RationalWiki:Saloon bar

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Saloon bar
WIGO Bar colour.png

This is a place for general chit-chat about virtually anything that doesn't fit anywhere else.
Invision-Board-France-355.gif For previous conversations see the automagic barchives. Guinnesssmiley.gif

What is going on?

The Bar
(talk) (talk) (talk) (talk) (hic)

To do list

RationalWiki subreddit[edit]

Should we just delete it? It’s dead, the most upvoted post only has 14 net upvotes and there hasn’t been a post in 20 days. Christopher (talk) 11:37, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

True, but it has been useful to raise awareness and googlerank of RationalWiki articles on internet harassers and trolls. Check it out.--WetBlanket (talk) 14:17, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Its almost dead, only every 6 months or so gets spammed by Rome Viharo who complains about his RationalWiki article. A week ago, the troll Abd_ul-Rahman_Lomax was spamming it, but his posts were removed.Agent47 (talk) 14:22, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Guess there should be a vote on it, seems reasonable.Rimuru Da NinjaRimuru Slime.png 14:38, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
I set up something along the lines of a vote. π”Šπ”¬π”žπ”±-π”ˆπ”ͺ𝔭𝔒𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔀𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔑𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔑𝔬π”ͺ/π”žπ” π”₯𝔦𝔒𝔳𝔒π”ͺ𝔒𝔫𝔱𝔰) 15:24, 11 April 2018 (UTC)


  1. The saloon bar basically serves the same purpose as a subreddit. π”Šπ”¬π”žπ”±-π”ˆπ”ͺ𝔭𝔒𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔀𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔑𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔑𝔬π”ͺ/π”žπ” π”₯𝔦𝔒𝔳𝔒π”ͺ𝔒𝔫𝔱𝔰) 15:24, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  2. Delete, since virtually inactive.Agent47 (talk) 16:00, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
    That too. π”Šπ”¬π”žπ”±-π”ˆπ”ͺ𝔭𝔒𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔀𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔑𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔑𝔬π”ͺ/π”žπ” π”₯𝔦𝔒𝔳𝔒π”ͺ𝔒𝔫𝔱𝔰) 16:03, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  3. No point in having something if it's of little to no use. Anyone can find RW on google easily, it even pops up in the first page of Google most the time.γƒͺγƒ γƒ«γƒ†γƒ³γƒšγ‚ΉγƒˆRimuru Slime.png 16:51, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  4. Cleanse with fire. T.J. Juckson (talk) 18:53, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  5. Delete, it has been a magnet for trolling and serves no purpose as this is the main website. Debunking spiritualism (talk) 21:52, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  6. -Unused.-DiamondDisc1(talk) 03:58, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
  7. @David Gerard, there seems to be a consensus that the subreddit should be deleted. (talk) 00:39, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
    There is hardly a "consensus", more to the point why the bloody fuck are you Pinging David Gerard? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:46, 18 April 2018 (UTC)



  1. It'd be better to lock it, delete all the posts, and sticky one post saying "Go here for discussion" that links to the Saloon Bar. oʇɐʇoΤ€Κ‡ΙΟ½ΚŽzznβ„² (talk/stalk) 17:01, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  2. Could we not revive the RW subreddit? Or is that not a feasible option? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:03, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  3. What Fuzzy said. Christopher (talk) 17:11, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  4. I do have an idea for a last ditch effort to save it. Maybe we could stick a link to it on the external links section of the left side of the screen and see if it revives it. If that doesn't work, let's do Fuzzy's plan. π”Šπ”¬π”žπ”±-π”ˆπ”ͺ𝔭𝔒𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔀𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔑𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔑𝔬π”ͺ/π”žπ” π”₯𝔦𝔒𝔳𝔒π”ͺ𝔒𝔫𝔱𝔰) 17:17, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  5. the only way to revive it would be people going there and using it. Are we likely to do that? The IRC channel died, the php forum died, There's next to nothing on twitter, and Discord or whatever it's called isn't doing a lot from what I can gather. The only similar thing that has lasted is the facebook one (toxic clusterfuck of yore notwithstanding). WilderBicycle 19:00, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  6. Since the vote is for deleting it 4-0 is it time to trash it? π”Šπ”¬π”žπ”±-π”ˆπ”ͺ𝔭𝔒𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔀𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔑𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔑𝔬π”ͺ/π”žπ” π”₯𝔦𝔒𝔳𝔒π”ͺ𝔒𝔫𝔱𝔰) 19:29, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  7. Would it be worthwhile to archive it instead? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:59, 11 April 2018 (UTC)


Surely all the above opinions belong under "No"? β€”Kazitor, pending 05:14, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

They were originally, someone moved them. Christopher (talk) 12:33, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Gravity on a flat Earth[edit]

The other day I had an idea for how gravity could work on a flat Earth: it's the same attraction between mass as always, but the Earth is also spinning around at some rate to counter the inwards pull. The effect of that spin would be greater towards the edges, where the inwards gravitational pull would also be greater. Not sure how well that would work though, but it seems reasonable to a degree. β€”Kazitor, pending 00:25, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

This means that if one were to travle to Antartica and drop an apple, it would be pulled in a verticle slant downwards in the direction of the North Pole. Imagine that, Newtons apple transversing ten-twenty inches of space in a slanted direction before landing. Darthmaul (talk) 02:32, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
My point is that centrifugal force could counter that. β€”Kazitor, pending 02:37, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
But for how long before the explosion? Darthmaul (talk) 02:42, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
I've not done the maths in detail, but I can't see how it would work. You would be basically in a circular orbit round the centre of the earth (momentum/centrifugal force balancing gravitational attraction). Since you don't experience any pull to left or right, in your frame of reference gravity and centrifugal force must balance. However: Kepler's laws of planetary motion require orbits at different distances from the earth's centre to move at different angular velocities[1], but on a rigid disk all points have the same angular velocity. To put it another way, centrifugal force is inversely proportional to radius[2] but gravity is inversely proportional to the square of the radius.
To get around this, you'd need to have the earth be in sections, or not flat, or some other force (friction is no good), or classical physics not work as it does. Even the last is unlikely to be acceptable to a flat earther. --Gospatric (talk) 09:27, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
But you're not in orbit, because you're on the ground. Stiction would provide the necessary force(s). It's like saying that things can't be at different depths or heights, or they'd fly off mountains and into cave walls. β€”Kazitor, pending 10:20, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • The closest answer here to known physics is Gospatric, but this user also gets confused. Friction would not be relevant. The question was whether or not the gravitational force toward the center of mass of a flat earth could be balanced by rotation, and the short and misleading answer would be that it could. However, that only would work for one distance from the center of gravity, so the velocity of rotation would have to be different at different radii. And so the whole surface would need to be effectively fluid, not solid, and gravity would cause a fluid earth to become spherical. So the loudmouth Youtuber with his "GRAVITY, YOU IDIOT!" was not entirely wrong. But that is not a convincing argument, it is too complicated.
  • The fact is that if anyone cares, they can themselves verify the approximate shape (and size!) of the earth, it is not difficult, merely not commonly done. With the availability of telephones, it became easy to understand and do. The Flat Earth Conspiracy Theory gets more and more complicated with all those Space-X videos showing the curvature. It must be expensive to create the fake videos and either fool or pay off all the employees, but, after all, Musk has a lot of money.
  • Some people would rather believe outlandish theories than lift a finger to actually verify the truth. Others would rather tell them they are stupid than actually educate them. --Some random Smith (talk) 17:44, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
I have another theory. What if, the flat Earth, sort of slightly curved, just a little, over a long distance, and then kept on curving slightly over a really long distance until it bent round back to where we started...and would do so in whatever direction you went...and then that whole flat Earth turned around so that, you might even say it is spinning...all while going around the flat sun. Would gravity fit into that novel original theory of mine? ShabiDOO 01:34, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Is this analogy accurate?[edit]

I've been comparing the anti-LGBT movement to little kids who claim people have cooties. Is this accurate? π”Šπ”¬π”žπ”±-π”ˆπ”ͺ𝔭𝔒𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔀𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔑𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔑𝔬π”ͺ/π”žπ” π”₯𝔦𝔒𝔳𝔒π”ͺ𝔒𝔫𝔱𝔰) 04:45, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

No, the difference is human rights violations, threats of violence, and having your life ruined.β€”β™₯Hamburguesa con queso con un caraβ™₯ Spinning-Burger.gif (talk β€’ stalk) 04:52, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
How many people have kids saying people who have cooties killed? Christopher (talk) 17:50, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
The one similarity would be Argumentum ad fastidium, which is only one aspect of homophobia ("It's disgusting") but is basically the totality of "cooties". Bongolian (talk) 18:31, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Cooties doesn't exist while non-heterosexual sexuality does. People don't come out of the closet to reveal they have cooties, while most LGTB spend years in agony debating whether it is worth endangering their safety and/or social relationships. Cooties is something that magically goes away and is forgotten about once middle school starts. LGTB sticks with you your whole life and there will always be people badgering you about it (at best) or even those who will threaten your life over it (and possibly follow through). You can accuse anyone of having cooties for any reason and all claims are as likely and meaningful as others...on the other hand when a guy accuse a male of being gay it means either a: I know you aren't gay but you are right now acting weak or emotional or effeminate and that is bad so I will compare you with those unfavourable sissy drama queen fags...or b) you are actually gay and calling you gay and that is bad. In other words...having cooties says little to nothing about your identity...while being LGTB says a whole lot about you and your role in society. Cooties can be transfered simply by touching someone...if an LGTB touches a heterosexual person on the arm...that won't give them gayness. Cooties is a way for children to joke about (almost always) boy/girl gender differences and being squimish about intimacy...while LGTB is about trying to be intimate in whatever way you like without being harassed, demeaned or hurt by others.
Cooties and LGTB are not comparable. Kids harassing and making fun of other people for having cooties...is not remotely comparable with LGTB hate. ShabiDOO 01:47, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
it is a little bit like it. not exactly like, its an analogy. AMassiveGay (talk) 01:50, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, let's narrow it down to girls and cooties, as women face similar crap historically and around the world. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 05:13, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

slightly closer, but still a bad analogy. Boys randomly accusing girls they like but don't want them to know they like them...or to girls they don't like and want to demean...is not at all the same as heterosexual people attacking the sexual identity of non-heterosexuals, often excluding them from equal rights, long term social ostracism and in most countries...long term systemic physical and sexual abuse, ostracism, demonising and frequently torture if not murder. Cooties is an intirely irrational phenomena that stupid mindless children inflict on another and grow out of. LGTB hate is well thought out, rationalised, based on observation, survives childhood into thinking adults who try to rationalise and justify their cruelty, spread that systemic hate to others, hunt down people who exhibit clear signs of "sexual deviancy". Cooties is something no one has and one can randomly be named as a cooties holder by a boy or girl per their personal like or dislike of the other person. LGTB hate is a systematic searching and identifying of people who clearly have those qualities and attacking them in sustained hate, often spreading that hate and inflicting harm on the larger community.
A much better analogy would be kids making fun of a new student because they have a funny accent. Its a quality the student objectively has, has no choice but to have it, and can lead to systemic long term abuse from a large group of people...instigated by the hate of a few to spread out and lead to life long discrimination against similar people (or extent to a larger group of people). The cooties thing is a completely different ball game. ShabiDOO 12:54, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
of course it isnt exactly the same. its an analogy. Why are folk so fucking literal here? it works fine as analogy. i wouldnt base any legislation or acadmeic research on it but in casual conversation, as a way of explaining and ridiculing homophobia, its more than fine. as bongolian suggests, much homphobia has much it roots in an inate disgust much like kid and cooties, except writ large and actively encouraged. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:52, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
If ideas about sex were regarded as morally mundane, then perhaps the human tendency toward social conformity would not generate such problems. Abrahamic cultures, it seems, have always tended to incline people to respond negatively towards visible sexuality. Homophobia, transphobia, even misogyny can be viewed as the same or similar psychological mechanisms responding to different classes of behavior. Prostitutes are also treated horribly, and especially in the US where prostitutes are 40 times more likely to suffer violence than prostitutes in Great Britain (where prostitution is legal). The cooties analogy works very well for prostitutes. Ariel31459 (talk) 15:32, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Abiggay, I wonder if you have suffered the kind of persecution that comes along with lifelong gay bashing from people who relentlessly want to destroy you. If you have...do you think its reasonable to place it next to the comparatively tame world of mean cooties games? It is not a good analogy unless the only thing you are trying to do is desensitise people from the gross factor, and still there are better analogies, but beyond that it is a terrible way to introduce sexual identity and I dont care for having my struggle compared with boys calling girls made up names about made up non-problems.— Unsigned, by: / talk
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) 12:41, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
at the BON: theres no polite way of saying this - go fuck yourself you sanctimonious prick. i have been spat at in the street, had rocks thrown at me and i bear physical and mental scars from much worse, and i am still in a cycle of self harm that has already irreparably damaged my health. I dont care for having MY struggle demeaned by some imbecile getting worked up because they dont understand what an analogy is or how they work. the analogy in question does not desensitise us from a 'gross factor', nor does it make any attempt to 'introduce sexual identities'. what it does is compare some aspects of homophobia to the cooties thing and in doing so ridicules it. a good thing. its not fucking complicated. you do OUR struggle no favours by your knee jerk reaction to your misunderstanding of a simple concept and instead make us a fucking embarrassment. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:28, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
While the cooties analogy is at first glance accurate (I myself have used it in the past) a more accurate analogy would be to that Homophobes have stunted social growth, i.e. that they never got over the fact that individuals different from themselves exist, and now continue their childish tantrum into their "adulthood". ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:16, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
the stunted growth isnt really an analogy and is kind of whats implied by the cootie analogy. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:28, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
No, it's not an analogy at all. It's a conclusion from the premises. i.e. Homophobes are like children who cry about cooties and thus they have stunted social growth. I think at the core, this is really what homophobia is. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:19, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

In regards to Love[edit]

Very much so, you know.

Everything around you is an illusion in fact. For example, if you are one light year away from the earth and you see the earth, you see events from one year ago. So what does that mean? Every event is so unreal that our perception of stuff mattering is almost comical.

One more thing is what love are we talking about here? Is it love towards the immortal stuff like music, science and art? or are we talking boy-girl love here?

First, let me come to the latter part

Human beings are fickle.

It is said in Bhagavad Gita

β€œcanchalam hi manah Krishna pramathi balavad drdham tasyaham nigraham manye vayor iva su-duskaram”

(Translation - Oh Krishna, the mind is fickle, turbulent , obstinate and restless. To control it seems more difficult than controlling a full blown storm)

Arjun mentions a problem that we have all faced at some point in our lives. We just cannot control our mind. One minute, I’m thinking of focussing on work and the next minute, here I am on Quora answering random questions. How many days have you procrastinated stuff? As Arjun mentioned, its easier to control a storm than to control the human brain.

This is the fickle mind that we are dealing with. It is just impossible to create a β€œreal” bond between one such human mind and another….especially when one has choices in choosing another mind - that is, your love towards your mother can be true because , one can have only one mother…thus in fact your love is towards maternity than towards the mind of the mother itself…no one would love their mother if the mother wasn’t kind and loving….would you love your mother if she had harassed you verbally and physically as a kid? No…because, you love the concept of maternity..which is care…and not the human being, that is the mother itself.

Now coming to lovers, a person has more than one choice for another human being as a β€œlover”. Now he/she categorizes a lot before choosing one ....and that narrows it down to around a million rather than a billion choices. Now can we trust our fickle mind to bond β€œreally” with another such fickle mind? The answer is no, the bond is not real. It is an illusion.

This illusion is created because we want it to be created. As things stand, no β€œnormal” human being will like to admit that deep inside they are lonely. How much ever you claim to love a person, all the person can do is stand by and watch during some of your sufferings. Sure you’ll claim that him/her β€œbeing there for you” is a great sign….but no, its not a great sign…its a sign of weakness…if your mind is strong enough, you won’t need anyone to β€œbe there for you”

Popularisation of idiotic things like mocking the guy who eats alone or mocking a guy who is single and forty years old in our sex-minded society is what has led to the popularisation of the concept of love. People want to believe that they have found their true lover….so that they aren’t β€œforty, single and eating alone”...

To sum it up - Love towards abstract things is ironically real…mainly because abstract things are a perception of one’s own mind…and hence your mind is totally attached to it.

Love towards β€œreal” things is ironically an illusion…mainly because both of your minds are fickle

The above got me thinking about love and wondering if you really love the person or rather the concept that you attach to them? Like if we say that someone is strong, kind and smart we just love those concepts but not really them,Machina (talk) 21:56, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Edginess overload. π”Šπ”¬π”žπ”±-π”ˆπ”ͺ𝔭𝔒𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔀𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔑𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔑𝔬π”ͺ/π”žπ” π”₯𝔦𝔒𝔳𝔒π”ͺ𝔒𝔫𝔱𝔰) 22:02, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
*teleports behind u*
nothing personnel about love, kiddo
*slices heart open* xd Ⲁⲑⲣⲓⲅⲅⲓⲛⲁ (ⲧⲁⲗⲕ) (β²•β²Ÿβ²›β²§β²£β²“β²ƒβ²©β²§β²“β²Ÿβ²›β²₯) @ 23:11, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Or boy-boy, or girl-girl. Christopher (talk) 15:20, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
I caught love once. I go over it. Now I'm immune. Good for you for posting in Sanskrit, though. Smerdis of TlΓΆn, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 18:22, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

I have not really heard a good counterpoint to the whole β€œloving only the traits and concepts but not the actual person”. Or how eastern philosophy goes further to say that someone isn’t the traits they display because they would be that all the time. That it’s only a fleeting mirage.Machina (talk) 05:37, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Have you ever heard this idea: if you take away the traits and the concepts, there is no actual person?Ariel31459 (talk) 13:42, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
You forget that concepts like strength and love have a firm basis in physical reality. I suggest you quit reading eastern philosophy, or you wont ever come back. Darthmaul (talk) 22:56, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

That’s not really reassuring, I’m looking for some kind of refutation of the above points and I just cannot simply ignore them. That doesn’t solve the problemMachina (talk) 06:08, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Okay Machina, you want a refutation, fine. First off, a little child doesn't love the concept of maternity because she doesn't know such a concept. The real reason young children love their mothers is because without their mother they would starve and die. Their mother feeds them. Is food a concept now? Cuz if it is I'll be damned. No matter how illusionary you claim human bonds are, the fact is, human bonds have results, and therefore must be real. The result of a bond between a man and woman is all too often emotional security, children to pass on the human genome, physical security from danger (this isn't an illusion), and relatively safe sexual escapades. All these things are the result of a mental/physical bond, not an illusion. Women can form bonds with other women and their periods will align, as a result of their bond. And as for your saying that bonds are a sign of weakness, this is your macho talking. What should we do, live by ourselves, cut off from all human contact? Is this a sign of strength, or just ego? If a human being lets himself die so that his companion may live, is this the result of an illusion? Darthmaul (talk) 14:29, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Visiting again[edit]

I'm here visiting RationalWiki again. I don't know why I just didn't come here anymore after 2010 or became a consistent editor for the past 7 years, but instead I visit you in short bursts to preform maintenance and then leave.

I do have a story to tell, not too long ago I was hanging in a discord chat with bronies playing party games like Quiplash and Secret Hitler and RationalWiki came up. I mentioned that I was a moderator/admin/sysop of this site at some point, and the entire chat recoiled in sincere horror. How did RationalWiki get such a reputation? Most of these were liberals. Onion <talk> 04:10, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps it's because of our article on My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic? Bongolian (talk) 05:41, 24 April 2018 (UTC)\
People on the left and right alike have a tendency to not like us. Mostly the right. Frankly, I don't know why. π”Šπ”¬π”žπ”±-π”ˆπ”ͺ𝔭𝔒𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔀𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔑𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔑𝔬π”ͺ/π”žπ” π”₯𝔦𝔒𝔳𝔒π”ͺ𝔒𝔫𝔱𝔰) 06:53, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
The question is not whether they were liberals but whether they were skeptics.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 10:16, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
'people on the left and right' thats like everyone AMassiveGay (talk) 10:38, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Except for those who are more bacon. β€”Kazitor, pending 10:43, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
TVtropes! There goes the rest of the day. Boredatwork (talk) 11:48, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
If you, by any chance, can quote directly what their "recoiling in sincere horror" is like, would be good to let us interpret those words rather than relying on your interpretation. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:09, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Making sense of health news[edit]

[3] β€”Kazitor, pending 08:02, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Living again in the post-Rapture world[edit]

The Epic Fail continues (warning: Fox News link). If you prefer another site, go here, at Patheos.

I'm going to add this to that list you know. Panzerfaust (talk) 13:28, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

So new reptiloid will bring about the Rapture? Anna Livia (talk) 11:54, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Mention on "The reality Check".[edit]

There is a very good Canadian skeptical podcast podcast called "The Reality check". http://www.trcpodcast.com/

In the last episode they quoted from our Godwin's Law article and gave us credit.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 11:06, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Philosophical question regarding definition of species[edit]

So... I have a question regarding species. HeLaWikipedia's W.svg cells, taken from Henrietta Lacks, are an immortal line of cells, originally derived from a tumor. The tumor started as the result of horizontal gene transfer from the HPV virus, and have 76-80 chromosomes compared to a typical 46 in humans. Now, the thing about these cells is that they can survive and reproduce in conditions outside the human body, and are in fact notorious in laboratories for contamination of other cell lines. In effect, the HeLa cells effectively act like microscopic single-cell organisms. So the question becomes, are HeLa cells their own species? The cells carry on all aspects of life, including reproduction and even evolution, without any additional input from humans.

And if they are declared a new species, it's a species with a very unique (as far as we know) origin, not originating through evolution although the cells do evolve, so it'll only be minutes before "PROOF that evolution is wrong, Goddidit, Genital Warts are the work of god!".CoryUsar (talk) 22:25, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't know about the philosophical questions, but since cancer cells arrive from mutation and then out-reproduce their rivals, they are the product of evolution by natural selection. ("The cells inside a tumour change and evolve just like animals in the wild."[4]) --Gospatric (talk) 09:03, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Big Problem[edit]

Why do so many of our pages look like their modeled off of pages from Conservapedia. The article Polygenesis is a good example. We need original content, and better, more academic sources. Darthmaul (talk) 00:30, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure you know exactly why they look like that. β€”Kazitor, pending 02:18, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
I know this site started off as a refutation to Conservapedia, but is that really a good reason to model pages after them? Darthmaul (talk) 02:35, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
As long as the content is worth reading I don't see the fuss about. If the article could use improvement with better sources, then make them. Π‘aΠ±yΠ›uigiOΠ½Π€ire(T|C) 02:41, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Should I listen to this?[edit]


I have seen a few videos this guy made but they don't seem right to me. What do others here think?Machina (talk) 03:50, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Machina, have you an answer to my rebuttal? Darthmaul (talk) 04:01, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
"Quantum mechanics debunks materialism"? "Collective ego"? Promises of a better life and tapping into your inner self? Spelling "actualized" with a "z"? I'd go with "No." β€”Kazitor, pending 04:38, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
The title gives most of it away. "Actualisation" - and especially "self-actualisation" - is one of those academic-sounding, vaguely positive words frequently used to push woo. (talk) 06:30, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Is there any way that TERFs could be considered left-wing at all?[edit]

Too many people seem to treat TERFs as some renegade element of the left who promote transphobia from an ostensibly progressive viewpoint, when the reality is virtually all of their political positions are identical to those of the religious right. Not only do they support fascistic, pro-cop, anti-sex campaigns against sex work and pornography, and seek to define all sex - which is often the only source of fun that poor women have in their lives - as "rape", they also support "tough on crime", pro-death penalty, racist, classist campaigns against "rapists" and "child molesters". Many posts from r/GenderCritical on the subject of "sex offenders" look like they were written by the Ku Klux Klan. I even saw a Black TERF argue that it was wrong for the "patriarchal" Black community to oppose the White man's justice system ruining Genarlow Wilson's life over a consensual blowjob. In what way are these scumbags "leftists"? Do they oppose imperialism, capitalism or Zionism? I never see them talk about that. When the revolution comes, Black, Latinx and poor men who committed a violent act of rape will be recognised as victims of white supremacist capitalism and given a hug, while consensual pedophilia will be legal and accepted as part of multicultural diversity. Meanwhile, "law and order" and "family values" vermin, including TERFs will be given the rough revolutionary justice of the proletariat. Howard McWashington (talk) 07:08, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

@Howard McWashington Horseshoe theory is a strange thing. π”Šπ”¬π”žπ”±-π”ˆπ”ͺ𝔭𝔒𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔀𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔑𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔑𝔬π”ͺ/π”žπ” π”₯𝔦𝔒𝔳𝔒π”ͺ𝔒𝔫𝔱𝔰) 13:28, 26 April 2018 (UTC)