Forum:Hi, i am new here, an idea for a new law.

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Hello, I found rationalwiki by hearing the name of a certain Michael Savage on the radio. I am a male from the UK. I am not a grammar Nazi (early use of Godwin's Law), but this is really an excuse for my crap grammar, spelling and tendency to typo for England.

My idea is called Clarkson's Law. A little background for those not familiar, Jeremy Clarkson is a 50 something well know British TV personality and broadcaster best known for being the lead presenter of the very successful motoring come general piss around show Top Gear, and is in my opinion a very entertaining man. Once voted for in some poll or the other as the man they would most like to see as Prime Minister (i am guessing it was a Poll in "middle aged, middle classed males who own V8 muscle cars monthly") He is also very much a Conservative, in the British sense you understand. He is(as far as I am aware and can deduce from listening to him) just as dismissive of such notions of birth control, YEC as most of the contributors at this website. He is however a radical Global Warming denier. Mainly because GW does not fit in with his vision of a world full of supercars.

So Clarkson's Law If you have a certain view, you will eventually find "scientific evidence" to support that view.

In Jeremy's case this would mean pinning his colours to the one scientist in 1000 who says Global Warming is a myth, whilst totally dismissing the opinion on the other 999

does this qualify as a Law Thanks — Unsigned, by: Mercian / talk / contribs

It's certainly an interesting idea! But it seems to me to be covered under the general principle of confirmation bias. Take a look and tell me if you agree. And welcome!--ADtalkModerator 22:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Everybody wants it a law for themselves, nowadays. I had to be here a whole two months before I proffered MINE! C®ackeЯ 23:27, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Voxhumana's law - every member of a forum will eventually demand an internet law be coined in their honour. VOXHUMANA 23:30, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Sophie's Law - if you get an internet law named after you, you won't find out until after you change your name. SophieWilder 19:23, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't want a law named after me because I'm sure a few months down the line I'll come up with a better one that I wish was named after me instead. Same reason I don't do piercings and tattoos. Anyway, on the original one, it's definitely something you see regularly. I've said before that if FGM was an accepted western Judeo-Christian practice there'd be plenty of "research" showing how it stops STDs being transmitted and so on. Scarlet A.pngmoral 20:46, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

My proposal for a new law is that everyone has the constitutional right to hold a kitten for twenty minutes every day. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 20:23, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Change "right" to "duty" and we have a deal, Stabby. -- Seth Peck (talk) 20:38, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm more of a dog person... --TheEgyptiansig001.png 12:34, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I suggest another definition of Clarkson's Law: Give a 50ish mn a hammer and he will break something.Th. Bernhard (talk) 19:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Or "People who made their fortunes through being controversial will continue to be controversial as long as they desire more money". rpeh •TCE 19:53, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Zack's Law: In any debate, the first person to call someone a "troll" automatically loses the argument Zack Martin HolyMaratreanSigil.png 02:14, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Why the hostility?[edit]

Finally i find a site that has the same views as myself, and somewhere i thought I could express my views and the responses I get are not helpful, (paraphrasing) Crap grammar, why should I care? Everyone wants their own "Fucking Law". This site may be rational but it seems very arrogant, PHD Elitists, or do you only want the Elite to post here. You seem as bad as the other side Psygremlin, I am an avid reader of your posts on Cpmonitor and thought I would get a more friendly welcome from you. This site seems just as extreme as the other side, as both seem to reject input from anyone who does not support their ideals. — Unsigned, by: Mercian / talk / contribs

Nobody swore at you. The first reply pointed out that your new law was already covered by an existing one; others added to that using the site's standard snark. I'm sorry if you're a bit taken aback by the general reaction, but believe me, it could have been a lot worse. rpeh •TCE 20:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Whose sock is this guy? C®ackeЯ 02:24, 26 August 2012 (UTC)