RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive116

This is an archive page, last updated 16 June 2012. 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>, <115>, <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)

Leaving Atheism

I have to say, the CP article "a dentist leaves atheism" made me wince. How does one "leave" a non-thing? Can I leave my a-santasim. But what i really wanted to ask about, is other than Maratreme (or whatever it is), do atheists really wake up and say "well, having sat around and thought about it, I don't think i'm an atheist any more?" I can't see someone who says there is no evidence for God, suddenly finding it. but then again, I guess I've never looked (for the evidence, or people finding god).En attendant Godot 20:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

It's because these people view it as a religion because they're religious themselves and the concept of "no religion" doesn't compute. ADK^{...I'll affiliate your fact tag!} 21:24, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

My computer doesn't like religion either! But I'm just surprized anytime I hear that an atheist has "found god". it seems so wierd, that you go from thinking there is nothing out there, to finding some compelling reason in your head or heart to say "ah, god!".En attendant Godot 21:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

It's possible to go both ways. Who knows what sudden revelations you have that change your mind. ADK^{...I'll hurt your mycobacterium!} 21:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The vast number of the people in this world stick with the religion they grew up with. They haven't really thought about it. Interestingly though, if you challenge any one of them on it you will often be told: "Ah yes, that may be true for many people, even many of my co-religionists - but I'm different. I have made a thorough study of all the world's religions and have come to the surprisingly happy conclusion that the religion I was brought up in happens to be the one true one."

However some religious people I have met are perhaps aware of the unlikeness of this response and come up with I used to be an atheist but...

I'm a bit suspicious of both lines.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 21:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

If the "i used to be an atheist, but ..." types are now hindu, or shinto, or messanic cultists, or something, i'd buy it. but gosh, they are always just another variety of white toast christianity. And the ones who moved from, say "methodist" to say, "presybterian" are soooo compelling. "I did too change my religion... now we say tresspass instead of debtors. En attendant Godot 21:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it probably depends on what "sort" of atheist you were. Say, if you're like me and Bob, we've done the sitting and thinking about it, the odds of us spontaneously converting are slim to nothing, but we do establish our conditions of proof in advance. If you're the sort of atheist I was ca.8 years ago who hadn't actually done a load of reading on skepticism and you conditions of proof weren't laid out, then yeah, it's possible. The meaning behind "I used to be an atheist" would be different in both cases. ADK^{...I'll snap your brick wall!} 22:19, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

It's definitly possible for a well-read skeptic to convert. I've known two people it happened to. They just had this massive "spiritual" experience while in a church. Also, C.S. Lewis' "Surprised By Joy" gives a decent description of how you can change from Atheist to Theist partly through reasoning (flawed reasoning, as I see it though), while still being well-read and educated etc.

In it he also explains why he refuses to condemn homosexuality. He feels he can only condemn and write about sins that have tempted him, and homosexuality (and gambling) had never tempted him. Makes you think of a certain Conservapedia-editor. Dendlai (talk) 01:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

That fact you suggest hist reasoning is "flawed" indicates that it's probably as important where your beliefs started, but more how they changed. Certainly, I'm happier with someone believing something wrong for a good reason than someone being right for a bad reason (in a philosophical sense, of course). So really, "I used to be an atheist..." is an irrelevance. ADK^{...I'll stride your pizza!} 09:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

@Bob, in terms of "sticking to the religion you grew up with", well looking at my own Catholic family, and how in about three generations it has gone from commitment to not much more than lip service, do many people really stick to the religion of their upbringing? On the other hand, I have spent a fair amount of time hanging around various "alternative religion" groups, and have seen people who have come from a non-religious background, or a not particularly committed religious background, embrace (at times with great devotion) religious ideas that really are alien to their cultural background, whether those ideas be Tantric Buddhism or praying to UFOs.

@ADK, you have decided to adopt certain proof conditions you have read about, you have become convinced they are the right ones - but, might you be wrong about them? Might the correct proof conditions be different from yours? Could you cease to be an atheist, not through being presented with evidence which meets your criteria for evidence, but through questioning and coming to reject your current criteria of evidence in favour of some new one? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 12:48, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, so what percentage of Muslims in Saudi Arabia change their religion? What percentage of Christians in the bible belt in the USA? What percentage is Hindus in India? The very fact that these areas remain Muslim, Christian or Hindu respectively is pretty good evidence that the majority of people stick with the religion they were originally indoctrinated with. A small minority are capable of thinking things through for themselves but it's evidently pretty small.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 14:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I think you are ignoring two social forces (1) secularisation (= decline of traditional religions), (2) the growth of alternate religions, new religions, NRMs, "cults", "New Age" fads, "spirituality", etc. How many Hindus in India? Well, all the Hindus in India I know are middle class professionals, and I think you will find a wide variety of attitudes towards the religion of their upbringing, in some cases rather critical. Of course, the vast majority of Hindus in India aren't middle class professionals, who are certainly less traditional than average, but I wouldn't know any "average Indian" well enough to know their views of religion (they would have driven me around Bangalore, cleaned my hotel room, etc.) I suppose my point is, I'm a middle class Western professional, and when you say "most people" I think "most people like me". You seem to be taking "most people" as most people considering the planet as a whole, and taking it that way I agree the truth is probably closer to the way you see it than the way I see it. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, when I say "most people" I do in fact mean "most people". I am glad that we now agree that most people people stick with the religion they were initially indoctrinated with.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 14:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC).

Maratrean, you suggest that middle class indians have a "wide variety of views on their religion", but they are STILL hindu. They may be more or less critical of it than their parents; they may think more or less about the 100,000 gods or recreation than their parents; they may think more or less about then nature of classes than their parents, but at the end of the day, they don't become Christian, or turn jewish or start worshiping Ba'at or think shintoism is da'bomb. and they don't become atheist. They remain, though the importants/commitment/belief may change, Hindu. Most people are most people. and study after study shows that we -- all classes, but yes, middle class - do not wander far from the tree. Even middle class "white european/american" generic business people are all still (by study around 80%) the religion of their parents. En attendant Godot 14:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

A friend of mine put it this way - his family doesn't care what he believes, so long as he goes to religious services with them on special occasions, and so long as he doesn't openly convert to another religion (although, converting to some religions his family would oppose more than others), but privately he can believe whatever he wants, they don't care about belief they care about appearances. He's explained his own viewpoint to me, as roughly agnosticism, and not being very keen on religion in general, and wishing it all (Hinduism included) would go away. Is he sticking to his parent's religion? Well, he's acting like he does, but does he actually believe it? Doesn't sound like it to me. Is his attitude unusual? I don't have any figures, but I would reckon it is a common attitude to have. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 21:02, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Errrrr. What? Are you now saying that most people don't really believe in the religion they follow? You may be right - but is that what you are saying? Or are you just saying that some people you know are bit wishy-washy about it?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 21:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm saying that appearing to follow a religion is not the same thing as actually following it. If there is social pressure to appear to follow a particular religion, many people will comply, yet if they don't really believe it, are they really following it? Or, if someone was raised to say "I'm a Catholic" when asked "What religion are you?", but doesn't really know what the Catholic Church teaches, and doesn't really care either, and to the extent they do know what Catholics are supposed to believe, doesn't actually believe those things, are they really following Catholicism? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 22:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

So you are saying that most religious people are either uneducated about their religion or insincere about it?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 06:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

People being uneducated about their religion is very common, probably even the norm. There are many Christians who say they follow church X rather than church Y, but actually have very little idea what church X actually believes, and how its beliefs differ from church Y. Or, one of my favourites: "Do you believe in the Trinity?" "Yes" "What is the Trinity?" "I don't know" "How can you believe in the Trinity if you don't know what it is?" "I don't know what it is, but I do know I believe in it. If you want to know what it is, ask a minister." I am sure the same is true for other religions also. As to "insincerity": well, I think one thing that intellectually serious atheists and theists have in common is a belief that beliefs are important, that it matters what you believe. But, I think many other people don't feel this way. They don't know the beliefs of their religion, but that doesn't really matter to them, because to them their religion isn't about believing things, it is about something else - labels, defining community boundaries, repeated rituals as a connection to the past, etc. Look at a place like Northern Ireland, where many people have a strong sense of being either Catholic or Protestant, but I am sure many of them have very little idea how Catholic and Protestant beliefs actually differ; but for them, that's fine, since for them being Catholic or Protestant isn't about believing things, it is about something else. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Criteria for changing your view point is a view point in itself. Therefore that's also subject to change based on other criteria. Those criteria will also be subject to change based on criteria... yadda yadda. Although in practice that wouldn't be as infinitely recursive. So yes, I'd change my criteria for changing my religious beliefs as easily as I'd change my beliefs, should better evidence present itself. ADK^{...I'll acidify your gyroscope!} 13:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

You think you can escape from the regress problem with in practice? The chain of justification of belief must either (1) end in unjustified beliefs, (2) be circular, or (3) be infinite. Are you suggesting (3)? How does the mind/brain fit any infinite number of justifications in it? Unless some of those justifications are identical to others, in which case we really have (2) instead. But, if your beliefs must ultimately end in unjustified beliefs or circular beliefs, well I can find a different set of unjustified or circular beliefs to ground mine. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:26, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

None of those, it's closer to a three-body problem; a web of interactions of beliefs that change and adapt to each other. You make a single Zeno like change to one set of beliefs and the rest instantly change to adapt to it, altering how that change would happen in the first place. But mainly you mistake a platonic model of "I believe W because X because Y because Z..." that is linear for the real thing. Of course "in practice" avoids that because this is just a model for how beliefs form, and in reality they wouldn't, and don't, regress infinitely. It all comes down to how resistant you are to wanting to change beliefs. But the most important thing about thought is that you can try things out - indeed that's what Aristole meant when he said "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it". You test a new idea out and see how much it changes your beliefs, if you're happier with the new configuration, you'll change. If not, you won't. It's the self consistency of that belief set and the criteria for believing them, as a whole, that matters more than any specific link in the chain. ADK^{...I'll pass your diesel engine!} 21:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

So, if I "try on" a new belief, and if I'm happy with it, I should adopt it? So, what would make you happy with a belief? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 22:19, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

"I used to be an atheist..." well the next bit should be "until I was indoctrinated by my family and society" as we are all born atheists. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 13:49, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Genghis, if you follow recent research on theory of mind, and development of morals, it appears that we are not born atheist, but are in fact born animists. From our earliest days, we assign all things, rocks, trees, lightening, mommy, to some direct will and intent towards or against us. and from there, once we've decided that rocks are good and lighting is bad, we seem to assign some kind of "bigger" power. Gods seem to be the human animal's natural default. En attendant Godot 13:53, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

We may develop like that but when we pop out of our mummy's womb we're not really thinking anything, we can't even see properly so assigning powers to rocks or lightning takes a little while. No, I contend that we are atheists at the moment of delivery. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 14:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, in the sense that we are little more than slugs, and slugs are pretty much atheist, i buy it. :-)En attendant Godot 14:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Read something the other day along the lines of: "we've been selectively bred to be god believers or to claim to be god believers by the god believers exterminating those who weren't". Pippa (talk) 14:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Possibly an exaggeration as I don't think mass slaughter is widespread enough to call it "selective breeding". Violence and murder associated with religion is invariably believer-on-believer, not believer(s)-on-non-believer. People generally don't adapt to those situations by swapping out their beliefs (see cognitive dissonance) but by becoming more resolute against others (see martyrdom). I'm quite partial to Dawkins' theory on it, where it's a form of selection based on children being unconditionally obedient to adults, and this then misfires off as adults being unconditionally obedient to priests. ADK^{...I'll hear your diet coke!} 16:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Chavs

I have a question I'm not sure at all about. For the last 6 months to a year, my brit friends whine or joke about "chavs", and "chav english" and yadda yadda. 1) what is a chav, and 2) are they part of who's rioting? En attendant Godot 19:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia. Pippa (talk) 19:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

{ec}Everything you need to know about Chavs is right here in a humorous (albeit slightly incomplete due to some shifts in management) format--User:Brxbrx/sig 19:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

DON'T FUCKING ALTER MY EDITS, IDIOT. Pippa (talk) 19:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

So is this the sub culture that's pissed off and rioting? or are these "chav" like our white ass "rap inner city wannabe suburban house brats"?En attendant Godot 19:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Chavs are delinquents, anti-social, live on estates, listen to shit music out of their phones at the back of buses, wear tracksuits and burberry caps and shitty fake plastic "gold" jewellery. They hunt in packs of at least 3-to-1 as they know 1-on-1 they'd get their arses kicked. Usually "chav" is refers to white people, and "rude boy/girl" for black/other non-white people, though I use "chav" regardless of what race the chav is.

If that's all tl'dr, just search YouTube for clips of the Jeremy Kyle show. SJ ^Debaser 20:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

While I was growing up, we used the the term pikey to refer to such people. Its good that nowadays we have a less racially offensive term to abuse poor folk. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I've always used the term "chav" to describe behaviours rather than looks. So someone wearing a tracksuit and burberry cap isn't a chav. Someone wearing that and also (with some friends) mugging some kid for cigarettes is a chav. X Stickman (talk) 20:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Once upon a time, the middle class in the UK picked on foreigners and black people. Then they were told not to do that because it was naughty. But, as middle class attitudes are built entirely on sneering down their noses at someone, they switched to the working class. "Chav" is an essentially derogatory term that conflate general working class with actual street scum. In other areas that have such terms, they tend to distinguish between the two. "Charver" is the more north-east term, but is used for the actual slime hanging around shops demanding that you buy them cheap cider when you want to go in. Scotland favours "NED" meaning "non-educated delinquent". Notably, in these cases there isn't a class issue at work. ADK^{...I'll navigate your tomato!} 12:42, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

You know the "guidos" of Jersey Shore? Think of that, but British.

I do not think they are at all the similar. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Watchlist question

Is there any way to put particular sections of this page on my watchlist, instead of the whole Saloon Bar? It would make following the conversations that I'm interested in a little easier if the page didn't show up when someone edited a different section. BbMaj7 On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. 22:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so, unfortunately.--^talk 04:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

If we reformed the Saloon Bar to be a bit how wikipedia AFD works - a subpage per a discussion, include the subpages into the parent... Then you could watch the subpages (((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd be in favor of that. --★uːʤɱ sinner 09:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

They are Anonymous. They are Legion...

...They are going to fuck with Facebook on guy Fawkes Day. BbMaj7 On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. 03:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

...I bet Google is paying them. ~SuperHamster Talk 04:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Anonymous operates based on the most easily-understood outrages coming from the left-wing blogosphere one to two months previously. Their political motion is about equivalent to a typical college freshman.--^talk 04:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Is there anything more to anonymous than a few talented instigators and a whole passel of script kiddies who think they're "e1eet hack0rz" (or whatever the cool spelling is?) MDB (talk) 11:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

In response to MDB: nope. Not at all! The Spikey Punk ^{I'm punking my punk!} 11:46, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I liked annonymous when they were after Scientology. But they have gotten to this point where they think too much of themselves, whatever the fuck that means for a group of people who aren't really a "group". I konw it's important to change things, but I do not, and have never gotten why breakign into someone (even a company's) personal property to shut it off, preventing real people from doing real business, does any good. Hacking is, if not criminal, childish. I really don't get what it proves other than "we are really good at codes and breaking them". En attendant Godot 14:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

When they went after the clams, that was one thing. Very few people outside the cult would be harmed by it. However, if they're really going after Facebook, that's going to effect millions of people who have no connection with Facebook other than to use it. Now, you can certainly argue that no one really "needs" Facebook, and even that they might be better off without it. But they've picked a target that everyday, average people use. I'd argue it's a little like during a war, attacking the enemy's armed forces versus poisoning their water supplies. One only effects legitimate combatants, the other hurts "common folk". MDB (talk) 16:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

When they took down the large credit company, that's when I said it was a problem. It effected people I work with, because they couldn't see their accounts to do the simple transfers they are paid to do. Someone, somewhere needed that money - if they they are right. But lots of non-rich people were effected, just cause they couldn't do their jobs, or had to stay late to finish jobs or whatever. And it did nothing to 'solve" (whatever it is they were trying to solve, and I don't evne know what that is...) - they just stoped the bank for a day or whatever. I really don't get the point. and yeah, i get your facebook analogy to water supply. so what if we "shoudln't use it. so what if no one "needs" it. My husband "needs" it cause it's how he keeps in touch with friends in france. yes, he could use e-mail, but this easier, more fun. again, what is the point?En attendant Godot 16:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I dislike anonymous even when going after Scientology. It is essentially an unelected, unaccountable, anonymous (obviously) group going after legitimate buisinesses and groups (not matter how much we may dislike said groups). Who gave these people the right act on anyone elses behalf? It is not on the same level as blowing people up, but it is a kind of terrorism non the less. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't recall anyone claiming they were acting on anyone's behalf. Anonymous acts for Anonymous; they took umbrage against Scientology, so they went after it. That Scientology is seen as bizarre by many doesn't mean they were acting for those people's feelings, they were just doin' what they were doin'. Anonymous could personally destroy Al Qaeda's computer network by irreversibly stuffing it full of donkey porn, but they'd do it because it's funny, not because they're acting on behalf of "the west" or anyone anti-Al Qaeda. X Stickman (talk) 00:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree--listen to the statement they put out about this stunt; it's about the ownership of information and how that plays into relationships between citizens, corporations and the state. It's pretty political, and not just because they have a hate-on for FB. BbMaj7 On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. 00:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Even so, there's a difference between "we dislike this concept" and "we're doing this all for you". But I concede the point; I haven't followed Anonymous since the scientology thing. X Stickman (talk) 00:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Remember, kids: when the British are rioting...

The most important thing to do is to be vigilant of the Muslims. BbMaj7 On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. 04:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Or, if you listen to the Reds, the rioting is an insurrection giving expression to the collective consciousness produced under capitalist repression, rather than a bunch of thugs and punks out having a party. I expect that one of these days it will become politically incorrect to call these "riots," as happened with the 1992 riots in L.A. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. If a "bunch of punks and thugs" can generate enough of a critical mass for a multi-sited, four-day-long orgy of arson, theft, destruction and violence, that's symptomatic of some fundamental flaws in the way a society is functioning. Be as smug as you want, there's no doubt that this is political. BbMaj7 On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. 04:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

It seems to have started as something political, but most of these rioters appear to be anomic rather than angry or fighting for a cause. The Reds see everything as expressing some sort of class battle, of course, but saner people have suggested that these are just people with nothing to lose, due in part to the economic downturn and in part to an apparent effective lack of legal penalties for petty crime. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

"these are just people with nothing to lose, due in part to the economic downturn." So class politics has something to do with it, then. Also, why "just"? Makes it sound like you're trying to minimise something. BbMaj7 On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. 04:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, why "just"? As opposed to raving revolutionaries hellbent on overthrowing the government. Also, "class politics" (a concept that was largely yanked out of communists' large intestines) has absolutely nothing to do with economic downturns, except that whenever the economy takes a nosedive, pinkos see a golden opportunity to drum up the benighted proles for a little "class politics." ListenerX^TalkerX 04:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if there is a false dichotomy going on here. It's not either "its a political movement out to overthrow Western civilisation" or "they are just a bunch of criminals taking advantage of an opportunity to profit". Rather, there is a bit of both going on. I think the fact that the participants appear to be a bunch of ignorant scumbag thugs, and that it's not politically motivated does not change the fact that it appears to be symptomatic of a very sick society. From what I have seen, the breakdown in law and order suggests something is very wrong in the kingdom of Great Britain. Damo^Hi 05:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

To quote James Carville, "It's the economy, stupid." ListenerX^TalkerX 05:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but its here to stay. If you allow the exportation of all your manufacturing jobs, outsource as much service industries as possible, whilst not finding jobs to replace the lost industries, this is the result you will find; occasional outbursts in anger from uneducated, disenfranchised youth from terminally underemployed families. It doesn't mean its a revolution, but it doesn't mean there isn't something fundamentally wrong either. Damo^Hi 05:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

During most economic downturns: (1) social unrest rises; (2) more suckers fall for the suggestion that we are capable of controlling the economy; (3) certain gloomy-Guses go around predicting that things will never improve again, formerly by bawling about the impending apocalypse, now in a more secularized manner. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, it isn't helped by the tories' bullshit big society cutting funding for volunteer and social outreach groups in these communities blighted by the rioted. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

217.67.17.194

Been inserting nonsense, needs a block. - LucidFox (talk) 10:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

'Tis done. Or at least vandal binned anyway. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 10:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Vandal at ru.rw

There is a vandal at the russian section. He's anonymous and uses a different IP for each edit (all from different ranges), so the vandal brake and block are useless. He's most certainly using a bot, and it doesn't look like he's going to stop anytime soon. Is it somehow possible to disallow all anonymous edits at the russian section? Nemerux (talk) 12:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, I can't seem to log in. Yeah it might be a good idea to restrict editing in some way given that it is not a highly edited wiki. - π 12:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Talk to Nx, I believe he can help you in this regard. Тy^Yarrr 13:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I have enabled recaptcha lets see if that does it. Tmtoulouse (talk) 20:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!--Bertran (talk) 20:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

10 second whine for christians

Your bible is not the original (even assuming there **is** an original). If you do not own a copy of the Tanakah, do not claim to know anything about the "old testament". Your religion CHANGED THE DAMN TORAH and holy writings to PROVE your Jesus was the messiah. It was a political hack job and exists to make everyone all uber happy. But citing a book from the Writings as if it were from the Prophets is nonsense. Ok, my mini rant is done. ;-) (that was geared at both fundies I argue with, and the hack job of "scholars" over at Skeptics Annotated Bible. )--En attendant Godot 15:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

-clapclapclap---Dumpling (talk) 16:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

So there's a red line of consistency that is more than 2000 years long? Impressive. --★uːʤɱ digital native 17:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Consistency? the bible? consistency? looks around.... what you gettin' at Willis?--En attendant Godot 19:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

As I am not sure if you are joking, I meant the changing of sources to fit the worldview. --★uːʤɱ soviet 23:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

One problem I see though, is people who compare the Christian approach to the Jewish approach, and say that Christians have changed things. Yet, Judaism in the first century CE was much more diverse than it came to be in later centuries. What we call today the "Jewish" approach, is often really the Pharisee's approach, who at that stage were only one approach to Judaism of several, that had not yet become the near entirety of Judaism as they soon would come to be. So, if Christians treat the scripture differently, to what extent are their approaches uniquely Christian, and to what extent do they reflect an earlier diversity in Judaism? For example, Christianity was heavily influenced by the Septuagint, which is a product of a Hellenistic Judaism which largely ceased to exist; the Pharisees by contrast mainly used Hebrew and Aramaic, so they represented a different subset of Jewish culture. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 19:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Great new investment strategy

Always bet against S&P, according to Nate Silver. Econ of Contempt recently had a post about his experience with S&P failing at basic arithmetic. A few idiots in the company or an endemic problem? After their $2 trillion mistake, it's pretty clear that the inmates are running the asylum over there. But where aren't they these days? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, a lot of investors seem to be already heeding that advice. Don't bet on the media to report those numbers, thought - it's all "ZOMG Investors are losing confidence in US sovereign debt, causing the market to crash!". This whole debt circus is really the perfect example of the triumph of narrative over reality. Röstigraben (talk) 19:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Narrative, reality, all the same thing when you're part of the faith-based community. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I think I've got a better strategy -- print up loads of Ameros and advertise yourself on the Alex Jones circuit as the hot new currency exchange for early adopters of the new North American Union currency. Let the $$$ flow in from the NAU nuts! Edit: Goddamn, too late. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

What's funny is that even though stocks took a hit, people took refuge in Treasury bonds, just like always. After all, literally no one in the market seriously believes that France is still AAA+ but America is AA+, yet that is S&P's assertion.--^talk 21:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Stop copy-pasting Jon Stewart. --★uːʤɱ heretic 22:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Haven't seen the Daily Show of late, but I'm not surprised they ran with that too. We both probably got it from Nate Silver.--^talk 02:55, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd be interested to see Silver run similar analyses for Moody's and Fitch. Moody's did not seem much fazed by the recent clusterfuck. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I seriously wonder how these clowns justify their existence, let alone the ridiculous posturing and attempts to force fiscal policies on governments. They've been widely off the mark in the past, there's no semblance of a rigorous or consistent methodology involved, and the market doesn't seem to care about their assessments at all. Nor should it - why listen to a bunch of idiots who assign countries to mostly arbitrary categories, when you've got a perfectly well functioning mechanism to trade treasury bills that lets investors reach their own consensus about the risk of default? Methinks we should have an article on this bizarre scheme they're running. Röstigraben (talk) 21:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Would that be economic woo or pseudo-economics - or just people giving other people money for no apparent reason? --★uːʤɱ atheist 22:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

A bit of all three. Bill Gross has an op-ed in the WaPo conveniently agreeing with me: The debt is a symptom, not a cause. If you want to see an unprecedented debt crisis, take a look at private-sector debt. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking about a narrower article on the ratings agencies, but since we don't have one on the "debt" crisis either, maybe that would be a better way to start. Röstigraben (talk) 05:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Anybody else a little ticked after reading this?

I took a glance at his business, ViSalus, and they're a multi-level marketing company...--User:Brxbrx/sig 23:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I KNOW WHAT GOD THINKS.

God thinks you're a waste of flesh

If you must listen to any song today, listen to God Thinks. Or listen to some Voltaire. He's pretty good. His animations are pretty cool too! HollowWorld (talk) 02:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Rick Perry

Anyone willing to do an article on him? I'm scared to because I might puke at reading up on this wretched being. HollowWorld (talk) 04:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I was going to do it this weekend, to celebrate his announcement. The vetting's already started, and we've got a few juicy tidbits. Röstigraben (talk) 06:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Hurray! I love you! HollowWorld (talk) 07:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

His recent prayer-a-palooza included the usual suspects. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 00:20, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I love you, Internet.

Go here, click "I'm under 21." (Totally SFW, as long as wasting time is SFW). BbMaj7 On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. 20:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

..............ADK^{...I'll obliterate your fruit!} 00:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't do it. D: I only lasted so long before my eye twitched, and that was my signal to stop.But it was entertaining.--Dumpling (talk) 16:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

It's deaply worrying…

…when Russell Brand manages a more thoughtful dissection of the riots than the politicians did yesterday.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 15:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm shocked. Shocked to find that...

...a Republican anti-gay, pro-God politician got caught paying for gay sex. BbMaj7 Doin' to you in your ear hole. 15:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Not batting an eyelid. You what they say about the lady doth protest too much. Haven't we got a related article that needs updating? --PsyGremlinSpeak! 15:32, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Surprise surprise. ADK^{...I'll castrate your hailstone!} 15:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Already on WIGO World. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 15:51, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but I beat you to it by nine minutes. BbMaj7 Doin' to you in your ear hole. 15:53, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Not surprised. -sigh---Dumpling (talk) 16:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

You know, this is where Haggard's Law needs more plugging. ADK^{...I'll masturbate your octohedron!} 02:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Sri Lankan Grease Devils

"Historically, a grease devil was a thief who wore only underwear and covered his body in grease to make himself difficult to grab if chased." Ace^{of Spades} 11:39, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't it also make it difficult for him to turn corners...? ^{ONE / TALK} 12:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DaGPJ67jA6A ADK^{...I'll feast your high-powered laser rifle!} 13:32, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Is it wrong that I knew what that Youtube was going to be of before I clicked it? AMassiveGay (talk) 19:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

No. There are certain situations where you know it's either got to be Family Guy or xkcd. In many cases I tend to lampshade it with the words "obligatory link". ADK^{...I'll ruffle your rabbit!} 22:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Very bizarre conspiracy website

One-evil.org: It at first glance appeared to be just a slightly entertaining list/discussion of evil people through the centuries (see this page), though with some weird pentagram-looking logo in the top left-hand corner. Then I saw some junk on every page about the "day of redemption" for the evildoers being December 21, 2012, and each mention linked to a site called One-heaven.org. And then the main page proved to include all of the typical conspiracy theory fodder like the Jesuits, the Roman Catholic Church (which apparently owns 30% of all the gold ever produced), the Rothschilds, and the Illuminati, etcetcetc. There's something vaguely unsettling about this site though. Has anyone ever heard of it? Junggai (talk) 23:59, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

An actual quote: For others, the claim that Stalin and even Heinrich Himmler were Jesuit priests will sound farfetched. (From "The Vatican Jesuit Holocaust", must be seen to be believed). Junggai (talk) 00:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Mystery of the week 3

If you try to fail, and succeed, which have you done? --Idiot number 57 (talk) 13:27, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Both. --188.238.138.5 (talk) 15:52, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd posit that trying to fail is the failure. Regardless of the outcome, you've failed. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

But what if you try to fail, then fail at trying? X Stickman (talk) 01:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

You are redefining the goals at that point. I am going to take a test, I decide I am going to get a low grade on the test, the goal switched from a high grade to a low grade, therefore if I get a low grade I succeed and if I get a high grade I fail at my task. That seems like one of those annoying philosophy questions...

Is it not a Koan?AMassiveGay (talk) 01:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I routinely fail at failing to fail. The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 05:56, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Warning!!!!! 2012 is only 4 months way!!!! prepare yourselves

And not with gallons of stored water, or canned goods - but the sanity to last a year long plague of social network people "warning" us, signposts saying the "end is near", and other such lovelies. I think I'll just take the year off, the way I took the week before the "raptuer" off.--En attendant Godot 22:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm more concerned about where the fuck 2011 went. ADK^{...I'll cogitate your arc welder!} 22:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Shit, i would sware on my gravestone that I was working the Obama campaign "just last year". "time flies when you are wiking, i guess." wikiing?--En attendant Godot 22:31, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

It's like only five minutes ago I was saying "well, I've mostly wasted my second year, I'll pick it up in my third" now it's "well, I've also wasted my third, now I'm fucked". ADK^{...I'll confuse your mammary gland!} 22:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

no longer the 4 year plan, its now the 5 year plan?--En attendant Godot 22:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Where did my 3 years of college go? I have no notable memory of them! Тy^Ahoy! 23:17, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Isn't the date of the apocalypse Dec. 12 or Dec. 21, or something like that? That's still leaves a whole 'nother year of preparation. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:21, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

...Dear Diary...Blank.--Dumpling (talk) 23:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

@Neb - that was kind of my point. an entire year of people talking about the end of the world. I don't have many religious friends on social networks, but just my family and co-workers were already all worked up about the thing in March... I'm going to get a litany, I'm sure, of all the prophecies that tell of the end of the world....En attendant Godot 00:03, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Wait... aren't you all forgetting that Camping's on-again off-again Raptor is coming in October? --PsyGremlinRunāt! 09:08, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

<rant> (Liberal environmental hypocrisy)

So today a friend of mine posted a link to some new documentary about overpopulation and the planet's diminishing resources/capacity for supporting human life, complete with a little rant about how there's no way we can even think about the long-term survival of our species given how many of us there are and how much energy/resources we consume. Fair enough, she's probably got something there. But. She has four kids. That makes a lot more people thn just her and her husband, if you're counting. A big house that she air-conditions in the summer and presumably heats in the Canadian winters. She eats a lot of organic food, which is really problematic because organic crops produce nowhere near as much per acre as do foods grown with modern fertilizers. Her and her husband each drive a car. A lawn that she waters. Fucking liberals. BbMaj7 Doin' to you in your ear hole. 23:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that most of the chatter about "environmental hypocrisy" came out of the disdain in some quarters for "champagne socialists," this being the original and correct term for "limousine liberals." ListenerX^TalkerX 23:42, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Fucking idiots buying $15.00+ organic toothpaste because it's "back to nature". Тy^eh? 23:49, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I have (and will have) 0 kids, turn off all the lights in the house no matter where we go; own as fuel efficient a car as we can afford (true alternative cars are out of my reach), walk most places I can, bus to work, husband works from home, we keep our house at 74 in the summer, 65 in the winter (I'm in colorado 90-100 degree days here in summer, and winters are mostly in teh 0s). We recyle, for all the good it does. reuse what we can, over and over and over.... And yet still I don't think i'm doing enough, cause polar bears will not make it more than 10-40 more years, since they can't survive the longer summers. hows that for liberal guilt. we are humans. it is our fate to be our own "asteroid" for life as we know it. --En attendant Godot 00:07, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, the transition to an environmentally-sound society won't happen in an instant. It will be gradual (probably too slow, unfortunately) since many people generally oppose change as a concept. But you are correct that she's a hypocrite...ironically it's the same argument used by climate deniers against Al Gore (as if he were the only member of the movement).

As a great believer in the concept of "progress", the amount of weight given to what I like to call "regressive environmentalists", instead of "progressive environmentalists" annoys me. You're familiar with these people, I'm sure of it. Industry polluting the atmosphere? Don't use CO2 scrubbers or invent cleaner manufacturing technologies, shut that shit down! Food troubles? Instead of using GMO food and biotech to double calories per acre, go back to organic! Want some manufactured goods? Instead of getting them from a mass-produced source that's capable of making them for comparatively little emissions per unit, do it yourself and cause far more environmental damage! And, of course, yammer about overpopulation while having kids at above replacement rate, that's my personal favorite. When will these people realize, to paraphrase Dr. Asimov, that if technology got us into this mess, we'll need it to get us out? Biotech and green technology, combined with the incredible power of the dead hand of Malthus, will do more to resolve environmental issues than sorting your waste into garbage and recycling ever will... --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 05:47, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

(EC) That is not hypocrisy. A hypocrite is a person who does not actually believe what they are preaching (e.g., most of the saner politicians), as opposed to the common everyday sinner who cannot live up to their own principles.

As to the effectivness of environmental measures, Thomas Malthus had it right, and if every single person did what environmentalists advocate (equivalent in effect to the linear increase in resources), with regard to the population problem it would be like trying to put out the Great Fire of London by bucket-brigade.

What annoys me the most about the environmental movement is the hypocrisy, in the true sense of that word, viz., people using environmentalist rhetoric to support policies for which the true motivation is political, religious, or even personal. For example, I suspect that WaitingforGodot's childlessness is not motivated by environmental concerns, so she ought not to take up with the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

(ec)I admit I avoid hypocrisy out of convenience in many cases (mass transit is way better than a car here). The organic foodies tend to piss me off though, as most of them don't even realize that much of the organic food sold in grocery stores is sold by the same companies like Dean Foods that they claim to hate (wouldn't want any food infected with corporate hate, maaaaaaan). Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:57, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I like organic food; I get it from the local co-op, which really should be named "Westgate Co-op" now, but at least they seem to be standing up under the competition from the shysters at "Whole Foods Market." ListenerX^TalkerX 06:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

This a a conundrum because if we all (and I'm speaking globally) wanted to live within the carrying capacity of the Earth then we should have the same standard of living as (somewhat ironically) Cuba. At least that's what New Scientist tells me. This would entail a significant rise for many but a significant drop in the standard of living for anybody actually reading this website.

So should all liberal ecologists reduce their standard of living to that level? I don't see it somehow.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 07:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

But we are currently living within the Earth's carrying capacity; these people's main beef is that the resources are not allocated as uniformly as in a pinko's pipe dream. And that is, of course, still ignoring the old Malthusian problem. ListenerX^TalkerX 07:33, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

That depends on who "we" are. If "we" are the people reading this then we are - and we are happy about it. The people who die of starvation or thirst or who live in misery in the rest of the world are also living within the world's resources though they may not be so happy about it.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 13:02, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

But we aren't living within the earth's carrying capicty, we just don't realize it yet. Like a person "living" off the interest generated by their estate, who each year, has to use 2000 bucks out of that estate itself. it seems all and fine, but that means (if i know squat about economics) you make less the next year, and have to then take 3,000 out, and then 4,000. Without serious changes (and i agree with the poster who said those changes are THROUGH technology, not in spite of it) we are tapping into the very resources that sustain us. when you cut down the amazon to feed cows, you are destroying oxygen rich environments, and you can't easily get that back. When you tap into the deep deep deep well reserves in the Rockies - water untouched since the mountains themselves were formed, and drain those reserves, you don't have the clean spring water to brew your damn beer. On the other hand, i'm not willing to give up electricity, my 3 computers, and the vast variety of fruits and veg I have, year round. --En attendant Godot 14:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. I was trying to try to expand/clarify my earlier, somewhat unclear, comment when I got an edit conflict. --Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 14:37, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Stagflation in the 1970s

What policy/event should be most to blame for the crises? Kenyesianism (as most conservatives would say), Vietnam, Bretton Woods and the Nixon Shock, or the OPEC oil shortages? Is there a consensus?

Looking for a unbiased answer, but you're RationalWikians, I expect the very best. :P ^{— Unsigned, by: 99.235.88.106 / talk / contribs}

I'm pretty sure the biggest factor was the oil embargo. Shortages led to a stagnant economy, but higher oil prices, which inevitably lead to higher prices across the board, as all retail goods need to be shipped by gasoline/diesel powered vehicles. That's the short simple answer. DickTurpis (talk) 05:26, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I would say "all of the above." The collapse of Bretton Woods certainly helped with the inflation, the oil crisis helped with the stagnation, and Keynesian economic theories caused governments to compound the problem with sometimes ludicrous levels of regulation. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm no economics, but dropping the gold standard probably led to short-term inflation, though it needed o be done, and the oil embargo caused a massive drop in economic productivity and an increased trend towards outsourcing and deindustrialization, causing stagnation, so I'd say your last two examples were probably responsible for around 70-80% of the crisis. 05:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

End of Bretton Woods I initially (see Nixon Shock), then oil shocks (see here). Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

You're looking for a consensus in economics?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 07:18, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Voting

I created the template Vote closed, because our votes tend to get bogged down and ignored after a period of time, occasionally without closure. Blue (is useful) 05:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Excellent idea. Thank you. In my opinion this should be the sort of thing only mods use, just to prevent a vote from being arbitrarily closed by any random user, with the result declared in their favor. This has happened in the past. DickTurpis (talk) 05:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I would agree that setting vote durations and closing votes should be handled by mods. I do think that some duration guidelines should be written up and added to Community Standards. Blue (pester) 05:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

*ahem* --★uːʤɱ federalist 08:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Where to put this

This is not an article. It shouldn't be in mainspace. Also, there are no subpages in mainspace. Similarly, this is also not an article. I'm thinking we should create a new namespace for stuff like this. Any ideas? -- Nx / talk 08:51, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Why can't there be subpages in mainspace? Does it not work with Mediawiki?--^talk 08:53, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

It's disabled, because otherwise 9/11 would be a subpage of 9 (the latter doesn't exist, but that's beside the point). And even if they were enabled, the subpage would still be considered an article, which we don't want. -- Nx / talk 08:57, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense.--^talk 08:59, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Sure. We could call it the "Subpages" namespace. I see no reason we couldn't have something like that. The Spikey Punk ^{I'm punking my punk!} 11:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead. Тy^{sic semper} 12:06, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

On a simliar topic, although not quite the same

Is this a project or something a few guys (and ladies) are working (or worked?) on? And with this I'm thinking we could open up a "Source" namespace. Could be nice to capture some of the crazy in it's original form. Just saying, though... --★uːʤɱ libertarian 12:48, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought about calling it source, but creating a namespace for only one page is a bit of an overkill. -- Nx / talk 19:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

There's also (although I can't find it - damnit) the stuff from The New hampshire gazette (if I remember aright) about chickenhawks. And probably other stuff if one rooted around. Pippa (talk) 19:18, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Is here. Pippa (talk) 19:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Techs

I believe it's about time to tackle the neglected role of tech. To that end, I have opened a forum on the subject. Let the rational discussion battle royale begin. DickTurpis (talk) 14:48, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

RationalWiki Foundation: Announcement

As the Chairman of the RationalWiki Foundation's Board of Trustees, I am pleased to announce that the Board has appointed Nutty Roux to fill the vacancy created by Eira's departure from the Board. Nutty will fill the remaining 4 months of her term up until re-election time. The Spikey Punk ^{I'm punking my punk!} 03:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a good enough decision. This was a vote by the remaining board members then? DickTurpis (talk) 04:08, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, as allowed in our bylaws. The Spikey Punk ^{I'm punking my punk!} 04:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Nutty Roux? That woeful jackass. Ace^{of Spades} 04:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Precisely. Fits right in. DickTurpis (talk) 04:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

US citizens - register to vote

It's election time for me again (the work that goes into all the planning of elections is in full swing already, end of july.) So just a reminder, if you aren't registered in your State, you should do so soon. It's an off year, but this is when we put important issues like school funding, bonds, and mill (tax) issues. Small government is the place where your vote really does matter more than anywhere else. we usually see less than a 10% voter turn out in off years. VOTE! (And to those of you not in the US, sorry for the spam).--En attendant Godot 01:34, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I should probably reregister, I've still got that R behind my name. Тy^rannis 01:36, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't vote, it only encourages the bastards. (Bonus for Googling the answer naming the author.) Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to guess Hunter S. Thompson?--^talk 02:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Nope. It's actually "it just encourages the bastards," which is the one part I should have correct since the title is the best part of the book. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:42, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I hate his politics, but I love P.J.'s writing. BbMaj7 Doin' to you in your ear hole. 14:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I would. But not quite the American citizen yet. D;--Dumpling (talk) 17:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm registered and have been since I was old enough to vote. It's a point of personal pride to me that I have only missed one election of any sort since I became eligible to vote. (I was living outside of my then state of residence (Tennessee) during the 1988 primaries and didn't bother to get an absentee ballot. I would have voted for Al Core.) MDB (talk) 15:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I get really whiny about elections, cause a true democratic republic means we have the most effect on local things, then we elect people who share our views for the next level, and the next level. But almost no one votes on local issues if they aren't already voting for big ticket items like State wide abortion bills, or presidental races. Which is of course, on of the very reasons that the Right puts questions that will never win, on state wide ballots in states that might have a tough race for senate, house or president. get people out for the "stop gay marriage, it's a sin", and they will also happen to vote for your guy who supported that bill. Drives me nuts. Down Ticket items are the lifeblood of the US, and I'd bet you money, you poll 100 people in your office, and they couldn't even tell you the name of their Congressional rep, much less their state reps. En attendant Godot 15:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Surely left-wingers can drum just as many voters out opposing those bills/supporting the Democratic candidate? Or even >gasp!< put their own crazy ballot initiatives on to get their own loony fringe behind them? ListenerX^TalkerX 16:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

While they *can*, i really don't see it happening. the left just doesn't have as many hot button issues as the right does. Or I'm missing it. I have seen some candidates use the right's crap against themselves, but at least in Colorado, it's not common, since by the time the left gets its act together, the public has already soundly said "my god that's a stupid ass amendment, but since everyone else thinks so, i won't have to vote". The right has a very dominatrix view about these things, that i sometimes wish our left would pick up on. but then i'd not like them, for being too bullying. oh well. ;-) I'll get more and more annoyed as we get closer to the election. luckily, none of the elections I'm running have enough money to poll, so they get what they get, and i dont' have to worry till it's over.En attendant Godot 16:18, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, them's the rules when it comes to democratic elections; scaremongering and bullshit are how you get votes, and all the most successful candidates are liars, as they combine the abilities to (1) tell the suckers what they want to hear, to get their votes, and (2) go back on all their campaign promises after they get elected, so as to run the government properly.

...the left just doesn't have as many hot button issues as the right does. Then what is all this bawling you always hear in the pinko press about the fascist corporate theocracy that will be instituted if such-and-such a bill passes or such-and-such a candidate is elected? This was always a crowd-pleaser in the past, and was used to some effect in these recall elections that happened recently in Wisconsin. Or, during the Bush era, the ire of very large segments of the media was focused upon him, his administration, and their civil rights abuses. ListenerX^TalkerX 16:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Awesome internet find.

Academic courses taught by legit university profs, all free. BbMaj7 Doin' to you in your ear hole. 01:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Is this for real? Тy^Yarrr 02:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Only for US universities? Great guys, just great. Osaka Sun (talk) 04:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

iTunes U is for anyone in the world, and it's sorta the same.--^talk 05:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

http://ocw.mit.edu/ http://bib.tiera.ru/ --193.66.74.48 (talk) 20:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Dead Babies.

Now there's a title that'll grab your attention. It's what I call a document that I use when I'm writing, where I put all the passages/ideas/other stuff that won't fit in the project I'm working on--they're your "babies," right, in that you produced/"gave birth" to them, but they're dead, at least as far as this project goes.... I just created a new one now. Every time I do this, I'm reminded of the person from whom I got the term, an old friend from way back in undergrad. Has anyone else ever encountered the term used in this way? Is it a thing? Or was it just her? BbMaj7 Doin' to you in your ear hole. 02:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I do something like that, but call it a scratchpad. Тy^{Please do not click on this} 02:43, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I figure everyone does it -- it's the term that I'm curios about. BbMaj7 Doin' to you in your ear hole. 03:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

That's a title I've never heard before. I do have a file exactly like what you describe though. You never know when they can come in handy. Junggai (talk) 12:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

It is a very strange term, especially on a sorta political-esque site. I used to just write them into my papers in parens, and take them out in editing. Saved time that way. --En attendant Godot 19:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Just something I'd like some comments on...

Perfectly sfw http://youtu.be/bG5axvnlq0M I'd appreciate your views, and views. Sphincter (talk) 00:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The music is pretty terrible, of course, but I assume that's a limitation of budget - it's hard to get a good tune that will be tolerable and comprehensible in 45 seconds.

The list of interests seems pretty strange, and speaks more to me of a lack of focus than real diversity of opinion. I don't know who your target market is, but you should think about what your site provides that no one else provides, and play up those differences and your draws. Watching the video didn't tell me anything about the site, or give me any reason to go there. But I'm American, so maybe I'm not the target?--^talk 00:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the site itself, I see it is entirely text-based, is it not? Advertising with a series of funny pictures seems like an odd choice.

People go on sites like this to agree with other people or to argue with other people. I would suggest, instead, a selection of funny or provocative quotes. Maybe five (not the flood of topics in the video). If you can swing it, have them read aloud by people with different and distinctive voices. Drive home the element of conversation in the site. But that's just what I'd do.--^talk 00:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Very interesting. Sphincter (talk) 00:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

(EC)I really won't comment on the product, but I'll tackle the presentation. 1. That "music" was horrible. 2. The video needs motion. That amounted to a slideshow or PowerPoint presentation set to music. If you're going to use stills, pan and zoom across the images to give the illusion of motion. 3. Add a witty and punchy voiceover. --Inquisitor (talk) 01:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

...Now that I think about it...

Do we have a RW-Tan? Considering Wikipedia has one...and a few others. --Dumpling (talk) 02:16, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

For those of us not down with da yoof, what the fuck is that? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 02:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

this. We appear to have had this discussion before. It appeared to have petered out. Тy^Complaints 02:35, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

...CONSERVAPEDIA HAS ONE AND WE DON'T!? --Dumpling (talk) 02:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't RW-Tan be an anime-tized version of LP Rational.png anyway? Which would be creepy? And even if we made an anime chick, she'd have brains and brackets all over her, and she'd be... weird. Thunderkatz^Ho! 05:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

A RW-Tan would be an anime girl in a labcoat. ^{ONE / TALK} 09:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Already been done. Röstigraben (talk) 09:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The Conservapedia one is just a half-arsed trace of an existing Tan done by some ED weeabo. We've had this conversation at least three times that I remember. ADK^{...I'll deteriorate your apple juice!} 13:48, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Just make one and be done with it. Тy^YAUA 02:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Awww... do I have to? ADK^{...I'll fly your Subaru!} 15:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

You don't...have to if you're really against the idea. I'll try give it a shot once I have a concrete image of what I want, then I guess, it's up for debate.--Dumpling (talk) 19:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Ooh a contest! Тy^{Please do not click on this} 19:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Meeeh.--Dumpling (talk) 19:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

This topic needs more hedgehog. HollowWorld (talk) 21:07, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed it does. ;D--Dumpling (talk) 12:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Jesus Christ Superstar...

...is the only good passion play. And that's only because it has Disco Judas and this in it. Awesome. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 21:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

My first crush was Jesus. And the power of the visuals in the "see how I die... just watch me die" song blows me away. En attendant Godot 21:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Ironically, when I went to see JCSS, after having a laugh at the 5 protesters outside, Judas acted Jesus off the stage. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 07:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Judas is really the lead of JCSS, kind of like Brutus is the lead of Shakespeare's Julius Caesar.

As an aside, I've done a little community theater. A disturbing number of people have told me I should play Herod sometime (despite the fact I can neither sing nor dance). I prefer this version, though, mainly for the name in lights bit:

"Come on, King of the Jews!" MDB (talk) 10:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Aussie carbon tax protests

Listening to a story on the BBC about the carbon tax protests -- the people they're interviewing seem almost Tea-Party-esque in terms of their hatred of the government and their environmental denialism. Any of our Antipodean friends have an opinion? B♭maj7 Doin' it to you in your ear hole. 03:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I'm a fan of abstract expressionist art. Don't give the Aussies any ideas.

Anyways, here's the online BBC version of the story - simply looking at the headline photo is enough for a headdesk. When I first heard the announcement I didn't expect it to be that big a deal (comparing it to other countries the taxed amount is really not that much)...wow, guess I was wrong. Also search "australia carbon tax" on YouTube and you'll laugh at the denialist idiots they've brought in. Osaka Sun (talk) 06:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

See here for a load more Australian climate change denialism stuff. Pippa (talk) 11:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Are they trotting Plimer around yet? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Silly season

This time of the year there is usually little news giving rise to the "silly season".This is the best silly season story I've seen. A quote:

• Aufhauser also called on an animal psychic to communicate with Yvonne (the escaped cow) from afar. Franziska Matti, an animal communication expert from Berne in Switzerland, said she had managed to contact Yvonne using telepathy. "I spoke to her yesterday and she said that she was fine but didn't feel ready to come out of hiding," said Matti. --Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 07:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I thought this was quite nice...

Its quite old so you may well have seen this before. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:07, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Serving your country

Rick perry said this: “The president had the opportunity to serve his country I’m sure, at some time, and he made the decision that that wasn’t what he wanted to do,”. Since when is serving in the military the only way to serve your country? Obama has been serving his country for a good part of his life through political services! When JFK asked "ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country" did he mean go and enlist in the military? What kind of crap is that? Speaking of which how come infrastructure programs like dams are okay for the army core of engineers but as soon as the fed gives tax collected money to a non military entity to do public works project it is blasphemy?!?!?! ARASDFASJDFASFalskdfjasdlfkasjlfkasjfdlkasj. United States of the god damn mother fucking Industrial Military Complex. Markedc - 64.28.250.192 (talk) 16:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry went insane for a second.... I really regret being a Texan, the home to Bush and Perry. 64.28.250.192 (talk) 16:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I think teachers, fire fighters, community workers, election volunteers, and tons of others all serve just as much as someone who is in the military. and as for "risking your life", get real. most soliders who had any money in life, entered as officers or into higher skill jobs in the military and won't be risking their lives. So, perry... how long did you serve and what did you do?En attendant Godot 17:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

"Upon graduation, he was commissioned in the United States Air Force, completed pilot training and flew C-130 tactical airlift in the United States, the Middle East, and Europe until 1977. He left the Air Force with the rank of captain." B♭maj7 Doin' it to you in your ear hole. 17:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

so... rich kid. as opposed to "upon graduation he was given a gun and told to walk around vietnam for a few days". En attendant Godot 17:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

You ain't 'Murrican 'til you've shot someone. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Officers don't risk their lives? What? Ajkgordon (talk) 17:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

They do a bit, but not the way foot soldiers do. Look it's teh reality of life. If you are rich (a college grad) before you go into military, you're far more likely to be a pilot in a tactical unit that has low casuality ratings, or a translator, or a code specialist like my brother, or an engineer... if you are poor, and go into the military for a "chance to make something of yourself", your odds of learning to shoot and be shot at are much higher. So when these Republican "you didn't serve" types come at me with Bush's reserves, and even with Perry's tactical unit I don't really see how they are comparable to the guys who were "on the line" types. I'm not dissing any military service. I'm dissing people who use it to push political agendas.En attendant Godot 17:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Unless you're in the Air Force. A very senior Air Force enlisted man once explained it to me like this:

Why did I enlist in the Air Force? Simple.

In the Army, the officer says to the enlisted man, "take that hill!"

In the Navy, the officer says to the enlisted man, "get in that turret!"

In the Marines, the officer says to the enlisted man, "storm that beach!"

But in Air Force, the enlisted man says to the officer, "good luck, sir!" MDB (talk) 18:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. But stating that entering the military as an officer means not risking your life is a gross misrepresentation of what many and probably most officers do and join up for. Now I don't know that much about the US military, but I'll make an educated guess that it's not much different to HM Forces where young officers serve with their soldiers on the field and are at just as much grave risk of death or serious injury. Ajkgordon (talk) 17:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I was just upset at the arrogance that enlisting in the military is the only way to serve your country. My father served in the military and I get to reap some of the benefits like access to USAA banking, but hell my mom is a poll worker every year and there are MANY ways to serve your country. Saying Obama has or is not serving his country is just an arrogant false statement. I wish Bill Hicks was alive today so he could make me laugh at stuff like this. Markedc (login button is all the way up there o.O) 64.28.250.192 (talk) 17:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

And to double post, I work for a community college and I feel I serve my community which of course is part of this country. But in Perry's eyes if I do not go military then I am not serving the country. BAH! Anyway lunch over pz. Markedc 64.28.250.192 (talk) 17:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Apparently Rick Perry had the opportunity not to be a colossal douche-bag I’m sure, at some time, and he made the decision that that wasn’t what he wanted to do. So be it. DickTurpis (talk) 17:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd rather serve tea.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 18:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Tea is nice. They also serve, who only stand and wait. During my country's adventure in Viet Nam, it was fairly common for senior NCO's to volunteer for extra tours in country if they had a son also serving, since master sergeants do not die at the same rate as eighteen year old one-one-bravo legs do. Policy was that only one member of an immediate family could be there at one time, sort of a "Saving Private Ryan" kind of thing. This fact I gathered from one of the handful of career Army officers in my extended family. My own tour in RVN was 75% boredom, 23% adventure, and less than 2% sudden smoke and oh shit. For this I remain thankful.

Just look at how the chief executive's job ages the man who holds it, and tell me with a straight face that he is not serving his country right now. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 21:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Just look at how the chief executive's job ages the man who holds it, and tell me with a straight face that he is not serving his country right now. Heh, that reminds me of the Onion article "Republicans reveal 2012 Election Strategy: Re-elect Obama and make his life a living hell for four more years". --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 22:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Michelle-vis

Michelle Bachmann wished Elvis Presley a happy birthday today.

The problem is that today is the day Elvis died. (If you believe the official story.) MDB (talk) 17:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

...Tsk Tsk. "Happy Deathday to youuu~"--Dumpling (talk) 18:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Stuff like this really shouldn't surprise us anymore. She seizes every possible opportunity to go on TV, and she's only recently starting to learn the importance of non-crazy talking points as she tries to lurch away from the extreme right-wing she has personified.--^talk 01:57, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Darwin, racism, and the Nazis

Working on the racialism page, I started writing a section for Darwin and the relationship between his work and racialism. But the Darwin=racism=Nazism meme is so common that maybe it should have its own page? Opinions? Ideas? Flames? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd say put it on the main page for now, and see how much info you have on it, and if you or the rest of us do enough, we should move it to its own page. I do think, like the "immigration" page (that I don't know how to address) it is an important entry point, unique view kind of "RW" thing on its own. "here's why this is the most stupid argument you'll ever hear, here".En attendant Godot 18:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I think I've got the basics of the Darwin-racism meme covered in the article now. I just noticed there's an entire article for Hitler and evolution, so I guess we've got everything pretty well covered. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:11, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I often wonder how many duplicate (in idea, not actual copies of each other) articles we have? And just how many licks does it take to get to the tootsie roll center of a tootise pop. the world may never know.En attendant Godot 21:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Thunderkatz and I purged some a while back, there is Category:Duplicate articles. I encountered a word-for word duplicate this month. Тy^Yes? 21:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I just can't stop looking

until I gouged my eyes out with a spork. http://i.imgur.com/kBJZR.gif - David Gerard (talk) 23:29, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

oh sweet jesus what the hell is that? Aboriginal Noise ^{Theist, barely hanging by a nail} 01:13, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Rick Parry? Really?

So I didn't see the Rick Parry thing until now -- Parry and Perry are not pronounced the same. Parry is pronounced Parr-ee, like a pirate or Jack Paar with an e at the end. Damn Midwesterners. /Noo Yawker Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Stephen Colbert just thought it was funny, I think.--^talk 04:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Helloo, it's Stephen Colbert. This guy. Osaka Sun (talk) 05:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Atheist quote mines

I recently came across this John Adams quote on some godless heathen's site:

“”Twenty times, in the course of my late reading, have I been on the point of breaking out, 'this would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!!!!'

The un-mined version:

“”Twenty times, in the course of my late reading, have I been on the point of breaking out, 'this would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!!!!' But in this exclamation, I should have been as fanatical as Bryant or Cleverly. Without religion, this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in public company—I mean hell.

Source Any others? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Soo ... the take away point is that some guy who died in 1876 thought religion was a good thing? Or do I misunderstand?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 19:31, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

That "some guy" happens to be a founding father of the United States. We treat our founding fathers with some degree of reverence, and atheists often cite the opinions of one or more of them as evidence that the U.S. has always been a secular country. ListenerX^TalkerX 19:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The US always HAS been a secular country. it was made up of religious people, but the COUNTRY is secular. our laws, our justice system, and our whole idea of Representative democracy are secular. You won't find a bit of those procedures in any Abrahamic religion. (and i'll leave it at that, as lots of other religions in the world have lots of governments of lots of types).En attendant Godot 19:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

American politicians are intelligent/important? Perhaps for the minority of the world who live in the US.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 19:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

(EC) I am not disputing that (although some whackos cite Isaiah 33:22 in an effort to prove that the three branches of government are divinely inspired). However, in their enthusiasm on this point, atheists often ignore that many of the Founding Fathers saw a prominent place for religion in the civil society, as when Benjamin Franklin said, "And that if there were no Truth in Religion, or the Salvation of Men's Souls not worth regarding, yet, in consideration of the inestimable Service done to Mankind by the Clergy, as they are the Teachers and Supporters of Virtue and Morality, without which no Society could long subsist, prudent Men should be very cautious how they say or write any thing that might bring them into Contempt, and thereby weaken their Hands and render their Labours ineffectual." ListenerX^TalkerX 19:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm so glad that I live in Europe.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 19:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The continent that snickered at those unintelligent, unimportant colonial rubes' foundation of a republic, only to adopt that form of government en masse itself a century and a half later? ListenerX^TalkerX 19:56, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Europe.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 20:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Mh, btw: From which continent were Kant, Rousseau and Locke? And did Athens lie on the American continent or in Europe? On which continent did the Romans write down the fundemeantals of law that still govern so much of our systems? Democracy may not be exclusively developed by Europeans, but saying that we copied the "American system" is definitely bullshit.

And just as PS: Yes, I'm happy I life in Europe too. --★uːʤɱ soviet 20:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Athens was never a republic, and two of your philosophers were caught up in a revolution that would likely have discredited liberal republicanism completely had the American republic not provided another example. ListenerX^TalkerX 20:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Glad to see you've cultivated such deep knowledge and respect for American (sorry, fat stupid Yankee) history, Bob. The point is that political agenda-pushers often quote mine the founders to make it appear as if they were rabid supporters of that person's pet issue as an appeal to tradition. But really the larger point was to find any other common atheist quote mines from anyone. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

It's still a fallacy. That it's widely spread doesn't make it any better - actually that's the sad part. --★uːʤɱ structuralist 20:18, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

There is absolutely no reason why we should expect athiests to be sensible - be they American politicians or not. I made this point previously. --Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 20:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

It is not an "appeal to authority" if it is used to answer questions relating to the intentions of the people who wrote the U.S. Constitution.

As for atheists always being sensible, the Reds should have settled that question quite a while ago. ListenerX^TalkerX 20:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I've got to say that I'm baffled by the apparent concretion between the non-belief (or belief)in a particular magical being and the American constitution. I guess that you've got to be American to understand it.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 20:31, 15 August 2011 (UTC)--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 20:31, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

It's a pseudolegal theory peddled by theocrats -- see The United States as a Christian nation. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

@Listener: No, the authority on how a state should be run is the constitution, not the people who wrote it. What the folks that wrote it thought, is a question for scholars that work on that specific question. What the founders thought about religion is completely irrelevant to the questions what is right and even more irrelevant to the question if the US is this or that. We can savely assume that most of the founding fathers were racists, probably thought that women should stay at home or that gay sex is "amoral" - should we really "ask the wise oracles" of some folk that happend to have the right idea at the right time, on such issues? No I think that is intellectually lazy, we should ask ourselves what we find morally sustainable as law and look at the evidence we gathered. Or let's try to put this in another direction: In the congregation that wrote the German "Grundgesetz" ("our" constitution), Parlamentarischer Rat, were 2 members of the German Communist Party. Do you, anti-communist as you are, think their opinion should matter in the - let's for example say - the question of copyright?

Oh, btw, "The Reds" exists as much as "The Christian", "The Muslims", "The Racists" or "The People". --★uːʤɱ soviet 22:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

(1) You seem to be addressing someone else, as I never said the Founding Fathers' opinions ought categorically to have force of law. (2) As a number of the community-standards debates here should demonstrate, wording in a constitution can be very ambiguous or unclear; to disambiguate, one method that can be used is to examine the process of its writing, who influenced it and why, like the historical-grammatical method of studying the Bible. Unlike your straw man version allowing any irrelevant opinion of anyone involved to be used, this sort of study is narrowly focused and can actually lend insight, and not Mr. Schlafly's sort either. ListenerX^TalkerX 22:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘The Constitution is ambiguous in some respects, and while the Founders' views aren't law, they impart an air of tradition and legitimacy to their positions. So when people argue over their views, it's a question of prestige and interpretation, not legal power.--^talk 23:11, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I would argue that it's reasonable to consider the views of the Founders in instances where the Constitution is unclear. However, that assumes the Founders were a monolithic bloc, united in agreement on exactly what the Constitution should say, which is clearly not the case. MDB (talk) 12:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Americans are obsessed with their constitution. Hardly anyone except lawyers cares about the precise details of the Australian Constitution. Some people care about high-level issues, like should we remain a monarchy or become a republic, should we have a Bill of Rights (we don't really), should there be formal acknowledgement of indigenous people (there isn't now), have we got the state-federal power balance right, etc. But not this microanalysis of the text like some Americans, we leave that to lawyers. I don't think most Australians could even name who Australia's "founding fathers" were. And anyway, ultimately it's not their opinion that counts, it's the opinion of the current Justices of the High Court. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 19:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Let me make that as simple as I can. Founding Fathers: Dead. People that have to follow the constitution today: Alive. Therefor the people that live under it should interpret the constitution, with all the BS that comes with it. If something would have been really really important to them, they would have put in there.

@Maratrean: That's because many Americans think that the USA as a nation started existing with it, completely forgetting about the Colonial Period. It's probably what happens if the foundation of a nation are denied on a cultural level, but fully embraced on an idealistic level. As much as I like the US, they are really weird special sometimes. --★uːʤɱ anti-communist 11:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I would ever say that Americans forget the colonial period... in fact, I would wager that almost no Americans forget it. Take a look at any politician's speech in the USA, and you'll usually see at least one reference to it. That's why Americans date the founding of our nation from 1776, the date of the Declaration of Independence, and not 1788, the ratification of the Constitution.--^talk 11:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry the Declaration of Indepedence also plays a role there. But still, 2 documents ain't that much… --★uːʤɱ federalist 12:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

While Americans are rightly proud of their constitution for very good reasons, I think there's maybe another explanation for their sometimes over-the-top obsessiveness over it. Like history, America is obsessed by tradition because they have so little of it. (If someone can tell me where I mangled that quote from, please let me know.) Ajkgordon (talk) 12:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I think we (Europeans) - or at least I - should make clear that not every time we say something is wrong with the US that is meant as an insult, hell if we would take that the same way about each others comments (intra-European, so to speak) we would have been steadily at war for the last 4000 years … oh, wait. --★uːʤɱ socialist 12:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

"you've got to be kidding me"

This is not a joke, this is 100% truth. A woman just walked into our law office, asking to speak with someone who does "business law" (whatever that is, she didn't know). This woman's accent would suggest she is germanic, *maybe* south african, but the english sounded wrong. But very articulate for all the accent was strong. she had to be fairly well educated. she was dressed very professionally. And then she told me what she was looking for. "I can see oil fields. Underground. With a sort of 'vision' I possess. This is the old way of finding water and oil. And I'm looking for someone who can help me with contracts with the oil companies so i understand the language of the details are offering". Now, there are two issues with this. 1) she's serious - has documents, laptops showing her work, etc., and 2) someone, somewhere is taking her seriously, cause she has 2 real contracts that I'm having a lawyer look over. I have no idea what to even say. En attendant Godot 21:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The oil companies probably did a cost/benefit analysis and determined that it was beneficial to pay the kook a little money in exchange for a remote chance of hitting a big oil field. It is like when police departments employ psychics. ListenerX^TalkerX 21:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

There are kooks in big businesses, too. I'll be curious to see if she manages to find any - maybe she has a dowsing-like skill at recognizing the signs of oil-bearing rock or something.--^talk 21:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The two contracts she had were about 1 grand per "session". big money to me, but to guys that spend millions and even billions on developing taps, i guess it's not that much, is it. Even a broken clock and all that...En attendant Godot 22:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I imagine she's probably getting paid by some eccentric in the vein of Paul N. Temple (the first name that comes to mind with the words "oil" and "crankery," besides Thomas Gold). Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe getting paid by a dowsing organisation. If she doesn't find oil then everyone forgets. If she does then headlines read "Dowsing works! Dowser finds oil". Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 09:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Go…

…read, and enjoy. Or don't. What am I, your mother? Oh, and as of 38 minutes ago I'm taking felicitous greetings for my arrival on this orbiting heap of rock exactly 35 years, 364 days, 8 hours, and 18 minutes ago. Wheee, me. Oh yes, and I'm seriously pissed (drunk) so there's not much point in taking issue with me for advertising my birthday, on account of the fact that I'm either a) too drunk, b) too hung over, c) too far removed from the event to actually care.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 23:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Happy birthday Stunted Dwarf!

Many happy returns

Тy^No 00:01, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Thankyou! That is now my second cake of the day. It does appear to be soaking up the virtual alkeyhole.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 00:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Happy birthday, SD! Congratulations on spelling everything right considering your condition (hic!). Aboriginal Noise ^{Theist, barely hanging by a nail} 01:16, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Happy birthday!--^talk 01:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

A very merry unbirthday to you! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, in 11 minutes I shall be officially debirthdayed!. Good old BST (Bastard Summer Time).-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 22:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Who says following sports is a liberal trait?

Ok Andy. But one firm is doing its best to use following a sports team to promote the conservative value of. abstinence. Give it up liberals, conservatism is slowly conquering every last liberal bastion. --Damo^Hi 06:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Science flips god the bird

I love stories like this. Two companies end up sharing technology, a kid with no hand gets a cool bionic one for free, and the public get a good story. Everyone's a winner! Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 09:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Excellent! Ajkgordon (talk) 11:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

That is awesome. Admittedly, I laughed a bit when I read the last paragraph: ""Meeting Matthew, and hearing first hand how the new device would improve his quality of life, was a pleasure and I am delighted that our initial contact has now led to such a positive conclusion." Heh, "first hand" ... Unintentional hand pun... άλφα^Talk 15:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

free speech for cigarette companies after Citizens United

I read this article about the American cigarette companies challenging the FDA about its new warning labels. (From the first paragraph) "The firms argue the plan violates their constitutional right to free speech, as it requires firms to promote the government's anti-smoking message." After the Citizens United ruling by the Supreme Court, does that argument hold merit? I realise the case has barely begun, but if it were to make it the Supreme Court, could they apply the similar logic through "precedent?" Apologies if my legal reasoning is completely off; any thoughts? άλφα^Talk 14:58, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

"Precedent," not "precedence." ListenerX^TalkerX 15:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Corrected, thanks. άλφα^Talk 15:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Stephen Colbert (again) destroys that ruling here. But yeah, the government is violating the cigarette companies' constitutional right to discreetly give its consumers lung cancer. The nanny-state libruls are denying their freedom to kill! Osaka Sun (talk) 17:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The government is also violating the right of food companies to make new products aimed at children with cocaine in it. Seriously, I am not an iron fisted wanna be dictator but sometimes I think that "the government" ought to just give an interview, sitting behind a big black onyx office with big red banners behind it and dressed in a very austere uniform and to the question "is it true that you violate their rightzs?" answer very very coldly "yes", "yes we do that". Before asking the military police to escort those people out because they have more important things to do. Sen (talk) 17:58, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

We have an interesting constitutional fight here in Australia with the tobacco companies. The government has decided to legislate that cigarettes must be sold in plain olive-green packaging. The Australian constitution is lacking all of that fancy freedom stuff that the US constitution has but, undaunted, the cigarette companies have come up with an argument nonetheless. They are relying on the provision that requires just compensation for compulsorily acquired property (section 51(xxxi)). They say that in denying them permission to market their product in branded packaging the government is effectively compulsorily acquiring their branding and is doing so without paying the required compensation. It is the sort of argument that would receive short shrift if made by a junior lawyer in the Magistrates Court but, made by a QC in the High Court, it will be received and considered with due respect. --Horace (talk) 21:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Quoting problem

I have been researching the German PBC for a bit now and wanted to write on them. As (almost) always I'd like to quote the fringies that I write on. The problem here is that I would like to incude the original German version to the translation of the quote, but with Template:Cquote that doesn't seem to be an option. If nobody cares enough I'm just going to put a smaller box under it and use small text, but a hide option would be nice. I would implement it myself, but I hardly understand the code that is in there... --★uːʤɱ federalist 15:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I would probably not put the german in the "ref" part of a cquote. that way, it's easy to find, but not right on the page. I've used ref with a french quote before, and it looked fine enough.--En attendant Godot 16:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Duh, I hadn't even thought of that... --★uːʤɱ atheist 22:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

halp from my my fellow RWians

This is a letter sent to Norman Finkelstein I saw posted on his website. In the header he recommends "his latest youtube" for the best response. I looked through his youtube account and sought out a video corresponding to the date given at the top of the letter. I came across this. It's really long. It's not that I don't have time (I've nothing but time, at least until I start my volunteering and classes), but I have the patience and the attention span of a gnat. I was hoping RationalWikians familiar with Finkelstein's work or willing to indulge my almost criminal laziness would point me to the relevant video or summarize what would be his rebuttal to the letter below. Thank you.

So you have time to spew out talking points but you dont have the time or the balls to endure the painfull cognitive dissonance Finkelstein's answer would cause you? Alain (talk) 00:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

What? That's not my letter. I just wanted to know his response. I probably agree with Finkelstein. I just finished reading The Holocaust Industry. Chill.--User:Brxbrx/sig 00:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, the request was unsigned, i really tough it was your letter, had i seen Brxbrx, i would have read more carefully, you make more sense than that usually; let's blame my mistake on the fact that im french and have a poor grasp of the english language :P Alain (talk) 02:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

If you want to find out wthat Finkelstein thinks you should listen to what Finkelstein says. Damo^Hi 00:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

But it's so long...--User:Brxbrx/sig 00:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Well I have always found Finkelstein to be a pretty engaging speaker. Come on; don't be so lazy. Damo^Hi 00:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not just laziness (although now that I think about it, can you really be considered lazy for not sitting down and passively staring at a screen and listening). It's predominantly inattentive ADHD.--User:Brxbrx/sig 00:52, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Printer friendly versions

Hey guys. While I"m working on elections, i'm on the bus an extra hour or so each day. I'd love to print articles I'm working on, and wondered if there was an easy way to do that without the side bars and whatnot. I tried a simple highlight, but it highlights all the side bar stuff. if not, no biggie, I just wondered if someone had a better brain than me. :_)En attendant Godot 15:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Open up the article for editing, select all, copy, paste into a editor/Word processor. Least, that's what I do, but some stuff like templates, images, and bullet points won't work. Тy^{sic semper} 15:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, Duh. that's fine that bullets and such do not work. what I want is to see the writing, and red-line that. some days, the obvious is right before you, and you still don't see it.En attendant Godot 15:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you click the "printable version" option on the menu? Or am I missing something? --PsyGremlinPrata! 16:08, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Wastes ink. Тy^rant 16:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Send to OneNote from (sorry) IE gives an OK version in OneNote, that you can then copy/paste to Word. sterile^talk 16:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, i feel like a 5 year old, and am going to hate myself when you say "duh", but there is a "printable version" option, Psy?"En attendant Godot 16:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I found it, on the side bar. I need to go back to "basic reading'. sighs. En attendant Godot 16:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I would never say "duh" to you. More out of fear than anything else. --PsyGremlinSpeak! 16:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

cf. RationalWiki:Saloon_bar/Archive102#Articles_as_PDFs. Although Media:Homeopathy.pdf probably isn't *printable* as it is, it's formatted. ADK^{...I'll nuke your juice!} 12:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

PDFs

How about installing Extension:Collection? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 19:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

nah. just actually READING the "tool box" should have been suficient. who reads rules and guidelines, though. ;-) En attendant Godot 19:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Still, I like how it works on WP. You can turn a selection of articles into an eBook, or even into a printed book. People might value the same ability on RW. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 19:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Tea brewing woo

How much of tea brewing is woo? Some things I get, but water over the tea bag vs. putting the tea bag in water? Common'! They're both physical changes. sterile^talk 15:29, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the rationale behind that one is that water on tea means the water is straight from the kettle (i.e. HOT near boiling); Tea bag into water means the water is cooler (it's left the kettle some seconds ago and the cup has taken heat from it as well). Pippa (talk) 15:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

(also: TEA BAG! what happened to leaf tea in a teapot?) Pippa (talk) 15:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know anything about tea, but i read on line that "coffee will never be amazing in colorado, cause water boils at too low a temperature to make the perfect cup". I'm so fucking dubious it's not even funny. I'd LOVE to have a true blind test, and have someone in the back make 6 cups of tea from the same tea leaves/tea bag brand, using the two techniques, and see how many people correctly identify them.

BBC did a show on the human senses and showed a study that suggested that our sense of taste is largely a cost of our preconceptions and our eyes. When you told someone they were getting food from a famous restaurant, they graded it consistently higher than telling them it was from the neighborhood joint. Taking color and adding color from food changed the rating of the quality of the food, even though it was exactly the same, otherwise. And the people they used in these studies were all professional foodies. either critics, chefs, restaurant managers, etc. so i'm highly dubious you could tell if your tea was made with the tea dipped, or poured. :-)En attendant Godot 15:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

If my tea gets cold I just reboil it, and it tastes the same to me. Тy^rannosaurs 15:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I add lemon to mine, so I've already been told i'm a backwords heathen who doesn't deserve tea.En attendant Godot 15:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Temperature of the water does make a significant difference, with green tea at least. If the water is too hot, then the resulting cup is very bitter. I don't think it so a much an issue with black tea because it is generally taken with milk. I can't vouch for the coffee in colorado thing. I haven't been there and coffee is the drink of savages. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Tea lovers, avert your eyes. My father has made his tea for the same way as long as I can remember. Before he goes to bed, he puts 3-4 teabags in a teapot that my parents have had for 45 years, and fills it up with boiling water. In he morning, he fishes out the teabags, warms up the tea on a low burner, and drinks it all day. B♭maj7 Doin' it to you in your ear hole. 16:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

However you make it, just don't ruin it by adding sugar... 64.28.250.192 (talk) 16:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Forgot that there would be British folks here. I think the not-to-boiling makes sorta sense: there's air dissolved in water, and it comes out upon boiling. And, well, it could taste differently then. And the long brew-makes-tea-bitter makes sense: Some of the more bitter compound are less soluble in water and take longer to extract. sterile^talk 16:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Contrary to belief, most tea drunk in the UK tends to be of the builders variety. A teapot and tea leaves are not required unless you are making some kind of show. Tea bags are fine, and if its your taste, so is sugar. Tea is an everyday staple and not anything fancy and special as, form the impression I get, it is viewed stateside. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The way I've always made tea is put sugar in the cup, then a teabag, then add milk, then add water straight from the kettle, stir the cup, squeeze the teabag against the side with a spoon, and remove the teabag, then drink it. I know quite a few tea drinkers who scoff at this method, and do the whole "has to be leaves, not a bag, and has to be in this exact order" routine and such, but unless they actually see me making the tea, they say it tastes fine. X Stickman (talk) 17:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

You are clearly not much evolved from savages who roam the forests. The mere IDEA of milk in with the teabag is anathema to all things right. It's types like you who are responsible for the imminent collapse of civilization. DogP (talk) 17:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I must disagree. I don't think noble savages roaming the forest primeval could have ever evolved from any form of so-called "life" which attempts to brew tea with the milk already in it. Hottest water, recently cold and aerated is what I use, and milk after, sometimes with sugar. When I'm feeling orthodox, I scald the pot (or cup) first, to warm up the vessel. Neither Mme. Cogswell nor I will turn up our noses if the tea is slightly stewed, but both prefer our tea strong, with a shortish brewing time. Very occasionally I will drink it alla turca as a saturated sugar solution in milkless strong tea, but I don't have the proper glasses or spoons to do that style justice.

What X Stickman describes seems like what I would call cambric tea, suitable for small children and invalids, who have their place in civilisation, although their status post-collapse might become iffy. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 18:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

@Gay - "not anything fancy and special as, form the impression I get, it is viewed stateside." - rolls on the floorLMAO, no one here thinks that. other than "iced tea", you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who MAKES tea, at all. they like this coffee stuff that comes in really uber expensive tiny shots. you add plain milk, and it's even more uber expensive. En attendant Godot 17:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

"you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who MAKES tea, at all. they like this coffee stuff" a nation of savages I tell yaAMassiveGay (talk) 17:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

@WfG "Iced tea" is disgusting, there are people here who put lemonade mix in it. And I drink a kettle of tea+ a day, with nothing in it, though admittedly this used to raise questions at work. Тy^{Lonely. Ever so lonely.} 17:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I hope you pour it into a cup or a mug first, because otherwise that certainly would raise questions. X Stickman (talk) 23:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but I brought a pot from home and would keep it on my desk with an electric warmer. And I pretty much monopolized the electric kettle in the break room. Тy^{sic semper} 00:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Iced tea is my drink of choice most of the time. I dislike anything sweet, unless it's meant to be a desert like hot cocoa. so soda is out and water gets boring. Tea with a slice of lemon, or orange, or lime or some ground raspberries... or just plain. yum. I do hot tea first thing in the am, and all day in winter. but this is colorado, it's high altitude, and you really have to drink about 2-4 liters of liquid a day, to be hydrated.... so hot tea, no matter how tasty, just isn't enough. En attendant Godot 01:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

A related coffee question

Why do all the coffee aficionados tell you to start with cold water? When it hits the ground beans, it's gonna be boiling. What does it matter how recently the water was cold? B♭maj7 Doin' it to you in your ear hole. 16:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure it has something to do with getting the Hydrohydroxic acid out of the water. no one wants to drink acid.En attendant Godot 17:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Hot water has more stuff in it, it leaves stains faster (precipitation is the word I believe). --193.66.74.48 (talk) 17:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

There is something to be said for not using hot tap water for cooking/drinking. First, if you have a water softener, the cold water tap in the kitchen should be plumbed directly to mains water rather than via the softener. Water from the softener (the water heater should be heating softened water) has a higher sodium content; not a huge deal but its another source of sodium for those who are trying to limit intake. Also, the hot water sitting in the water heater in the basement leaches more minerals out of the plumbing, including lead. All in all, there is a small overall health benefit to taking cold water from the tap and heating it just before cooking/drinking. Now, not all of this may not apply outside of the US, since as I understand it you foreigners all drink rainwater collected in open-top wooden casks set on your roofs, and water is heated at the point of use by electricity passed directly through the plumbing pipes, or else by dropping in hot rocks that come out of coin-operated vending machines in the house that you lease from the government (the house and the vending machine both).--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 17:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

In the UK it used to be because (1) hot water comes from the loft tank, which has been sitting festering for a while, and (2) older houses have lead piping for the hot water plumbing. Of course these days most newer houses have all copper piping and use combi-boilers, so it's a bit outdated. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 09:11, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Martin - you may be confused and thinking about the government-subsidised hot rocks which are delivered on specially-designed ornamental ox carts and which are used for warming beer in the UK England. It's the rocks which heat the beer - not the ox-carts--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 16:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Crundy - I didn't know that. If you have a cite, we should put it in an article - David Gerard (talk) 08:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

My parents always told me to never drink water from the bathroom specifically because of that (they claimed the cold water also came from the tank in the loft, but I don't know if that's true or not). To this day I refuse to drink water from anything but the kitchen tap. Even when I know for sure the plumbing is the same in other sinks. X Stickman (talk) 08:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Gas attack planned on anti-Ratzinger protestors.

Nasty. 71.156.15.164 (talk) 16:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Reading the Spanish press it looks like he was a lone fanatical Catholic. Having said that there is protest march against the visit taking place at the moment. The main complaint is about spending government money on the visit.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 18:47, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Just like we might choose to refer to a transgendered individual by the pronoun of their chosen gender, so too do we choose to refer to the current pope as Benedict XVI, and not "Ratzinger." You may not like him, but you can at least treat him with a modicum of respect. Besides, flaring your nostrils like that only ticks people off, and does not foster reasoned or productive debate.--User:Brxbrx/sig 21:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, fer fuxsakes, first I get some concern troll with a giant hard on for alcoholic, racist, classist imperialist fuck war-hero and all-around good guy Winston Curchill crapping all over my talk page, and now you want to call me out because I choose to use a man's legal name, and not the one that he chose upon becoming the dress-wearing, funny-hat-sporting leader of a religion that doubles as an international front for pedophiles while specializing in trampling on women's rights distinguished head of a religion with no problems whatsoever, thank you very much?! Bite me. B♭maj7 Doin' it to you in your ear hole. 22:01, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

As he is the absolute monarch of Vatican City, I think he gets to decide what his "legal name" is. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

True; fuck off Brxbrx. Pippa (talk) 22:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey, "Ratzinger" beats "that asshole in Rome" - personally that's how I refer to the pope. --★uːʤɱ anti-communist 22:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not Catholic, but what's with all of the hate for the Pope? It makes people generally aligned with RW look like a bunch of sniveling little brats. 74.89.192.173 (talk) 23:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I've always afforded the Pope all the respect I'd afford to a foreign head of state- he is one, albeit with nearly all of his ~1.2 billion citizens out of his country. He;s certainly a powerful diplomatic and political force in the world, and I don't see what protesting this or being assholes about this accomplishes other than making us look irrational. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 23:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

EC The buck stops here.. Also, I like women having the freedom to choose how to run their own bodies, birth control, masturbation, and a bunch of other things. B♭maj7 Doin' it to you in your ear hole. 23:26, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

So, emperor, you wouldn't protest the visit of a head of state if you believed that his state behaved in a way that was fundamentally criminal and had a long history of condoning some of the worst human rights abuses there are? B♭maj7 Doin' it to you in your ear hole. 23:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

No. I wouldn't. If I disagreed with he president that arranged the visit, I'd vote in a new one that wouldn't arrange one. And I wouldn't protest, because that would be a waste of my time and effort and have no effect whatsoever. Other people can protest everything that offends them, I have a life to live. And the Vatican can hardly be considered to behave in a "fundamenally criminal" way. It's certainly done more good than harm in the past decades. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 23:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

"It's certainly done more good than harm in the past decades". "I wouldn't protest, because that would be a waste of my time and effort and have no effect whatsoever." Can't tell if just trolling, or never reads the news. B♭maj7 Doin' it to you in your ear hole. 23:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Child abuse? The best reason you can come up with that the Catholic Church is "fundamentally criminal" is because of a few isolated cases of sexual abuse? That's like trying to argue that the entire United States government is "fundamentally criminal" because there are cases of a US soldier raping somebody on leave from time to time. You're blowing the offenses way, way out of proportion. Furthermore, you're not even addressing my point. I said that the Church has "done more good than harm" not "has done nothing wrong ever". What about the Catholic aid workers? Missionaries? Relief worker? Chaplains? Counselors? What about the diplomacy conducted by the Holy See? In your mind, do the recipients of that aid, or the people who are having their suffering mitigated by the actions of the Church and in many cases the Church alone somehow not matter when compared to a couple hundred incidences of sexual abuse a year among a church of over a billion? As to Arab Spring, that movement succeeded not because some people decided to protest. It succeeded because there was a vast quantity of educated, intelligent young people that had no prospects for economic advancement under dictatorial regimes that were willing to lay their life on the line to gain their goals, not because a few people who held a personal distaste for an individual held up some signs and chanted. They weren't "protesters", they were revolutionaries, and it's simply arrogance to compare the people in Spain to those in Tunisia or Syria or Egypt when the risks they were taking were orders of magnitude apart.. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 01:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

A few isolated cases? In my more than four years editing this site under a number of different identities, I would never have believed someone who was a regular here could be so fundamentally ignorant about the scope of the Catholic church's involvement in the question of child sexual abuse; "In 2004, the John Jay report tabulated a total of 4,392 priests and deacons in the U.S. against whom allegations of sexual abuse have been made." That's in the US alone. (Quote from the WP article linked above.) What's most shocking, of course, is the systematic way in which the Church covered this thing up for years and years. Sure, the church has done some good things, but, so what. It sees half the human population as inferior to the other half, and has a nasty history of tolerating child abuse. That trumps a lot for me. And I'm not sure I understand the difference between protesters and revolutionaries? They were out on the streets, protesting. I have no doubt it was a revolutionary message that they were trying to get across with their protests, but they were still protesting. And I still fail to see how calling a man by his given name is this much of an issue. B♭maj7 Doin' it to you in your ear hole. 01:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

You are quote mining. The Jay report covered fifty two years of RC sex abuse allegations released in 2004, and the 4K number you quoted was the total over those fifty years, not in 2004 alone. But looking at the number of victims instead, there were 10,667 allegations of abuse made, of which nearly four thousand were found to be baseless, as only 6,700 were substantiated. . I'd say do the math, but you'd be likely to make a mistake or just pull the number out of your ass, so I'll do it for you and say that that's about 129 cases per year, rounding up. Less than one hundred and fifty cases per year! Over three times that number are killed in my city alone in the same time period (a year), and the RCC in the US has ten times my city's population! The amount of press and vehemence directed at the Church for these isolated incidents- and they are by definition isolated, as the priests are acting of their own accord and not in accordance with some secret Church directive from the Pope- are far, far out of proportion with the offenses. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 02:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I never meant to imply that that was for one year alone, that;s simply the year the report came out. And we're still only looking at one country--look at Eire. look at the case of St. Vincent's in Newfoundland, or the residential schools in Canada, of the similar cases among the Aborigines in Australia or any one of dozens of other cases I could name. And look at the hundreds and hundreds of priests the church referred to local law enforcement -0- oh, wait, they didn't. they dealt with child rape "in house," 'cause, really, who cares, right? And at the end of the day, the church is still a profoundly misogynistic organization. B♭maj7 RATZINGER RATZINGER RATZINGER 02:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

That's funny, you seem to be moving the goalposts a bit. We weren't discussing Ireland or the church's misogyny, we were disusing how the Church somehow manages to have a rate of sexual abuse thirty times lower than the murder rate for a middle-of-the-road US city, in the US. Please stick to one topic instead of Gish galloping when I start quoting actual statistics. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 02:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

When i mentioned Ireland, I WAS talking about the church and pedophilia. And I'be mentioned the church's profound misogyny several times already today, I was merely repeating something that I find unredeemable about the organization. B♭maj7 RATZINGER RATZINGER RATZINGER 02:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

But we aren't discussing RCC abuse in Ireland. We're discussing RCC abuse in the US, and how it's vastly lower than it's made out to be. Again, please address the issue or admit you were wrong about abuse in the US and we can move onto abuse in Ireland or misogyny. I have no interest in carrying out six parallell debates, I'd rather we stick to one subject, discuss it thoroughly, and then move on to the next. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 02:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually I was talking about RCC abuse worldwide, I just picked that quote about the US as a handy example, that's why I included the phrase "in the US alone"--as a way to point out that it was simply one example of many. The church, after all, is a global body and it makes no sense to talk about its acts in any one country, when there are so many to choose from. When it comes to Catholic priests fucking chidren and their bosses turning a blind eye to it, the American example is the very teeniest tip of a really big iceberg. 02:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd be willing to bet that the US represents a large enough sample to be statistically representative of the rest of the Chruch- 6.5% of the population of Catholics certainly is significant. I certainly wouldn't think that the numbers would be 30 times worse elsewhere. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 03:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Look, at the end of the day, Catholic priests acting within their offices, not on their spare time, raped children. It happened for decades, it happened all over the world, and the church hierarchy did nothing about it until its hand was forced. If you think that's not a huge problem, fine. I do. And it's only one of many huge problems the church has. It's done some good things, sure. but it's done a lot of bad, bad things for a really long time, and I see no need to treat the head of such an organization with any respect. B♭maj7 RATZINGER RATZINGER RATZINGER 03:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Just watched a show called "oranges adn sunshine" about the kids sent from the UK to OZ (and apparently other places), anyhow, thousands of kids were abused by the catholic child home system. thousands. and it was covered up. This religion has been in power for so long (not xianity, but the catholic church specifically) they think they are justifed in this kind of coverup. The upper level of the Catholic system has no respect for democracy, science, or anything that they cannot control. they do not accept being questioned. And that is the problem.--En attendant Godot 02:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Only Pope ever to have been in the Hitler Youth. Not really his fault (everyone had to be) but it's still weird. It's a shame - he's just had a hard act to follow. Who could beat John Paul II, a man that even a committed atheist like myself really admires?--^talk 23:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The upper level of the Catholic system has no respect for democracy, science, or anything that they cannot control. Heard of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences? ListenerX^TalkerX 06:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

B♭maj7, referring to him as Benedict XVI won't kill you. It's the name he picked. And angrily raging when someone suggests you try respecting another person's choice of name won't kill you either, but it will make you look pretty silly.--User:Brxbrx/sig 00:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Fer Christ's sake, do you write angry emails to Jon Stewart every time he calls the Pope "Joey Rats?" I cannot believe this matters to you. I'll call him whatever well I bloody well please on this here SATIRE site. Unbelievacle. B♭maj7 Doin' it to you in your ear hole. 00:38, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

You're the only angry one here...--User:Brxbrx/sig 00:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

This is the most fail post on the Saloon bar I've seen since I've registered here. Who the hell cares that someone calls him Ratzinger instead of his formal title? That's his real last name, after all. We don't call Obama "Mr. President." And there's more than enough reasons to be critical of the Pope. Osaka Sun (talk) 00:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow. I've almost never seen anyone here use "respect" for pretty much any leader, king, queen or religious icon. Yet today, I've seen whining twice, for people saying they don't like someone, have no respect for them, and showing "disrespect". I do not respect anyone based on a title they have, especially not a pope who goes out of his way to insure that blacks in south Africa (small s) die, cause condoms are bad; insure women die ****at a rate of one every seven minutes**** cause abortions are bad, not to mention the pill... I do not have a single bit of respect for this fucker who's goal in life is to tell people they are not worth living, because they were born out of sin, and because they choose to not follow his particular god who is a sick and selfish god (and a sick and selfish religion). yet you want me to call him by his chosen name? I'd never use his name at all, if I am able to say "fucker" about him. En attendant Godot 01:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC) (edit con)

Who rocks? Godot rocks. B♭maj7 Doin' it to you in your ear hole. 01:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Godot is sick today. my patience is pretty low. but i can't think of any respect I've had for any pope I've read about, even JP who made more sense than others. These are people who are told/convinced that what they say is the direct word of God, and that their opinion matters in a way only old world Kings mattered. They are men who have consistantly pushed to limit or even dismiss science - throughout history. They are men who claim to achieve their position because of god, but in reading how you go about getting the position, it is more political than any US presidental run. They are men - MEN who have little to no understanding of women, in a religion that tells women they are less than, cannot truly contribute or participate. and then tells them to have as many babies cause you know, that's what we have most to offer. I don't mind catholics, i suppose. but i've never, ever understood the very highly non biblical role of "pope", not as a guide for people, but as the religious fuck who uses money and power for his own personal gain - in the name of the church. we won't even talk about this very ratty's view on the abuse in his church.En attendant Godot 01:23, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if calling Muhammad Ali "Cassius Clay" would cause the same level of debate. (Or calling Gary Glitter "Paul Gadd") --Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 06:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

If I recognized the name Cassius Clay, I would likely say a little harmless something like I did above. And I'd probably end up raising the very same shit storm for my innocent suggestion.--User:Brxbrx/sig 17:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I've always been partial to "Joey Ratz" -- I grew up in an ultra-Italian neighborhood, and that definitely would have been his nickname there. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:56, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

We don't know how bad RC child abuse really is, we only know about those who speak out/spoke out despite the Church calling it mortal sin and using Crimen sollicitationis and the threat of ex-communication to shut victims up. I'll call him Ratzinger the rat, I'll call him The Arsehole from Rome, Bendickt is too much of a dick and I'll never respect him, I've edited his special article, Benedict XVI. Kirk Johnson (talk) 18:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC)