RationalWiki:Saloon bar

From RationalWiki
(Redirected from RationalWiki:BAR)
Jump to: navigation, search
Saloon bar
WIGO Bar colour.png

Welcome, BoN
This is a place for general chit-chat about virtually anything that doesn't fit anywhere else.
Beer.gif For previous conversations see the automagic barchives.Beer.gif

What is going on?

The Bar
(talk) (talk) (talk) (talk) (*cough*) (hic)

Pointless poll

Are animals from Australia the spawn of the devil?

Yes12Vote
No12Vote
They are a gift from heaven20Vote
Those demonic looking spiders are awesome12Vote
Australian animals are the product of evolution gone wrong38Vote
Can I have a scorpion?12Vote

How would you have voted on the three impeached presidents in U.S. history?

Convict all three59Vote
Convict Johnson and Clinton, acquit Trump5Vote
Convict Johnson and Trump, acquit Clinton65Vote
Convict Clinton and Trump, acquit Johnson6Vote
Convict Johnson, acquit Clinton and Trump2Vote
Convict Clinton, acquit Johnson and Trump1Vote
Convict Trump, acquit Johnson and Clinton7Vote
Acquit all three2Vote

Who is the shittiest US state governor?

Kay Ivey (R-AL)0Vote
Asa Hutchinson (R-AR)1Vote
Gavin Newsom (D-CA)5Vote
Ron DeSantis (R-FL)12Vote
Brian Kemp (R-GA)8Vote
Greg Gianforte (R-MT)1Vote
Andrew Cuomo (D-NY)17Vote
Mike DeWine (R-OH)0Vote
Kristi Noem (R-SD)8Vote
Greg Abbott (R-TX)55Vote
To do list


Kenneth Copeland banishes COVID, but it's heavy metal[edit]

Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 21:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Pure divine inspiration. Always a pleasure to see what new wild scheme Duce concocts. Cheers, and amen, brother! Iron Man 2020HA HA, I'M USING THE INTERNET!!!!! 00:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Lol, glad you liked it! Although, just to be clear, I didn’t make this. I just thought it was too good not to share. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 01:05, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Ha ha, I guessed as much, but I don't care, as long as it's funny. You made my evening; allow me to return the favor.
Iron Man 2020HA HA, I'M USING THE INTERNET!!!!! 12:39, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Copeland should bring a big silver cross on airlplanes to keep the demon infested people away from him in public airliner airplanes. Hey, crosses keep vampires away. You never know. Maybe a big wooden stake and hammer might help too as that works on vampires I am told. The stewardesses might complain a little bit when Copeland drives his wooden stake through the hearts of his fellow passengers, but sometimes a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do. And he could eat lots of garlic before getting on planes too as that keeps vampires away. And it would keep the demon infested passengers away from him as well. I don't care how much expensive cologne Copeland wears, it's not going to counteract eating 30 cloves of garlic.S'chn T'gai Spock (talk) 10:04, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Fetal Alcohol Syndrome[edit]

I know Kaitlin Bennett sounds and acts like a real and regular person, but I really don't think she is capable of understanding anything complex, at least in real time. I have said this before, the lady has Fetal Alcohol Syndrome. I am not being an asshole here, I am literally defending the lady.

She regularly slurs her speech, she has an inhibited ability to understand causal relationships, like she doesn't get a joke is a joke. I have worked with a very sweet gentleman who exhibits all these traits. If you want to get physical, she's got a short nose and thin upper lip and doesn't quite get why she's having her picture taken while she's pretending to cut carrots.

I absolutely have adult alcohol syndrome, but I am really worried we are piling on a girl who literally has reduced mental faculties here even if she doesn't present them in an easy to parse way. It happened at my work with a very sweet gentleman. He could talk and listen, but when you understood he could not reason, it was like "ohhhh ok"

Lemme put it this way. I overheard the guy complaining that he had to clean bathrooms, and I was like "well, here we go." He said "And I know why they make me do it, too." and I was like "Holy shit, he knows we think he's [the r slur]." And he says "It's because I do such a good job."

We asked him to do closing duties, which included turning the lights off. Had a guy working late, sweetie turned the lights off. Guy turned the lights back on. Sweetie came around and turned the lights back off. Guy turned the lights on. Sweetheart, oh poor guy sweetheart that everybody really took seriously, said "Who keeps turning these lights on!?!" Then an argument happened, and sweetheart's defense was "I am supposed to turn these lights off" and the guy couldn't explain to him he was still working. Complained to me, I was like "guy, are you stupid? Did you listen to sweetheart? He can't help it, he really literally can't figure out why you keep turning the lights back on."

But if you talk to or interact with the sweetheart, without knowing it, he's just another guy, maybe a bit of a dummy. Which is fine and normal and you run into those people. But if you actually interact with sweetheart, you start to recognize, no, he's not just a dumb guy. There's a real deficit in faculty here.

It's not the point that she can't cook right. The point is, she's seriously running on reduced faculties, and making her a lolcow is easy until you've met some people who are literally, just like, big children. They're just like really big kids. Anybody who says "Greta Thunberg is the most articulate kid with Asperger's I've ever seen, what a crock" also needs to recognize that Kaitlin Bennett is being used for her literal inability to understand any incoming information in real time.

The reason Kaitlin Bennett doesn't get that she's getting dunked on is because she literally doesn't get it. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:47, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

A valid point. The application of a consistent standard w/ Bennett and Thunberg is good. I also kind of pity the fact that she has FAS. Good post! Iron Man 2020HA HA, I'M USING THE INTERNET!!!!! 18:39, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Kind of a sour endorsement of the argument, since Aspergers and FAS are completely different, but I did kind of middle neurodiversity to make it easier, so I don't know what I expected. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:29, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Oh, sorry. I didn't intend offense. Iron Man 2020HA HA, I'M USING THE INTERNET!!!!! 23:25, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Well that's cute but sorry don't feed the bulldog. No, I'm kidding, I'm saying I messed up. There's a reason professionals don't openly or publicly diagnose mental divergence, and there's a reason I'm not professional. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:08, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

@Gol Sarnitt I would say this whole topic went from zero to ableist really quickly, but it started out as ableist from the get-go. I have family members with fetal alcohol syndrome this is not how it works. Speculating that someone who you don't even personally know as having an intellectual disability is gross, stop. She is a college graduate stop playing armchair pediatrician. She is just a shitty person, no need to make it about disability. Just because you are familiar with the behaviour of one person with FAS does not give you the intellectual authority to diagnose others. Also, way to directly imply folks with FAS aren't real people "I know Kaitlin Bennett sounds and acts like a real and regular person". Also censoring yourself with "and I was like 'Holy shit, he knows we think he's [the r slur].' doesn't make yourself come off as any less ableist and shitty. - Only Sort of Dumb (talk) 06:20, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree. I have adult alcohol syndrome, wherein I get drunk and really want to drive a point home. It doesn't make me an expert, it doesn't prove I have any familiarity with the spectrum, and I really do apologize for talking out of my ass. I did choose to censor myself quoting an actual thing I said to myself, I didn't mean for it to seem cool, I meant I honestly said it to myself without getting what was going on at the time, but you're right, bad take. Bennett holds tightly to enough shitty cultural ideas that it makes her a shitty person, and she's a frustrating person, no doubt. If you're comfortable with Bennett being an icon or a lolcow and I'm not, it's 100% my deal. Her autonomy is not something I can directly speak about, since it's nothing I directly know anything about. Yeah, I do feel pretty dumb saying "real person" and that's the language that is most effective when talking to people who get really, like, adult ready to throw hands upset dealing with neurodivergence. Good call out, I appreciate it, and I apologize. I don't have the toolset to deal with this, I appreciate being told I'm a dumbass when I'm being one. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:51, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

QAnon: Trailer Park Scientology[edit]

It makes so much freaking sense! Q Anon is scientology for rednecks. Tell me I am wrong. --Eggs Over EASyPlus (talk) 21:05, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

You're wrong. It's very easy to dismiss Qanoners as uninformed hicks, rather than what they really are, Ur-Fascism. It's also inaccurate, since Qanon is a cross-demographic cult/conspiracy theory, which includes rich and poor, urban and rural, black and white, men and women, etc. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
In a sense, Qanon reminds me of a religion, or what will fulfill the psychological impulses that lead to religion as the notion of theism itself becomes less tenable-Flandres (talk) 01:37, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
It provides an easy way for the conservative evangelical church to poison the well. By associated liberalism, and thus atheism, with Satanism, it ought to decrease the likelihood of deconversion and credulous folks coming to their senses.𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 01:49, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
There is a problem, in that old Correlation_does_not_imply_causation problem. It's not that the government doesn't lie, it's not that people don't lie. But interpreting the information is our jobs, as individuals. Recognizing personal bias is kind of a big step. I had a guy tell me, in terms of the Chauvin case, that dealing with somebody who is speedballing is scary and unpredictable, and he doesn't think that Chauvin did his job right, which I totally hand the ball over to this guy when he wants to talk about dealing with that. Then he says, but people just want to be mad at cops, he thinks people are not taking it to the politicians who are in charge of... well, it gets kinda stupid after that since he also said Trump was gonna kick the bad politicians out and he really thought the police would do it, but attacking the systems is exactly what's being done, BUT WHATEVER, he's literally against Chauvin getting convicted because he's seen people on drugs, but his bias is believing uninformed or flat out fake endorsements of progressive ideology are real, and real progressive movements are fake and run by politicians he doesn't trust, which is somehow everybody but Trump. He's a smart dude, but he played his hand when he got excited and validated today about a fake meme of Chauvin being acquitted. Like, come on, dude, who sold you that crock? It's a jury trial. It doesn't look good for the prosecution in the Chauvin case, but don't care about it if you "don't care about it." We all know why you care about it now, you tacit fascist. There is something in the Q belief book that we'll never get. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
These belief systems, if you can call them that, are Rube Goldberg organizations of rational thought. Humans have a natural propensity to concatenate ideas and have little or no skill at deontology and evince a "bombs away" teleology. Modern mythologies are the basis for unempirical histories. Do they believe it? Some do, the idiots, others are amused by the way educated people are annoyed by preposterous suppositions such as a child molestation ring centered in a pizza parlor and hosted by Hilary Clinton. Still others co-opt the movements to transport their individual goals and projects. Myth and unsubstantiated supposition drives them. And we are all capable of being idiots on occasion. Ariel31459 (talk) 19:57, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Alternative explanation: A Game Designer's Analysis Of QAnon. (I found that link elsewhere on RW.) The brilliant work of authoritarian ideologists skilled in psychological warfare. Carefully designed for larger-than-life meaning, and a mirror image of a massive multiplayer game, extending to encompass all of life when engaged per the instructions, through the predictable workings of cognitive biases. If the storyplanners only care about the big picture of what belief in the story leads people to support, then they can make the evolution of the story a very open-ended affair where most of the creative power comes from the crowd of participants. Whenever people solving the mystery evolve the story in a new direction, the next round of clues given to them can be tailored to what they now "know", adapting the storyplanning to create a more thrilling and immersive adventure. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 13:56, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Was moving the 2021 MLB All Star Game the good decision?[edit]

Short answer: no. This move was I'm sure done with good intent, but it's totally punishing the wrong people. This article is a great read for anyone who wants an informed opinion on the matter. The first few paragraphs make it clear that it's not at all written from a pro-Trump stance (opposite from it in fact) yet still argues that moving the game was a dumbass thing to do. Aaronmichael5 01:51, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

It's performative bullshit. Sports are sports, not politics, and baseball has exactly nothing to do with the issue at hand. I know I'm a minority for someone my age, but (short of criminal activity or similar) I absolutely do not care about what teams and athletes do outside of their sports; if I support something, it's because I agree with the cause and not some guy who's talented at a sport. And in this case they're actively hurting one of their own franchises, so it's the ultimate Plaxico Burress move. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:08, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Full disclosure, I have a personal grudge against baseball as the worst sport. It's a game where a bunch of guys stand in a field hoping nothing happens, and those are just the players. I have no idea how it's legal to sell beer at those games, the fuck else are you gonna do for nine innings? That's entrapment. Baseball is the worst sport. Anyway, putting my personal vendetta against baseball aside, to pretend like state economy doesn't include big franchises and tourism, blowing off sport is not really respecting capitalism's firm grasp on democracy. But protesting voting restrictions as a club, basically a union, and saying "Sorry, but if Georgia is going to do this voting restriction nonsense and we as a brand can't justify that decision, we won't be based there" is exactly what brand power is all about. Crying that it hurts people who aren't baseball players, well, that's what a strike is supposed to do. Moving it, instead of just cancelling it, is, well, a pretty lateral move that won't affect much. It's kind of strange to say "the Braves said they were 'deeply disappointed'" but that's team sports putting out a statement. I mean the whole power structure of capitalism is to limit capital to the things you don't like. I doubt the players in the MLB are fans of Georgia's ruling, and they probably want to see something done. The MLB is playing by the rules. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:04, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm unclear as to how this will address the problem of voting in Georgia. To me it looks like slacktivism, it's a big publicity stunt that does nothing about the stated issue. I have a degree in history, so I don't need a civics lesson from a sports league. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:41, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
It is performative to some extent, but the problem started with the idiot CEO of Delta Airlines, Ed Bastian, who claimed to have influence over the legislators and hence the outcome of the bill, that it was not as bad as it could have been. Once one claims influence, one is ripe for punishment. Oh, Delta had influence, then why didn't every other large company in Georgia also have influence? Their CEOs are highly paid super-geniuses who got their positions by meritocracy (and not the good-old-boy network) after all, right — well, that's the storyline anyway. Supposedly boycotts don't have much effect on sales but they do have a big potential effect on finding actual talented workers. Bongolian (talk) 18:57, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
No. Gridiron football is objectively the worst possible sport. For one thing, it is played outdoors from October through February. Baseball games are called for rain. Football carries on in the blizzard, under conditions that turn the game from a display of prowess into low comedy. Then there are the horrific injuries that are routine in the game. That said, when a multi-million dollar enterprise Takes a Stand on a public issue, I am highly confident that they did so because they did the math first and figured it would play well with the people who pay the bills. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 04:31, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Depends upon whether you are playing a finite game. Probably nothing will change the minds of the Republican legislature, even political defeat is unlikely to convert their incorrigible instincts for corrupt politics. However, in the long run, other states may discover brakes are put on their similar plans to limit democracy. And I would call that better.Ariel31459 (talk) 19:16, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Look at it this way, major companies and events pulling out of Georgia means that the state of Georgia shot itself in the foot. They loose mountains of money from businesses and attractions. --Eggs Over EASyPlus (talk) 21:57, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Not a huge fan of football myself, but if it's in a strange personal defense of baseball being the worst sport, which you can believe I will always maintain, exertion leads to core temperatures rising. It would be dangerous to sprint every 40 seconds in summer heat wearing a bunch of pads you can't take off. Would your rather your brains get cooked or smashed? It would be silly to claim football is too hard to play at the professional level in rain, snow, or mud, since every player is affected. Asking a pitcher to sacrifice his elbow and shoulder so that absolutely nothing happens during a sports game is a little fucked up. Being said, Coca-Cola spoke up, Delta spoke up, not because they are great and powerful influencers, but because they also did the math and it's fucking gross to be on the wrong side here. Brand performance is so low stakes. Actually making sure people can vote is somehow off-brand for republicans right now. That's fucking gross. I have a lot of friends who like baseball. My personal brand is I hate baseball and it's fun because I'm not trying to stop baseball. There is nothing anybody can say or do to get me to enjoy baseball. Also, everybody has an impossible hill to climb if anybody wants me to endorse voter suppression. It's not a difficult position to take. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 02:43, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Hopping in here to say that sport is inherently political, and anyone that says differently has obviously never heard of the Olympics, or the FIFA World Cup, or the FIBA World Cup, etc.-RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:23, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Something fairly accurate[edit]

This is so fucking accurate

Climate change deniers say God will fix the issues yet their own fucking bible says that people are supposed to care for the Earth. Stupid people are so annoying. --Eggs Over EASyPlus (talk) 20:30, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I wonder what religion will look like long after climate change has reached its peak. They'll all have to grapple with the inherently and unfairly hostile nature of reality at that point. They'll probably say it's the anticipation of Judgement Day or some shit. Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 17:06, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Won't that, if anything, be seen as vindication? Time to purge the wicked and such.-Flandres (talk) 17:58, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
I guess not. God seems to fetishize destroying the planet and everyone in it. So they probably are doing God's work in a way.Jeh2ow Damn son! 18:01, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
"Being a Good Christian is all about controlling your 'depraved' urges such as homosexuality because it'll harm others, somehow, but it has nothing to do with me controlling my urge to drive an SUV!" Correkt (talk) 18:14, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
@Flandres Possibly, but what happens when nature reveals itself to be dispassionate and amoral? When religious nuts realize that they and things they treasure are just as subordinate to the elements as everyone else, what claim will they have to metaphysical privilege? Or, what happens if cherished locations like Israel or Arabia become inhospitable? Sure, the reactions of the hyper-religious to climate change will be diverse, but I can't see it working in their favour. Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 18:18, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Religion has a magical power to rationalize almost any traumatic circumstance, especially an apocalyptic one. Even if the old ones are invalidated, new ones may arrive to fill that void.-Flandres (talk) 18:28, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
@Flandres So do you think a post-climate change world will be more or less religious than the one we live in now? (Not regarding all the other ecological crises that will fuck us up over the next few centuries) Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 18:45, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
That depends on how access to education is affected.-Flandres (talk) 18:51, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Disaster always leads to more religion. The greatest threats to religion are a robust welfare system, high social mobility, and a functioning healthcare system. Correkt (talk) 18:53, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
@CorruptUser So we're fucked? Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 18:58, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Didn't god tell us to treat Earth properly and avoid meat whenever possible? In both the Bible and Quran Pork is banned. 2A02:120B:C3FB:3B40:405E:9B00:E152:34FE (talk) 18:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Taking care of the Earth? Yes, there are more than a few verses that can (and probably should) be interpreted that way. Avoid meat? Nope. There's a list of animals you aren't supposed to eat, and a list of those that you are. Besides, how likely is a group of semi-nomadic herders going to decide to go vegetarians?
Honestly, nowhere in the Quran, Torah, or even the New Testament is there anything about not eating meat. Various sects have strictures about that, but their canonical sources tend to be a stretch, or "extra" scripture from the newest prophet on the block. Kencolt (talk) 11:25, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Rather, the Bible says that in the beginning even lions were vegetarian. OTOH, it contains detailed instructions for a shedload of animal sacrifices, some of which you get to eat when done. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 16:11, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
When the reality of climate change becomes impossible to ignore, it will still be possible to blame it on scapegoats. Rather than accept any responsibility, it's much easier say that it is God punishing us for allowing sinners to prosper, when we should have enforced an evangelical theocracy. Serene (talk) 19:32, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Quoting the character Hank Hill from Mike Judge's King of the Hill,
That's ridiculous, you can't just cause a problem and then ask someone else to fix it

Yes the quote pertains to polluting the environment when the character Dale Gribble mentions carbon offsets as a way to pretend that you care about the environment. This happens after the character Buck Strickland dumps empty propane tanks into a river to avoid proper disposal. --Eggs Over EASyPlus (talk) 19:37, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Hot take: Evangelicals are idiots, they should care about the environment instead of pretending it is an ILLUM1NATI HOAX. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 19:43, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

You can spin it depending on the version of Christianity. You can go with Genesis 1:26 where man has dominion over the earth (which some argue means "man" can do what he likes to it), with various biblical verses which say take care of the Earth, or you can go with the more apocalyptic versions of Christianity associated with Millennialism which have the world ending any day now so it doesn't really matter if we take care of it or not. It's always multiple choice.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:06, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Health tip[edit]

I have been feeling quite run down for more than a few weeks, months actually, and I thought that maybe a walk, first thing in the morning might cheer me up. What a difference it made! When I got out of bed after a solid 9 hours, I quickly dressed and walked abound the neighborhood for 15 minutes, even before coffee. It was a sort of autonomic reset that lasted most of the day. You might try it if you were feeling low.UncleKrampus (talk) 22:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Good post! Bongolian (talk) 06:46, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
I watched a rags to riches interview of an executive. He advocated cold showers in the morning.
I did a bit of online research and found....
"Depression affects at least 10 percent, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Many drugs treat depression, depending on the severity or duration of symptoms... Taking a cold shower for up to 5 minutes, 2 to 3 times per week, was shown to help relieve symptoms of depression in a clinical trial.
For people with depression, cold showers can work as a kind of gentle electroshock therapy. The cold water sends many electrical impulses to your brain. They jolt your system to increase alertness, clarity, and energy levels. Endorphins, which are sometimes called happiness hormones, are also released. This effect leads to feelings of well-being and optimism."[1]
There is no way that I am going to take a 5 minute cold shower (at least not at first), but maybe a minute or two would be ok.
Many successful people advocate reading or listening to uplifting material in the golden hour (first hour after sunrise) too.S'chn T'gai Spock (talk) 07:02, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Fun fact[edit]

Went to a Podiatrist today and found out something interesting[edit]

I mentioned about the pain in my foot from when I fell back in late 2019. Now here is what is interesting: when I initially fell I actually broke my foot and it never healed properly. The ER doctor told me that it was merely a sprain but that was not the case. So I have been walking on a broken foot that did not heal properly. That is why the X-Ray showed only a fracture.

It gets better- I need an MRI to see if there was an Achilles Tendon rupture. If there was a rupture I will need surgery to fix the problem! How in the fuck did the ER doctor miss a broken foot (which he hit into while he walked and did not apologize)? I have been suffering for over a year! The ER doctor did not give any bandaging or anti-inflammatory medicine. --Eggs Over EASyPlus (talk) 16:54, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Lawyer up! Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 17:29, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
You serious? That was in 2019. --Eggs Over EASyPlus (talk) 21:59, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
If you get surgery done, remind your doctor to operate on the correct foot. There are cases where doctors operate on the wrong foot, leg, arm. hand or eye. Better safe than sorry. I told my surgical team to do this in a joking way for an operation I had. But I was not joking.S'chn T'gai Spock (talk) 08:14, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
State laws vary widely, and some (like Indiana) don't really have a legal remedy for medical malpractice any more. But many operate on the discovery principle, which doesn't start the clock ticking until you learn what went wrong back then. A local lawyer will know whether it's worth pursuing. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 15:47, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
I would not be able to afford a lawyer and because that I am considered (mentally) disabled, I get disability. If I have more than $2000 in assets then I lose disability and my health insurance until I spend down under $2000. Welcome to the USA where if you are poor then you better stay poor. --Possible KGB Spy (Eyes Shift) (talk) 23:08, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, that's a sore topic for me; working with disabled adults I see the effect of that a lot, and they haven't adjusted that ceiling since 1989. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:11, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

So my teenage daughter wants to go to a fundie school...[edit]

So long story short, I'm an atheist and absolutely despise fundamentalism and the evangelical movement, and I raised my daughter without religion up until she became friends with this fundie girl she met in Pop Warner in 7th grade, and now they go to the same high school and are in sports together, so are almost always together. This girl knows how I feel about relgion and I wouldn't let her go to this girl's church until she turned 16 last year and got her driver's license and really couldn't do much to stop her short of taking her keys away (I told the pastor there I did NOT want her to get baptized but he did it anyway, asshole), and she's been getting more and more religious since then. She said a while ago that she wants to go to college in Florida with her friend to study nursing, which I'd been slightly supportive of (thinking maybe the professors would talk some sense into them) until I found out she's wanting to go to this ultra Conservative Southern Baptist place called Pensacola Christian College (which you guys have an article on, which is how I found this site) where they don't let girls wear anything but skirts and they teach them young-earth creationism, and I really, really, really do not want her to go there, but I'm afraid if I tell her no she will go anyway and try to pay her own way because they advertise that a kid can go there and work to pay the tuition. I honestly had no idea places like that even existed in mainstream academia. Any ideas on how to discourage this? She is almost 18 and already hates me. — Unsigned, by: 2001:67C:2628:647:12:0:0:204 / talk

Strange. Very strange, but OK. Maybe accept your daughter's autonomy, while not being so cruel as to love her as something you can always protect, rather to protect her autonomy, and express, I don't know, to yourself, that she is an independent person, and were she to fall into, say a cult or fundie college, she could always come home. And also, highly recommend signing posts on this site, you strange, strange man. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:20, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
I certainly wouldn't contribute a cent to my child's education in an albeit accredited yet still intellectually bogus institution. She can pay her own way and work if she really wants. It's a pretty shitty situation and I truly sympathise. You can probably only do your best to dissuade her through reason (might not work) and through self interest (might work) and accept that she might just go. It's a pretty stupid decision if the alternative is going to a better school without having to work. But it's her life to make pointlessly difficult isn't it? So sorry you have to suffer this horror. ShabiDOO 03:45, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Ok this is an uncomfortable question. Does... your daughter date boys? Because this sounds like a love story. Correkt (talk) 04:05, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Well, don't try to be forceful on her, because that tends to trigger a rebellious reverse reaction. Just try to, you know, "rationalize" her - i.e. prove to her that all that fundie stuff is BS, debunk it, try to get her into science, etc. MeowPurr 05:47, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Your daughter is now a committed born again Christian. New converts are more zealous so the more you fight her on this, the more committed she will probably become as she may interpret this as "persecution" so it could make her even more committed to her religion. The vast majority of the courses she will take at that Christian college will be nursing courses or other nonideological courses. There is a big demand for nurses in the USA and the demand is expected to rise so she will have a secure future if she completes her studies. If you get her upset, this could cause her needless problems/distractions during the time she is studying nursing courses. Sometimes in life you have to pick your battles. This isn't a battle worth fighting. If you fight it, you may unnecessarily alienate your daughter and may cause her problems as far as her nursing studies.
At this point, your best bet is living an ethical life to the best of your ability. In life, actions often speak louder than words. So if you want to positively influence your daughter, I would do this at this juncture.S'chn T'gai Spock (talk) 07:43, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
From what you have said it looks like that horse has bolted and she may be stuck in that worldview for a while. Looking at their statement of faith it certainly does look unutterably dire. On the more positive side the nursing course itself looks legit, with many references to evidence-based activities - which suggests that the Christian nuttiness will be reduced. Sadly, however, their employment opportunity for someone to teach that course suggests otherwise.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:05, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
The boomers are getting older and 1/3 of Covid-19 patients turn into long-haulers. Don't mess with your daughter's education. Nursing is a great field to get into. Perhaps a compromise can be struck. You could assist her with the payment of the nursing courses and other nonideological courses. She could pay for the religion classes. Sometimes in life it is better to compromise and get a half a loaf, rather then get no loaf at all.S'chn T'gai Spock (talk) 08:23, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
If your daughter wants to go to a fundie school, I suggest Liberty University or Cedarville University. At least they are regionally accredited. --Possible KGB Spy (Eyes Shift) (talk) 14:43, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Check how the credits would transfer if the school didn't work out after a couple semesters. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:19, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the responses. As far as me talking her out of religion, I don't think that's going to happen because she has an IQ of 140 and even though I completely disagree with all of her political and religious views (she likes Donald Trump too), I struggle to refute what she has to say not because she is right but because to be honest she is better with words than I am (she must get that from her dad's genes, which is a long story irrelevant to the situation). Besides that, she's pretty set in her ways. She's always trying to push that fundie stuff on me and trying to get me to read and watch bullshit from Ken Ham and Institute for Creation Research, and she gives out these things called "Chick Tracts" to all of her classmates and teachers and tries to get them to come to that fundie church with her and her friend, and she seems to think it's some great accomplishment that she and her friend got most of the other girls in their sports teams at school to get baptized all at once (I really, really hope it's a peer pressure thing where a few did it and the rest followed and weren't really serious about it rather than my offspring genuinely turning probably about 50-100 people into fundies). And don't even get me started with the school, they won't do ANYTHING to discourage this behavior because of "free speech" (I would expect this kind of shit out of the deep south, but not New England). But even though I disagree with all of this, I still love my daughter and don't would rather she not go to this place that has absolutely horrible reviews, apparently punishes rape victims, and appears from their website to be filled mostly with homeschoolers and backwoods knuckle draggers from schools in the Bible Belt, and was hoping for some pointers on how to dissuade it. I'm going to try to encourage her to consider Liberty or Cedarville (anyone have any ideas on how to approach someone like her with that?) but otherwise it looks like I'm stuck with accepting this. I guess I should be happy for her that she picked a good profession to pursue, but I just can't get behind this Pensacola place. Thanks for your help. -Sally — Unsigned, by: 2001:67c:2628:647:12::e4 / talk

Well, since your daughter is so smart, maybe you could encourage her to use her rational thought processes. Does what she believes hold up to rational scrutiny? Don't try arguing with her, just try to set her on a path to self-examination. And, she has 140 IQ but wants to go into nursing?! Unless she wants to get a PhD in nursing, she'd be wasting her potential, and getting a fundie degree in nursing would make it difficult to get a doctorate in healthcare or science. Bongolian (talk) 21:34, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I know, right? I'm almost certain she could get into Harvard or Yale and study medicine because she has a 4.0 GPA, but for whatever reason she's stuck on wanting to go to a fundie school. She's not overly open with me but I think it has to do with her being a girl and her thinking that nursing is a "girly" profession. She's said she wants to marry a missionary and go overseas to help people in developing countries, something like Doctors Without Borders from the sounds of it. All of this just makes me want to smoke a joint and have a couple of cocktails. (Also, how do I sign my posts the right way?) -Sally— Unsigned, by: 2001:67C:2628:647:12:0:0:E4 / talk / contribs

Like this: On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: SigButt.png on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. Christopher (talk) 22:00, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Doctors Without Borders is a great organization, but I don't think they tolerate proselytizing on the job. I met a couple of medical missionaries once in Africa. The wife had a mental breakdown before my eyes (offsite from the mission). Bongolian (talk) 05:05, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Can anyone reccomend me some good critical thinking books[edit]

'Hi,

Does anyone have any recommendations on skepticism and critical thinking, especially slanted towards young-earth creationism and biblical-literacy. I've read Shermer's Why People Believe Weird things, and I'm going to read The Demon-Haunted World.— Unsigned, by: 51.148.181.72 / talk

Both are good. You might also like this which will be a bit more up to date. (And please sign your posts.) Cheers. :-) Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 10:48, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
The best book on critical thinking and thinking in general that I have read is The Thinker's Way: 8 Steps to a Richer Life by John Chafee, Ph.D. I highly recommend it.S'chn T'gai Spock (talk) 11:05, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
John Chaffee taught City University of New York courses on thinking to thousands of people for the past 20 years. He offers a thorough, detailed methodology for analyzing complex issues which includes: evaluating evidence, solving problems creatively and making informed choices. Amazon has 84 used books of The Thinker's Way: 8 Steps to a Richer Life by John Chafee, Ph.D. starting at 36 cents so that is a bargain.S'chn T'gai Spock (talk) 11:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
User:Bob_M previously recommended The Skeptics' Guide to the Universe, which I myself plan to read soon. Bongolian (talk) 18:47, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Should abortion be legalized worldwide?[edit]

What do you think? Imo it should be legal only under certain circumstances. Kevs Ping! 12:13, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

This sums up my opinions well. I know it's long, but I think it provides a nuanced conception of a hot-button issue. IveBeenFrank (talk) 12:19, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Around the world the anti-abortionists seem to be gaining strength.[2] Besides Ireland, is there any part of the world where the pro-choice advocates are gaining strength?S'chn T'gai Spock (talk) 12:40, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
@Kevlarstar Should guns be legal? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 12:53, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Broadly speaking, Latin America, Asia, and Africa have trended toward broadening abortion legality. (1) It has tightened in a few areas of course, but that's not really the trend du jour.
In addition, now that safe early abortions can be provided in pill form (mifepristone and misoprostol), organizations have popped up to help deliver this medication to less developed backwater areas, the main places where abortion law is restrictive (this includes certain parts of the United States these days :p ).
My experience in the United States is that so called "pro life" people tend not to give a shit about the baby after they are born, so I refrain from further commentary on abortion until this changes. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 12:56, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
@GrammarCommieYes, but they should be regulated. But what do you think about legalizing abortions? Do you support or oppose it? Kevs Ping! 12:58, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
@Kevlarstar You just answered your own question. If guns, mechanical devices which were invented for the sole purpose of maiming and killing human beings should be legalized, then so too should abortions, which are a medically approved procedure that multiple medical ethics boards have signed off on. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:30, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
It shouldn't be handed off like candy to random people. That is why there is a school shooting epidemic in America in the first place. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 13:33, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
@MarioSuperstar77 The point is that weapons of death and pain are far graver a moral ill than a procedure that's been approved by medical ethics boards, who's job it is to stop unethical medical procedures. And yet people are hell bent on broadening access to guns, the aforementioned instrument, than abortion, the medical procedure. Of course, nominally we'd also have programs for contraceptives, scientific sex ed, and family planning, de-stigmatized rape counseling and reporting, alongside a strong welfare system, but most people who decry abortion appose those things so, meh. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:40, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
While I believe a decision should not be forced on the mother, I also think it should be morally discouraged unless necessary (I acknowledge that there are circumstances where it is needed.) MeowPurr 13:56, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand the difference between the question "Should abortion be legal?" and "Should abortion be legal worldwide?" In any event the answer is "yes". But if you want your opinion immortalized go to : Essay:Where do you fall in the abortion debate? and add an opioion.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:05, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

The Guttmacher Institute article that PanGalacticGargleBlaster cited said about misoprostol: "Its use is now common in much of Latin America and the Caribbean, a region in which nearly every country has highly restrictive abortion laws. The same source said that Mexico City and Uruguay/Santa Lucia recently liberalized abortion laws. But Uruguay/Santa Lucia seem to have merely allowed abortion to protect a mother's life and/or physical health.
But what is happening in other Latin American countries where evangelicalism is growing? Evangelicals are anti-abortion. In Brazil, where evangelicalism is growing, the Brazil Supreme Court and the Brazilian legislative are duking it out. The Brazillian Supreme Court has liberalized abortion law, but the legislative branch is restricting abortion law.[3]
Africa seems to be making modest liberalization of abortion laws. The Guttmacher Institute says: "And of the 13 Sub-Saharan African nations that changed their laws since 2000, six—Benin, Central African Republic, Chad, Lesotho, Niger and Togo—moved from prohibition to allowing abortion to protect life and physical health, or across two categories of the continuum." But in Africa, evangelicalism is growing.
"Euractiv is an independent pan-European media network specialised in EU policies, founded in 1999 by the French media publisher Christophe Leclercq. Its headquarters and central editorial staff are located in Brussels.... EURACTIV's reporting is regularly quoted by international newspapers such as The New York Times, the Financial Times, CNN, Le Point and Il Post."[4] So it is a mainstream news source.
Euractiv says:
"Across the world, the pro-life movement seems to be gaining strength. According to the latest figures 26 countries around the world prohibit abortion altogether, including Congo-Brazzaville, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Gabon, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Madagascar, Mauritania, Nicaragua, Palau, Philippines, Senegal and Suriname.
In October, 32 countries signed the Geneva Consensus Declaration, a pledge to protect women and defend life.
The controversial document, co-sponsored by the US, Brazil, Egypt, Indonesia, Hungary and Uganda, states that “there is no international right to abortion” while tackling the promotion of equal rights for women and the need for universal health coverage.
The other signatories were Bahrain, Belarus, Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Congo, Djibouti, Eswatini, Gambia, Haiti, Iraq, Kenya, Kuwait, Libya, Nauru, Niger, Oman, Pakistan, Poland, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, South Sudan, Sudan, the United Arab Emirates and Zambia."[5]S'chn T'gai Spock (talk) 14:07, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Starting to show your sock, eh? The Geneva Consensus DeclarationWikipedia was a pet project of Mike PompeoWikipedia to ass-kiss the US religious right and it is no surprise that it attracted mainly African and Islamic authoritarian despots with shitty records on how women are treated. You should've used Islam if your point was that growth of religions hostile to abortion is going to reduce abortion availability in the future, Islam's growing faster than Christianity. With countries like Argentina recently legalizing abortion, your statements on Latin America don't make much sense either. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 14:26, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Liane Cartman, in a particularly interesting episode of South Park asked a fairly interesting question on the abortion debate. This was: Liane tries to get abortion legalised in her state even sleeping with the governor to try and pull it off...only to find out that the government isn't willing to legalise abortion up to 10 years after the child is born (the age of her son Eric). It seems that, there is probably nowhere in the world that is progressive enough that they will legalise abortion for a developing baby that is already in elementary school. ShabiDOO 14:36, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Wait, are you guys talking about all countries legalizing it on their own, or some top down declaration legalizing it everywhere?-Flandres (talk) 14:56, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
@Flandres Based on the stated positions thus far, I suspect the question is whether abortion should be legal, period. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 15:02, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

The religions which are the most restrictive against abortion are fundamentalist Christianity and Islam.

I don't know whether Islam and Christianity is growing faster. Wikipedia says: "Counting the number of converts to a religion is difficult, because some national censuses ask people about their religion, but they do not ask if they have converted to their present faith, and in some countries, legal and social consequences make conversion difficult, such as death sentence of openly leaving Islam in some Muslim countries...Some religions proselytise vigorously (Christianity and Islam, for example), others (such as Judaism) do not generally encourage conversions into their ranks."[6]

A lot of the places where Islam and Christianity are growing are poor countries or countries that do not have much freedom so the data is limited to some extent. So it's a tough call as far as which of the two religions is the fastest growing. As far as which religion is going to grow fastest in the future, that is even more speculative as a number of demographic/social variables are at play.S'chn T'gai Spock (talk) 15:03, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

The reason I didn't comment much on the growth of Islam/Christianity/fundamentist Christianity in Africa is that I didn't know much about it. Pew Research says, "Sub-Saharan Africa also is home to a growing share of the world's Muslims. Between 2015 and 2060, the share of all Muslims living in the region is projected to increase from 16% to 27%."[7] Wikipedia says about Christian growth in Africa/elsewhere: "The paper concludes that the Pentecostalism movement is the fastest-growing religion worldwide. Protestantism is growing as a result of historic missionary activity and indigenous Christian movements by Africans in Africa, and due primarily to conversion in Asia, Latin America, Muslim world, and Oceania. By 2050, Christianity is expected to remain the majority of population and the largest religious group in Latin America and Caribbean (89%), North America (66%), Europe (65.2%) and Sub Saharan Africa (59%)."[8]S'chn T'gai Spock (talk) 15:26, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
As far as Argentina, it leans to the left so the fact that it liberalized abortion is not unexpected.
Wikipedia's article Conservative wave says: "The conservative wave (Portuguese: onda conservadora; Spanish: ola conservadora), or blue tide, is a right-wing political phenomenon that emerged in the mid-2010s in Latin America as a direct reaction to the pink tide. After a decade of leftist governments, their influence has declined as in Argentina the conservative liberal Mauricio Macri succeeded the Peronist Cristina Fernández de Kirchner in 2015; in Brazil, there was Dilma Rousseff's impeachment process that resulted in Rouseff's departure and the rise of her Vice President Michel Temer to power in 2016; in Chile the conservative Sebastián Piñera succeeded the socialist Michelle Bachelet in 2017 just as it was in 2009; and in 2018 the far-right congressman Jair Bolsonaro became 38th President of Brazil. The conservative phenomenon has been compared with the election of Donald Trump as president of the United States, the appointment of Narendra Modi as the prime minister of India, and the growth of the right-wing populism and neo-nationalism in Europe as similar phenomena. The growing numbers and influence of strongly socially conservative and prosperity theology-believers among the evangelical Christian communities in Latin America has also been pointed as one of the factors behind the phenomenon."[9]
So this is why I questioned whether or not pro-choice advocates are gaining much or any traction in Latin America.S'chn T'gai Spock (talk) 15:41, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Let's flip the "debate" on its head[edit]

Why shouldn't abortion be legal to those that want it or need it? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:51, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Because it‘s „murder“, according to Pro-Lifers. Kevs Ping! 15:56, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Ben Franklin used a weighted analysis method of solving difficult problems. He would make two lists - one with the pros and one with the cons. He would then give a weight to each pro and con. And then he would add up the weighted pros and cons.
So what are the pros and cons of legalizing abortion or making it illegal and how weighty is each pro/con.
And to what extent should abortion be legalized or be made illegal?
And how important are the needs vs. the wants of legalizing abortion or making it illegal?Rathmelders (talk) 16:06, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
@Kevlarstar "Pro-lifers" are scientifically illiterate morons and blatant hypocrites. Additionally, "murder" is a legal charge, and without the prerequisite laws is a meaningless accusation. And that's without going into the fact that laws are based on beliefs and philosophical arguments, not the other way around. @Rathmelders You're trying to flip the issue back around. I'm asking why it shouldn't be legal. What does the opposing camp have in the way of arguments that's worth a damn? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
OK. I will be the first out on the Ben Franklin weighted analysis dance floor of making decisions.
In developed countries and in China where abortion was made legal it is or will potentially strain the social safety net for the aged since fewer younger people were born to support their aging populations. I give that an 8 out of 10 weight.Rathmelders (talk) 16:40, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
That's a massive misrepresentation of the data. Firstly, the PRC didn't just legalize abortion, it also instituted various mandatory population control programs, including the "One Child" policy. This is hardly comparable to legalizing a procedure and letting patients decide whether or not to utilize it. Try again. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:46, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

China's demographic winter is more severe than say Euruope because it forced its population control policies on its population, I will grant you that.

"The growing number and share of older people within society poses a range of economic challenges. Some analysts suggest that population ageing will likely exert downward pressure on economic growth, reduce labour supply, lead to higher (age-related) social costs and impact on the sustainability of government finances. These arguments are centred on the assumption that the old-age dependency ratio — in other words, the number of older people relative to the size of the working-age population — will continue to rise. As this ratio increases, there is a decline in the size of the workforce that is potentially available to take care of the older generations and this has already led to an increased burden on government finances, changes to the statutory retirement age and lower levels of pension provision." - European Union publication[10]

France, Hungary and other nations have tried to boost their birth rates through incentives with limited to no success. France and Hungary have had the most success in raising birth rates, but their success is limited. It is difficult to raise a nation's birth rate. Abortion lowers a nation's birth rate.Rathmelders (talk) 17:13, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

One, I've already dismissed your PRC example as a complete non-sequitur, so drop it. Two, I'd like to see scientific papers on whether legalizing abortion significantly lowers the overall birth rate, especially studies that account for immigration and other such forms of population "replenishment". ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:25, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Not always. It's not "scientifically illiterate" to believe that life begins at some point before birth, because it's a philosophical question. It is not a contradiction to oppose abortion but supports the death penalty, and claiming this is the case, ignores that the people on death row have been proven in a court of law to have done something particularly heinous. Nor is it philosophically inconsistent to oppose abortion but refuse to give food to a starving man, as there is a difference between letting someone die and actively killing them. What is a contradiction is refusing to give the homeless man food but making it illegal to pull the plug on a brain-dead coma patient.
Before modern medicine, the woman's life always was in danger from a pregnancy, and therefore abortion always was an issue of self defense. There still is the risk of injury and so forth even from "healthy" pregnancies, but the better we become with medicine, well, that argument gets weaker and weaker. If there's a 20% chance the person will kill me, I am probably justified in killing to defend myself. But what if that drops to .2%? There's a 1 in 100,000 chance that any random person is a murderer; is it self defense or defense of others to kill a random person because of the .001% chance they will murder someone else?
What is pseudo-philosophy is a lot of the pro-abortion side. Most start with the conclusion, "abortion should be legal", and work backwards to make it ethical. I'm pro-abortion, but I don't pretend that I don't believe that all lives are equally valuable. I view "human" as a matter of brain function; brain-dead is all-dead, as far as I'm concerned. In the case of fetuses, the brain itself doesn't develop until around 12 weeks, and the brain activity required for "consciousness" doesn't begin until around 24-25 weeks. So for me, abortion should definitely be allowed before 12 weeks (i.e., first trimester), it's really the next 12 weeks (second trimester) that it's questionable. It gets more and more "wrong" the longer you wait, but once it's third trimester then I don't have a problem with it being illegal except for life-or-limb cases. Correkt (talk) 17:05, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
@CorruptUser When I said they were "scientifically illiterate" meant primarily their understanding of the reproductive process. Scientifically and medically, the offspring isn't considered an infant until around the third trimester. insisting that a fetus and infant are one and the same, therefor, is scientifically illiterate. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:12, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
In an idea world, I would echo CorruptUser's opinions (which are pretty close to mine), and note that things like various fetal birth defects pose some tricky moral questions when debated in a sober manner. But abortion is rarely debated in a sober manner, and you usually end up with a bunch of hotheaded talking heads yelling at each other. So I'm sort of over the "debate", to be honest. It's usually not honest.
If you look at surveys, I would "generalize" and say that the top two reasons women elect to get an abortion are: A) socioeconomic reasons; B) family planning. So it's pretty clear that there would be a helluv a lot less abortions if education and access to family planning tools was widespread, and socioeconomic issues were resolved. We aren't there yet. In fact, in the United States, the "pro-life" party tends to be actively against such things. Go figure.
Some articles have speculated that the sex abuse scandal is why is now legal in Ireland. To be honest, considering the shit that the Irish Catholic church did with "illegitimate" children in "the good ol' days" (going along with all the other history of child abuse cases thereWikipedia that spans to modern time), and you're like, shit, pro life my ass. Sanctity of the unborn, abuse of the born and their mothers. The Catholic Church honestly has no moral authority on this matter anymore, frankly.
So I'm sort of over abortion as topic. Wake me up, pro lifers, when you actually give a flying fuck about helping the children of the poor, like what Jesus actually told you to do. Then maybe your opinion on abortion might count some. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 17:39, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
From a utilitarian perspective, it might be possible to justify a right to have an abortion without justifying a right to guarantee the death of the fetus. Utilitarianism requires neutrality across time, so even if the fetus isn't currently a conscious person, with all the associated moral standing and distinct capacities, there is good reason to believe that it can develop into such a person under the right conditions. Thus, from a utilitarian perspective, if the fetus can be kept alive after an abortion, it may be ethically required to do so. Compare the case of somebody in a coma who has a high chance of regaining consciousness. Obviously, this raises even more ethical questions, such as are related to the subsequent care of the child, but it is one of the more intriguing views I've encountered. Serene (talk) 17:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
@Serene There's someone missing from your example, something which affects the outcome. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:55, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
I would like to echo what PGGB said-debates over abortion are usually more informed by emotion than thought. I'm sure they are worth having somehow, but it stuns me personally that people invest so much effort into something that will give so little in return.-Flandres (talk) 18:10, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie I assume you are referring to the coma example and the mother, but from a purely utilitarian perspective (one which, I should note, I do not endorse), this isn't necessarily even relevant in the case of abortion. You could argue that even if the mother wants nothing to do with the child, under the medical scenario I put forward, then it becomes a charge of the state. A purely utilitarian standpoint has a hard time dealing with special obligations and relationships; admitting that they exist poses issues for the utility calculus. Many would say you should divert the trolley even if your own child is on the other track, and that your intuitions about this are simply wrong if you think you shouldn't do this. If separating the child from their birth mother is inherently objectionable, it might only be because we expect that they would be worse cared for, but this might only indicate that we are already not fulfilling our obligations to children and should do more. Serene (talk) 18:50, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
I can also give a go at properly playing devils advocate. Although the fetus cannot live independently (in some cases, as late in pregnancy and increasingly early with modern medical care), it is alive, and like all living things therefore has a prima facie right to life. Also, the mother has a prima facie right to bodily autonomy, which stands in conflict with the fetus' right to life. Not that there is no need to attach personhood to the fetus; we imagine that, for instance, a cat is not a person, but it would nevertheless be prima facie wrong to kill one. In order for abortion to be justified, the mother's right to bodily autonomy must be all-things-considered greater than the fetal right to life. Now, it is important to clarify what a right to life refers to. It is not a right to have others give their life to protect your own: nobody is obligated to kill themselves to save another. A doctor would be wrong to kill a patient in order to donate their organs to other people: this we take as obvious. The right to life is a negative right: you must not interfere with my ability to live. Consequently, if the pregnancy poses a threat to the life of the mother, we cannot object to abortion: the fetal right to life is not a right to the death of the mother. A comparable argument could be used for the case of rape. This system is largely particularist, and so demands that each case be evaluated on its own merits. If the mother is healthy, is in a stable and healthy relationship, and can reasonably expect to remain in good economic standing even with a child, it becomes much more difficult to argue that she has an overriding interest that justifies the abortion, so long as the fetus dies as a side effect. Note that even though this is not a utilitarian system, we can again reach that conclusion that the right abortion does not equate to the right to guarantee the death of the fetus. If the fetus can be kept alive outside the mother's body, then its right to life no longer conflicts with the mother's right to bodily autonomy. Again, even if the mother refuses to raise it, it could perhaps be cared for by somebody else, and if this care is expected to be inadequate, that may simply reflect a societal failure to meet our ethical obligations.
As for what I actually believe, in the context of the United States, I think Roe v. Wade made a good decision in treating it as a medical issue rather than an ethical issue. Comparably weighty ethical decisions are made frequently without the government getting involved, and I see no justification for the special treatment. Furthermore, I am neither a strict utilitarian nor a believer in divine command theory. If a particular cutoff must be chosen, I would endorse something around the 22-23 week mark. This is just before brain activity indicative of consciousness begins, and having the cutoff slightly earlier ensures against even the most significant outliers becoming conscious before the abortion. It is also far enough into the pregnancy that I think it is reasonable to expect that the mother should be aware of the pregnancy by that point. I would also support later cutoffs for instances of threat to the mother's life, rape, and incest. Serene (talk) 18:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

The Utilitarian aspect gets more complicated with something fairly recent in Utilitarian thought, the "Repugnant Conclusion".
Let's say you have an island paradise, with some people all living fantastic lives, inequality is effectively non-existent. Let's call this "case A". Now you another island pop up, blocked off from the first island, that has some very poor people whose lives are only barely worth living, though there is little inequality on this island. Let's call this "case A-". Now some of the resources of the first island are magically transported to the second island, and so everyone is living an equally decent life, but not quite as high a quality of life as the first island in Case A. Let's call this "Case B+". Now, an isthmus forms between the two islands, and they are just 1 island, with no inequality, this will be Case B. Now let's repeat this process, all the way until Case Z, where there's a huge, overpopulated continent where people live lives slightly better than simply dying. In each step of the way, every case appears to be an improvement over the last, yet the resulting "repugnant conclusion" is that an overpopulated hellhole is a superior situation to a small island paradise.
Where is the flaw? Because that does describe the world we live in, and it's a huge question in both the immigration and abortion debate. We'd certainly be better off in the scenario where unwanted babies or refugees/illegal-immigrants/etc didn't exist, but they do exist, and it's not exactly moral to kill them even if it results in life being better for us. CorSock (talk) 18:50, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
I am familiar with the repugnant conclusion, and I think it's a pretty good objection. One reply to it is that we should seek not to increase total utility, but average utility, so that an increase in total utility, as by increasing the population, that reduces the average person's utility would be wrong. The obvious objection to this is that it means you should kill unhappy people. Perhaps we should take only actions that increase both total and average utility? Serene (talk) 18:53, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I watched Godzilla vs. Kong yesterday[edit]

I say this in the best possible way: Godzilla vs. Kong feels like it was written by a child off his ADHD medication. Like, everything that's not monster related feels completely perfunctory. Like the movie itself doesn't even care about those bits, which I like because human characters are never worth a damn in monster movies. It knows that we're there to watch Godzilla and Kong fight and goddamn is it committed to giving us as much of those two punching each other. The last 40 minutes or so reminded me of me playing with action figures when I was like 10 years old and I mean this in the best possible way.

Overall, really enjoyed this movie. Would recommend. Uncle Mark (talk) 15:38, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Sounds a lot like the original, although hopefully the Big Two aren't obviously two wrestlers in crap monster suits. But is there a scene where a giant octopus randomly attacks a village? Avida Dollarsher again 18:30, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
As someone with Adhd, I... Would think twice before doing that comparison of ADHD. Anyhow it's a common problem of monster movies to spend a long time building up and having no monsters and it's good knowing that the movie doesn't fall into that trap. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 23:19, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
I watched it on Sunday, and honestly I have no idea what even happened. Which is almost correct? Not a spoiler, the first thing Kong is about is a little tiny innocent girl who only speaks in sign language, like, is she literally the only person on skull island, whoops, that doesn't matter because she's off on a military mission with a lady who literally speaks the same sign language. I watched it small screen, but I will say, the CGI rendering every hair on Kong and every, uncomfortably textured scale on Godzilla was like, uncanny valley gross. I didn't like looking at them. It was all nonsense and gross visuals and yeah fun fights, but the human storyline, which I fully called stupid for the first movie and really enjoyed getting blown off in the second, was so fucking disjointed and pointless and poorly edited, like, specific humans are running away from monster fights and then they are inside magical ships in the next frame. Like, nothing violated my suspension of disbelief, but I can't explain a single thing that happened in the movie. I give it a 0, for the express reason that there had to have been so much effort and money poured into the CGI, but that's literally what ruins everything that matters in this hack editing fest, it doesn't matter if there's a director's cut, just like the Sonic pitch that people rightfully said "nah" to, I mean, these models are really uncomfortable to look at. And that is the final product, just uncomfortable CGI models and hack editing. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:58, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Boo! test - this thing seems to have settled on an output. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:54, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
SO, it's not uniquely randomly generated each reload and it's also not in direct response the post above it, but clowns on all characters within the topic. Pretty good. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:56, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
"Anonymous User" (specialty not in breast cancer), I don't have time to correct and respond to all your talk, talk, talk. I've managed to read your rants and if you were a true agnostic you would have 50% Bible edits and 50% non-Bible edits, so let me guess: you're obviously clueless about "modern science". Like all liberals, you deny that classroom prayer prevents against moral relativism. In sum, elitism is an attitude, not a credential. --Aschlafly 13:44, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
It's so weird that king kong gets roped into kaiju stuff given that he's really just a big ape that acts like a big ape, and the story actually centers on the pride of man, and his cruelty to what he cannot control. "'twas beauty that killed the beast... Actually, wait, no, it was mothra" ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:16, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
A Schlafly quote generator. If it were possible, and I believe it is possible because I've always been a fan of automated text responses, I shudder to think it's all Chopra and Schlafly. Why not get a little Crowder and Carlson in there while you're at it, you maniacs.
Signing just to prove I have red blood that bleeds, and also to see the new AI Schlafly response. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:48, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I really enjoyed it. If you like the idea of seeing two unreal but super-famous movie monsters having at each other then this film is for you. But if that is not your specific demographic then don't bother.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 15:46, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Thoughts on the latest capitol “attack”[edit]

Im surprised this event has been mentioned at least once here and maybe it doesn’t deserve too much attention given that fox news and other conservative outlets have already tried to blow it out of proportion and tried to assert more liberal bias since its been about 5 days but does have anyone have any thoughts on the Noah green incident and discovery about his social media account being linked to Farrakhan in the NOI. The NOI have also released a statement earlier today essentially scrubbing their hands of him and disowning him. SensaurC-137 (talk) 23:12, 7 April 2021 (UTC) https://www.noi.org/nation-of-islam-statement-capitol-assault/SensaurC-137 (talk) 23:17, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

What capitol attack? There was another one?! MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 23:40, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
MarioSuperstar: Yes, someone named Noah Green attempted to crash through the barricade surrounding the Capitol before attacking two officers with a knife several days ago.
As far as the NOI stuff goes, newsflash: terrorists have multiple ideologies, particularly troubled "lone assholes". (The term too often used in the media, "lone wolf" is, frankly, an insult to wolves.) Motives can come from anything. This is actually the first violent incident, at least in a while, I can think of (Google seems to confirm) tied Louis Farrakhan or the Nation of Islam. (At least I can't find anything since Farrakhan's role in Malcolm X's death and the 1972 Harlem mosque incidentWikipedia, or if you count splinter groups, the 1977 Hanafi SiegeWikipedia). Farrakhan's known for being a ruthless anti-Semite / bigot of course, but not really known for being a violent shithead these days. Farrakhan is an End Times/Revelation type and it seems like this is what Green's posts tended to reference. The Economist recently did a few blurbs on how brain injuries and criminals are correlated and in light of this it's also interesting to hear Green's family note to the media that they noticed mental issues with Green from head injuries sustained when Green was playing American football. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 23:48, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
This is fairly common. There was a Frontline episode on on traumatic brain injuries and CTE caused by American Football, and one of the subjects was a college player who went on a crime spree due to his impaired judgement. Artificius (talk) 17:13, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
For all we know, CTE or head trauma might explain part of one of two mass shootings that took place today in America. (Meaning the ex-NFL player mass shooting, not the Texas cabinet manufacturer mass shooting. I know, getting hard to keep all the stories straight.) PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 23:09, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

TRUMP VS THE ILLUMINATI[edit]

Everyone MUST see this movie ASAP. COMING STRAIGHT TO THE GAS STATION RACK TO THEATERS NEAR YOU Aaronmichael5 03:25, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Man, the Illuminati does a lot of pro-bono work for the benefit of mankind. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:05, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Godzilla vs. Kong vs. Trump vs. The Illuminati: Dawn of Justice Gangster Computer God (talk) 14:54, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
YAAAAAS, DADDY TRUMP WILL SAVE AMERICA WITH THE QANON PATRIOTS AND JEXUA WILL COM BACK AND SAVE TRUE CHRISTIANS! PoorlyDrawnRockford.jpeg Rockford the Roe boop my snoot 15:23, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
“The Election: Revolutions.” We open with adrenochrome-fueled Clinton clones threatening to overwhelm the Vatican, until the Pope reminds them he drinks the stuff too, and we’re left without an appropriate Christian citadel for the forces of darkness to storm. Cue five minutes of shuffling and exposition, wherein we learn there’s some dissent among adrenochrome drinkers about whether it’s better from poor kids or cancer kids. One Clinton clone prefers Sunny D. Artificius (talk) 17:02, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm off to get injected with Autism![edit]

So, I'm getting my vaccine today. I'm hoping the shots make me really good at solving Rubiks Cubes, or get the appeal of those fidget spinners. Anyone else get any Autistic Superpowers from their vaccines? CorSock (talk) 19:36, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Still waiting for my microchip from Bill Gates. Typical Microsoft late delivery.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 20:03, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Next week I get the Mark of the Beast. Hail Satan. --Possible KGB Spy (Eyes Shift) (talk) 20:40, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
What is incredibly retarded and inane about these Mark of the Beast arguments is that isn't the whole point of getting the mark deliberate? You can't 'accidentally' get it. In other words, it's not like you can get it innocently only to find out later you gave your soul away. But fundies can't seem to make up their minds on that. Aaronmichael5 21:25, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
What always surprises me is how these types obsess over things only mentioned briefly in the Bible (rapture, imprecatory prayer, mark of the beast) and blow them out of proportion, but dismiss the word of Jesus himself in Matthew 24:36. You can't know you're in the End Times until Jesus himself comes down and tells you personally. It's funny that those who love painting anyone who disagrees with them as "fake Christians" willfully commit blasphemy...IveBeenFrank (talk) 23:08, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
I get mine tomorrow, my state finally opened up (on vaccine availabilty, we've been going whole hog on no capacity limits or masks). I wasn't gonna cut in line. I figure the rapture can't take everybody so I'm just doing my part to stay behind and care about my elders and community when Jesus comes back and takes the real OG's to heaven, like He was saying He would do during the apostles' lifetimes. Am I supposed to capitalize Apostles too? I did it both ways, maybe I'm OK. Am I supposed to capitalize Rapture!?! Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:10, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
That is pretty worrying. You wouldn't want to go to Hell (or hell) for getting the capitalization wrong!Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 13:14, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
A snarky, not entirely incorrect summary of the American style "Rapture" is that it exists only because, one day, John Nelson DarbyWikipedia fell off a horse. The Biblical support for the rapture is mainly just one letter to Paul (1 Thessalonians 4). I tend to see the modern evangelical Rapture motif as declarations that one is holier-than-thou. There are far more verses in the Bible cautioning against being holier than thou (Luke 18 and Luke 6, for a start) but somehow these parts of the Bible are missed. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 15:36, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Well, that's generally how the bible works-you mix and match until it tells you god believes what you already believed beforehand.-Flandres (talk) 22:21, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Update. It feel like someone punched my arm the other day, and I'm still sore. Still better than covid. Correkt (talk) 04:39, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Mine is crazy sore too. I got Moderna.Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:08, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Huh, both times my arm never felt worse than a standard tetanus shot (noticeable, but nothing significant). Hope it fades fast, you'll definitely feel a sense of liberation once it's gone and you're at the 2 week threshold. (And if anyone does become autistic because of the shots, I'd love to hear how your new diagnosis changed your life!) The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:15, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
I was actually literally going to edit to reference my last tetanus shot. Similar, I wouldn't want to get called out as a wimp, but like, this hurts worse, is it OK to say it's actually crazy sore? Worse when I was throwin shit around at work like if a cramp was starting but nothing I could stretch out, better now, but still sore. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:27, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

More random internet tidbits[edit]

After that stupidity of that one catholic blog, I remembered an even worse one, ran by an Electric Universe idiot (Whom i had an argument with a year ago; i tried to get them to explain how lightbulbs and nuclear weapons/power worked, also asking him to explain the actual products of the Electron/Positron annihilation, and he went totally silent.

http://alternativephysics.org/

The "theories" on this website are particularly stupid; especially with him believing there is no speed of light limit. Probably worth a look. — Unsigned, by: Xnopyt / talk / contribs

Interesting... (Profile) - (Spoke!) 17:56, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

If you want to make fun of France for surrendering in WW2 or America's clusterfuck in Vietnam, remember that Australia lost a war to Emus[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emu_War

See, at least most countries did not lose a war to Emus. It is perfectly fine to pick at Australia for losing to Emus. --Possible KGB Spy (Eyes Shift) (talk) 01:07, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Not really.
Nazis and Veitnamese Guerrillas are easy. But Emus are freaking demonic evil incarnate in Ostrich clothing. Kencolt (talk) 07:10, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Emus don't recognise the rules of war, the Geneva convention, the concept of innocent by standers. They're evil fucking things that taste mighty fine on a barbie Cardinal Chang (talk) 11:44, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for posting this. It's the funniest article I've ever read on Wikipedia (though, to be fair that's a low bar). But it made me laugh out loud. I would suggest an article for RW but I can't quite see the mission angle.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 09:37, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

AI doomsday alarmism as something remarkably cult-like[edit]

"You can build crystal palaces of thought, working from first principles, then climb up inside them and pull the ladder up behind you." Cult-like mentalities can form surrounding many things, and on the more intellectual side, here's an article (really text and images for a 2016 talk) arguing against the AI doomsday thinking variety, and humorously pointing out the cult-like features:

Superintelligence: The Idea That Eats Smart People

Interesting, because it argues against both the reasonableness of the "inside view" and points out the "outside view" of how it looks to a more distanced observer. It touches on how otherwise, you are left with those convinced by the specific content on the inside using it to argue against all those who dismiss it based on the form and context visible on the outside. It's also a nice look at more general themes, and I found it interesting for more generally thinking about cult-like mentalities. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 09:34, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

The thing about super-intelligence is you only have to have been reasonably smarter than a dumb powerful person who stymies you completely one time to understand why it's not an inherent threat to humanity. Every "smart kid" who's gone through high school knows that feeling. And one only need look at the state of the world to see that power doesn't necessarily flow into the hands of the competent. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:25, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Artificial intelligence first needs to show some signs of actual intelligence for any sort of AI doomsday scenario to work. At present, AI is glorified pattern matching. Any sort of doomsday scenario that involves artificial intelligence would far more likely involve humans misusing AI routines, by engaging in the sort of cultish futurism so endemic to Silicon Valley, and thinking that the algorithm can do no wrong (see: Boeing 737 MaxWikipedia).
Hey, this is one of my areas! Yeah, I'd probably calm down with the AI doomsdayism if I were them. What we have now are more like clever non-deterministic statistical algorithms than something with actual intelligence. We would first have to know more about how actual intelligence actually works before we have any hope of creating any real AI ourselves. Gangster Computer God (talk) 14:38, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes. This. If we don't understand how human consciousness is produced and we lack a good universal description of intelligence it's pretty clear that we are not going to duplicating these things artificially in the near future.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:47, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Honestly even if a super intelligent ai was created, it would still be fighting a seriously uphill battle to take over systems protected with modern encryption. Computers running advanced algorithms are already trying to hack every computer available in the world, and failing. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 02:49, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
I mean, I don't get the idea that the pushback is cult-like, but I do get that there is a parallel to the Luddite movement, I'm not saying it is not a thing. My concern is that AI is going to be used to poe suckers for money by the people who can afford to run the servers and don't care what the outcome is. Beautifully puts anti-tech grifters out of jobs, and yet... leaves something to be desired for the rest of us. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:45, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
I thought it might change, so I snagged a copy of the sclafely bot a little confused with my omission of a prepositional phrase. Unless that's the Schlafly joke, in which case, the poe's law concern is worth some weight.

SO, it's not uniquely randomly generated each reload and it's also not in direct response the post above it, but clowns on all characters within the topic. Pretty good. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:56, 10 April 2021 (UTC) "Gol Sarnitt", sarcasm doesn't working well in encyclopedias. I reread the beginning of your rant at the top of this section and I did reflect on how your 'experts' perceive American conservatives, and I've concluded they are clueless, so clearly you're a victim of Professor values. You also clearly deny that women knowing their place helps resist moral relativism. It's simple logic: I do know quite a bit about the Irish press, Ireland, and Wikipedia. In fact, I've been quoted in the past in the Irish newspapers. Perhaps logic doesn't matter much to some, and perhaps deception doesn't bother them. But on this site logic and truthfulness carry the day. I urge you to open your mind and set it free. You'll be amazed by how much better your life becomes as a result.--aschlafly 03:56, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Like, it's funny, unless you don't know? I'm not saying don't do it, I think it's really cool and impressive, but I'm saying be careful with it, I have seen a couple cases where there wasn't anything especially absurd. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:55, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Richard Dawkins vs Deepak Chopra[edit]

Dawkins debated Chopra in 2014 for... some reason. God... Dawkins must have been bored out of his mind to even accept debating this living word salad bar. Aaronmichael5 18:22, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Weird factoid: Richard Dawkins' name is also an anagram for the words "Rah! Darwin's dick!" Iron Man 2020HA HA, I'M USING THE INTERNET!!!!! 21:07, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Weirder factoid: Richard Dawens' middle name is "!'!" - : jokes, I'm sorry I'm playing Sclafely bot - "" so distracted Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:39, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

New conspiracy theory[edit]

So, DMX and Prince Philip both died today. This lends itself to the perfect conspiracy theory; Prince Philip was just DMX in whiteface (or maybe, Philip in blackface?). Think about it, neither one of them really understands "paying taxes", they've never been photographed in the same room together, the prince is Earl of Wessex and DMX's birth name is Earl... CorSock (talk) 20:22, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

The Jesuits were definitely behind this. They did it because they wanted to fool us all for some reason. WAKE UP SHEEPLE!!! Aaronmichael5 22:04, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Fuck tryin to get it on your own, X gonna deliver to the angels now. Knock knock open up. I honestly thought DMX died a couple days ago. Maybe I just heard he was in the hospital and assumed the worst. Dude was a big player in mainstreaming confessional rap. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 06:37, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that two famous people died in the UK. One was Price Philip and the other was some hard-working saint-like selfless magnanimous humanitarian. They seemed to be talking about that second guy a LOT on the UK news.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:06, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Interesting story[edit]

Yesterday I came across this story, from the plaintiff in some big gender clinic lawsuit in the UK. I don't know anything like enough to extrapolate anything from it, but it was an interesting read. Whatever else happens, I hope Bell herself is able to move on from this and live a happy life. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:34, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Where does the labor movement go from here?[edit]

Despite considerable national attention and support from politicians across the political spectrum, Amazon workers in Bessemer seem to have overwhelmingly decided against unionizing. I've seen a lot of news articles describing the vote as "a bellwether for labor" and whatnot, so now that the vote has overwhelmingly failed, what's next for organized labor? TheEndlessVoid (talk) 21:48, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Many in the labor movement have already considered the loss to have a silver lining. The massive push, and media attention means that some people will be more willing to give it a shot, and regardless, the labor movement has had worse losses.PhoxyDude (talk) 00:56, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
I think that Keir Starmer is doing as well as could be expected. We will have to see what happens after the end of lock-down.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 13:34, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
@Bob M I think they mean pro-union sentiment in the US. As for that, same plan as always, try try again. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:52, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Wow. Really? People actually write as though the US is the only country in the world?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:48, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
@Bob M Well there was recently an attempt to Unionize an Amazon warehouse in the southern US so... ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:52, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I will probably get a stroke soon.[edit]

It's just been super stressful, so I haven't been posting here in a while. I promise that I will be back.Jeh2ow Damn son! 00:34, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Rest up. For me, the absolute indignity of this site is I always want to spend time away. But I do want to see what everyone has to say, especially when I've said something I immediately regret. I hope you find some reinvigorating distractions. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:51, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Why does MAGA hate Bill Gates[edit]

Apparently, Bill Gates is a "leftist" and "globalist" there (at CP, which I use as an indicator of the Trump flock's attitude). But what exactly has he done to rile them off? He goes around doing general philanthropy and trying to find solutions to issues like climate change, vaccination programs, etc. but he does try to stay strenuously neutral and hasn't really attacked Trump or anything, so why exactly do they hate him? This might sound stupid, but I'm just curious. MeowPurr 13:25, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

It's like Tom Hanks with Qanon. He's a prominent, well-known, and evidently powerful figure who hasn't come out with tremendous support for them and their ideology, so he's automatically their enemy. As for his prominence in their lore, I think it came about quite by accident: people kept making conspiracies about well-known world figures, and for whatever reason, ones about Bill Gates stuck. As a result, they became co-opted into the nexus of Trumpism and Gates himself was declared an Enemy of the State, and worked into an unimaginable number of Illuminati/deep-state style conspiracies. IveBeenFrank (talk) 13:56, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Anti-vaxx / NWO paranoia has been a persistent strain of thought in the right-wing looniverse since at least the Birchers. Gates' support of vaccine programmes & work with global health organisations makes him suspect in such people's eyes, and then there's the fact he was warning of the dangers of a global pandemic long before the 'rona hit, which has left plenty of video and speeches to be sliced & diced in support of the conspiratorial guff du jour. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 15:27, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Another atheist in the world in 9 months[edit]

Since a new Corona wave in my country became foreseeable my girlfriend and I discussed where we were going to spend it because on the last time we didn’t see each other for a month. Since we’re both working from home and it’s close to my parents and hers we decided that she was going to move to my flat. A few days ago she woke me up and told me that she was pregnant. She’s due by the end of the year, who knows our child will be born around Christmas?

We were going to get married last year until the pandemic hit hard. Now we’ll get legally married when things start to get a little better. We’ll still have a Catholic wedding some day because it’s really important to our parents and grandparents even if none of us believe in God. GeeJayK (talk) 14:27, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Congrats! IveBeenFrank (talk) 14:31, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Congrats. Actually I had a Catholic wedding. But there was a special format they used when one of the partners (me) wasn't Catholic. We managed to skip the prior marriage counselling by the priest/pervert too. But you might find that more difficult depending on where you are.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:01, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, guys! GeeJayK (talk) 22:05, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Is it immoral...[edit]

...to have a picnic with some friend on top of a strangers grave? Let's say the stranger's next of kin are still alive and visit once a year (though not the day of the picnic). ShabiDOO 16:52, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Immoral, no. Insensitive, probably. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:09, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Would the graveyard people even allow it? Gangster Computer God (talk) 17:12, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Europe has a lot of old graveyards (and even running ones) that aren't very well attended. You can even walk through grave yards in some towns as a short-cut. So I can imagine the police being called to some graveyards before staff ever noticed (if they were even working at all). ShabiDOO 03:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
(EC)Why would you though? There is nothing satisfying about that. If you were doing it on the grave of an enemy or something, now that is something I would understand. But...why are you having a picnic over the corpse of some random dude? (Also, Marquee makes a good point)-Flandres (talk) 17:17, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
There are all sorts of insensitive assholes who do whatever they want. Just think about the fucking assholes who bring speakers with them into the park and play their god damn fucking Ragaeton music for everyone else to suffer through. ShabiDOO 03:25, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
How would you feel if random strangers had a picnic on the grave of your own next of kin? If you would not be okay with that, then it is probably wrong for you to do it. If you would be fine with it, then you're probably not doing anything wrong (although I wouldn't be surprised if the graveyard people disallowed it). Serene (talk) 17:24, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
That's an interesting moral theory. I suppose for the most part it works but there can be some serious problems with it. A minor example would be say...a smoker not minding if someone else smokes in a room. Yet, it could be argued it's rather immoral for that person to smoke, on a sunny day, in a small non-ventilated room full of children when they could easily go outside and smoke. A more serious example would be a masochist who wouldn't mind being tortured. I still think in most cases it wouldn't be moral for them to torture a random stranger. To be honest I don't think I'd care if anyone had a picnic on my grave. My family might. But I'd be in eternal-oblivion. So I couldn't care even if I wanted to. ShabiDOO 03:29, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
I am not sure it would be "immoral". What moral code would be being broken? It would certainly be potentially provocative, somewhat insensitive and a little weird though. I wouldn't do it.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 19:20, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Yeah Bob. It totally depends on the moral system. I would imagine in Virtue ethics it would be considered immoral for the most part. Pointlessly having a picnic on a grave knowing it could hurt or disrupt people when there are numerous other places you could do it would not be a shining example of virtuous behaviour. For a deontological system, the only rule I could imagine the rule would be: not engaging in unnecessary hurtful behaviour when it is easily avoided. That of course is an extremely murky, grey and very relative law...which deontological systems try to avoid. With such a vague law...you could say you shouldn't "draw cartoons of Mohammed". I can envision many constructive reasons for doing that (as dubious as many would sound...not the least criticising bad ideas and asserting your freedom of expression when ideological forces try to silence it). But...I gasp at any such law that would challenge drawing cartoons. And yet I still think pointlessly having a picnic on a loved-person's grave can simply have no reasonable positive justifications. So...forget deontological. Utilitarian...would depend very much on the system. In its simplest, I'd say the good of respecting property rights (owner of the grave) and the dignity of the bereaving family outweighs any imaginable value of picnicking on the grave when there are countless other places to do it. I could go on. 03:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
From a religious perspective, then yes, it would be immoral. :P Iron Man 2020HA HA, I'M USING THE INTERNET!!!!! 19:47, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
St Martin-in-the-Fields in London actively encourages dining on top of the gravestones.[11] And what would a London attraction be without an instrument of torture.[12] Bongolian (talk) 03:40, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Indeed Ironman. But one problem with religious perspectives is that the religious moral rule could be so encompassing it would be incompatible with reason. For example...some indigenous cultures consider large land masses as sacred religious ground. This would mean having a picnic anywhere over dozens to even hundreds of square kilometers would be immoral. I also don't really take religious morality that seriously as some religions think chopping up children's genitals is moral and rejecting your family's religion is highly immoral so...fuck that. ShabiDOO 03:43, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Just realized that 40% of RW moderation is Christian now[edit]

Not bad for such an evil atheist site, huh? GeeJayK (talk) 22:05, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

2/6 is 33%, not 40. That’s still about double the Christian demographic of the wiki as a whole, if the 2017 survey is at all representative. Christopher (talk) 22:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Oh, wait, I thought we had 5 mods, not 6. GeeJayK (talk) 22:27, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Who are these barbarous Christians in the mod family? Send them to the lions. ALL OF THEM!!!! ShabiDOO 22:36, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Wow, Ken was right, we are desecularizing! Checkmate, atheists! Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 00:58, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Ken is a raving lunatic. If he's right about anything, it's surely a coincidence. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 03:51, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

In-fighting[edit]

Chris and Mario won't stop fighting each other because they have the mentality of a pair of 7 years old during playtime. This is neither productive or useful in the slightest, it would be best to give them both an interation ban imo (I would use the Mod noticeboard to comment if I had an account). 2A02:120B:C3FB:3B40:F59D:4FAA:510E:4F1D (talk) 12:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

You were the one to suggest a chicken coop against me and GC, so now that you have your chance to be heard you just try to get people to actually start it, what's your problem with leftists on-site? MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 12:13, 11 April 2021 (UTC)