RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive115

This is an archive page, last updated 14 August 2011. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>, <76>, <77>, <78>, <79>, <80>, <81>, <82>, <83>, <84>, <85>, <86>, <87>, <88>, <89>, <90>, <91>, <92>, <93>, <94>, <95>, <96>, <97>, <98>, <99>, <100>, <101>, <102>, <103>, <104>, <105>, <106>, <107>, <108>, <109>, <110>, <111>, <112>, <113>, <114>, <116>, <117>, <118>, <119>, <120>, <121>, <122>, <123>, <124>, <125>, <126>, <127>, <128>, <129>, <130>, <131>, <132>, <133>, <134>, <135>, <136>, <137>, <138>, <139>, <140>, <141>, <142>, <143>, <144>, <145>, <146>, <147>, <148>, <149>, <150>, <151>, <152>, <153>, <154>, <155>, <156>, <157>, <158>, <159>, <160>, <161>, <162>, <163>, <164>, <165>, <166>, <167>, <168>, <169>, <170>, <171>, <172>, <173>, <174>, <175>, <176>, <177>, <178>, <179>, <180>, <181>, <182>, <183>, <184>, <185>, <186>, <187>, <188>, <189>, <190>, <191>, <192>, <193>, <194>, <195>, <196>, <197>, <198>, <199>, <200>, <201>, <202>, <203>, <204>, <205>, <206>, <207>, <208>, <209>, <210>, <211>, <212>, <213>, <214>, <215>, <216>, <217>, <218>, <219>, <220>, <221>, <222>, <223>, <224>, <224½>, <225>, <226>, <227>, <228>, <229>, <230>, <231>, <232>, <233>, <234>, <235>, <236>, <237>, <238>, <239>, <240>, <241>, <242>, <243>, <244>, <245>, <246>, <247>, <248>, <249>, <250>, <251>, <252>, <253>, <254>, <255>, <256>, <257>, <258>, <259>, <260>, <261>, <262>, <263>, <264>, <265>, <266>, <267>, <268>, <269>, <270>, <271>, <272>, <273>, <274>, <275>, <276>, <277>, <278>, <279>, <280>, <281>, <282>, <283>, <284>, <285>, <286>, <287>, <288>, <289>, <290>, <291>, <292>, <293>, <294>, <295>, <296>, <297>, <298>, <299>, <300>, <301>, <302>, <303>, <304>, <305>, <306>, <307>, <308>, <309>, <310>, <311>, <312>, <313>, <314>, <315>, <316>, <317>, <318>, <319>, <320>, <321>, <322>, <323>, <324>, <325>, <326>, <327>, <328>, <329>, <330>, <331>, <332>, <333>, <334>, <335>, <336>, <337>, <338>, <339>, <340>, <341>, <342>, <343>, <344>, <345>, <346>, <347>, <348>, <349>, <350>, <351>, <352>, <353>, <354>, <355>, <356>, <357>, <358>, <359>, <360>, <361>, <362>, <363>, <364>, <365>, <366>, <367>, <368>, <369>, <370>, <371>, <372>, <373>, <374>, <375>, <376>, <377>, <378>, <379>, <380>, <381>, <382>, <383>, <384>, <385>, <386>, <387>, <388>, <389>, <390>, <391>, <392>, <393>, <394>, <395>, <396>, <397>, <398>, <399>, <400>, <401>, <402>, <403>, <404>, <405>, <406>, <407>, <408>, <409>, <410>, <411>, <412>, <413>, <414>, <415>, <416>, <417>, <418>, <419>, <420>, <421>, <422>, <423>, <424>, <425>, <426>, <427>, <428>, <429>, <430>, <431>, <432>, <433>, <434>, <435>, <436>, <437>, <438>, <439>, <440>, <441>, <442>, <443>, <444>, <445>, <446>, <447>, <448>, <449>, <450>, <451>, <452>, <453>, <454>, <455>, <456>, <457>, <458>, <459>, <460>, <461>, <462>, <463>, <464>, <465>, <466>, <467>, <468>

, (new)(back)

It's about the spending! Really!^{Do You Believe That?}

Interesting stats on the Teabaggers. I knew a lot of them were coming out of the South, but I didn't realize it was that concentrated. Still 'totes about outta control spending, right guys? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Just because a lot of them are Southerners doesn't mean they're a bunch of racists.--User:Brxbrx/sig 23:43, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's not just about racism, though that's a part of it. I'm talking about the unreconstructed reactionary ideology that finds fertile ground in the region. In fact, the corporate-astroturf arm of the Tea Party tried to keep social issues on the down-low so as to appeal to a wider audience and not come off like political cranks screeching about the evils of sodomy. However, where the movement really took hold in terms of actually getting into elected office is the South. If you look at the demographic polls, especially the PRRI poll, as well as the popularity of figures like David Barton, you find that the "Christian nation" mythos undergirds much of their political thought. There is a significant neo-Confederate component to that mythos in the South. Not to mention all the 'baggers that ran on "secure the border" platforms and the fact that the movement essentially houses the birther subculture as well. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

How much better off would the US be if the southern states were allowed to secede this time? Real first name and last initial^{Talk, talk, talk skim my contributions} 11:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I just want someone to have the balls to do it. They'd lose their superpower status, but that's pretty much dead on its feet as is. The north would basically turn into a slightly larger main EU country while the South would probably drop below most African states. ADK^{...I'll murder your furnace!} 11:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

An oldie but a damn goodie!!!

Jello Biafra presents: Ban Everything!, a fundamentalist tale. Enjoy. Anarcho Symphony Noise ^{Swatting Assflys is how I earn my living} 13:13, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

This website...

I found this website today, has anyone else heard of it? I'm primarily interested in it because these claims are originating in a town near mine. Whenever I read stuff from quacks I'm sure my blood pressure takes a hike... Swood4 (talk) 17:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Am I the only one who find this odd?

Tricia Erickson, guest in "In the Arena" for CNN Last night, has this gem:

If your goal as a church is to rule a one-world government and the Kingdom of God will be ruled by the Mormon Church and we will all be subjected to it and their beliefs, yes there is something really wrong with that. —Tricia Erickson

Must... resist... the urge... to replace the phrase "the Mormon Church".
How Democracy works: The existence of these people is the reason that you get the government you deserve.
More info (outside of the actual show content) can be found here.
Disclaimer: I do not have voting rights in the United states and I do not support any particular candidate for the next presidential election. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 17:57, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Nope, you can Mad Lib in any religion and get a proper anti-[insert religion of your choice here] tract. "Can the Jew serve two masters (i.e., Israel and the US)?" "Can the Catholic serve two masters (i.e., the papacy and the US)?" Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Liberty camp

Summer camp teaching GlenBeckology. Which Right wing pundit was it who compared the Norwegian Labour party campers to Hitler Youth & said "we don't do that" (genuine question) Pippa (talk) 22:43, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Forgive me if i'm wrong, but i think it was Beck who compared the Young Labour party in norway with hitler youth camps. so his are different, how?--En attendant Godot 22:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Not that I could be bothered to find out by researching (it is 92 pages, after all), but is there only one camp, or is it nationwide? Aboriginal Noise ^{Theist, barely hanging by a nail} 02:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

"i think it was Beck who compared the Young Labour party in norway with hitler youth camps." It's not fascism when we do it! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:21, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Calculate your liberal bias quotient!

He of Groseclose and Milyo fame has created a test to calculate offer scientific proof of your liberal bias. Apparently, I'm somehow not very biased with a score of 56. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The write up of these questions seems... i can't lay my hand on it, but they are pushy in a strange way. i'm only on 8 so far. i'm probably going to get a "what the fuck, dems in our congress are way too conservative" score. but "this whole bill was a fucking wack job of a bill" is never one of the options. En attendant Godot 19:33, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

It's asking whether you agree or disagree with a load of political tl;dr. It in no way assesses you bias, at least by the definition of bias any of us would recongnise. ADK^{...I'll castrate your ninja!} 19:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

This. "Bias" is defined as the extent to which you disagree with the author's answers. Compare this to the significantly better Battleground God, which assesses consistency. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 22:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

My PQ is 5.3. I've no idea what that means. Politicians with similar PQs are;

Michele Bachmann (R-Minn, 2007-09) PQ=-4.1
James DeMint (R-S.C. 1999-2009) PQ=5.1
Newt Gingrich (R-Ga., 1979-94) PQ=11.4
Richard Nixon (R-Calif., 1947-52) PQ=12.5
Lindsay Graham (R-S.C., 1995-2009) PQ=14.9

Whatever. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 19:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Right-wing politicians didn't agree with left-wing laws?!? HOLY FUCK STOP THE PRESSES THIS IS AMAZING! ADK^{...I'll speak your chromosome!} 19:55, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Turns out I'm Joe Lieberman. Ouch. Röstigraben (talk) 19:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

There's definitely something wrong with the test if Nixon is 12.5. Nixon was left of many Dems today -- EPA, detente, wage and price controls, closing the gold window, etc. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

The test is certainly biased towards the US.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 21:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

For the record, that would be an actual bias. ADK^{...I'll vote your harpsichord!} 11:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

89. Right up there with Joe Biden (80.5), Hillary Clinton (87.6), Barack Obama (87.7), Ted Kennedy (89.2) and good ol' Robert Kennedy (96.5). I'm gonna get some Kennedy DNA samples now and get myself tested. But honestly now, a test for political "bias" (or whatever that thing is) does not write under every fuckin' question who voted in which way - that's not a test if you know how you should push these buttons to get the results you want to see! --★uːʤɱ kant 21:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

86.7. Clearly Ull and I are channelling Comrade Stalin. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm guessing this test is from a conservative commentator freaking out over the "librul media" saying things he doesn't like again?^{— Unsigned, by: A BoN / talk / contribs}

Your liberal bias is showing, my dear Bon-Bon. Read the bio -- he isn't a commentator, he's one of our "leading political scientists" and this is 100% pure, objective, science! Now sit down, shut up, take the test, and face the facts of your bias. Sarcasm mode off: Apparently, Brit Hume and the Moonie Times are the only conservative outlets. And didja know that the Drudge Report has a slight liberal bias? Also, I'm somehow a centrist Rep/Dem -- my views are apparently like political anti-matter and all the extremes cancel out. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I got bored of the tedious questions halfway through question 3. Real first name and last initial^{Talk, talk, talk skim my contributions} 06:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Me too, so I just clicked the top answers as fast as I could, while skimming for sneaky questions. I still only got a 94.9. By the way, "Compute your PQ and be compaired to similar politicians" pretty much sums up that crappy site. ħuman 07:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I got 77.2, which puts me to the left of Harry Reid but the right of Joe Biden. A bit of a silly exercise, given they were American bills, and I am an Australian, but still I just pretended I was an American for the purpose of the quiz. Actually, the questions ignore the fact that both liberals and conservatives might oppose the same measure for very different reasons. For example, I opposed hate crimes legislation. I bet many conservatives opposed them because they saw it as linked to gay rights, etc. For me, that was not the reason to oppose it - I think there are too many crimes, too many sentences, I don't want to add any more to that stinking pile - a reason for opposing hate crimes legislation that no conservative would ever give, and possibly even a far more left-wing position than that of those who supported it. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

87.9 -- very slightly to the left of Barack Obama. I probably would have been even more leftish if not the fact I'm not a big fan of abortion. MDB (talk) 10:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

98.5 - I'm not a fan of abortion either, but I believe it's an important part of health care that, like all other parts of heath care, should be free at the point of delivery. Jack Hughes (talk) 12:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I love abortion! My 5.3 was because I just chose whatever the Repubs voted for as I couldn't be bothered reading all that shit. One thing that did strike me was how partisan all the votes were, especially on the REbup side, ie 171-0 and 203-7. Is US politics really that polarised? DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 14:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

In a word, yes. MDB (talk) 15:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

@Tetronian: "Battleground God" is pretty lame. A lot of its supposed "inconsistencies" have quite standard answers. e.g: Morality does not exist independently from God, God cannot change morality - not a contradiction if you assume that morality is part of God's nature, and God cannot change her own nature. God can do anything, but God can't make a square circle - but a "square circle" is not a thing, so that God can't do that, doesn't mean that God can't do anything. Put more precisely, "God can do anything"="God can bring about any possible state of affairs", but square circes, 1+1=3, murder being right, and God not existing, are all non-possible states of affairs. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 13:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't pay for that birth control, cause the women are just too stupid to use it!

Gotta love Bill O. It's old, but it has me venting. [1]En attendant Godot 17:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

oops, not too stupid, too DRUNK. damn, that explains it all. fricking drunk women!En attendant Godot 17:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Because sober women don't have sex. Well, I guess not with Bill. --★uːʤɱ sinner 19:12, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

-shakes head- Tsk tsk.--Dumpling (talk) 00:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Birth control is usually a women-led issue, most women don't want to spend their lives as some sort of baby-factory. In fact when men take charge of the contraceptives it is often the case that they are too lazy or don't want to use it. Women have more interest in using contraceptives because they are the ones that are (literally) left holding the baby. It amazes me that the anti-abortionists are usually the self-same people who object to sex education and making contraceptives more easily available, failing to see that by not making foetuses in the first place you can dramatically reduce abortions. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 00:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

You'd think, wouldn't you. but don't you get that "saying no" is the only answer? sighs...En attendant Godot 02:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe Billo prefers a future that looks like this? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Listening to the right's rhetoric, and looking at bills in OK, Kansas, and South Dakota, I feel as if "the handmaid's tale" is not that far off, sometimes.En attendant Godot 03:05, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Mr. Conservative himself was very prescient on this: "When you say "radical right" today, I think of these moneymaking ventures by fellows like Pat Robertson and others who are trying to take the Republican Party away from the Republican Party, and make a religious organization out of it. If that ever happens, kiss politics goodbye." Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

@GenghisKhant: one issue is that there are a much wider range of contraceptive options available to women, those available to men are much more limited. It is a good thing they are actively researching better contraceptive options for men (e.g. a male contraceptive pill), and one can only hope that this research will have great success. I think, if men had more options available, they would be more likely to take advantage of them. Responsible men are just as fearful of unwanted procreation as women are, but their only real options at present are either barrier methods, sterilization, or relying on their partner — all three of which have significant disadvantages. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 12:13, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Vote for best SF

Here Pippa (talk) 22:05, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

No, I wont. Ace^{of Spades} 22:12, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Neither shall I. Pippa, you're making it look like this site is filled with sad science fiction nerds. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 22:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

For fuck's sake! I only posted a link. One link on one page! Pippa (talk) 22:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I voted for Dune, the Elric Saga, Riverworld, and a few I can't remember. I thought of voting for some others, like the Chronicles of Amber, but decided that while they were good, they just weren't good enough. Sadly, this is little more than a popularity contest as only the best selling books like LOTR or Ringworld will get high tallies. I also wish there were more John Brunner. I liek John Brunner.--User:Brxbrx/sig 22:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I looked at the list and I'm appalled. Talismans of Shannara (read it when I was a kid) or Lord of the Rings, not there? PSHAW! A travesty! Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 22:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Bit presumptuous there, thinking that sci-fi nerds are sad. Generally we're a very happy bunch. Certainly much happier than non-sci-fi nerds, who even if they don't realise it, have a truly gaping hole in their life.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 22:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I voted though I am not especially enamoured with most Sci-Fi. I am pleased 'A Scanner, Darkly' was there. That book is amazing and doesn't read like science fiction (Dick only added sci fi elements because he thought he couldn't get serious work published). I recommend it to anyone. The film they did of it was pretty good too. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

A Scanner Darkly is a good book, as is Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep. Pleased to see The Codex Alera in there. Big fan of Jim Butcher's work, and if you're a fantasy fan who hasn't heard of him, his Dresden Files stuff is worth checking out as well (I have to keep on plugging him, the guy gets zero advertisement in the UK, which is a fucking shame given how good he is).-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 22:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

IDK what you're talking about Norseman, Lord of the Rings was definitely there.--User:Brxbrx/sig 22:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Am I the only one who thinks Hitchhiker is good scifi? course, i've not read 90% of those titles. ;-)En attendant Godot 23:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

No, not the only one, but Adams suffers from the same curse as Pratchett used too, the stuff is funny, therefore it's humour and can't be sci-fi or fantasy at the same time. Even now, on that list, there were only two or three Pratchett books listed, and they weren't the titles I would have chosen (if given the choice I would have stuffed Wyrd Sisters, Reaper Man {"Lord, what can the harvest hope for, if not for the care of the Reaper Man?"} and Night Watch onto there)-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 00:53, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

DONE! :D--Dumpling (talk) 00:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I can't vote, if I don't read every single one of them obviously. How else will I know which the best one is? Sen (talk) 07:51, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Had a problem keeping it down to ten.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 08:13, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I dunno if I count as a sci-fi nerd. I'm a big fan of Adams, Dick, Orwell, Asimov, and Bradbury, but I didn't recognize many of the authors on the list. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 08:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm with Bob - I couldn't chose only one. After all, it depends on your criteria. For social significance then 1984 has got to be up there but if you're looking for the one I reach for when it's three in the morning and I can't sleep then it's Going Postal. This is why I hate these lists. Different books have different strengths and, in many cases, you're comparing apples and oranges. Jack Hughes (talk) 09:31, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Neb, Science Fiction is a genre. The thing that makes "genre fiction" is obedience to a very simple rule. For example, the rule in Romance is "Happy ending". If you write a story where the heroine meets a handsome man who is trying to build a highway through the farming community where she grew up, and she eventually persuades him to save the community and he goes down on one knee to propose marriage, and... then she is hit by a truck and dies in his arms-- that's not Romance. In Science Fiction the rule is "What if?". You can write tragedy, social commentary, you can even just write the story as an excuse to use an appalling pun, so long as you hypothesise something different about the setting compared to our world and explore the implications. By this definition "good" science fiction should ask a good "What if?" question.

The rule is more important than the associated trappings of a genre, although some stage dressing may be so widely recognised that outsiders associate it more clearly with the genre than the rule itself. Fans don't tend to be fooled though. A cowboys and indians story transplanted into space is not Science Fiction, whereas Custer's Last Drop (with actual cowboys and indians) certainly is.

I would disagree with the definitions of Sci-fi needing a 'what if type scenario' (i'd disagree with romance requiring a happy ending also). For me, sci fi when it used to tackle real and current issues. The trappings of sci fi are incidental. As for a cowboys and indian story transplanted into space - it is sci fi. Shit sci fi but sci fi none the less. Thats kind of the issue I have with most sci fi - its a fantasy with Aliens instead of elves. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Keeping it to ten was really hard. I could quite easily have voted for double that number. It was good to see Eon and The Mote in God's Eye on there. Real classics. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 10:13, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I concur - had to keep on going back and revising my choices. Although it seems pretty clear I'm not a nerdy sci-fi geek... I'm a nerdy fantasy geek instead. My choices: American Gods, Chronicles of Thomas Covenant, The Eyre Affair, HHGTTG, Illuminatus Trilogy, Malazan Book of the Fallen, Otherland, A Song of Ice and Fire, Watership Down, Wicked. Can't believe none of Clive Barker's works - especially Weaveworld - made the list. --PsyGremlinZungumza! 14:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I really don't read enough... ADK^{...I'll baste your quote!} 14:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Asimov got fucked over on that list. Caves of Steel AND Naked Sun get independent titles while Foundation is collected into a series, but Nightfall, arguably his best single work ever, isn't even on the list? WTF is this? --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!}

For those who give a toss about such things…

There is currently a counter-insurgency vote going on at the UK e-petition thingy that got launched, fell over and now is staggering around today. In this case the counter-insurgency is a petition for the government to keep the ban on the death penalty, and the petition has twice the sigs that the bring back the death penalty campaign currently has. If you are eligible and want to stick it to the Daily Mail crowd you can vote here.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 22:31, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I signed (just waiting for the confirmation email). I notice that there is are lots of similar 'reinstate death penalty'petitions on there as well. You'd think they'd have some method to prevent such duplication of petitions. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Does the public want the Death Penalty brought back? AMassiveGay (talk) 23:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

The death penalty is one of those great failures of today's society, much like the war on (some) drugs -- morally wrong and really fuckin' expensive. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The really stupid thing is that not only is this not something that even should be decided by a simple majority vote, it's not actually something the British government is empowered to decide, not directly. As a member of the EU and numerous other treaty organisations that forbid use of execution either outside war or just at all Britain can't just pass a law saying "the penalty for murder is now death". The Supreme Court (the people who used to be Law Lords if you've been asleep the past few years) will just point out that we can't carry out such a sentence and even if not the defendant can go ask the European Court. Of course the other signatories won't do anything directly just because we executed someone illegally, but you can bet it would come up any time Britain wants any other rules enforced "Illegal fishing boats? In your waters? We'll tell them to leave right after you bring that guy you executed back to life. Hahaha".

More specifically to this particular petition, they've chosen "murdering a policeman" as a target crime. That may not seem like a particularly stupid example, but for example: one of the last UK cases where someone was executed and subsequently the conviction was quashed (ie if they weren't dead there would have to be a retrial) is for murder of a policeman, making that a very sore subject. Their other choice is "murdering a child". But most infanticide makes rape look easy to prove by comparison - there's usually no witnesses and no apparent motive. You couldn't ask for a better recipe for overturned convictions and innocent people hanged (or beheaded, shot, poisoned, electrocuted...) 82.69.171.94 (talk) 09:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Petitions in favour of bringing back the death penalty should be banned. I don't think freedom of speech extends to the right to advocate for murder. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh and I just signed the position to retain the death penalty ban in the UK. Even though I've never even been there, I am a British citizen (my mum was born in Scotland) (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

M, it's kind of tiring watching you spew ridiculous assertions all over the place. Just because you took a class on normative ethics in college doesn't mean your opinion is suddenly so valuable and insightful and unique that we all need to hear it. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 00:45, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Theemperor, if you disagree with my opinion, state your reasons. Talk about the issue at hand, not the interlocutor. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 00:57, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Ad hominem attacks are somewhat justified if said hominem has previously shown himself prone to ridiculous hyperbole and irrational assertions, like stating that everyone who supports the death penalty is guilty of murder by association. Banning petitions because you don't like the content or it upsets you is likewise irrational hyperbole that hardly dignifies a response as to precisely how wrong it is, though I'm sure just about anyone could provide you with one, and I'd even do it if you'd like. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 03:35, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I have made a clear argument why supporting the death penalty is to be an accomplice to murder. Killing someone without a moral justification is murder. The death penalty is immoral, hence the death penalty is murder. Now, suppose a Neo-Nazi leader holds a rally, where he chants slogans urging the killing of all members of various ethnic and racial groups the leader dislikes. The next day, one of the attendees at the rally decides to put this teaching into practice, and kills a member of one of those groups - that is murder. But, the Neo-Nazi leader is also guilty of murder, even though he never did any physically violent act himself, because he encouraged others to do so. This is the same logic that was used to convict Julius Streicher at the Nuremberg trials, since although he might not have killed anyone with his own hands, his rhetorical encouragement of the Holocaust made him guilty of it. Sadly, the Allies responded to Nazi murder with murders of their own (including the murder of Streicher), proving that the Allies were not much better than the Nazis. The point is, when the death penalty is practiced, it is only practiced because people speak up in support of it. If they did not speak up to support it, it would cease to happen. Thus, death penalty supporters are guilty as accomplices to murder, in the same way as Streicher was. How about responding to my arguments, rather than attacking my person? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 03:57, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, so let's go back to the freedom of speech thing that you seem not to give two fucks about before the discussion can get derailed back into the death penalty. FoS exists to protect expression of all viewpoints, regardless of current moral or political climate. This is important. Without such protections, it is entirely possibly for the people with power to simply project their views onto everyone- if no one can speak up, then only the person who decides what is acceptable and what is no gets his views represented. This may seem like some sort of Orwellian nightmare state that I'm being hyperbolic about, but regular people do his all the time. Look at fundamentalist religious parents who refuse to allow in any materials that question their faith into the lives of their kids- of course the kid will grow up with the exact same beliefs, he's seen no other alternative. Now, both of these things are generally seen as "bad". But let's say that instead of giving this power to scary government censors in the Ministry of Truth, or ridiculous straw men caricatures of religion, we give it to you. Now, I am unable to guess exactly what would happen in all cases, but it's safe to say that you'd at the very least ban petitioning to reinstate the death penalty. So congratulations, you have effectively enforced you will onto the people. They all agree with you now, and since you are Right with a capital R, the world is a better place.

But take a step back and shake off any pretensions of objectivity, and you'll realize that you did exactly the same thing that said fundamentalist parent did above- you saw something that you didn't like because it didn't fit into your personal belief system, logically deduced from you starting postulates that such a thought/thing/opinion was bad in all cases, and then decided that everyone would be better off if it were banned. So you did, acting in good faith and without cognitive dissonance. The problem is, as soon as your starting postulates change, then your conclusion could be rendered invalid for another person, which is where we start getting back into FoS territory. Let's take your example above about the neo-Nazi speaker as an example, though it can really work with any belief any two people hold. I'd disagree with your assessment that he's equally guilty of murder, because one of my paradigms is that ultimately, we are responsible for every action we make, and that casual environmental influence can only go so far (not that indoctrination can't override this, but that's a discussion for another time). So, although you may have logically reached the conclusion that he's guilty of murder, I've also reached the conclusion that he's not guilty of murder, using logic that's just as sound as yours. With two diametrically opposed conclusions and flawless logical reasoning on both sides, there's no reason why your conclusion should be somehow more legitimate than mine and thus worth of censoring mine in favor of yours, and as such you have absolutely no basis to contest my claim- they are both equally valid, and there's frankly no way of deducing which one of us has the correct paradigms, because that, too, is completely subjective.

So now we've reached a position where, if given the power, you'd censor me because in your view, my views are illogical and dangerous, and if I was given the power, I'd censor yours for the same reasons. This gets even more tricky when there are many competing views and paradigms. There's no way to tell which one is correct, and so the only way to avoid a situation where a sub-optimal solution is able to gain control and suppress an optimal solution is to insure that ALL views are given EQUAL consideration, and thus free speech. That's why even the slightest movement towards censorship is incredibly dangerous, because there's often very little or even no difference from "banning things people don't like" to "suppressing optimal solutions". As such, I tend to be incredibly leery of people on any side of any sociopolitical spectra that endorse the censorship of opposing viewpoints, because doing so generally means that said group isn't out for fairness and rational discourse, but rather out to promote their agenda over others at any cost. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 04:33, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that free speech is important, but it is not the only value, and most people recognize there are legitimate limitations on it. For example, defamation - if I started telling everyone that you were a child molester, despite having absolutely no evidence to back up that claim, you could sue me, you would win, and rightfully so. Yet, if we are willing to accept limitations on freedom of speech when they damage people's reputations, how much more should be willing to accept limitations on freedom of speech when speech results in people getting killed?

In the real world, there are already countless limitations on speech, which are accepted: defamation, copyright, state secrets, fraud, perjury, child pornography, privacy laws, trade secrets, NDAs, shouting fire in a crowded theatre, etc. Are you advocating that all of those should be abolished, and we should have an absolute speech free for all? How about if a mafia boss orders a hit - should he be able to be prosecuted for murder? He didn't kill anyone himself, all he did was speech. Consider Osama bin Laden or Adolf Hitler - how many people did they kill themselves? Few or none. Their orders may have sent many to their deaths, but all they did was speech. How dare we abridge Hitler's free speech right to say whatever he wants, even if his words kill countless millions - people could have refused to follow Hitler's orders, but they chose to obey them, so none of what happened (WWII, the Holocaust, etc.) can be blamed on Hitler, all he did was exercise his right to free speech. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 04:53, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Dear USA,

Please stop selling us your bullshit. We produce more than enough on our own. Signed, Bulgaria. (I actually saw this today in ink and paper.)--ZooGuard (talk) 09:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

For those who can't read Bulgarian :) (((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:59, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

1. Dear Bulgaria... Who, what, or where are you and why should I care? Love <3, USA. MarkeDC (talk) 19:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
2. Dear Bulgaria, If you do not accept our worst literary drivel then we will be forced to send you our other exports. <3, America MarkeDC (talk) 19:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

A historical anecdote claims that when Bulgaria declared war on the US (during WWII), the Pentagon was thrown in a panic - nobody knew where this country was and what military assets it had.^{It's most probably false.} So yeah, you need to first find us on the map. :D--ZooGuard (talk) 20:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

What a lot of silly Bulgars. Pippa (talk) 20:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

"This is the destination Obama and his Democrats are preparing for us. Pure misery"

British newspaper website for the relatively low circulation Independent publishes an innocuous article about a book from an Associated Press photographer's experiences in North Korea. Normally, an article on the Independent website might get up to a dozen or so comments, but not this one. Apparently, this article is all about how Obama is trying his hardest to turn the US into North Korea, so now we have over 480 comments so far, boosted by tea partiers, poes, trolls and the like. Some choice comments:

• This is the destination Obama and his Democrats are preparing for us. Pure misery
• Pictures of a liberal society?
• Four more years of obamma and this will be the description of America. This is the progressive liberal socialist future if allowed.
• It's frightening how much Obama's policies echo the North Korean dictator's.

Do they seriously believe all that? Bondurant (talk) 10:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Sen (talk) 10:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

It stems from a recipe of not knowing other countries, not knowing people that have lived in dictatorships and blindly accepting what the priest/Republican tells you. Also comments such as "This is the destination Obama and his Democrats are preparing for us. Pure misery" are extremely disrespectfull to the North Korean people (people, not the government representing them) as all North Koreans would live in constant misery, never smile, never make a joke or anything that might bring happiness to their lives. --★uːʤɱ libertarian 12:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The majority of Americans don't have passports. There was a guy who seriously thought I would be being woken up every day by Muslim calls to prayer and thought we all were forced to buy "stab proof" knives. They've barely seen what an EU country is like, so what their impression of North Korea must be like is... well, limited, let's say. I also doubt they have much experience of being in America either, as your "rich white folk" demographic aren't likely to know what effect their shitty policies actually have. ADK^{...I'll devour your Pontiac!} 14:53, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Just another day in wingnuttia. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:42, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Why I Love the Dutch

One in six Dutch clergy are agnostic or atheist Jack Hughes (talk) 11:37, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Yesh, that is exshellent! DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 12:04, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Why bother? What is the point of being a religious leader when you don't actually believe in it? If religion is true, then it is a valuable use of our time; if it isn't true, then it is a waste of time and we should redirect all energies we spend on religion to other things. So, if you don't believe in it, why not hang up the collar and go do something else? Unless the material and social advantages of religious leadership are what attracts you, of course. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 12:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Because it's a living. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 12:51, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Did you RTFA? Jack Hughes (talk) 12:31, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes I did. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 12:46, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

So what bit of

“”The Rev Kirsten Slattenaar, Exodus Church's regular priest, also rejects the idea - widely considered central to Christianity - that Jesus was divine as well as human. "I think 'Son of God' is a kind of title," she says. "I don't think he was a god or a half god. I think he was a man, but he was a special man because he was very good in living from out of love, from out of the spirit of God he found inside himself." Mrs Slattenaar acknowledges that she's changing what the Church has said, but, she insists, not the "real meaning of Christianity".

did you not understand? Jack Hughes (talk) 12:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I understand what she says. What is your point? It's not clear from the article what her actual position is — classical Unitarianism (God exists, but Jesus is purely human) or atheism/agnosticism — if the first, then I think what she is doing has validity, since even though it is not traditional Christianity, it is still a religious belief. If the second, I ask, why bother? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 13:01, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Because some people enjoy inventing their own stupid religious beliefs. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:07, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Some parts of the Netherlands are very laid back and non-religious but other parts are conservatively religious. In the east you notice that everybody leaves their curtains open at night so you can see that they're not doing anything naughty. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 13:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

There's some anecdotal evidence to suggest that a significant number of priests and evangelists are actually agnostic or atheist. Such as tales of priest saying that you don't come out of seminary still a believer. But consider the fact that you're stuck in a job that you're most likely very good at but with very little experience to join any other form of work, there's a massive incentive to stay and just put on the act, and certainly not reveal it to anyone. So while we could probably trust the Netherlands figure on account of them being considerably more liberal, any estimate in other places (namely the US) will probably be a significant underestimate. ADK^{...I'll sink your octopus!} 14:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

In other words, a lot of these people are dishonest, they lack the courage to reveal their real beliefs, but are just sticking to a charade for the sake of the social and material advantages. If you believe in religion, by all means be a religious leader; if you stop believing in it, the honest thing to do is quit, rather than carrying on some pretence of still being a believer. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 03:59, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it's a bit more complicated than dishonesty. Cognitive dissonance, fear, stigma, and numerous other factors play a part. It's all well saying people should grow a pair and come out of the atheist closet, but there are reasons that people generally don't do that. A priest who has, for the most part, stopped believing may still find that they're very good at helping people in their job and enjoy that part. So given that they can still perform it perfectly, why quit? ADK^{...I'll watch your Etch-a-Sketch!} 05:59, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Captcha

I think Yahoo Answers and the Youtube comment system need this installed. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 12:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I fully concur. I wouldn't let anyone use any form of written communication until they have mastered such complexities. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 12:07, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Not so much that, but if you block the morons then the comments won't just be 50 pages of badly spelt insults going back and forth. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 12:13, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

well there going 2 block u coz your gay DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 12:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I demand it here. NOW! Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 12:53, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

It will never be installed here, so they're. There going to keep it their. I will continue too be a complete and utter fuckwad on the internet just two annoy people, as sure as too plus too is four. Now look at me while I rape your eyes!!! --193.1.172.188 (talk) 13:20, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Journalist smackdown

Heh, so a journalist for the Evening Standard posts an article[2] basically saying "OH NOES!! IF TURKEE JOIN TEH EU THEN WE'LL GET LOADS MORE DIRTY FOREIGNERS HERE!!!", and so I scrolled down to the comments expecting to see loads of remarks in the same style of the average Daily Mail article, but instead spotted that the majority of the commenters were giving the journalist a good smackdown. Some choice quotes:

“”This is an excellent illustration of poor, jingoistic piece of journalism seized upon by those ignorant of the facts and rudimentary economics.

—Bobbyleeds, Leeds

“”Your article needs to be reported as abuse of a very dangerous kind. So racist that I am speechless that it has been allowed publication in the Evening Standard! A new low in journalistic misinformation.

—ETT, London

“”If her fondness of statistics had been less biased she would have found out just by flicking some business reports that Turkey is one of the fastest-growing economies in the world with a young, well-educated and hard-working population.

—AS, London

Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 12:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

What a staggeringly misguided article. She's probably not even spokent to a Turk outside of a kebab shop. Most of the Turks I've ever spoken to (in Turkey, not in kebab shops) don't want to be part of the EU, wouldn't touch the Euro with a barge pole and are quite happy being in their bridging position between Europe and Asia. On the other hand, even if they did want to join the EU, they'd have to abolish their death penalty, so any amount of support from Britain, France or Germany is meaningless for the time being. Bondurant (talk) 13:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

a young, well-educated and hard-working population. - yeah but don't they have brown skin? I think AS from London is missing the most important point here. ^{ONE / TALK} 14:01, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

@Bondurant - Turkey already has abolished the death penalty, in part due to encouragement from the EU - Capital punishment in Turkey. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 14:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

It's one of the conditions of joining so they have to get rid of it, it's one of the factors that's so far stopped them from entering the EU. Also one of the reasons the UK can't reintroduce it no matter how much the British public Daily Mail readers want it. ADK^{...I'll anglicise your cake!} 14:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Maratrean, thanks, didn't realise I was so out of date! Bondurant (talk) 15:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Is that the British version of Mark Steyn? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 15:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not so sure if Turkey meets EU standarts. The government is still a kind of a "military protected democracy", which is a nice way of saying that if the Taliban like elements attempt to raise their heads, the secular elite will smash their heads into thin thin paste. Which ironically actually works and has made Turkey what it is. Culturally, Instabul & the West Shore are definatly up to EU standarts. But as far as I know the east side has quite a bit of traditionalism & conservative islamic elements, albait this is the "I know a guy, who knows a guy, who has travelled there 3 years ago" kind of knowledge.

However what worries me, is that Turkey is indeed the most progressive, the most "enlightened", the closest to the west, the best pretty much Islamic nation that is. And our conservatives are constantly bashing it, which turns down the Turks that wanted to be more like the EU and strokes the anti-EU nationalist/religious feelings of those that don't. In fact the whole catastrophological, pessimistic and kinda bend overing conservative ideology of "zomg, they will conquer us" pisses me off. Here you have a islamic nation that has banned burgas before we did, where women can go shopping wearing mini-shirts, where homosexuality is, well, legal at least, where people drink alchohol in bars in their nights out, students watch hollywood movies and they buy our brands and shop our devices daily and they love it. It is the greatest example of western civilization and enlightenment/secular values spreading through the east, a nation which is practically begging for it and instead of getting behind it, and supporting it, and making the final push (go feminists go!) that would secularize the fuck of it and establish it a progressive 80 million bonus EU territory with a fuckton of very interesting pipelines on it (and don't get me started over the regional money savings of a possible Greece/Turkey disarmament), our conservatives seem to do everything in order to make them hate us. Sen (talk) 16:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

There's also a little thing called Cyprus that will definitely block any chance of Turkey joining the EU for the time being. Vulpius (talk) 20:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Turkey is much better than many other Middle Eastern nations, though their continued genocide denial is terrible (plus, it also makes Americans look like dickwads because we won't officially recognize it in order to park our planes in Turkey). Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't even bring myself to read her full racist slur. Just this tipped me off:

“”The then Labour government had been suggesting that the number of Poles expected to come to Britain as a result of its accession would be in the region of 10,000. I put it to the press officer that this figure was a little optimistic.

If you think such an estimate can be "optimistic" or "pessimistic" you're by default at least a xenophobe or a xenophile and not neutral or pragmatic on the issue.

The same thing of "our economy" (as their would be such a thing in the EU, which has a common market anyways) "will be damged, by all those people coming over" has been said about Portugal and Spain and about Romania and Bulgaria both failed. True, there have been more people coming over, but economies don't collapse because of these things. Just the other way around more often than not. More workers mean a bigger economy (because they not only get money, they also spent most of it in the same location) and a steady flow of workers into an economy can keep it growing for a while.

For the third at last point of this vomitty rant, most Turkish wouldn't come to Great Britain, but to Germany, Austria and Switzerland (not EU member, but Schengen member) because so many who would even think about it already have relatives in these countries - especially in Germany where the Turkish are the biggest minority and for the most part integrated.

And now for something of the European federalist extremist kind: There are also those who say that the EU should only be a Christian club, if that was true, I don't want to be an EU citizen anymore. --★uːʤɱ libertarian 16:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Movie posters

What if classic films had B-movie posters? MDB (talk) 15:14, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Fuck, I read that nearly three hours ago and have only just finished on Cracked. I was going to get some work done! ADK^{...I'll masturbate your Doppelgänger!} 16:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Happy Valentine's Day---Chinese Calendar, at least.

Just a tad bit late~ BUT IT'S NEVER TOO LATE FOR SOME LOVE TO SHARE! Haha. Happy Valentines! ...Or Qixi...七夕.--Dumpling (talk) 02:28, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

How come Mark Zuckerberg is so fucking rich?

I was talking to my friend just now bout the likes of Facebook and Twitter - which are both valued to be worth Billions - and I can't see exactly how it is they are worth so much. They don't seem to have any products or services that require payment and have, as far as I can see, minimal advertising. How do they generate cash to warrant such massive valuations? Can some with a lot more economic and business savvy explain this to me please? Preferably in terms a child would understand. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Value is what you make of it. If you can convince people your business is worth billions then your business is worth billions and that's that. ADK^{...I'll bless your lockpick!} 20:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Facebook is worth billions of dollars like Mark McGwire's record home run baseball was worth millions. It's still just a $5 ball, but it's worth what people will pay for it. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

At least if you bought a baseball worth millions, you'd have a baseball. I looked on WP which venture capitalists invested millions in twitter, and still do. Do they get any returns on their money, and if so, how? AMassiveGay (talk) 20:57, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

You've got servers, code, buildings, etc. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:58, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Most important thing with businesses/concepts like Facebook is the name and the branding. Facebook could be identical to what it is now, but if everyone used another service, it'd be worthless. The only reason Facebook has value is because it's the thing everyone uses, and the main reason everyone uses it is because everyone else uses it. As soon as the next one comes along, Facebook will go the way of Myspace. X Stickman (talk) 21:12, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm shocked that no one has said this yet (or researched it): ADVERTISING! Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 21:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes (that's how Google makes its money, which seems obvious now but I promise you it wasn't ten years ago). But also no. When I type "bondage tape" into Google (what? under that name it's cheap, readily available and aside from the odd choices of colours it works just the same as if you buy it as an expensive engineering material) I get adverts for bondage tape. Nobody is surprised and outraged. Even if you type "Ford Fiesta" and get adverts for small cars from other manufacturers, it's no big deal. It's the Internet's equivalent of a billboard, albeit somewhat eerily targeted. But on Facebook we're in a seemingly private space. Advertisements feel more intrusive. So although Facebook has this great data to work from, they have to be really careful because one technically small accident can cost them millions of eyeballs overnight. Thus it will always be harder for Facebook to monetise their popularity and their profitability is limited. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 22:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

FB also take a slice of all the profits from the games like like FarmVille. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 08:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Ad revenue is going to comparably go down, though. That WP link specifically says it's useless for generating clicks compared to everywhere else, so I have no idea why anyone would want to pay for it. The very reason we solicit donations and for a long time used Trent's apartment for hosting was because ad revenue just plain sucks. ADK^{...I'll derail your tadpole!} 10:53, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

the moon

So I'm not an astronomer or astrophysicist. I understand that my question may be not even wrong.

But these latest questions about how one side is smooth and the other rough, well, isn't the side of the moon we look at locked to us? So wouldn't the other side be the one taking all the space rocks, thus explaining why our side is all smooth-like? Thanks for clarifying--User:Brxbrx/sig 06:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll admit that I don't know the answer but I posted this on a blog as a speculative answer:

“”The moon doesn't act like a shield - objects from the rest of the solar system can quite easily hit the inside-face of the moon either by coming from the other direction (there's plenty of space for them to do so) or by swinging around due to the Moon's gravity.

There may be mathematical theory to contradict that speculation however. In any case, I imagine it would be relatively easy to run a computer simulation with a huge number of random objects, of various sizes, coming at the Earth-moon system from various directions at various speeds, and then simply counting up the impacts on each moonside, to give an actual statistical answer. I'm sure it's been done by someone somewhere. ^{ONE / TALK} 09:05, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

But as they go for our face, wouldn't they get caught in Earth's greater gravity? Also, obviously our side still gets hit. Perhaps this happens with much less frequency because the asteroids more easily sting the moon's ass (it might be silly, but I thought it was funny)? Thanks for your insight--User:Brxbrx/sig 15:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm bumping this because I'd like my question to be answered before PiBot does his fascist--User:Brxbrx/sig 02:03, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Death penalty petitions

One for the Brits, here. As it was mentioned above, I thought I'd go through the e-petitions site. Do sign the counter petition, please. It needs to be shown that the country isn't just full up with Daily Mail readers. ADK^{...I'll delete your calculator!} 15:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not British. It'd be bad form for me to sign, right? Anyways, I have to question whether online petitions do anything. I've signed a bunch but I'm unsure of the impact. But I totally disagree with the death penalty. Death destroys possibility and is the ultimate denial of freedom. Doesn't matter who the fucker is, we don't have the right to decide he's better off dead.--User:Brxbrx/sig 17:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, here's the thing, since they released the figure's it's caused quite a stir, with many MPs saying that if they don't seriously air this issue in the Commons it'll look really, really fucking bad for them. Of course, it's not going to happen because EU laws mandate NO on the death penalty front. This is, if anything, just to show that some of us really are against it and aren't paranoid reactionary arseholes. ADK^{...I'll dance your t-shirt!} 18:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The whole petition thing is pretty much a sham. All it does is ensure that if a petition hits 100K sigs then MPs have to consider debating it in the House. However, as only eight days have apparently been allocated for such debates it'll be up to a panel of MPs to decide which petitions get debated, when, and for how long. Of course, even after being debated any vote held would be non-binding on the government. What signing the e-petition does do, however, shows relative levels of support in the country for and against the death penalty amongst those people who actually give enough of a shit to make some kind of token gesture towards their position. If the petition to keep the ban ends up gathering twice the sigs of the reinstatement petition then it would make it much more difficult for the DM crowd to shout about the public wanting the death penalty brought back.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 18:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Precisely. I have been plugging this hard on Facebook recently with the tag line that we shouldn't be held hostage by the Daily Mail for precisely that reason. These are people who complain, and complain vocally and with good support from a press that is undoubtedly very right wing - whereas the liberal part of the UK tends to just shut up and take it up the backside. I wouldn't want this to go the way of the AV vote where something really fucking bad is done because the Tory supporting tabloids told everyone to vote this way. ADK^{...I'll extrude your bingo!} 18:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

A poll in my FB feed suggests 6200 for and 1600 against the death penalty. Although it does add "under certain circumstances" (like we'd just execute anyone fer fucksake!). But how reliable is that figure? Has it been pushed into some right-wing forums and got some attention that way? As it highlights what your friends have picked as an option every single one of them has said no. This is why I fear that DM readers are over-representing themselves. We're looking at people attached to the news, and paranoid right-wing news at that, suddenly saying "90% of all Britons want...[insert whatever bollocks]". This is the sort of bullshit we need to start fighting against. ADK^{...I'll devour your peanut!} 19:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, the scientifically conducted polls tend to show support for the reinstatement of capital punishment in the UK at 51% with an error of margin of 3 points, so that means the level of support could be anywhere from 48% to 54%. However, that's just on the blank question (such as "Do you support the reintroduction of the death penalty for x"). When the question becomes more nuanced then support for the death penalty tends to drop away until you reach the point where a detailed questionnaire (including questions such as how do you ensure that you don't execute an innocent person, and what do you do if you do) on the matter can show the level of support for the death penalty in the mid-thirties. The same thing tends to happen if you present people with case studies, ask them to decide if they think the defendant/s in the case are guilty or not, and if they would apply the death penalty in that case. It can also be a useful educational tool to use case studies with people who insist that it's possible to be 100% sure about the guilt of a person. You use something like the case of the Cardiff Two, with the names stripped out obviously, and let the person decide on the guilt and sentence, and then reveal that the truth about the case. It's amazing how somebody's view on the death penalty changes when they realise that they would have executed somebody who was actually innocent.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 20:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

A little of topic but, 'the cardiff two'? AMassiveGay (talk) 21:21, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, that should have been Cardiff Three who were set up for Lynette White's murder.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 00:22, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that's not one that LMGTFY works for! I'm trying to remember where I read the phrase that executions should be sponsored by a pro-death penalty member of the public, so that if it turns out they are innocent, we get to execute someone else as a murderer. Oh, and politicians who are for it should have to carry it out personally. With their bare hands, none of this wimpy arms length lethal injection shit. I wonder how much support would drop off if you put that forward? ADK^{...I'll dehydrate your ninja!} 21:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Silliness. You might at well declare that imprisonment should be sponsored by people who are pro-imprisonment, so if it turns out the convicted is innocent they can be imprisoned for kidnapping and false imprisonment. Personally I'm pro-death penalty in the case of senseless murders, with lots of checks. ADK, when you talked about that poll above - I think many people are more right-wing than they care to admit. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 22:31, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Just out of interest, how would you feel if there was a nationwide survey that covered every single person in the country age 16 and over, and it turned out that >60% of them wanted the death penalty brought back? Should it, in that circumstance? X Stickman (talk) 22:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd say no, but it should be debated in Parliament, and MPs should talk about it honestly and openly rather than kneejerk declaring 'no'. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 22:45, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I think Parliament has a duty to ignore public opinion on this issue, and show some leadership and help mould public opinion to be better. The abolition of the death penalty never had majority support in the population, but the political class decided to do it because it was the right thing to do. And, through that leadership, popular opinion has over the succeeding decades been evolving and catching up with the law. Politicians have a moral duty to continue that leadership, and make sure parliamentary debate is purely condemnatory of the death penalty, as they do many other issues. The media should show similar leadership too. Democracy has its advantages, but it also has its limitations, and the political and media classes have the duty to manage democracy to maximize its advantages and minimise its limitations. And, to the credit of the UK, the British politicians and media understand this point much better than their American brethren, which is part of why the US still has the death penalty. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 00:51, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

There are never enough checks to justify it. Legal battles are all about sides trying to win, rather than establishing truth. So long as that's the case, you will have people who game the system to get off when they're guilty and over-eager prosecutors will put down innocent people who are too poor to afford a lawyer. If you're for it, put a rope around your neck and start screaming "I'm innocent" for five minutes, if it still feels right, then fine. But the fact that you're always going to have horrendous miscarriages of justice (No, really, always. How many times have people been convicted "beyond all reasonable doubt" and then it's discovered they're innocent? We always think they're guilty with all the checks we've put in place, but that doesn't change the fact that new information can come to light, does it? Black. Fucking. Swan.) is really beside the point. Killing is only justified ("justification" being the requirement to convert a morally wrong action into a morally right action) in terms of self defence, and even then only in a kill-or-be-killed scenario. This is because in such a kill-or-be-killed scenario you would have a death on your hands regardless of the route you take; the "avoid killing" option doesn't appear on the decision tree. Therefore you judge different acts on different criteria, i.e., which person would you rather die. These situations can include police stand-offs, self defence, war and so on. Executions, on the other hand, completely remove this factor. You're doing it under a controlled condition, which means you have a real choice whether to conduct a morally wrong act or not and aren't forced into a lesser-of-two-evils type situation. The fact is, you're ending someone's life, there's no going back from that. You can release someone from prison to correct for a mistake, you can't bring them back, so whatever you apply to inprisonment cannot be applied to the death penalty at all. So yeah, I think if an innocent person is killed, then we should have people sponsor executions so they take actual responsibility, it might make people do some serious thinking before jumping straight to "bring back hanging!!". And so what if 60% of the entire population wanted it, for that percentage of the population Jeremy Kyle is like aspirational television. Why should a tyranny of a majority control the lives and deaths of the minority? ADK^{...I'll throw your Xbox!} 05:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

The reactionary right-wing scum may have saddled us with a shit and unfit voting system for the next half a century, but they're not having this one.

I think it's slightly unfair to label everyone who may be in favour of the death penalty "reactionary right-wing scum". I am somewhat undecided on the (non) issue; I'd err on the side of no. Not because I think that it's barbaric or that murders have the right not to face the death penalty, but because I don't have enough faith in the criminal justice system, and once you've execute someone, it's too late to put a miscarriage of justice right. DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 06:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I never said all supporters were reactionary right-wing scum, I'm just saying that reactionary right-wing scum tend to be at the front pushing it the hardest. ADK^{...I'll litigate your bluejay!} 07:02, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

It could be said that the above poll shows the effects of reactionary left wing scum, who seem to have come out of the woodwork the past year. You seem to think that releasing someone from prison solves everything. It doesn't. If you're for imprisonment, why don't you try locking yourself up for ten years and screaming "I'm innocent", then be acquitted and walk around trying to pick up the pieces of your life while everyone around you silently wonders if you really did rape and kill that girl. Then we'll see if you're pro-imprisonment. It's not as simple as 'just let them out if they turn out to be innocent'. Someone goes in and someone comes out, but they're not the same person. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 08:58, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Who are "reactionary left wing scum" - what on earth are you talking about? I agree with the problem of the imprisonment of the innocent, I think part of the solution must be, much heftier compensation for those falsely imprisoned, say on the order of several million dollars for every year of false imprisonment. Other elements of the solution include that taxpayers should pay for all criminal defence, to the same budget as the prosecution (this would help reduce the problem of poor defendants being falsely convicted who cannot afford a good defence); and that there should be an end to the endless law and order auctions of modern elections. We must get away from the idea of prison as "punishment", instead make it simply one about protecting the community from those who have demonstrated that they are a grave risk to it if not restrained. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:28, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

At least you'd have a life to pick up. Prison and the death penalty aren't even on the same order of magnitude. They're not even the same scale. YOU CANNOT UNDO DEATH. ADK^{...I'll hurt your fact tag!} 10:45, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Would you want to pick up your life though? I remember watching a biology video a few years ago about the pioneering use of DNA to catch a rapist and murderer in a small community. At first they convicted an innocent guy who pleaded guilty to the charges even though he was innocent (because he thought he was going to be convicted and wanted to lessen time). I remember thinking at the time that I would have pleaded innocent in order to increase the term, because can you imagine going back home after being released? "Hi family and friends, I know I just spent 20 years in jail for raping and murdering that girl, but I didn't really do it 'k?" This point is somewhat moot, since under my system the death sentence doesn't apply to murder-rapists, but still. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 19:24, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

You know, if a family member, or dear friend of mine, was accussed of a horrible crime, if they insisted they were innocent, I would be highly inclined to believe them, and support them in every way, whether before/during the trial, in prison, or when they were released. I'm not saying that it's impossible that I might be convinced by the evidence they were guilty, but I would demand a much higher standard of evidence than I would to be convinced a stranger was guilty. And even if they were guilty, if you love someone, you don't stop loving them just because they've done the wrong thing. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 21:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

WTF? ADK^{...I'll withstand your asparagus!} 23:57, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Hee, hee, taken the plunge

Had my eye on this for about a year. That's an awful lot of painting, so it should keep me occupied in an on and off fashion for a few years decades. Or at least, until the cataracts set in.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 21:10, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I feel like throwing something at you. Occasionaluse (talk) 21:17, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

So you are a millionaire. Who cares. --87.5.101.234 (talk) 21:24, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

A millionaire? After saving up for them for near a year? Please. Still looking forward to painting them though. Nearly out of my current stock of minis and getting an army of that size through Games Workshop would probably have cost three times as much. Plus, I know that there are other wargamers on this site who might not have heard of Mantic, given that they are a fairly new company, so they might appreciate a nod in the site's direction, if only to peruse the shop out of boredom.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 00:19, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

No, not heard of it before. Models looks swish, though. I need to back to a few model fairs and pig out, I last had my eye on some ones that would make excellent Gears of War models. ADK^{...I'll kill your cheeseburger!} 10:42, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Jesus, where did you people put this?

Where is that page on which one can request a username change? Nothing pops ups with a search, there's nothing in the help pages (AFAIK), and not even Google will find anything… But I know I saw it, I have blurry screenshots! --★uːʤɱ federalist 00:14, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

You'll have to ask a tech, which means basically Nx. P-Foster_{The Holy Roman Empire was neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire. Discuss.} 00:18, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I know, but I know there was a page for it, I was hoping somebody had a link. --★uːʤɱ pervert 00:21, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

If you can't find the page, what are the odds anyone else is watching it? Ask him directly. It's pretty much his wiki. P-Foster_{The Holy Roman Empire was neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire. Discuss.} 00:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

RationalWiki:Requests to change username -- Nx / talk 05:00, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I thought it was Human's job to be passive-aggressive at Nx, not yours, TOP... --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 05:39, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

No human is pissed at Nx, we all are passive-aggressive. --★uːʤɱ structuralist 08:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Library book sales rock

And if your library has a book sale, I highly recommend you visit at least once, both to support your local library and to pick up some stuff for awesomely cheap. Two Bradbury books, a Wizard of Earthsea, Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell, Black Swan (after seeing our article), plus five others for $16. And I can't wait to go back later in the week when it's something like $5 for whatever fits in a grocery bag and I can load up on all the Heinlein and other SF lying around. Also seriously considering picking up the books on "spiritual warfare" and the "exorcism of 5 contemporary Americans" if no one else has claimed them. Worth it? Thunderkatz^Ho! 04:18, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Pfff, you're being ripped off there mate. Last time our library service had a stock clearance sale it was 20p for a hardback and 10p for a paperback. Now that's a library sale.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 10:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Damn, I gotta get myself over to the UK. Still, I can't complain since it goes to something worthwhile. Thunderkatz^Ho! 18:45, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Obama and the deficit

Correct? ^{— Unsigned, by: 99.235.88.106 / talk / contribs}

Seems right...but I'm not sure where you wanna go with this? 18:40, 6 August 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

I'd just like everrybody to know...

That this IP address actually belongs to Nutty Roux.--68.225.194.245 (talk) 01:58, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The above BoN does not represent NR and has summarily been blocked for impersonating him. Thunderkatz^Ho! 05:04, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

How do you know?--User:Brxbrx/sig 19:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Crossword help

Just done the Everyman Crossword bar one clue - '20 Film of artist, US portrait painter (4,3)'. I have 'R_I_ M_N'. All I can up with is rain man but I have no idea why it should be that beyond it being a film. AMassiveGay (talk) 03:30, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, RA is standard abbreviation for an artist (Royal Academician)< is there a famous American portrait painter Inman? Pippa (talk) 03:36, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Is this a puns and anagrams crossword, or just a normal one? Thunderkatz^Ho! 03:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

It's what we in the UK call a cryptic crossword. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 12:33, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

[3] Pippa (talk) 03:39, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Ahh that would be it. Thanks all. On a side note, I seem to do so much better at these sorts of things when I haven't any sleep. AMassiveGay (talk) 03:46, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Need a safe space to rant -- Helicopter shot down/Seal Team Six

So I woke up this AM and found three Facebook friends musing aloud about how "convenient" it was that the same unit that had "supposedly" "killed" Bin Laden had been "shot down." I could try yo explain to them how Occam's Razor works -- people doing things like flying around a war zone often get shot at. But why bother? Conspiracy theorists can't be reasoned with. What I find really frustrating is how the real political issues at play -- violating the state state sovereignty of a country in order to conduct an extra-judicial execution -- get drowned out by talk of "burials at sea," "unreleased photos" and now "conveniently" shot down choppers. /rant. BbMaj7 On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. 13:54, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

So do these friends of yours (well, "friends") think that no one came back? how is it "convienant" for anyone, if ANOTHER helicopter returned. hate non thinking air suckers.--En attendant Godot 15:09, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The beauty of Facebook -- being able to keep in touch with people you'd turned your back on long ago. I don't know how they rationalize the inconsistencies to themselves. Not going down that particular wabbit hole. BbMaj7 On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. 15:15, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

spongbob v. fox.... sighs

I don't know if this is around yet. but here you go. Fox attacks sponge bob for pushing the 'lie" of global warming. there must be a place here for this video.--En attendant Godot 15:07, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

(WigoBlog 1665) Pippa (talk) 15:33, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

An Inconvenient Truth is a Micheal Moore film? I gues they really do broadcast from a parallel universe, do they? --★uːʤɱ secularist 17:02, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh noez, teaching our kids science?! Don't teach science, teach the controversy! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:35, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

missed the inconvienant truth line, sighs. Do they pay per stupidity?--En attendant Godot 17:37, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Eh, this isn't their patented weapons-grade stupidity. For that, you need to watch Glenn Beck so you can get informed about the coming International Communist Conspiracy^TM by Not Really a Lord Monckton. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:48, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Remember, these are the guys that believe Creationism is a valid science.

He's only looking at it from one point of view? Since when the fuck did reality become a POV? ADK^{...I'll reconstruct your can opener!} 20:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Obligatory. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:24, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Far-right conservatives believe that there is only *one* way of looking at religion and social issues, but they become eager to "hear both sides of things" when it comes to science- especially science that goes against their anti-environmentalist viewpoint.

" I'm angry; real angry."

(Virtual points if you manage to figure out which recent BBC/Panorama documentary this quote comes from.....)--Lefty (talk) 20:36, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Isit the one on Scientology? AMassiveGay (talk) 22:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

This is rather jolly AMassiveGay (talk) 22:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

"My kids don't come home from school and give me.... the rundown on what they learned....so how do you know?" You ASK them, dumbass! Aboriginal Noise ^{Theist, barely hanging by a nail} 00:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Looks like the entire story is bogus. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

--Dumpling (talk) 04:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

looking for another term or phrase...

I'm wanting to say "this article is focused on the views of the (abortion) debate in US, Canada, UK, Western Europe and OZ" without having to say all that. ;-) Is there a term that's slipping my head for "all of us that sorta think alike and aren't asian, african or big bad easter block?" En attendant Godot 18:45, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

"This article is focused on Western views of the debate" or "the debate in the West." Or something. 99.17.69.108 (talk) 18:49, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Would "westocentric" work? If it's not a word, then just make it one. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 19:01, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Anglophone world? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:04, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

@Neb: Yeah, because they speak English in France, Spain, Germany and Italy…

I don't think there's any such word. Anglophone World doesn't work because that includes Nigeria and South Africa. "The West" also includes some other countries. I think you'll have to use the long form or change the content itself. --★uːʤɱ kant 19:18, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

My brain totally skipped over the Western Europe part for some reason. Maybe Western liberal democracies? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:25, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

@UHM - What other countries are included in the "West"? I suppose it is a vague term. But the clear members would be US,Canada,Western Europe (which includes UK+Ireland), Australia and New Zealand. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 21:31, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

You named New Zealand - AFAIK and WP tells me OZ is only for Australia. Then there's Scandinavia, Finnland for example, then there's Greece, Israel and Turkey qualify in a half-arsed way. Depending on the context South Africa, Brazil, Mexico, Argentinia, Chile. But the term is so unbelievably fuzzy I wouldn't even use it, if it weren't on an even fuzzier topic of comparing the "Western tradition" to some other tradition - cinema for example. --★uːʤɱ libertarian 16:50, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree the term is very funny, it's kind of an extremely messy hybrid term that mixes up too many different things (e.g. West=European/Christian, East=Islamic/Indian/East Asian; West=Capitalist/NATO/EU, East=Soviet/Russian). I think, rather than an in-out system, one almost needs a system of concentric circles. I think the main criteria are a culture that primarily derives from Europe, a capitalist economic system, a democratic political system, being wealthy, being a political and/or military ally of the US/NATO. The core West has these, those who don't fit some of those criteria quite so well can be considered to have degrees of partial membership. I think other interesting cases are Japan and South Korea - on the cultural criterion, they are completely different, but the others they fit quite well, which makes them somehow semi-Western Eastern countries. Israel is in a somewhat similar position, more Western but still not fully Western (a very significant culture influence from Europe, but a fair amount from the Middle East too.) And of course it changes over time - "Eastern Europe" is becoming more and more Western, given it has shifted its political and economic system and alliances, and is growing richer, and met the cultural criterion to begin with. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 08:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Cool, or sick…

I can't quite decide…-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 19:07, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

In Korea there's a dish where octopus tentacles are served so fresh they're still squiggling and you eat them while they're moving. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 19:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Cool obviously. Sen (talk) 19:50, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

There's something wrong with eating something that still moves. Culinary depravity. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 21:32, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Since I highly doubt that the only thing you eat is regular crystals at absolute zero, I do feel compelled to point out that everything you eat is moving when you do so. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 22:09, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Ha ha, smarty-pants, you know what I mean. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 23:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Mmmm, I'm torn between:
a) Cool: You know that your squid's going to be fresh, plus sciency goodness (guess who has been watching Buffy back-to-back for the past couple of weeks)
b) Sick: A result of millenniums of teaching that virtually every kid receives - Don't play with your food.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 23:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Just ate this yesterday actually. Twas delicious. <3--Dumpling (talk) 02:54, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Looks more like an octopus to me. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 08:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

PZ Meyers in the comix

This seems like the kind of thing that would resonate here. BbMaj7 On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. 02:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand that he doesn't understand most of the comics posted on that site. Most seem to be pretty obvious.. GTac (talk) 08:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Captcha again

Changed my mind. This should be in force effective immediately on YouTube. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 09:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

US Credit Rating Downgrade Claim

I saw a claim on a Facebook comment yesterday (Facebook comments being well-known as a source for completely accurate information, of course.)

The claim was that the (or a) reason S&P stated for downgrading the US's credit rating was a concern that the Republicans would intentionally allow the United States to go into default.

I asked for a citation, but the topic owner was deleting posts (I didn't blame him -- he posted a joke about the downgrade, some people tried to make it into a serious discussion, and he doesn't care for political debates on his Facebook page.)

Does anyone know if that was a stated reason from S&P? It sets off my BS detectors. MDB (talk) 10:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

It is easy to check. Just read the S&P statement that officially explains their reasoning.

They do seem to hint at it a little in the beginning, but I think they wanted to tread carefully. This is astoundingly and surprisingly political of them already, which is why the other big agencies haven't touched it yet. So they backed off and explicitly denied any view of obstruction in Congress:

"Although in our view the credit standing of the U.S. government has deteriorated modestly, we see little indication that official interference of this kind is entering onto the policy agenda of either Congress or the Administration. Consequently, we continue to view this risk as being highly remote."--^talk 10:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks -- I was assuming it would be financial/business-speak that I'm ill-qualified to understand.

For what it's worth, here's the joke that led to the comment that led to my question: "The vacation homes of S&P rating executives have been downgraded by the United States 434th Field Artillery Brigade. Film at 11." MDB (talk) 10:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

In reading this, some of the language makes it sound pretty clear why they're pessimistic about debt. They predict that despite the act, debt burden will continue to grow, because they are assuming that the Bush tax cuts will be once again upheld in 2012:

"We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act."

Elsewhere, they admit to having little faith in the political mechanisms in Washington to come to a compromise between spending and revenue, and specifically blame "political brinkmanship." At any rate, it's a very interesting and perceptive statement. Junggai (talk) 12:02, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes, here we go:

The "conclusion was pretty much motivated by all of the debate about the raising of the debt ceiling," John Chambers, chairman of S&P's sovereign ratings committee, said in an interview. "It involved a level of brinksmanship greater than what we had expected earlier in the year."--^talk 12:39, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Anything involving the ratings agencies should set off your bullshit detector -- another good article here. My favorite part of all of this is that they're downgrading the Fannie and Freddie securities. After the crash, F&F became a dumping ground for all the bullshit derivatives Wall St. was pumping out -- which had been slapped with AAA(+++ would buy again) by ratings agencies like S&P. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Elizabeth Loftus on SGU

Hyping my own field here for a moment: Psychologist and skeptic Elizabeth Loftus was the guest on the latest Skeptics' Guide episode. Definitely worth a listen, but I just might be biased. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:10, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

DC bias or AC bias? --87.5.101.234 (talk) 19:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

While I have your attention?

Is it always this passive-aggressive/melodramatic/weird here, or did I just happen to catch you on a bad day? BbMaj7 On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. 00:03, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

It always is to some extent, but yeah, today is a fairly bad day. We've been having Marcus drama on-and-off for the past couple of months, and Human's drama has been pretty much simmering for about four years. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 00:06, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Easiest thing to do is ignore it. but there are some very hot heads here. and everyone is smart and opinionated. and by general consensus, this wiki is "run" by general consensus, cept when it isn't --- so that is a huge problem... what does consensus mean in a hit and run world. and everyone - and i do mean everyone, including me- can get their panties in knots around here for all the wrong reasons. but it ebbs and flows, like all things and all communities.--En attendant Godot 01:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

'everyone is smart and opinionated' I'll have you know that I am merely opinonated. AMassiveGay (talk) 03:27, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Half right, Godot, people are opinionated. ADK^{...I'll feel your Audi!} 13:12, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

What scares me is that by definition, ~50% of the population is below 100 IQ and it's a log scale (IIRC), yet they still haev their opinion.TrogL (talk) 17:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Brooker is the voice of reason......

When it comes to capital punishment. FairyCupcake (talk) 22:36, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I prefer George Carlin's plan. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:57, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Heh, danglefans... ADK^{...I'll reward your blanket!} 11:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Though seriously, when he says;

“”This is because most current executions a) employ methods that are as quick and efficient as possible and b) take place behind closed doors – almost as though the people doing it are ashamed of themselves.

this is very true. Execution methods have fuck all to do with what happens to the victim. It's about trying to offset the guilt as much as possible from the person pulling the switch. Yeah, that's right, switch. No longer do we have to get our hands dirty by putting someone to the sword, or lobbing off their head with an axe, we can do it at arms length. Have a machine do it on your command. Even with firing squads we offset the guilt by having an entire squad do the shooting, but some of them loaded with blanks so they can't be sure they made the killing shot. Why this rigmarole and bollocks? Surely with all the people campaigning for it to come back there should be a myriad of people ready to actually stand up and do the act with their bare hands. ADK^{...I'll feast your pumpkin!} 11:13, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I'll bet you twenty poker chips that there is indeed "a myriad of people ready to actually stand up and do the act with their bare hands". Hell, I'll even go further and say there is a myriad of people ready to do it to someone without caring whether they're guilty or not. --√2 (talk) 10:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I reckon a lot of murderers are pro-death penalty. If you are all cool with, or even enjoy, taking someone else's life, you'd probably be fine with the state doing it too (so long as you are not the one being executed—although, even, then, some serial killers have actually claimed to have looked forward to being executed, like Albert Fish did apparently.) I wonder if anyone has ever done a comparative study of murder rates among death penalty supporters vs. death penalty opponents. I would venture a guess that death penalty supporters are more likely to commit murder than opponents are. A common disregard for human life. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 12:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Tutorials

Is the funnest word to write with a swype keyboard. Tutorials. Pimobile (talk) 12:12, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Not "typewriter" then. ADK^{...I'll discombobulate your paycheck!} 13:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

"typewriter" is actually a bit awkward with swype/slideit. I'm gonna have to agree with Pimobile. ^{ONE / TALK} 14:42, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Wait... is Pimobile just User:Pi on a mobile? ^{ONE / TALK} 14:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Or his car? Real first name and last initial^{Talk, talk, talk skim my contributions} 22:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't even know what a swype keyboard is. I'm feeling very 1950s at the moment. Maybe I'll smoke a pipe and say things like "Hullo!" --PsyGremlinTala! 08:54, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

On Interest Rates

Can a RationalWikier explain the process (to the economically uneducated, like yours truly) around raising/lowering Interest rates and whatnot during decent economic times and recessions? Printing money/loans and whatnot. Why did Greenspan keep interest rates low during the past decade, and why is there still an incentive to keep them there while Austrian goldbugs are predicting end-of-world hyperinflation if they're not raised soon?

Thanks.

This is better than any explanation I could give. Low interest rates encourage investment and raising them reduces it, so Greenspan kept them low to keep investment up. The Austrians think that this creates "malinvestments" in the economy, inevitably creating a credit bubble which will eventually burst. They believe that a recession is a means by which the market purges itself of these malinvestments. That is my superficial understanding anyway. --193.1.172.188 (talk) 08:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

It's because economics is voodoo science. There are as many opinions about what is "right" as there are schools of economics to have them.

The initial problem was caused by low interest rates and be the easy availability of credit which allowed asset prices - especially house prices - to hyperinflate.

As everybody is afraid of the idea of deflation (the reduction of prices) the solution, somewhat bizarrely, seems to be even lower interest rates and to increase the availability of credit. Consequently low interest rates seem to be both the cause and the cure of the problem. Voodoo or what?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 10:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

And when reducing them further doesn't seem to stimulate the economy anymore, you have a "liquidity trap" and some believe fiscal deficits are the only way to stimulate the economy under such circumstances. This supposes that a government will be longsighted enough to focus on accumulating tax revenue during a boom rather than just spend spend spend like there's no tomorrow. --√2 (talk) 10:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Well yes, timescales are a problem. Governments have two priorities: doing the best thing for the country in the long-term and getting reelected. Unfortunately, these two objectives are frequently at odds with each other which results in them making short term decisions instead of long-term ones. (Failure to take early action on the issue of pensions is a good example of this.)

Meanwhile the markets operate on another timescale entirely. They respond daily or even hourly to whatever event happens to catch their notice at any given moment - and governments are now required to react to these incredibly short-term events as well.

At the same time the ECB, the IMF, the BOE, the FED, the rating agencies and government opposition parties have different constituencies/objectives which put them at loggerheads with the politicians in power. The result is the dog's dinner which we have at the moment.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 13:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Bob is wise. Listen to him. Going back to BoN's question, the Austrians seem to think monetary policy is the sole cause of business cycles. In reality, there are many more complexities involved. --√2 (talk) 14:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

@Bob: Deflation in one sector is not a big deal, but you really don't want massive economy-wide deflation. Then you get this.

@BON: Greenspan kept interest rates low because he was a true believer in the magic of financial markets -- i.e., just shovel more money into the banking and financial system and you're good to go. That started in the late '80s with the stock market bailout/S&L debacle and only snowballed from there. The Austrian goldbugs define inflation as increase in the money supply rather than prices (i.e., the standard definition), so we are always inflating according to them. Of course, if you look at the CPI (not allowed by Austrian standards), "Morning in America" and the Papa Bush years look like the Weimar compared to today. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Medical Woo

Changing topics from the riots a bit, or giving a moment's diversion... I was reading Natural Childbirth article, and it made me realize we need a section (not sure where) on the woo that Doctors have had for the last 200 years, often about women and women's bodies, that are only recently being challenged. like the stupidity of giving birth in a bed on your back, much less in stirrups on a gurney. So concerned we are with 1) doctor's ease, and 2) "not being like animals". So I was wondering if there is any other medical woo that the medical establishment holds to, despite evidence to the contrary?En attendant Godot 14:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Around the time of the planned home delivery of my daughter 30 years ago or so, I was cautioned not to be too outspoken about it around my then wife's nursing colleagues. Some of them were still in the "home delivery is for pizza" crowd. The pre-natal visits were split between the midwife and an OB/GYN who was OK with knowing he was plan B.

The subject could be a real can of worms, though... the conditions of delivery I've seen in the US and the UK seem pretty supportive. I would be hugely surprised to find a paternalistic authoritarian style of perinatal care still getting a whole lot of traction nowadays. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 16:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I was recently reading that, actually. Apparently the best position is "whatever the fuck you want so long as you can bend that way" ADK^{...I'll castrate your peanut!} 16:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

There was a huge problem with it being "animalistic" but most modern clinics advise you to get up and squat like you are taking a dump, or get on all fours... and if they are in a bed, lots of the new clinics have these chair like beds, that you can push with your hands, your back, your stomach... it's rare but still happens, to find the lie on your back, and put your feet into these stirrups here.... there is also some disdane for midwives still. they are generally well trained, often cheeper, and if there are no known issues, it's a good way to go. I'll do midwife, but in a center, so "just in case" an obgyn or surgeon is just down the hall.En attendant Godot 16:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Wait, didn't we yell at the Egyptian government for doing just that?

The Daily Fail BbMaj7 On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. 16:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

All fun and games until the people on the TV screens are speaking English rather than just jibbering on in foreign, ain't it? Thing is, if you shut down the communications, you can make things much much worse. You could have people lost and reliant on that network to navigate home, call families and so on. You could exacerbate the situation for innocent people. It's used as a plot point in Tom Scott's flash mob gone wrong story, where the 3G network crashes during a flash mob and makes things worse. ADK^{...I'll shave your ostrich egg!} 16:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Shock. all those pictures are black people. yet i'm hearing from friends across the pond that it's hardly a black on white thing, it's a "we are poor, we don't have jobs, and we don't really care" on society thing. ah, teh Mail!En attendant Godot 19:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Wisconsin Recall Election!

I don't live in Wisconsin but I'm still watching this election. Anyone else? I'm kind of hoping it turns out the Republicans were stuffing ballots and get sent out of their offices. Seriously how are they sticking around? HollowWorld (talk) 03:06, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I am watching it like a hawk. Looks like 2 recalls so far - an enormous amount of corporate and GOP money poured into the state and the polling was spotty, so no result would surprise me.--^talk 04:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

So what's with the CAPTCHA for every edit? (like this one)

I know you all have to be vigilant for vandals, but seriously, Brah, that's annoying. BbMaj7 (talk) 22:51, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the gods that be change that after a week or so, but i really don't know the particulars of the politics. hopefully someone will have a better answers for you.--En attendant Godot 22:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Merde. C'est tannent. BbMaj7 (talk) 23:01, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

You tan your comments? Bien, c'est juste une mesure pour réduire des problèmes des trolls.En attendant Godot 23:10, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Je comprends, mais quand meme, c'est assez platte. BbMaj7 On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. 23:14, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

10 edits and three days or something and it goes away. - π 23:21, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Awesome. BbMaj7 On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. 23:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

It's usually triggered if you've put external links in. Can't recall it being active for any other reason... ADK^{...I'll extrude your pork chop!} 23:57, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I have yet to put in an external link. I would never be so bold.(This edit had a CAPTCHA on it. With what look to be Cyrillic characters.) BbMaj7 On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. 00:00, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

No, it's triggered on every edit now. Sorry, too many spambots. -- Nx / talk 05:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I've recently had a captcha with a mathematical formula with a fraction and an integral symbol. Is it expected that users are fluent in TeX? --87.5.101.234 (talk) 12:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The captchas used here and on much of the rest of the Internet are created automatically by software which is trying to read scans of old books. When it finds a squiggle it can't OCR, it assumes that it is human readable text and therefore a human can read it. So it presents it to you as half of the test. [ The other half is a control which serves to actually check you're human ]. Humans helpfully try to read the squiggle and write what it says, it shows the same squiggle to many random humans, and of those who correctly answer the other half of the CAPTCHA it assumes that if they mostly agree that it says "ömak" or "reticulate" then that must be what it says. Obviously as time goes on the amount of squiggles it can't understand but which a human can manage is shrinking, as is the supply of images of books that a machine hasn't scanned and read. Eventually we will run out. But on the upside, Google will be able to find your search answers even if they're in a 150 year old French novel. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 21:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of Captchas

I encountered a variant one yesterday that required you watch a friggin' video ad for McDonalds before getting the phrase to type. MDB (talk) 11:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I think I can sum that up in three words: Fuck. That. Shit. ADK^{...I'll confuddle your tennis racket!} 21:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I will point out that the text was in a nice, easily read font. Of course, the text related to whatever McDonalds swill was being advertised. MDB (talk) 10:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

UK, Europe and canadian friends

I'm looking for some info on abortion outside of the US. I'll do my googling, but if anyone knew the answers to these questions for any "western" (whatever the hell this term means)

1. what is the cost (very roughly, like 300 US dollars, 200 Euro) for an abortion (first trimester)
2. are they generally covered by the state?
3. is it "easy" to find doctors/clinics outside of the major cities?

Anyone from anywhere in the world that reads our wiki, feel free to chime in. I want to *try* to get away from the "all US all the time" perspective on our abortion pages.--En attendant Godot 00:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

:( I feel left out. - π 00:09, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

In the UK it's all covered by the NHS and providing you get two doctors to sign you off (easily done because if one refuses they have to refer you to another) there's a pledge to get it done ASAP, which is about within two weeks I believe, if not sooner. Any sexual health clinic will refer you so there's no need to hunt them out. I would say in the UK it's almost nothing like the US by the looks of it. Pay for treatments? Having to find clinics? Seriously, I don't quite understand! Can't speak for Europe, but as they're dirty socialists too, I can't imagine it's much different. NHS direct might have the info if you want to find it yourself. There's also the option to go private, which as always is slightly faster, probably more comfortable but costs. ADK^{...I'll unify your infinity!} 00:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Canada -- covered by Medicare, free as long as you have coverage, which, while it varies from province to province, basically means being able to prove you live there. Don't know much about accessibility outside of the cities, sorry. BbMaj7 On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. 00:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Covered by the state in Sweden. Cost varies from county to county. Around 200-300 SKR ($35-$50)(The base cost for any kind of medical need. My broken arm cost me that much to fix. Included prescription for free heavy-duty painkillers for a month too!). Easy to find clinics outside of major cities? Well, as easy as it is to find as any kind of medical attention. The Swedish perspective on abortion is that it is a complete non-issue. Nobody, really, is opposed to free abortion anymore than they are against free healthcare in general. Dendlai (talk) 00:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Germany — Covered by most health insurrances, but not all. About 360€ to around 460€ depending on method and hospital. I don't have any statistics on how far spread clincs that do abortions are spread, pretty much because I was never concerned that I may have to know such a thing, but it doesn't look that wide spread. But in any way getting to a big city is relatively easy as we don't really have many rural areas anyways. But don't take my word for it.

If wanted I can do some research on Austria and Switzerland. But I don't expect to come much from Austria (no stats) and Switzerland will have it all in three languages anyways. --★uːʤɱ structuralist 10:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The UK's two doctors thing is worth taking a moment to frown at. One doctor can prescribe you any treatment (except a handful of drugs that the government in its wisdom has decided are absolutely forbidden). So why two doctors for an abortion? The UK operates under the pretence that unlike emergency contraception, abortion is not available "on demand" -- so the doctors are signing to say that an abortion is necessary in this particular woman's case. In Britain most areas will have dozens of doctors who believe an abortion is "necessary" whenever a woman feels its in her best interests, and so necessity is a legal fiction rather than a medical reality. But in many ways the difference from the US is merely cultural - if doctors willing to sign were rare and there was strong public opinion against abortion a normal woman (ie one without the contacts to find a doctor who will sign quietly) would be under tremendous pressure to keep the baby or have an illegal "back street" abortion. 82.69.171.91 (talk) 12:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

That's a good point. I think it's a historical thing. Back when the law was introduced, in order to appear fair, there was this 'we'll only do abortions where it's really necessary' thing and hence the safeguards. Nowadays, whatever the law says, abortion is, effectively, available on demand so why bother changing the law to achieve what already happens. I do remember back when the law first came in a certain amount of fuss over the "mental distress" clause being used as a universal get out. Jack Hughes (talk) 13:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

You also touched on it with the "mental distress" clause. Because two doctors are required to section somebody, it was decided that the same level of diagnosis was needed to determine if somebody was in sufficient mental distress for an abortion to be justified, essentially because the two things were seen as being at about the same level of severity in terms of personal and civil liberties. The mental distress clause is no longer an issue, of course, but the two doctors thing stuck, essentially because there was no overriding need to changeit, and it tended to be a sop towards the more religious Northern Irish parties whose votes are sometimes needed to get controversial legislation through.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 15:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

No matter how pro choice you are, you can't consider an abortion to be a "good" thing. I suppose the two-doctor rule is there as an extra hoop (however ceremonial) to try and discourage it being too casual, and to at least try to hammer home some education about more effective contraception too. There are other things where you need multiple referrals, gastric banding and cosmetic surgery on the NHS I believe require it to ensure it's the right thing to do and other options have been tried and exhausted. ADK^{...I'll subvocalise your oddball!} 16:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I found this page about Victoria, Australia, which agrees pretty well with my personal recollections of the issue. I reckon you'd find the situation in most of the other states to be pretty similar. As that page notes, limited service availability outside the capital city - a common solution is to go to the capital city. Here is an article from a few years ago about the problems with access to abortion in rural Victoria. Although there are some efforts to improve rural/regional availability, since then, see e.g. here. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 12:33, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

all you need for Europe. Jack Hughes (talk) 12:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Belgium: Woman must say she is in a "state of distress". -- that sounds a bit like the UK law you just discussed. some remnant of a long forgotten prohibition that is now "on paper" only. The one that shocked me last night, was Poland, which thanks to being the (head?) of the EU this year, avoided the penality from saying "we have fully outlawed abortion even when life of mother is at stake." En attendant Godot 13:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

In fact, the present Spanish abortion law is substantially less restrictive than Jack's link would suggest. It gives free abortion on demand in the first 14 weeks. The liberalisation of the law was vehemently opposed by (you can guess the rest).--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 17:52, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

So what's Germany's deal. I keep running across references to the State (or her people) balking at new technology (specifically ru-486), having a rise in Creationism on levels unheard of in Europe. Is it a reunification thing? are knee jerk to WWII? Cause from this side of the pond, they seem as if they'd be all scientific and rational - all them damn philosophizers and scientists they produeced. ^{— Unsigned, by: WaitingforGodot / talk / contribs}

Don't know about Germany but ru-486 is free on demand in Spain. My wife is a nurse presently giving cover in a general emergency care centre and she complains about the number of teenage girls who turn up every Monday for a fix.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 19:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed there has been a growing evangelical movement in Germany - but it is still very small in numbers; the German Evangelic Alliance says they have 1.3 million people (these numbers are probably a bit high). They are mainly represented through the so-called "Free Churches" (Freikirchen). AFAIK the center of these movement is Southern Germany - and by far not in the newer Länder/states. The are generally social conservatives (homphobic, anti-feminist, a.s.o.) but no teabaggers that want less influence of the Government in the economy - but pretty much the exact other way around tending towards more care for the poor. I generally don't think that they will do much, because there is also a very staunch left wing movement with long a tradition in Germany (with currently 3 parties in the Bundestag, while social conservatives only have 1 which tends to e rational about such things), many feminists that would go bananas if the law was to be changed in the wrong direction. There are many people that believe that abortion is generally wrong, but they normally advocate against doing it and not for it to outlawed (the German social conservatives pretty much know that they are fighting an uphill battle they will loose, so they generally advocate "not doing things" instead of "not allowing things"). It's not really a wonder that the Germans you engage with seem rational and scientific (I wonder how much the last thing works with me... ;) ), social conservatives are not really the most educated people in Germany - they aren't the really dumb 3 generations unemployed but not really academical material either (the other classes are generally leaning left wing, with some classical liberalists in the upper class); to make a long speecht short: they aren't the people that speak English on the level the people that come here do and they aren't so many that you would run into them in masses on the web. --★uːʤɱ netlabelist 19:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I think you need to go to Poland for real insanity.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 20:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

As I once heard on German TV: "In Poland, catholicism replaced communism" - I think it's one of those lines that are so on point that I will never forget them. --★uːʤɱ structuralist 20:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to the "world. Wide. Web." my hubby can still get France Info and other news broadcasts, and he was commenting here just recently that the Polish timed their anti-abortion bill perfectly. They waited till they were the head (?) of the EU, and then passed their laws. I can't believe they actually made a law that says even dying women are not allowed abortions. and i had no idea they were so anti science in general. sighs. En attendant Godot 20:54, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

From bob's article on Poland, "Giertych, who is a biology professor by trade, claimed that humans had had contact with dinosaurs and that Neanderthals continue to live among us. "... that's just sad.En attendant Godot 21:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I suppose that Neanderthals do continue to live among us but not in the sense of individual entities, jut that strands of their DNA are found in s significant proportion of humans. However, it is thought that one of their last bastions was the Iberian peninsula which might explain a Portugese guy I used to work with who was short, strong, very hairy and had a distinct brow ridge. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 22:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

In NZ the situation is strange. Technically to get an abortion here you need two doctors to sign off on the fact that you are mentally or physically incapable of having the child. In practice however, the process is routine and is, as I understand it, generally free or for a nominal sum for lower income people. Not sure how much for the well to do though. There was a recent appeal from some of the anti-abortion people who wanted to force stricter controls of the process (ie a doctor would actually have to have grounds for saying that emotional or physical harm would result) but the Court of Appeal turned them down... Goes to read judgment...more details to follow. --Damo^Hi 07:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

In large part our CA said that a)fetus's have no inherent rights, except where granted by law (at 20 weeks) b) they were not in a position to comment on whether doctor's had good faith reasons to sign off on so many abortions - and due to privacy constraints there was no way to monitor this. Basically the anti's lost big time, and free abortions were had by all!Damo^Hi 07:58, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

British riots

Good Lord, there's a load of rubbish being talked about the riots in London and elsewhere right now. Nick Griffin is blaming blacks and Jews; Darcus Howe is celebrating the riots and comparing them to the Egyptian uprising; someone at Islamic Awakening is claiming it's Allah's punishment; the English Shieldwall Facebook page is claiming that "We need to form a wall from Lands End to Northumbria and sweep this country clean"; and someone at Rapture Ready is speculating about "a Muslem connection". Wonder when the Illuminati'll turn up. Baljit (talk) 15:33, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

yeah, that's teh joy of modern imediate news. everyone's got an asshole opinion. And mine is still that a bunch of kids with nothing better to do, are getting drunk and using this as a social event - regardless of what it started as. any news/truth to the rumors that "gangs" are getting involved to settle scores, etc.?En attendant Godot 15:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, it's so depressing that I can't bring myself to read about it. :-( --Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 15:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

If they've noticed it on GLP, the illuminati has certainly come up --193.1.172.104 (talk) 15:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

and into every insane world, comes a measure of sanity [4].En attendant Godot 15:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

That flossie with the grey top is hawt! --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 15:59, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's more shocking, the riots or the fact that the positive stories on the clean up are being ran by the freaking DAILY MAIL! ADK^{...I'll vomit your tuba!} 16:24, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Once one of my Britt friends had explained why it's odd to be the Daily Mail, i relooked at the pictures. Rich/middle class white respectable people having to clean up after black, or poor, or chav like inner city punks. yeah, it's daily mail material. "white rich still do what they must" or something. -- daily mail aside, it's pretty cool to set up cleaning efforts like thisEn attendant Godot 17:53, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

That's one angle to look at it from. ADK^{...I'll stir your President of the United States!} 12:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Libya on the British riots

"Libyan foreign ministry spokesman Khalid Ka'im has called on world governments to take action over the unrest in the UK. David Cameron has lost legitimacy and "must go", Libya's official news agency Jana reports. Libya "demands that the international community not stand with arms folded in the face of this gross aggression against the rights of the British people, who are demanding its right to rule its country"". Lol doesn't even cover it. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 10:08, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually the UK could save a bit of cash if the UN took over policing London. Worth thinking about.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 15:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

That'd get the NWO nuts in the US shitting themselves. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 16:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

If the world community were Wikipedia, I think this would be a case of WP:POINT. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok its humorous, but underneath it there is a serious point being made, namely leave countries alone to sort out their own issues. (not that I necessarily agree with the point being made). --Damo^Hi 04:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Have fun with this

[5]--User:Brxbrx/sig 10:31, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Really? Numerous Fox Noise viewers are inherently racist? Gee, I learn something new every day! Anarcho Symphony Noise ^{Swatting Assflys is how I earn my living} 11:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bl3esiwpuk

Divine presence actually reaches out and touches someone

This should lay all your atheistic skepticism to rest. God does, in fact, speak to ordinary people.
Be sure to hever over the red button for an Easter egglet.
Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 13:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Ooooooh! OOOHH! A terrible mistake has happened!!!!

You don't have an article about the latest sign of today's world being progressive and ethical.... teh SLUTWALK !!!!!! How on EARTH did you miss that one?! --Idiot number 57 (talk) 13:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

We didn't. WIGO-world3859 Тy^{Please do not click on this} 13:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

MIT

Have they cured AIDS? What is this --188.238.138.5 (talk) 16:12, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

While I'm no biochemist, it sounds like it could be the basis of a cure for lots of things. I'd guess that would be years down the road, though. MDB (talk) 16:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Eh...I think there was one man who was 'cured' of it. But that was of a different procedure. Plus he has leukemia. But that was a while back, I believe. But looking at the MIT article...I think they have a bit more to go to find a cure for AIDS.--Dumpling (talk) 16:52, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

It's an anti-viral treatment, so while it could destroy HIV, it's not a "cure for AIDS", there's a subtle difference. ADK^{...I'll bake your contraband!} 20:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but unless you are a HIV denier (or they turn out to be correct, gak) the effect of something that kills hiv, and the effect of a "cure" are identical. practicality trumps literal definitions and medical reality. :-) I'm still scared of all this. we will make an anti virus that says "oh, look at this human cell, it looks like the virus i'm supposed to kill. let's kill!" ;-)--En attendant Godot 21:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Cells and viruses are considerably different enough for that to be unlikely. Though the thing is, we already have stuff that will do it. Gamma rays outright sterilise everything. Similarly, suitably strong drugs do the same, which is why you don't just tip stuff into a petri dish full of bacteria, see that they die and declare that you've invented the worlds best anti-biotic. The trick is to either balance the strength so that they don't harm a patient or target it more specifically. Anti-biotics can also kill "good" bacteria, of course. And then you get weak things, like disinfectants that would pretty much do fuck all to a serious bug, but at least don't kill you when you wipe your bench down with it. ADK^{...I'll burn your tuba!} 22:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Too lazy to look it up

Please, clever and brainy colleagues of mine, why is the media called the Fourth Estate? And what are the first three Estates? Thank you! --PsyGremlinSpeak! 16:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Lords Temporal, Lords Spiritual and the rest of us? Pippa (talk) 16:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Yup! WP agrees: "In Burke's 1787 coining he would have been making reference to the traditional three estates of Parliament: The Lords Spiritual, the Lords Temporal and the Commons." Pippa (talk) 16:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Theoretical Bullshit

Highly highly highly highly recommended viewing for anyone interested in arguing God and morality and that vajazzle. You wouldn't think that a half-arsed soap actor would actually be as - if not, more - astute as anyone holding a Masters in western philosophy. Of course, that's also an advantage because it means his delivery is coherent, compared to most YouTube talking heads who mumble their way through. ADK^{...I'll program your foible!} 01:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Riots in london

Anyone watching this unfold live on the telly? AMassiveGay (talk) 16:11, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Spread to Birmingham as well apparently. WTF is going on? There's major arson going on, this isn't just petty criminality. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 20:00, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

They are still ongoing? I heard (via facebook) about them last night. I don't get riots. sports related, or "we are oppressed". you turn and destroy private property to protest govt actions. You destroy your own area's infrastructure, shitty as that infrastructure may be, for the sake of... what... "notice me?" And i won't even go into the sports riots when you win or lose. --En attendant Godot 20:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

No actual reason. Just an excuse for people to kick off. ADK^{...I'll feel your cheeseburger!} 20:19, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

BBC live video coverage online:[6]--ZooGuard (talk) 20:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Keep an eye out for SJ. I hear he likes to burn things. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

What's the motivation (if any) that got all this started? Summertime craziness that took on a life of its own? Or is there a protest over something in particular? Doctor Dark (talk) 20:54, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Holy shit. Haven't had the news on until now. This looks bad. As to motivation, a man named Mark Duggan was shot by the police in the back of a taxi a few days back by the Met, and apparently the way that the Met dealt with his family kicked everything off. I don't think it helps that the latest news regarding the shooting is that Duggan might have been unarmed and it was a shot first fired by one of the armed officers that then triggered Duggan's subsequent shooting. However, the underlying motivation looks like deprivation, segregation, generally the have-nots getting seriously pissed off and this spilling out into violence. Oh, and let's not forget, what appears to be the Met killing yet another innocent person and then doing a half-arsed cover-up afterwards. I get the feeling that the Met is now in serious difficulty re it's reputation. Wouldn't be surprised to see it eventually dissolved and a new force put in its place. The riots are being organised though, so welcome to rioting in the days of social networking.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 21:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

In fact, for a much more coherent explanation of what's happening ze Guardian.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 21:11, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Just a point - Duggan wasn't unarmed, there was a non-police gun found at the scene, which presumably was his. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 22:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

No, that's what the Met is claiming, but the Met and it's variant offshoots have done a shitload of claiming during the past ten years or more that haven't stood up to scrutiny. As an organisation I wouldn't trust the Met with my house keys. I sure as hell don't trust them with anything else.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 12:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Duggan getting shot has pretty much nothing to do with it, that seemed to have started a small and peaceful protest organised by friends but was then hijacked. They're just wanting an excuse to kick off and seeing their cues to do it around them. There's really no narrative that puts it together, just fuck-nuts being fuck-nuts. ADK^{...I'll bang your Angel!} 21:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

As someone on Facebook put it "thank f**k we don't have private gun ownership in the UK or this would be insane" ADK^{...I'll redeem your tennis racket!} 21:25, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

"What's the motivation (if any) that got all this started?" True, everything got hi-jacked very quickly after that, but that's the flash point that seems to have set everything off. I don't think it helped that the BBC highlighted the looting at PC world after the first night's rioting. You have to wonder how much this is a chance to have a go at the police, and how much is a chance to pick up a stack of looted goods.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 21:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

What i don't get is not what "started" it, but what anyone thinks they are accomplishing. again, other than destroying what little territory/property they do have. if you are going to riot, then do it right, like the french. they 1789, july 14th french riots. THAT will actually do you some good.En attendant Godot 21:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

You're assuming that a riot has to be a means to an end, rather than an end in itself. As far as the participants are concerned, it can just be nothing more than something to do. ADK^{...I'll cruise your stool sample!} 21:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Really? see, that i just don't get. I don't get destruction, vandalism or violence, much less when they are not motivated by deep felt issues.En attendant Godot 21:50, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the thing. It doesn't have to make sense. At least not to you. What you have to think of is what the individuals are doing. Thinking "yeah, let's do it, have some fun, thrash out!". Then when they all combine, they reinforce each other and the riot pretty much emerges from that. You don't need to have an objective in mind, it's a very natural thing in that sense. ADK^{...I'll revolve your muskrat!} 22:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

There's the looting, too. According to the Guardian, in Dalston a gang was beaten and chased off by the local community. Leave it to the Turkish to show them some justice Balkan style. :D--ZooGuard (talk) 22:07, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Not the first time, not the last time. --★uːʤɱ sinner 22:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Apparently a BBC News crew was attacked, although not seriously hurt. A Sky News correspondent seemed to be describing a charge and then sounded like he was legging it before getting cut off. A few other reporters seem to be retreating. Now rumours that Cameron has okayed the use of water cannons and tear gas. Also a teenage girl in hospital after taking a brick to the head. Shit isn't kicking off any more, it's off. ADK^{...I'll advocate your broom!} 23:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

How nasty is a "water canon"?En attendant Godot 23:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Have you ever stuck your finger on the end of a hose and felt the pressure? These things can knock people over from quite a range. There's also a ever-so-slightly illegal version where they run an electric arc through it too. News from BBC says that there's a store on fire with pressurised helium canisters inside, locals told to evacuate in case they start popping. Generally things are getting worse by the sound of it. ADK^{...I'll enumerate your newspaper!} 23:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Best place for info seems to be here: http://thewestlondoner.wordpress.com/ ADK^{...I'll earn your goat!} 23:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Apparently heading north towards where one of my friends lives. ADK^{...I'll bang your Hyundai!} 23:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Liverpool now... ADK^{...I'll reconstruct your lisp!} 23:54, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed to be in kicking off in Liverpool in the last half hour. London incidents appear to be gang related. ADK^{...I'll graphitize your tomato!} 00:04, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Rumours are pointing to a pamphlet giving advice about what to do if you're identified by cameras, hinting that this has been organised. I suspect that might be something to do with the organised protests for the cuts and student fees, but one wouldn't expect that just to appear now. Also, rumours on Twitter of things happening in Leeds, which means it's creeping closer to me. ADK^{...I'll deport your windows!} 00:17, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, Leeds was a minor thing according to West Yorkshire Police, looks like I might not have to spend the evening charver hunting. ADK^{...I'll hurt your rabbit!} 00:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't trust twitter. there were tweets about looting in the street round the corner from me in Waterloo. I went to check it out, and nothing going on. I did see a fox though. AMassiveGay (talk) 00:43, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Some of it's right and some of it's wrong. No real way to tell. Keep an open mind until the BBC says otherwise. Until then, the West Londer blog linked to above is doing a good job assembling photos to confirm reports. ADK^{...I'll sanctify your hitman!} 01:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Its amazing consdiering the amount of buildings on fire, some residential, that there have been no reports of any deaths. AMassiveGay (talk) 02:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

While I imagine word of that would get out pretty quick, the smoke is still clearing. Plenty injured from the sound of it. ADK^{...I'll reiterate your escape pod!} 07:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I was out last night in my town centre and there were quite a few coppers out on the streets. Just had BBC News on and they say 6'000 last night and 16'000 tonight. The mall had closed down by 7pm (usually it's open 18 hours a day) for fear of rioters heading our way, and a couple of my friends had heard that people were gonna come and try and start some bother around midnight, but AFAIK nothing major has happened - I haven't heard anything anyway. I'm working tonight so my fingers are crossed that my shop won't be looted. It was quite eery walking home after midnight and seeing all the bars and shops closed (apart from a local kebabi which I think would remain open in the event of a nuclear holocaust), lights turned off, no cars on the streets, etc. Aside from all this I'm pissed off that the England v Netherlands friendly tomorrow night in Wembley has been called off. Probably just as well, we'd lose anyway. SJ ^Debaser 11:03, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully with 16,000 officers on the streets we'll see some good beatings! ADK^{...I'll castigate your homology!} 11:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm going into work tonight wearing my Doc Marten's. So much easier to kick rioters out wearing them than plimsoles. SJ ^Debaser 11:24, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Something perhaps slightly cheery. ADK^{...I'll devour your bistro!} 12:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

So...

I don't normally play this card, but it does strike me. So, at things like the G8 protests, and then the student protests and cuts protests, it was perfectly fine to engage in "civil disobedience", where you lit fires, smashed property and threw things at the police. So when police drag a white middle class liberal kid from his wheelchair, it's appalling, when the police beat and arrest a lower class black kid people cheer. You know, just saying... ADK^{...I'll reconstruct your orc!} 07:54, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Whut? What black kid? And I personally applaud the cops who dealt with the wheelchair guy - he was abusive to police despite having been asked to move four or five times. After some research he sounds like an utter twat. He wasn't even disabled - on his blog he described himself running up the stairs of that building the protesters occupied. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 08:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Precisely, he was an utter cock. Though it's reactions to it that I find most interesting. No one can say that previous riots had a point any more than last night had a point. The motive is the same in both cases; let's thrash out frustrations but not bothering to say what they were. ADK^{...I'll calcify your potato masher!} 10:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Just generally, where was the "heartwarming support" for the police when they were being hit with bottles of piss last time? Exactly. ADK^{...I'll write your VCR!} 10:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't recognise London in the analysis of the riots from some of the foreign press AMassiveGay (talk) 11:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The comment from Iran is rich. ADK^{...I'll coax your harpsichord!} 11:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, just spotted someone on Facebook saying that these people are scum. Exact same person who was all "fight the power" during the previous protests and was basically outwardly hoping the police would get bottled and shot. It seems like when you're middle class, you're an anarchist, but when you actually cause anarchy and you're lower class, you're scum. All I ask for is consistency when it comes to attitudes towards civil disobedience. ADK^{...I'll employ your garbage bin!} 11:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, the previous protests were about 'fight the power'. This one's about free TVs. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 12:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

True, but the fact that there's criminal damage is the same in both cases. End results are the same general scope, albeit different scales. There were people actively condoning and supporting vandalism and violence towards police officers last time, this time they got their violence towards police officers and vandalism and suddenly it's a bad thing and they should bring in the army (officially the worst idea ever) so why the slight double standard? I don't accept that just because one group is a socially abandoned lower class venting anger, while the other group is a bunch of students whining over fees that one is scum and the other is somehow acceptable. ADK^{...I'll accentuate your raid!} 12:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Not everyone found the student protests acceptable. I personally thought they were pillocks (and I am a student), and I think everyone hates Charlie Gilmour. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 12:17, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm mostly referring to that subset of people who find one acceptable but one not as I'm struggling to see how one criminal act is fine but another isn't. I certainly find neither acceptable. ADK^{...I'll pass your foible!} 12:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I think difference in those student riots and these current ones (I must stress that I find both equally appalling) is in the studen ones, it was located around the centre of London, where people think few people actually live, so the victims in terms of property damage is faceless corporations and government officials. These riots in the last few days have been occuring in more residential areas - places where people actually live., with homes and businesses destroyed. This is how I think they are be viewed differently, but does not alter the hypocrisy that you are talking about. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:52, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Both seemed to target commercial business more. Yes, facelessness is a big part of it. Apparently someone in the crowds last night was heard saying "it's a way of getting our taxes back" - yeah, like you're 16 you've totally paid that much tax, and similarly someone said of the damage caused by students that "oh, it's the government's money that will pay for that". Hmmm, university education, can't beat it. If it wasn't for the fact it was a little blue comment box on FB, I'd slap the tit. ADK^{...I'll give your wigwam!} 13:59, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

A quote from Egypt

Remember, I'm a Yank, so I'm somewhat detached from this, but... "Egyptians and Tunisians took revenge for Khaled Said and Bouazizi by peacefully toppling their murdering regimes, not stealing DVD players." --Mosa’ab Elshamy MDB (talk) 11:59, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

From facebook: "The Youth of the Middle East rise up for basic freedoms.The Youth of London rise up for a HD ready 42" Plasma TV" EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 12:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Folks, it's over. London has literally been ravaged by Atheism. Occasionaluse (talk) 12:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I am hearing some (though not many) people asking for troops to be deployed. When was the last time troops were deployed on british streets for public order? (apart from Northern Ireland). AMassiveGay (talk) 12:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

That's a pretty big exception. BbMaj7 On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. 13:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Not really - the law and order situation in Northern Ireland has been significantly different to Main Land Britain for quite some time. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

My point is simply that the British government has a very long history of deploying troops against it's own people; it's a little more norm and a little less exceptional than you might think. BbMaj7 On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. 14:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The only incidence of troops on british streets in the last hundred years I can think of is the Siege of Sidney Street in 1911. I am well aware there have been and still are troops on Northern Irish streets since then, but as I said that is a some what unique situation in the UK. Perhaps you can enlighten me as to troop usage on the UK mainland? AMassiveGay (talk) 15:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

You are aware that the name of the country is "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland," right? Northern Ireland, while separated by a bit of water IS UK soil (even if a lot of people contest the fact). I'm not sure the "mainland" distinction is that important, it's clearly a case of deploying armed forces against their own citizens. BbMaj7 On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. 15:17, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes i am very aware of that and as I have previously said, Northern Ireland is significantly different to the rest of the UK. Without passing any judgement on such issues, NI is often considered a different case owing its unique history and ethno religious make up, not to mention the significant percentage of people who do not view it as part of the UK at all. The politics are different, the parties are different. The sectarian nature of the communites there are unique to the area. I'm not going to comment on the loaded language of 'deploying armed forces against their own people'. To me troops on the streets is completely alien to me and to my thinking unprecedented AMassiveGay (talk) 15:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

This was part of my problem in the LA riots. There is nothing you are rioting "for", and even if you think the world is unjust, you put your life on the line to make it better, you might even attach teh "government" or what you see as the oppressor. you don't just randomly set fire to things, and grab designer jeans from the nearest store that has been blown open. It's disturbing to see people (news, reporters, sociologists, or the kids themselves) try to "justify" this based on a guy who was shot, killed and treated obscenely. Yeah, that happened. but that isn't why you are stealing jeans and tvs.En attendant Godot 14:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

At the same time, I get frustrated at people --i.e. almost everybody--who says "they're nothing more than thugs/criminals/etc, as if this wasn't profoundly political problem. People don't go on days-long rampages of violence, arson and theft (now THERE'S a great name for a band) if they're basically happy with their lives/the society they live in. Or, another way to look at it, if your society is producing as many hardcore thugs/criminals as you say it is, your society is doing its job really, really poorly. And that's a political problem. BbMaj7 On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. 14:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

YEs, there is a problem with our society. we put huge barriers up to make this guy fail and that guy have a better chance to succeed. The conditions some people live in are horrendous. but it's NOT an excuse to riot. especially when the rioting is clearly about tvs and stuff. and again, i look at these pictures, and correct me if i'm wrong, i'm not there, but every picture i see are a bunch of highschool, college, and "first job" age WHITE MALES. the riot **may** (and i'm dubious) have started when a guy was shot, killed, and his privacy violated - but the people useing that are not the black and muslim kids who face this kind of discrimination. and again, i say this living in a town that rioted when the Denver Broncos won. the spark can be anything, but the "riot" (I think) is far more about what your buddy is doing.En attendant Godot 14:24, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, yeah -- it's groupthink and why mobs are so dangerous. It takes one or two hotheaded fuckwits doing something stupid to set off an entire crowd. MDB (talk) 15:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

While I'm sure you can say it's a political problem, I'm skeptical about how many people on the streets throwing shit would actually be able to tell you the first thing about politics or the economic situation. ADK^{...I'll deceive your Pac-Man!} 17:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Not hugely relevant, though. You don't have to know the first thing about politics or economics to be affected by a bad economy and a poor government. I'm mostly in agreement with BbMaj up there; a happy, contented people don't riot. Even if every single person on the streets is out there just because they want a new TV and/or because they want to smash stuff, that in itself is a problem that needs to be addressed. If that many people exist in the first place, then the society that produced them has done something seriously wrong at some stage. I just hope that once the riots are over, the people in charge actually realise that. Unfortunately, I fear the response will just be "those crazy chavs, being crazy chavs! We need a stronger police force and more police power!" X Stickman (talk) 18:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Lesson from Ireland

One of the things Ireland does well during their "marching season" (ie the period when riots kick off for no good reason) these days is getting community leaders to come out and face down the yobs. Making gangs of violent "protesters" confront the fact that they're not "protesting" anything, they aren't "representing" anybody, they're just thugs trying to set fire to the world. This simultaneously reduces the numbers of kids just joining in because it seems like a laugh, and underscores to the community that police officers arresting people aren't there as invaders coming to stamp on their community, but defenders of the community lined up against forces of chaos.

This isn't and never was about Duggan, whether he had a gun, etc. Anybody who cared about that would have waited for the IPCC report. This was an excuse to set stuff on fire and maybe get away with it. Hopefully we'll see a lot of young guys (this stuff is always disproportionately male) looking very sheepish in front of magistrates with their parents in the galleries in the next few days. One of the unfair things we'll see is that Joe University Student who was "protesting" fee increases can get his parents to spring for a good defence lawyer who will emphasise the time he sat in baked beans for charity and de-emphasise his shouting of "burn the pigs", whereas Barry from Tottenham caught with an armful of DVDs is lucky if he gets a brief who knows his name. The effect on sentencing is predictable. 82.69.171.91 (talk) 12:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Just to pour a bit of cold water on that. Stafford Scott has done a very good piece on what has caused this particular incident to kick off, and good reasons as to why it is continuing. The fact that the Met couldn't even be arsed to inform the family that Duggan had been shot, they had to find out about it on the news, it speaks to a culture inside the Met that just refuses to go away.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 13:48, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I am a little disappointed that more communities did not come out and defend their streets in the way the Turkish community did in Dalston. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

StuntedD, I don't buy that. you can look and "find" all the excuses in the world. but the annoy write has it right. these riots are not about making statements on the way people live, or the way a guy is treated, even if that one guy is treated like shit. Just like France, and LA before these riots are about pent up anger at "everything", along with a huge bit of "cool, let's burn and steal". If the riots really were about *something*, there'd be no reason to destory your neighbor's shop, or your local school, or churchs. yet in all the riots i mentioned (don't know about this one yet, but i'm sure we'll find out soon enough) innocent people, and unrelated things are harmed or destroyed. They are pissed off thugs who have no idea what they are even pissed off about.En attendant Godot 13:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I also have to challenge Scott's view that this is a racial thing. I am not there, but i googled "london riots, images" and virtually every one was young white "kids", not black kids, not muslims. So race isn't an issue. not once it got started. En attendant Godot 14:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

All the images I have seen are alot more ethnicly diverse than the picture you paint there. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:30, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not 'about' anything, however much people try to justify it. These two girls don't mention a thing about race or Duggan - it's about showing the police and the rich (whom they classify as those whose property they've attacked) that they can do what they want. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 14:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

So those two girls are the duly-elected spokespeople for the rioters? Besides which, as roughly as they put it, "showing the police and the rich that they can do what they want" is VERY MUCH "about" something. BbMaj7 On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. 18:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

My point was that everyone says it's about different things. Which indicates that it's not really about anything at all, it's just an excuse to let loose. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 19:02, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

If there is one unifying factor to the rioters it is that they all seem part of the new underclass that has developed over the past twenty years. As for understanding why the riots have continued and spread, it's really very simple. Riots are like wildfires, as long as there is fuel, they'll just keep on going, and right now the fuel is one hell of a lot of anger in an entire generation and class of people who feel that, at best, they've been neglected by the political estabishment, and at worst, actively punished. But like wildfires, riots also need a spark to start and in this case it was the way that Duggan and his family were treated. And it's not like it's the first time a riot's been triggered by the Met acting in this manner. It's as if the Met is institutionally incapable of learning how to reform the way it deals with these poorer areas. Yes, the rioters are to blame for rioting and looting, there's no getting around that, but it's no good just blaming them, the way that governments like to do. You have to have a real good look at the causes and do something about it, because if you don't, the next time the Met fucks up like this, exactly the same thing is going to happen.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 16:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

But who are these community leaders? They're always appealing for calm, but you never actually figure out who they are. (Must re-read Thud!) ADK^{...I'll bang your tube!} 17:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

You wacky Brits

Only in England would you serve tea on a police riot shield. MDB (talk) 12:49, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

There is no situation where a cup of tea does not make things better. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:54, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

We sledge on riot shields too. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 12:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

"Sledge"? MDB (talk) 13:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, 'sledging' AMassiveGay (talk) 13:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, "sledding". I thought it might be a sexual practice... MDB (talk) 13:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Or "sledging": taking the piss out of a batsman in cricket to put him off[7]. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 14:54, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, cricket. That's the odd little game you play instead of baseball, right? (Yes, I have an idea what cricket is. I'm just being a smart-aleck.) MDB (talk) 15:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

See now, you saying "smart aleck" made me think of this. That's how my mind rolls. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 15:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Cricket, the only game invented that actually incorporates meal times.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 16:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

No, MDB, baseball is the US version of rounders. Jack Hughes (talk) 16:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Which pretends not to be rounders by liberal addition of extra safety equipment. Pretty much how US football pretends not to be rugby. ADK^{...I'll ameliorate your Toyota!} 17:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Lockdown

My little suburban corner of London's under threat tonight. The shop's are going into lockdown, 6pm onwards if not already closed. I'm dead bored. I might just go to Winchester, have a pint, and wait for all this to blow over. SJ ^Debaser 14:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

No objection to that plan here. ADK^{...I'll edify your guillotine!} 17:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

A musical interlude

Seems kinda appropriate. --PsyGremlinSpeak! 14:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Plus Ca Change

It's just like last time. And the Tories were in power then. London's Burning, anyone? Jack Hughes (talk) 15:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The Damned Smash It Up. For more ideas try this:List of songs about London.Civic Cat (talk) 20:02, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Waterstones

I've only seen this on twitter, so take it with a grain of salt, but it's being widely reported that Waterstones books has said, "we'll stay open, if they steal some books they might learn something." MDB (talk) 17:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Doubt it's true, but awesome quote regardless. ADK^{...I'll sink your luggage!} 17:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Some satire for you

• Africa to send troops, food parcels to UK as riots spread --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 15:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Fucksake

Doing the rounds on Facey-B:

“”Dear Police, If you do feel the need to shoot anyone looting or rioting whilst on duty this evening, Please feel free, we dont mind, Dear firebrigade if you want to shoot the miserable scum with your high powered water hoses whilst they are preventing you from doing your job, thats absolutely fine. Dear ambulance service if you get any phone calls from injured/dying or bleeding rioters, stay at home and watch corrie.....yours sincerley The people of England!!

Fucksake. If civilised people are going to stoop to that level, THEN WHAT IS THE FUCKING POINT?? Seriously, if people seriously think that shooting rioters and/or leaving them to die then we may as well step back and say "here, have the place, it's yours!" ADK^{...I'll wash your magnet!} 22:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

One would be wise to keep in mind at all times that your neighbours would make pretty good Nazis in a pinch, and would happily have you tortured live on television if they could save 5p/litre on petrol - David Gerard (talk) 13:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

QFT ADK^{...I'll reconstruct your snowflake!} 14:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)