Debate:Therian (Scientific Promise)
This is a Debate Page, and it has gone pretty badly down the muddy slope.
This debate now resembles something halfway between a mud pit and a hell hole.
ENTER AT YOUR OWN PERIL.
Therian: Scientific promise[edit]
I think your sarcasm detector is out of batteries. - Gentleman Publius (V)<,",>(V) 19:12, 27 January 2009 (EST)
- Yep- as it is it is funny. As he had it, it's just a particuarly rude attack. Please keep attacks rational, without loaded language. --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistoris the chief bickerer 19:14, 27 January 2009 (EST)
- No, I'm just concerned that because of one noisy member we're treating something in a way we wouldn't otherwise--our articles on similar nonsense, be it ESP or crystals or anything else, treat their subjects with disdain because they are irrational woo. This bit of irrational woo is getting a a much easier ride...TheoryOfPractice 19:15, 27 January 2009 (EST)
- Rational? Someone who thinks he's a cheetah is telling me to be rational? That's effin' priceless. TheoryOfPractice 19:16, 27 January 2009 (EST)
- (ECx2) CUR, you have no idea what rational means. ToP, go nuts on it. It's the dumbest pile of shit I've read about this week, and my contributions have been unadulterated satire. - Gentleman Publius (V)<,",>(V) 19:18, 27 January 2009 (EST)
- No, I'm just concerned that because of one noisy member we're treating something in a way we wouldn't otherwise--our articles on similar nonsense, be it ESP or crystals or anything else, treat their subjects with disdain because they are irrational woo. This bit of irrational woo is getting a a much easier ride...TheoryOfPractice 19:15, 27 January 2009 (EST)
(EC)Not true. And here's the thing: It's not woo. It is happening- we don't know why, but woo, by it's definition, doesn't happen under any circumstances. This does happen. It may be subjective, it may be MPD, it may be genes (unlikely), it could be a whole slew of factors, but it isn't woo. And I don't claim to be a cheetah- I claim to think a bit like one. Ever read Temple Grande? And do you want to restart HCM?!?!?!?!? --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistoris the chief bickerer 19:20, 27 January 2009 (EST)
- Oh, for god's sake. You continually insert this totally unsubstantiated gibberish into every discussion, every time anyone says anything that disagrees with your victim complex. You read what you want to read, and approach the matter wholly irrationally. You act in a petty, attention-whoring manner, invoking scientific rhetoric you do not comprehend. Therianthropy makes as much sense as claims of telekinesis, astral projection, and an alternate dimension filled with pokemon which will soon cross into ours. Until you have sufficient evidence, stop going on about this. - Gentleman Publius (V)<,",>(V) 19:25, 27 January 2009 (EST)
- Do millions of ancdedotes add up to something? We have documentation of literraly millions of shifts- this is happening. We have no idea why. NO IDEA! I want to know what is going on. I want to know. There must be a rational explanation for this somewhere. Maybe it is subjective. Maybe it is due to atypical wiring. I don't know. But saying that there is not a rational explanation is irrational. Show me that there is no rational explanation and I will listen. And since when is anyone rational about emotions? If you aren't a Vulcan, stop lecturing me about being rational about how I feel. I just want to be left alone and be able to have my own beliefs in tolerance. --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistoris the chief bickerer 19:29, 27 January 2009 (EST)
- If you want to be left alone, maybe you should cease edit warring and arguing with most of the people here. How's that fresh start going? alt 19:32, 27 January 2009 (EST)
- If you want to believe that you embody the "soul" (there is no such a thing) of a "wolf-cheetah" (there is no such a thing), that's fine. But this is not the place to expect people to accept that kind of nonsense without challenging it. TheoryOfPractice 19:32, 27 January 2009 (EST)
(EC) An assualt on my beliefs does not qualify as leaving me alone. This is targeted at one user here- me. It is a personal insult, to say that therianthropy and science are incompatable, just as it is an insult to religion to say that god and science are incompatable. You are looking at fringe elements of therianthropy who believe that they are werewolves, or gifted with therianthropy from some god, and making a value judgement on the rest of us. Not rational in the least. And by soul, I mean personality. We have different definitions. --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistoris the chief bickerer 19:35, 27 January 2009 (EST)
- Beliefs are not sacrosanct and deserving of unquestioning tolerance--a lot of people believe a lot of stupid things and those beliefs deserve to be challenged and interrogated. That's what we do here. — Unsigned, by: [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] / [[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]
- As I said, we should work together to come up with a better explanation. Discounting millions of incidents and coming up with a religious explanation are both stupid. --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistoris the chief bickerer 19:44, 27 January 2009 (EST)
- The explanation is imagination. Millions of 'incidents' exist in every pseudoscience, from astrology to psychic powers. Brings us extraordinary evidence of a phenomena, and we'll reconsider. - Gentleman Publius (V)<,",>(V) 19:45, 27 January 2009 (EST)
- Nobody here but you seems to be interested in doing that. I repeat: this community's stated mission does not involve rationalising or tolerating the fundamentally irrational, full stop. TheoryOfPractice 19:47, 27 January 2009 (EST)
- I wonder. . . did autism undergo this kind of thing. I reiterate- there is no scientific reason why therianthropy is impossible. People have seen therians react in ways that are animalistic without trying to- for example, yowling, growling when woken up, or snarling. I've heard of a therian waking up in the middle of the night and not being able to communicate except in an animalistic fashion. --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistoris the chief bickerer 19:50, 27 January 2009 (EST)
- Nobody here but you seems to be interested in doing that. I repeat: this community's stated mission does not involve rationalising or tolerating the fundamentally irrational, full stop. TheoryOfPractice 19:47, 27 January 2009 (EST)
- The explanation is imagination. Millions of 'incidents' exist in every pseudoscience, from astrology to psychic powers. Brings us extraordinary evidence of a phenomena, and we'll reconsider. - Gentleman Publius (V)<,",>(V) 19:45, 27 January 2009 (EST)
- As I said, we should work together to come up with a better explanation. Discounting millions of incidents and coming up with a religious explanation are both stupid. --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistoris the chief bickerer 19:44, 27 January 2009 (EST)
- Beliefs are not sacrosanct and deserving of unquestioning tolerance--a lot of people believe a lot of stupid things and those beliefs deserve to be challenged and interrogated. That's what we do here. — Unsigned, by: [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] / [[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]
waking up in the middle of the night and not being able to communicate except in an animalistic fashion. I had a girlfriend like that once...it was awesome. TheoryOfPractice 19:52, 27 January 2009 (EST)
- I DO have a girlfriend (for lack of a better term) like that, and it IS awesome. :D </bragging> --
YossieSpring in Fialta 02:10, 9 February 2009 (EST)
- I DO have a girlfriend (for lack of a better term) like that, and it IS awesome. :D </bragging> --
- Yes, and aren't we so incredibly amused. Oh wait! We aren't. And this wasn't a one time incident, either. --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistoris the chief bickerer 19:54, 27 January 2009 (EST)
- CUR, kindly stop ranting and raving and edit-warring with handfuls of other editors. "This is targeted at one user here" - no, it's an article on RW. You just happen to identify with the topic it is debunking. That's your problem, not ours. Oh, and if you wake me up, I'll growl at you. It doesn't make me an animal other than human. ħuman
19:55, 27 January 2009 (EST)
- CUR, kindly stop ranting and raving and edit-warring with handfuls of other editors. "This is targeted at one user here" - no, it's an article on RW. You just happen to identify with the topic it is debunking. That's your problem, not ours. Oh, and if you wake me up, I'll growl at you. It doesn't make me an animal other than human. ħuman
(unident) You currently sound like the Assfly. Oh, and it was brought up after a discussion, in which I was targeted. Many of the things said there are disproved by my existance- for example, the idea that all therians are insane or wingnuts. --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistoris the chief bickerer 19:57, 27 January 2009 (EST)
- (EC) Let me be blunt. I don't care, I think it's stupid and I'm not interested in discussing it any further. Maybe 10 or a hundred years from now you'll be right and I'll be wrong and we'll think of therians the way we now think about trans-gendered people. But until that time, I'm done talking about it. Thanks. TheoryOfPractice 19:57, 27 January 2009 (EST)
- Allow me to be blunt: early ideas of evolution were treated this way. People thought that it was 'stupid' because it fell outside of their pre-ordained mindset. I am more of a scientist than you- I am not willing to say 'this is the explanation' until I do a study of it. You don't care one way or the other. Science is the way of rationality. But you aren't using the scientific method. Thoughout history, ideas have been treated this way, because they fell outside a pre-ordianed mindset. Some were proven to be wrong, some weren't. But until further study is done, this can neither be discounted or confirmed. So, if you want to discount it, study a therian, and get back to me. --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistoris the chief bickerer 20:03, 27 January 2009 (EST)
- Which part of the scientific method don't you understand? If you make extraordinary claims, the onus is on you to back it up with evidence. I haven't seen you present any. alt 20:05, 27 January 2009 (EST)
- This is not an extraordinary claim. This is an ordinary claim, as long as you don't read much into it. I read into it that it has something to do with the brain. Now, is that really THAT extraordinary. The answer's no, of course. No more extraordinary that the idea that gender dysphoria has to do with the brain. --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistoris the chief bickerer 20:07, 27 January 2009 (EST)
- ...except in the sense that there is physical evidence of gender dysphoria having to do with the brain, while there is no evidence of any sort for therianthropy. I've been largely keeping out of this, but looking at your own statements I see nothing different from, say, PJR's oh-so-reasonable version of YEC, or any number of alternative medicine, spirituality, or whatever peddlers whose evidence consists of "well, you can't prove it isn't!" Unfortunately, that's not enough. You've got to step back and realize when people criticize terianthropy as woo, they're not talking about you as a person, and the emotional reaction you've been giving, whether you want to admit that or not, is not appropriate. I'll say it again, it's not about you. It's about the concept, which is no more sacred and immune from criticism or even mockery than Christianity, Wicca, Zoroastrianism, chiropracty, chelation therapy, herbalism or anything else. --Kels 20:29, 27 January 2009 (EST)
- This is not an extraordinary claim. This is an ordinary claim, as long as you don't read much into it. I read into it that it has something to do with the brain. Now, is that really THAT extraordinary. The answer's no, of course. No more extraordinary that the idea that gender dysphoria has to do with the brain. --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistoris the chief bickerer 20:07, 27 January 2009 (EST)
- Which part of the scientific method don't you understand? If you make extraordinary claims, the onus is on you to back it up with evidence. I haven't seen you present any. alt 20:05, 27 January 2009 (EST)
- Allow me to be blunt: early ideas of evolution were treated this way. People thought that it was 'stupid' because it fell outside of their pre-ordained mindset. I am more of a scientist than you- I am not willing to say 'this is the explanation' until I do a study of it. You don't care one way or the other. Science is the way of rationality. But you aren't using the scientific method. Thoughout history, ideas have been treated this way, because they fell outside a pre-ordianed mindset. Some were proven to be wrong, some weren't. But until further study is done, this can neither be discounted or confirmed. So, if you want to discount it, study a therian, and get back to me. --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistoris the chief bickerer 20:03, 27 January 2009 (EST)
- (EC) Let me be blunt. I don't care, I think it's stupid and I'm not interested in discussing it any further. Maybe 10 or a hundred years from now you'll be right and I'll be wrong and we'll think of therians the way we now think about trans-gendered people. But until that time, I'm done talking about it. Thanks. TheoryOfPractice 19:57, 27 January 2009 (EST)
(unident) Look, the problem is that ToP is discounting something immediately, without giving it a second's thought. Kels, they are talking about me. I know this. I can tell. I've lived like this for several years, both offline and online. So yes, I am a bit short-tempered- but it is a product of my experiance here. I was victimized from the moment I stepped foot on this site, because I got off on the wrong foot. I am not pretending that therianthropy is immune from mockery. I am saying that this level of constant mockery is unacceptable. --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistoris the chief bickerer 20:48, 27 January 2009 (EST)
- Mockery? No one pays any attention to you until you start screaming at the top of your lungs about how you're being victimized. I don't know who you are, what you do here, and don't particularly care, but damned if I'm not going to refute every irrational, absurd, and pseudoscientific claim you present. If you think this is mockery, so be it. - Gentleman Publius (V)<,",>(V) 20:52, 27 January 2009 (EST)
- Might not be a problem if you actually refuted them. I haven't seen you do that to my better theories, just claim I'm a troll and that it's impossible without explaining why. When someone does that, it usually means the other side is winning. --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistoris the chief bickerer 20:54, 27 January 2009 (EST)
- For fuck's sake, you have never actually read what I've written, have you? I have never used the word "troll" on this site, and have quite clearly refuted your "better theories," given that the only theory you've presented which isn't just throwing out some reference to MPD or sexual dysphoria has been Cheetah-genetics. You have no clear definition of the phenomenon, no proof of any phenomenon taking place. Stop wasting our time. - Gentleman Publius (V)<,",>(V) 21:01, 27 January 2009 (EST)
- Never said it was you. Look at my talk page. Species dysphoria hasn't been explained away, and you haven't given a theory better then mine. Dismissing something is not a theory. --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistoris the chief bickerer 21:08, 27 January 2009 (EST)
- For fuck's sake, you have never actually read what I've written, have you? I have never used the word "troll" on this site, and have quite clearly refuted your "better theories," given that the only theory you've presented which isn't just throwing out some reference to MPD or sexual dysphoria has been Cheetah-genetics. You have no clear definition of the phenomenon, no proof of any phenomenon taking place. Stop wasting our time. - Gentleman Publius (V)<,",>(V) 21:01, 27 January 2009 (EST)
- Might not be a problem if you actually refuted them. I haven't seen you do that to my better theories, just claim I'm a troll and that it's impossible without explaining why. When someone does that, it usually means the other side is winning. --"ConservapediaUndergroundResistoris the chief bickerer 20:54, 27 January 2009 (EST)
I started a discussion on CUR's talk page.[edit]
I'm really sick of this complete idiot. ħuman 21:20, 27 January 2009 (EST)
- I've been afk for a few days, but have been receiving reports although they didn't cover the half of it; this little twit wants stopping somehow.
(Toast) and marmalade 10:43, 28 January 2009 (EST)
- We're trying a ceasefire - CUR won't do any silly stuff and we won't de-sysop him. You missed all the fun. Silver Sloth 10:45, 28 January 2009 (EST)
