Forum:Dirk Steele said something/Archive4

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 9 January 2016. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>, <3>, (new)(back)

Are you circumcised?[edit]

Why do adults think it is their right to chop off bits of a baby's genetalia? For what purpose? Dirk Steele (talk) 21:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

You are very annoying when you have "accidentally drunk a whole bottle of whiskey."[edit]

Are these people really for real? Jeez! Join the party party!

Heh, the amount if times I have accidentally downed a bottle a whisky would make your head spin. We should go drinking, Dirk. Acei9 21:55, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

You may not responsible for your actions. I forgive you.[edit]

But I am absolutely determined to have free will. Dirk Steele (talk) 21:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Join the true debate here

Are you circumcised?[edit]

Why do adults think it is their right to chop off bits of a baby's genitalia? For what purpose? Dirk Steele (talk) 21:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Join the true debate here

Electro Convulsive Therapy[edit]

Steven Novella promotes this

Do you think he may have a financial interest? Read the comments too.. --Dirk Steele (talk) 22:12, 11 January 2013 (UTC)?

ECT is actually high efficacious in the treatment of acute psychosis and melancholic/psychotic depression, with lesser evidence for its efficacy in acute mania. It's used as a treatment of last resort due to i) the reasonably high possibility of inducing memory loss, and ii) the social implications (many of which are based on people misunderstanding the treatment). In patients who are deemed appropriate, informed consent is obtained during which time the possibility of memory loss is discussed. It is rare (at least where I live) to use it on involuntary patients - in most cases it is catatonic patients or those with a very high risk of suicide and who lack normal cognition, and it must be approved by a family member where possible. It can certainly be argued that once recovered, these patients would have memory distortion of their episodes even without ECT (talk) 23:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Bullshit! ECT works in the same way as a baseball bat. You talk such shit mate all couched in a pseudo medical language to try convince ignorance. Would you like me to give it to you? Or maybe a leucotomy - very efficacious - . Yeh? Come round my house now. Let me plug a few thousand volts into your brain. It will not hurt. It may cure you of delusions. Quite honestly mate... you are a fuckin sadist. Dirk Steele (talk) 23:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
I searched PubMed but could not trace your contributions to the literature. In the absenc of any evidence to contradict the null hypothesis (that you are a random blowhard with no actual training or knowledge of the subject) I will stick with Dr. Novella as a source for now, not least because he has a long history of actually checking the science rather than engaging in arse-backwards rationalisations to support an existing prejudice, as you do. JzG (talk) 10:17, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
From my understanding (i read a chapter in a book a while back), BoN is right. Nihilist 19:06, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
There is no science behind the use of ECT or even understanding of what it does. Steven Novella suggests in his article that ECT diminishes brain activity! Well of course it does. Like a baseball bat does. Cognitive and memory problems are also well documented. Efficacy is measured using questionnaires such as the HAM-D. Hardly scientific especially when someone's brain has been fried. It is also known that what a patient tells the doctor is not the same as what he tells another patient - for well known psychological reasons and the results do not favour the doctor's views. . I have recently known 2 people who have recently undergone a course of ECT for depression. The effects were very very debilitating. But you stick with Dr. Novella. I am sure he knows best. Dirk Steele (talk) 05:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Exactly what does it take to get banned around here anyway?[edit]

Has any troll ever actually been banned?

Yes. After almost 5 years of trolling.Nobodydon't bother 22:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
It's unlikely to happen again. TK harassed RWians in real life and we still only banned him for two years, and the vote to do so was relatively close. If Dirk Steele were to personally murder Tmtoulouse, I could see him getting a two-thirds vote for three years. Maybe. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 23:15, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
If I recall correctly, none of the people we've ever banned for trolling have garnered the two-thirds now necessary for banning of any kind. TK didn't even get a vote, but that was in the days of yore. Blue Talk 23:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Hey man! Ban me for thinking differently to you. I accept it. It is the norm for you monkeys to do it. Go ahead. I welcome it. Dirk Steele (talk) 23:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
How fucking dumb are you. We banned TK who was dangerous (stalking in real life) and Marcus who was obnoxious over a period of two years or so. We have never and will never ban for thinking differently but you just want to feel persecuted because, in your head, your so special. Innocent Bystander (talk) 23:35, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Well I have been blocked for 2 years. Not banned of course. Luckily I have been unblocked but I had to draw attention for this to happen. Dirk Steele (talk) 05:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


If you want a crank space you will need to define crank. Just because I am a strict Popperian I get continuely attacked by the people who write this rubbish . Dirk Steele (talk) 05:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC) — Unsigned, by: PeterL / talk / contribs 05:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

If you make false allegations about me here I should be allowed to respond. Thanks. Dirk Steele (talk) 05:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC) — Unsigned, by: PeterL / talk / contribs

OK, I will stick to true allegations. You are a fact-blind crank with an agenda so obvious it will prevent you ever being taken seriously other than by Scientologists., And that's only because their agenda is even more batshit insane than yours. JzG (talk) 00:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 :: I am not a scientologist. Hubbard basically took Freudian ideas and reframed them, added a Crowley OTO/masonic structure and added SF Hindu mythology. I am actually Discordian. What batshit insane ideas do you refer to? You sound like a pimple ridden anonymous teen. Go do your homework then tidy your room else I will confiscate your playstation.


If you knew anything about psychiatry you would know that we can now identify those with a brain abnormality very easily via fMRI scans. It is also a genetic trait which can be measured scientifically and we have the ability to genetically profile everyone. Simply scan every person and then ban those who fail the test from owning any guns. It is such an obvious solution but probably not politically correct because blacks commit the most murders. (talk) 01:20, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Like whoah man. Who would pay for that dude? Just chill. Dudeman (talk) 01:24, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
It would be a lot cheaper than keeping the blacks in prison which is a drain on federal expenses and puts the US into a whole lot of debt which we cannot afford. (talk) 01:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't want none of your machinamajigs going near my head! --Mikal 01:40, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Well you are one of those that helped me change my mind and to adopt the views I now take. Don't forsake me now... (talk) 01:43, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
As Robert Hare has shown, psychopathy can be revealed by a brain scan and is proven by genetic testing. Why don't we just smother these criminals at birth? Problem solved. (talk) 01:51, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Paging Big brother... -- (talk) 02:08, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Definition of Religion[edit]

I have noticed that the definition of religion on this site is synonymous with Judeo/Christian/Islamic viewpoints and thus any criticism here includes secular belief systems such as Buddhism and Taoism. As a Discordian with a special interest in Taoism, I find this predominantly USA view disconcerting. Any idea on how to rectify this situation? — Unsigned, by: Penguin face / talk / contribs

Go write stuff on them. Tytalk 17:59, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
I am not allowed to. Also Taoism is ultimately ineffable: "The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao." — Unsigned, by: Penguin face / talk / contribs
Does the edit button mysteriously not function for you? Tytalk 18:06, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Ty, are you aware that that you are talking to a Dick? Redchuck.gif ГенгисunbelievingModerator 18:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Facepalm.png Tytalk 18:25, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
This is why we should block IPs--"Shut up, Brx." 18:30, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) The viewpoint that Eastern faiths are somehow not religions like Western faiths is embarrassingly ignorant. The same belief in the supernatural has been prevalent across the world. Unless of course you want to ignore stuff like Yin and Yang, Brahm, devatas, reincarnation, and kami in order to suit your colonialist worldview.--"Shut up, Brx." 18:26, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
It's equally amusing, Brx, when they bring out Taoism with such simplistic "the tao that can be told..." lines. Like you suggest, it's a very "new agey, western" view of eastern religions. Green mowse.pngGodot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 18:32, 20 January 2013 (UTC)(EC)
What is supernatural about the Tao Te Ching? The main tenet of Taoism.— Unsigned, by: Penguin face / talk / contribs
Nothing, it is a text. but if you want to get into what is religious about Taoist Buddhism, or any other buddhism, ask away.Green mowse.pngGodot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 18:32, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Lao Tzu would have laughed in the face of Buddha. So yeh.. I ask. And your silence is the most profound answer you can offer. — Unsigned, by: Penguin face / talk / contribs
Troll. lol. Why do you think the authors of the Tao would have "laughed in the face of buddha?" Taoism is replete with gods and goddesses, which are vital to China and later Japan's views of divinity, non divinity god head, and religion. Specifically, Taoism believes in possession - and the associated excorcisms. Taoist diviners are common place, today and in the ancient world, and are generally regarded as in connection to the non natural world. Ancestors hold power - they are not just "honored", but worshped, prayed to, and expeted to intervene in the lives of the living. What is traditionally rendered in english as "The Eight Immortals", be they spirits, gods, or some "other", are, still, prayed to, and expected to intervene in the daily lives of the living. In Taoist writings, virtually all of the currently known goddesses (the Changee (moon), the earth, Shangdi, Pangu (creator)) are commonly referenced. But clearly, those aren't religious, "as westerners think of it", hum?Green mowse.pngGodot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 19:29, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Wait a minute, what exactly is stopping you from editing the articles in question?--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 19:31, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh! Don't you remember your 2 year block on me? Dick. helloSailor 19:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
The basic text/tenet of Taoism is the Tao Te Ching. (I prefer the Arthur Waley translation).Where do you get all this other stuff from? Of course the ideas of the 'texts' may get corrupted by superstitious types but please cite your sources. helloSailor 19:38, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
One, translations suck. if you really want to tell the entire Chinese Buddhist world it's wrong in what it does each and every day, might as well read the chinese. As for "superstition" that "corrupted" the Tao, that's a very very western 'i know more than you natives' attitude. The easliest of texts writing on and about the tao all are seeped in Chinese religion of the day. the Tao is part of that entire system. it has creation mythology, it facilitates and enhances the ancestral worship of hte day, etc. only western thinkers seem to want it to be some kind of pure secular religion. Green mowse.pngGodot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 00:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The only real question is[edit]

− How far does one restrict individual liberty for the social good. helloSailor 20:08, 20 January 2013

Dirk Steele (talk) 20:32, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Unitarian Universalism[edit]

I agree with this rollback. Buddhism, Taoism etc have no need for a 'God' as defined by Christianity, Judaism and Islam. The definition of what a 'religion' actually is is open to interpretation. I can be an atheist Zen Buddhist for example... See above comments...a la... moved to 'Dirk Steele said something' censorship action. Dirk Steele (talk) 12:17, 26 April 2013 (UTC)