 sign = 1 prayer. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:13, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh no... you're being nice to me. Yes i will start signing my stuff and now that i can ues "2d4chanfag" i will also make a account. 107.72.164.34 (talk) 11:05, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I never meant to be a dick to you (and I'm sorry if that was ever the case). I hoped it was clear (based on the block logs) that I was kinda gunning for some rather friendly tap-on-the-arm type horseplay... But regardless, thanks for understanding! It's really all a question of how to make sure text can be input in a systematic way in conversations (and how people reading five years later can make sense of post order). As such, signatures are strictly a technical matter. I'm going to purge the edit filter of any mention of your "4chanfag"-thingy to try to make sure that things work out as smoothly as possible for you. And as always — be excellent, both to yourself and others. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:13, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * There, filter's been dealt with (as of the exact minute this post is dated to, see signature). If you tried to create the account before this exact moment and you ran into trouble, now you know why (and that it was not intentional on our end). Contact me if there's an issue and I'll try my best to help get you set up. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:18, 16 February 2017 (UTC)