RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive133

This is an archive page, last updated 2 January 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>, <116>, <117>, <118>, <119>, <120>, <121>, <122>, <123>, <124>, <125>, <126>, <127>, <128>, <129>, <130>, <131>, <132>, <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)

Questions To Which The Answer is "NO"

A frankly titled series of blogs from the Independent. I know in our *ahem* "trade" we often think "NO" is the most common answer ever given to most raving JAQers and Gallopers. ^theist 11:24, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Wait, this Rentoul guy is The Independent's chief political commentator? What is the guy that hired him smoking?

EDIT: Wait, completely didn't read it right. Fail. Osaka Sun (talk) 11:39, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I've come to believe that headline writers don't use question marks in the same way as the rest of the English speaking world. When you see a question mark in a headline, the proper interpretation is to expand it to "? Well, no." Saves a lot of column inches, I bet. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 12:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

That is the usual rule of thumb. This one for instance is just today and is pretty guilty of it. ^bomination 12:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

It reminds me of this image, which upon googling led me to that very blog (unsurprisingly I guess). I like that image. ^{ONE / TALK} 16:12, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Pibot

I'm probably behind the times here, but I just noticed how long this page is getting. Anybody know who broke Pibot? The Symphony of Punk ^{Can't sleep, clowns will eat me!} 14:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Same one that broke Capturebot? Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 14:28, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah, the mythical BotServer must be broken and, given how busy Trent has been, he probably hasn't bothered to look notice that yet. Which leaves the question: Who sent him the hot pockets? The Symphony of Punk ^{Can't sleep, clowns will eat me!} 14:29, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

So is someone going to fix it manually? Any geniuses volunteering? ħuman 05:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd do it myself, but being limited to editing via my phone cripples my ability to shuffle large amounts of text around between pages. Otherwise, it'd already be done. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 05:54, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I could try to resurrect Pibot and capturebot the first, but the scripts are old and I can't remember what I did with them. They are probably on my old old computer. - π 06:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Supreme Council of Moderators - elections

Hi der, or maybe G'day cobbers, haz you considered electing en bloc the entire first Maratrean Dieties and prophets ? We works cheap and with Claretta, Travancus, Bacu, Taba, a couple terror_tabas, All the She who does stuffs, we can handle all the positions and haz a few spares. Our motto will be , "Behave or have a rock dropped on you ! " * we will haz to works on dat I think *mreoowww* Terror Trinka (talk) 15:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The English language, you fornicator of matriarchs, are you fluent in its usage? ^postate 15:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Woof woof! Pay him no attention. He's a damn cat, after all!!! Grrrrrrrrrrr! Lord Bacu (talk) 15:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Begone imposter. There is only one Holy Lord Bacu. Someone block this fool. Holy Lord Bacu (talk) 18:23, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Me the imposter!?!?!?!?!? Arf arf arf!!!!!! Grrrrrrrrrrrr!!!!!!! Lord Bacu (talk) 13:39, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

wow, Its seems we now haz two Lord Bacu, the Dog who is a God etc. Our new motto "Live in peace or we will ROCK your world !" Terror Trinka (talk) 23:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

"North Korea world's least democratic nation"

Breaking news: Brutally Oppressive Dictatorship is a Undemocratic Country. --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 15:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I thought that was common information. Osaka Sun (talk) 17:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I thought North Korea was a Canadian province. :? Fallacy (talk) 18:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

North Korea is almost entirely ethnically homogenous, so no. :P Osaka Sun (talk) 19:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

But it's got Democratic right there in the name! "Democratic People's Republic of Korea". How can that possibly be not democratic. X Stickman (talk) 04:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Slightly related: I just found out Kim Jong Il is dead. This is what happens when I don't pay my bills...--User:Brxbrx/sig 05:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

OMG!!! Pat Robertson is offended by SNL Sketch!!!

LEAVE TIM TEBOW ALONE!!!! The Symphony of Punk ^{Can't sleep, clowns will eat me!} 16:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

WE ARE HATED!!!! we need protection, because icky people make fun of us. (but we have no desire to give gays or gay kids protection even from bullies, don't you know).GodotI live in the Infinite monkey cage 18:31, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

"If this had been a Muslim country and they had done that, and had Muhammad doing that stuff, you would have found bombs being thrown off!” “And bodies on the street!” -- In all seriousness, I'm never sure how these idiots mean this to be taken. "thank god we don't live in a country where such things draw violence" or "we should be uprising like they do". Sadly, I suspect it is some of the first, and a whole lot of the latter. GodotI live in the Infinite monkey cage 18:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Bodies in the street? -- Seth Peck (talk) 19:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't realise that mocking an overtly religous athlete was the same as mocking the holiest of holy figures AMassiveGay (talk) 18:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, is there anyone left over there with any sense of proportion? AMassiveGay (talk) 18:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, if you watch the skit, Jason Sudekis plays a rather irreverent Jesus, which I imagine irked Pat more than the depiction of Tebow. But seriously, you have a right to your beliefs and we have a right to have a laugh at their expense. Yeah, if it had been Mohammad instead of Jesus and it had been Saudi Arabia instead of the USA there probably would be blood. Is that a good thing? No, Pat, it isn't. Quit implying we should be more like the Islamic fundamentalists. DickTurpis (talk) 19:14, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Looks like someone's got a bad case of fatwa envy. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:21, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Told you we needed a Tebow article. He's their new prophet.

And we have made fun of Muslims...in Canada, at least. Osaka Sun (talk) 19:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Stuff like this reminds me of what a revolutionary in Tunisia said about their former President: "He didn't want people to have a laugh about him. And if you can't have a laugh, you are not free." --★uːʤɱ atheist 13:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

As the Bible says - and Conservapedia reminds us - the devil cannot stand to be mocked, and so it is with all despots and tyrants. If the religious wish to ally themselves with that group then they have only themselves to blame for looking like humourless prigs. Thankfully, in the UK we do have a long history of taking the piss out of the establishment. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 14:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

What a mockery of Jesus to suggest he is at your beck and call to make millions off advertising football fame. He was portrayed in a far more reverent role in the SNL skit. This country is Sofa King ass backwards. ~ Lumenos (talk) 06:29, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Smelly Sock (talk) 12:13, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Freedom for me (but not for thee)

The Great Moonbat Monbiot has a good article on the bogus framing of positive v. negative liberties. Spot the irony, though when he argues that the person needs the state to be protected from the landlord. The state, of course, granted the landlord property rights in the first place. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Good article, but appears mostly divorced from any real libertarian beliefs. Many or most libertarians believe the right to life is the highest freedom, and the only real other freedom is property rights. Almost all other freedoms and beliefs they endorse tend to flow from the ultimate right to property: to acquire it, sell it, and use it any way they please.--^talk 20:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

UK Libertarians (those who thus self-label) are generally Tories (frequently Conservative Party members) who just really don't like to pay tax. There is not the split with social conservatives seen in the US - David Gerard (talk) 19:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Note that Mr. Monbiot is very short on what freedoms are actually being curtailed by the current "overuse" of negative liberty and very long on what he considers to be disagreable consequences of that negative liberty.

The state, of course, granted the landlord property rights in the first place. That is not strictly true; the first landlords were feudal barons who were largely independent of the central government. ListenerX^TalkerX 19:26, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

(EC) Really? Huh, go figure. I had just assumed all libertarians followed the Nozick model of rights. The more you know!--^talk 19:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

@LX: Yep, but I meant only to refer to current times. @AD: We have a taxonomy. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

SOPA Cobana

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=1w6GtwOvnWM#!

You suck, I now have that song in my head. -- Seth Peck (talk) 22:19, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

First night of Hanukkah

The first night of Hanukkah: a camera for my Mom, who needs her own to take pictures of her quilts with.

She is currently regarding it with confusion and mistrust, having never recovered from the death of disposable cameras. My brother is going through the settings with her : -| Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 03:51, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Is that a ficus? Ace^{Ace For Mod!} 03:51, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

On closer inspection it appears to be some sort of climber. Ace^{Ace For Mod!} 03:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Yup. I don't know what it is ("generic potted plant"), but it's a climber. I inherited it years ago from a neighbor whom was moving away. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 03:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Must be a Jew thing. Ace^{Ace For Mod!} 04:01, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

We do love our houseplants. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 04:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Not as much as the Dutch. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 09:00, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh FFS. I tried looking it up on ehow and they said "go look in a book." Rennie McGreet (talk) 12:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

My guess is scindapsus aureus but it's not the clearest of pictures. Bad Faith (talk) 13:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The Hobbit Trailer.

HERE. PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 04:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Although I don't really care for the Lord of the Rings, I actually kinda want to see this one (I've read the book a few times). I like how Dumbledore plays Gandalf. Sam ^Tally-ho! 05:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

No he doesn't. Gandalf is still Ian McKellan, same as in the LOTR movies. Dumbledore was played by Michael Gambon (and previously the late Richard Harris). ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 07:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Shows how little I know about actors and such. I usually just go by general appearance, not name. Maybe Dumbledore and Gandalf are magical cousins??? Sam ^Tally-ho! 02:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Possible reference to this?-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 12:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Trollquotes WIN. And yes, I think Richard Harris was the better Dumbledore, but it might have been hard for the actor to complete some of the scenes in the later movies (that is, had the actor not died). -- Seth Peck (talk) 16:32, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I think I prefer Gambon - more of a Gandalfesque version of Dumbledore. Harris was more of a Santa Claus kindofa Dumbledore. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I've only fully read the first Lords of the Rings book, and The Hobbit is definitely a lot better. Fallacy (talk) 05:39, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

LotR gets better as it goes on. The first half of Fellowship in particular drags -- Tolkien could have covered it in half the pages it took. MDB (talk) 17:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Ditto. Also, this one can't be any worse than the animated one. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Anyone else start thinking of the Leonard Nemoy song "Bilbo Baggins"? -- Seth Peck (talk) 19:32, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The first part of Fellowship is my favorite part of the series (except for Bombadil; I don't know what Tolkien was thinking there). The movie didn't nearly do it justice though. Well, that's true for the entire thing. DickTurpis (talk) 19:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

When do movies ever 'do justice' to books? The nature of the conversion makes it pretty much impossible, unless the book sucks or something. Fallacy (talk) 04:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

That's why I used the meager expression "do justice to" rather than something like "fully encapsulate" or "be just as good as". A movie can do a book justice without being nearly as good as it. Jackson's films are good and all, and did a number of things quite right, but there are plenty of times when I just wanted to grab him and yell "what the fuck were you thinking here?!" DickTurpis (talk) 04:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

We may joke about Kim Jong-Il dying...

...and what it's like in North Korea, but it's worth remembering the place is hell on Earth.

(Be warned, the photos will turn your stomach.)

MDB (talk) 16:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Anyone know what the purple spots are in photo 13? -- Seth Peck (talk) 16:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Treatment for a fungal infection. MDB (talk) 17:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow. Really puts perspective on our own charmed lives--User:Brxbrx/sig 18:00, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Here's more images of NK poverty^{— Unsigned, by: Bad Faith / talk / contribs}

Oh, please. You're deluded if you think that poverty here is as bad as it is in North Korea. I'm not saying that the US doesn't have any problems, but compared to a totalitarian regime where people are contemplating cannibalism, I'd say we have it pretty good.--User:Brxbrx/sig 10:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

And damn, I hope that blogger is a parodist.

The Obama Administrations war on God of the Bible will only make matters worse. Hussein Obama wants to evict Jews from the Mountains in Zion, and give the land back under Islamic oppression and occupation. By doing this Obama place a curse up on his own head, and curses the American nation and population. —wat

--User:Brxbrx/sig 11:01, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Lynx 2012

Just saw this advert on telly. Not only is it even sexier than standard deodorant and perfume commercials, it suggests that the rest of the year should be spent fucking everyone alive! Yay Lynx! SJ ^Debaser 17:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Same tired old lame sexist shit for twenty years. Yay Lynx! Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Haha, "The Final Edition." In 2013 it'll be "The Final Final Edition." Osaka Sun (talk) 18:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Am I a geek if I immediately thought of the Linux CLI text browser? Fallacy (talk) 18:45, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

What they never show you on these commercials is the end result where they all beat the shit out of the guy for stinking up everything in a 10 mile radius with body spray. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

When I see a Lynx advert I always think of this. - π 22:01, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Here be fundies!

The 5th time in recent history that the Tories have attempted to limit abortion. If Harpie decides to go along with it there will be riots. Osaka Sun (talk) 17:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Tip: "Fundamentalist" is not a synonym for "political opponent." Use the word wisely lest it become even more meaningless. ListenerX^TalkerX 18:00, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

There was a time when the Conservatives were actually progressive on social issues (and the only thing that differentiated between them and the Liberals was minor economic issues). You could actually vote for them. To get into power they merged with the social conservatives in Alberta. Osaka Sun (talk) 18:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Two problems...

...with today's xkcd: 1. generic products packaged almost exactly like this exist, or at least did recently. That you don't really see them anymore tells you it ain't the most successful marketing scheme. 2. Milk should be hold in the refrigerated section, not between sugar and pasta. DickTurpis (talk) 19:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't like it either. And he's probably just pining for irradiated milk, like we all should be. Occasionaluse (talk)

Does xkcd Suck Today?: YES. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 19:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Last update: 8/18/2008. -- Seth Peck (talk) 19:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The information contained in the site still applies, though. At least today. ^{— Unsigned, by: Fallacy / talk / contribs}

I take it to mean they've all sucked past August 2008 :-) Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 20:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

We all remember the good old days when... but actually that's selective memory. He's just as good as he's always been. Sometimes he's magnificent and sometimes, like today, he's less so. Only the other day there was the DenverCoder9 strip which had the whole office howling with laughter. I'll look it up in a minute. Bad Faith (talk) 22:35, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

this is the one I mean and, if you don't find it funny, then you've never googled an program error. Bad Faith (talk) 22:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I did laugh at that one, because I have had that happen when googling computer problems. However, I will point out that, outside the tiny nerd subculture that really likes xkcd, many webcomic fans find him increasingly lazy and inconsistent in quality. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 23:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

"...lazy and inconsistent in quality" - you just described every comic strip, ever (also, improper parallelism). And Bad Faith is right about selective memory. It's like the people who say SNL was at its best in the late 70s. Have they watched those episodes recently? They think they were great because they only remember the good skits (which is not most of them). There was as much crap back then as ever. DickTurpis (talk) 00:06, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

"Lazy" in the sense that Randall Munroe stopped developing his drawing skills a couple years ago, and inconsistent in how funny it is. And if you think every webcomic is lazy and inconsistent, I'd like to introduce you to Daisy Owl (which is like the opposite of xkcd: it starts lazy and inconsistent, and improves. As opposed to xkcd, which deteriorated from lovingly detailed sketchbook drawings to sub-par minimalism.) Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 00:56, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

(EC - it's a webcomic forfucksake, not something important like the UN) Personally, I just think people prefer "old" stuff for the sake of sounding cool - a good litmus test for an utter prick is someone who insists on prefacing a band's name with "early" when asked what they listen to. It's not just selective memory at work, you're also working with a much, much larger sample. You might easily say SNL was at its best years ago, but you'd have literally decades of material to choose from - whereas SNL "now" is probably a few months or a year at most. Decline in quality is usually just a case of regression to the mean rather than an actual real thing. ^theist 00:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Whatever one might say about its humor (or lack thereof), one cannot say this is lazy. DickTurpis (talk) 03:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

And the next day he went right back to drawing stick figures. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 03:17, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

He's always done stick figures. You don't read xkcd for its quality graphics. There was a comic in a college paper back in my college days that was stick figures and was by far the funniest thing there (though like xkcd and every other comic, it wasn't always funny). There are plenty of slickly drawn comics that are dull and unimaginative, I prefer the crudely drawn but funny and/or insightful. While I rarely think most daily comics in the newspaper are all that great, I do have to admire anyone who can make a living coming up with a funny thing (or at least potentially so) every day which can be expressed in a simple 3 or 4 panel form. I'll take a closer look at Daisy Owl, but I'd be willing to bet it has as many or more "meh" strips than really funny ones. DickTurpis (talk) 03:34, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

If he suddenly started drawing detailed characters instead of stick figures the comic would lose its charm. Could you imagine if Ryan North suddenly used an image that was different to the one he has used for virtually every single one of his 2000 comics? There'd be a fucking riot. ^{ONE / TALK} 09:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

They do exist, but they're usually the supermarket's own "value" brand. Also of relevance are the placebo effects of fancy packaging over plain packaging. ^gnostic 23:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The point of that value brand packaging is to look unappealing & inferior, so that the self-respecting consumer who can afford to set the bar a bit higher will go for a higher priced product, like maybe the store's "extra special"/"finest"/whatever range with its fancy packaging & alluring food photography. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:35, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow that was shit, I am so waiting for the xkcdsucks article on that, mind you that website is going down hill too. xkcdexplained was much better (and useful sometimes I would look at it and go what the fuck, it would turn out to be a star wars reference). - π 23:45, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

xkcdsucks is perhaps the most infuriatingly pretentious website I've ever read. If you can't get popular by talent or accident, simply pick something that is and make your name by saying it sucks. 3... PROFIT! ^postate 01:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Way too much overreacting on this.

OMG, xkcd made one questionable comic. I don't want to read anything he says anymore! Fuck him!

No, seriously, this is what this topic looks like. Osaka Sun (talk) 06:34, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Try hitting the back button on that comic. --145.94.77.43 (talk) 06:43, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not overreacting. Frankly, I'm finding it difficult to control my indifference.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 06:55, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Whoa! Steady, Bob. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 07:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Yah, careful. When he gets really indifferent, he'll see bland, and we'll all be in danger. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 07:15, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Calm down, you look like you're not going to explode at any point ever. ^{d hominem} 12:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I seem a little overenthusiastic in my apathy. I'll try to tone it down.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 14:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

And this one made me laugh

Zeno's Advent Calendar Bad Faith (talk) 07:56, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Reading about cricket....

Besides the obvious one, can anybody recommend some good books on cricket? PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 20:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

[1] Fallacy (talk) 20:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Everybody's a fucking comedian. PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 20:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Crickit is a simple game invented by the British. A full game takes days of extreme tedium filled with moments of well, tedium. The game is played on a pitch with two wickets , one at each end. The bowler throws the ball toward the batter. The idea for the bowler is to hit either the wicket or the back leg of the batter. If the batter hits the ball he runs to the other end, and if possible back to where he started. If a fielder hits the wicket with the ball before the batter is in his "crease" then he is out. The wicket is extremely symbolic of a mans legs and genitals. Terms like "leg before wicket" and "silly mid on" float around as the commentator tries to engender exitement by such sayings as "he hit the ball !!! " try www.cricket-rules.com Hamster (talk) 21:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Symolic of male genitals? that would explain why the bowler's Holding the batsman's Willey. Rennie McGreet (talk) 21:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

All sport is an absurdity AMassiveGay (talk) 22:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear. Just because you don't enjoy it doesn't make it an absurdity. It has many positive benefits for participant and spectator alike. Bad Faith (talk) 22:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

If I enjoyed sport, it wouldn't make it any less absurd. If anything, it makes it more so. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Absurdity ROCKS! Ajkgordon (talk) 22:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Such as the joy of sitting in cold seats. In the rain. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 22:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Back on topic Penguins Stopped Play is worth a look. Bad Faith (talk) 22:32, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Cricket is an awesome game. Ace^{Ace For Mod!} 22:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. A good game of cricket has the same human drama and suspenseful pace as linear algebra. Doctor Dark (talk) 01:35, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Well I can't vouch for any of them but try this list or maybe this one. Or for something different. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 22:54, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Life, the Universe and Everything by Douglas Adams. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:44, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Autobiographies are always a good start - guys like Botham, Boycott, Warne, Donald, make for an interesting read and give you an insight into the game. Avoid Kevin Pietersen's and Steve Waugh's however, pompous, big-headed, overblown and boring. Also books about tours (such as Boycott's "Put to the Test" are quite good. One I quite enjoyed was 'Batting in the Baltic" in which our intrepid author goes off to investigate the state of cricket in places like Estonia and Croatia. Good fun. --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 10:24, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

The most disgraceful moment in cricket history. One ball left, NZ need 6 runs to win...off the final ball. All they need to do is hit the ball outside the boundry line to win........

Ace^{Ace For Mod!} 10:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that was disgusting. The most heart-breaking moment in cricket has to be this. --PsyGremlinParlez! 11:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, all, for the recs! PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 01:45, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Japan never ceases to amaze me

Probably NSFW. Osaka Sun (talk) 08:14, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

This is a matter of national pride, now: the U.S. never ceases to amaze me. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 08:43, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

...Japan anything doesn't really surprise me. The South Carolina Horse sex...PFTTTTTHahahhaa! TWICE!?--Dumpling (talk) 19:24, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Frog is smarter than lizard.

Compare and contrast:

with:

I think we know who is winning. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:04, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Crazy YouTube. Osaka Sun (talk) 18:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

That's so awesome. Sam ^Tally-ho! 04:00, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Lego ATLAS

If you don't think this is awesome, GTFO. Seriously. ^theist 21:39, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow. GodotI live in the Infinite monkey cage 22:11, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

WHICH REMINDS ME.

--Dumpling (talk) 22:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Bah. Amateurs.

Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 22:31, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

How do people make these things? I need one... Peter ^{talk, or type, or whatever...} 22:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I know, right? So cool!--Dumpling (talk) 23:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

These videos make me miss Lego robotics from 8th grade. I still want an RCX kit... Sam ^Tally-ho! 04:09, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I have still have mine, but finding a computer with a serial port running Win 98 is rather impractical these days. CoyoteSans (talk) 08:12, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

By coincidence, I have an abundance of those (well, two, and only one works), but no RCX kit. Pity... Peter ^{Urist for Mod!} 02:47, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Could someone tell me what an Atlas is because I've been lead to believe it's a collection of maps... and that lego thing doesn't look like a map of any sort. ^{ONE / TALK} 09:45, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Bioshock... maybe? Fallacy (talk) 09:47, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, guys? Osaka Sun (talk) 09:53, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

So, Bioshock? Fallacy (talk) 09:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

No, there are much more reasonable connotations of Atlas than what the batshit crazy lady made it. In this case, it's referring to the Large Hardon Collider. Osaka Sun (talk) 10:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Gay community appologizes to Koch

This is really a riot. poor girl. GodotI live in the Infinite monkey cage 22:14, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I was JUST coming here to post this exact same story. Awesome. PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 22:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Haha. Funny how I just read that before looking here. --Dumpling (talk) 22:19, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

We've already had a WIGO about her, and a reference to embarassing conservative moments...we need to have an article now. If Larry Craig gets one, she gets one. This is too much.-- Seth Peck (talk) 22:52, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

It's at the point where if you're a "family values" advocate, you're hiding something. Senator Harrison (talk) 12:53, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

That article is even funnier if you know German. "Koch" "Brodkorb", hehe. --★uːʤɱ structuralist 01:22, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

The most ironic part is that, not only was she Senate Majority Leader here, she was also the chief author of Minnesota's anti-gay marriage amendment that will be on the ballot here in next year's election. What a fucking disgusting hypocrite. The Symphony of Punk ^{Can't sleep, clowns will eat me!} 09:59, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

First he didn't thank GOD, just some soldiers

Now he doesn't have a tree, only a dog. Damn our president for thinking that the entire world does not revolve around Christians. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/culturemonster/2011/12/sarah-palin-fox-news-attack-white-house-holiday-card-design.html --GodotI live in the Infinite monkey cage 22:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

A whole list of Reagan and Bush Christmas cards that were equally secular in nature. PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 22:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

So you got a lower grade than you hoped for...

So, you look up your grades, and in one course, the grade you got is somewhat lower than the one you were expecting. What do you do? PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 01:44, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

E-mail the TA and ask her/him politely how she/he calculated the grade, and ask to meet to discuss your grade.	10	Vote
E-mail the TA and beg and plead, because you "tried hard" and "really need" a particular grade.	0	Vote
Go over the TA's head and e-mail the prof, who probably has no idea who you are.	0	Vote
Nothing. grades don't really matter to me.	3	Vote
Admit you're not as smart as you thought you were and quietly weep for your academic future.	14	Vote
Vomit on the tutor	2	Vote

Way back when, my geography teacher once told me how he had written three essays for a class. Two of them got a 100%, one got a zero because it was offtopic. So my geography teacher asks the professor and the professor ups the grade to a 50%, because at least he did the work. Also, my brother, when he was in ninth grade, complained to his English teacher that he would be grounded if he came home with a B, and so she brought his grade up to an A. One of my anatomy professors once gave me extra credit for drawing pictures on the test, and later on for singing in front of the class. --User:Brxbrx/sig 01:49, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I think all my courses had the method for calculating grades included in the syllabus. Did they just leave that off? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, people don't always read the syllabus, and it's possible they believe that how they've been graded defies the syllabus--User:Brxbrx/sig 01:55, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

The methods for calculating the grades are always in the syllabus, but what one person thinks is clearly an A essay may not be so in another's opinion, of course. PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 02:02, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Where did you all go to school? I calculated my student's grades, and that's what they got. There was no "but I did the work" or "I didn't read the syllabus". If a student didn't like his or her grades on papers, they were able to do a full re-write for one grade higher. almost no one took me up on it. In most situations it was "but i don't deserve this" or "but tommy got an A" or "whine". it was never "let me work on it, and i'll improve it". I got straight A's as an undergrad, but as a grad student, often got B's (you had to maintain a low A average to stay in grad school, so a B mattered - a lot) and I never whined, or said the grade was wrong, just "how do I make it better next time". My writing has always been sorta shit, so the answer was almost always "go to the writing lab". :-) GodotI live in the Infinite monkey cage 02:16, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

My hubby just read this and was equally surprised there is "something one does". In France, you didn't even talk to your profs, you just got what you got, and if you needed help, you found a tutor. We both did highschool in the early 80's so maybe that's teh difference? GodotI live in the Infinite monkey cage 02:17, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

What if there's a miscalculation? I had to talk to a prof once as I knew I would have had to get close to 0 on the final to get the grade I did and it turned out someone screwed up the math. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:35, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Godot, I was an undergrad in the late 80s, and was again in the early 2000s and am now a grad student/TA. The difference is stunning. The students today seem incredibly entitled, as though paying tuition and then showing up and breathing should guarantee a B+. PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 02:21, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm on the other end of this, actually. What I'm often tempted to say is "if you had been as concerned about your grade back in October, when you skipped almost every class, you might not have this problem right now." But there are cases - like one I have right now - where I know the guy came to class and did his best, but he just didn't do well on the exams. Most profs hate giving a low grade when that happens. But I can't bump his grade up without also doing it for the half dozen other people who got the same grade. Doctor Dark (talk) 02:26, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

That's exactly what I hear from friends who are still in the education system. Thank god I went into the research/law rackets. it pays, and no one assumes you'll get something, just cause you show up. I also couldn't imagine looking out at a see of laptops, phones, etc., 90% of which are on facebook, or... I don't know if you have seen this, but my friends who are still teaching in the University systems say that parents of these grownups often show up complaining about this or that. If i had an issue in college, I worked it out or dealt with it. I didn't have my parents help me make decisions. I'm talking things like "what classes to take", "My room mate doesn't like my", and "my TA gave me a bad grade". GodotI live in the Infinite monkey cage 02:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC) (edit con)

The only time a prof has changed a grade was he dropped homework from the course as it would result in the whole class failing. Then again, I have missed one day out of 8 semesters so :P. If you're too lazy to go to class you got what you deserved. Now^what? 02:34, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

There are no "students" anymore. They are customers, and the customer is always right. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:37, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Hahaha. I just e-mail the teacher or go into the office hours whenever I have questions. Psh. I barely ever went to class for the classes I found to be retarded or had horrible teachers. Instead I just taught myself, and went to the 'class reviews'. Still got A's. Ohhh Yeaaaah~ ;D --Dumpling (talk) 02:40, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Realized I didn't actually answer the original question so I'll try it now. I don't know your school, but at my university it is very difficult to change a course grade after it has been submitted. We can't just change grades on our say-so but have to fill out a change-of-grade form with a written justification, which then has to be approved by whoever approves these things. If I give a justification of "student needs a higher grade to stay in her sorority" or "this student tried really hard and deserves a higher grade" it isn't likely to fly. So your best bet is if it's a simple clerical error, like adding up points incorrectly.

There are gray areas between those extremes. My classes don't have TAs but I've heard of a couple of incidents where a TA did something totally off the wall (in one instance borderline sexual harassment by the TA may have been a factor) and the prof reversed the grade. So you might have a shot. Your case is strongest if the TA clearly was factually wrong -- saying the answer should have been "copper" where it should have been "aluminum," that sort of thing. Doctor Dark (talk) 02:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Nice knowing I'm not the only one who indulges in option #5 ("quietly weep..."). Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 04:17, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

My (real life) example is not there. It should read "Say 'Fuck this for a laugh', drop out of college, row with parents, run away and join the circus (well, OK, a rock'n'roll band). Bad Faith (talk) 12:57, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

$19 billion? Fuhgeddaboutit

It's not a big enough settlement from Wall St. for some state attorneys general. Taibbi sums it up:

“”Now Obama and Geithner are engaged in the same sort of activity, only they’re trying to prevent a run not on an individual bank, but the entire American financial services sector. Geithner seems really to believe that if fraud were aggressively policed, and the world made aware of the incredible extent of the illegality in our markets, that international confidence in the American financial sector would plummet and our economy would suffer – and suffer, incidentally, on Barack Obama’s watch.

This little piece of "fiction" seems more relevant every day:

“”But if we go after everyone guilty of fraud and theft, the market crash this country would see would make 2008 look like Sesame Street. Open that can of worms labeled 'Fraud' and the whole fucking economy collapses. You may as well prosecute people for masturbating.

Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:30, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Something else that seems relevant is Woody Guthrie's lines: "Some will rob you with a six-gun. Some use a fountain pen." Of course the banksters of his era were not as sophisticated about it as modern ones. Pashley (talk) 06:15, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Realwiki

What do you make out of this?--Colonel Sanders (talk) 02:49, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Parody? Surely?

And why are there so many spinoff wikis around? Peter ^{talk, or type, or whatever...} 02:57, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I think you and Coulter are fucking sadists. Don't you feel bad about tormenting that poor idiot? --Longbow (talk) 02:59, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Sadists? It's a fucking wiki for God's sake. This idiot has nothing better to do than troll.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 03:03, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Wrong. He has something MUCH better to do; ritually disembowelling himself. Why don't you just let him get on with it? --Longbow (talk) 03:14, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

"Liberal fascist troll vandals are not welcome here!!!"

Damn. :( Fallacy (talk) 03:17, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Hilarious, right? See what he did to my userpage!--Colonel Sanders (talk) 03:19, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

He's taken a leaf out of MC's book there... Peter ^{talk, or type, or whatever...} 03:36, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Or possibly a DeMeyer-esque Stalin rant.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 03:59, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I am really confused, what sub-sub-sub groups is this now? - π 04:19, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Depends - is Ameriwiki considered to be descended from here or directly from CP? Peter ^{talk, or type, or whatever...} 04:21, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Realwiki....a piece of work.... now he's defaced Coulter's page.--Colonel Sanders (talk) 14:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

This is messing with my theory that James (like all the other CP sysops) is a parodist. This is moving into Ken and MC realms of dedication to the cause. --PsyGremlinSpeak! 15:03, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Creepy, isn't it?--Colonel Sanders (talk) 15:26, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Second and third nights of Hanukkah

The second night of Hanukkah: Target gift cards from one of my aunts. The same ones she's been giving for every holiday for about a decade. (It's a running joke that she has stock in Target.)

And to answer the most common question regarding the first night of Hanukkah post: the plant in the background is a "pothos," if that helps any :-) Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 03:45, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

The new PSU is the black box with the tacky gold sticker on it. It's beautiful ;__;

The third night of Hanukkah: my new PSU came! Now I can use my computer again! ...Okay, so it's technically not a present since I ordered it for myself, but I'm counting it anyways.

The official present was a gift card to McDonald's, because I appreciate any present that let's me stuff delicious food in my mouth. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 03:45, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Did you really just use the words "delicious" and "McDonald's" in the same sentence? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:11, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and so did you. :) Fallacy (talk) 04:17, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Do not blaspheme the glory of the Golden Arches in my presence! (Though Jack in the Box is far superior in every way.) Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 04:19, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

You meat-eaters and your disgusting filth. I've been a vegetarian for a couple days, so I'm morally superior. Fallacy (talk) 04:24, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Admittedly I'm not sure if the context allows use of this image, I only half-skimmed this conversation. Blue (pester) 04:55, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Neurobabble

Rationally Speaking takes on the new phrenology. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 07:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Most Charitable Nations

What do you guys think of this? Fallacy (talk) 07:58, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Are we considering % per GDP/government spending? Osaka Sun (talk) 08:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

No idea. Admittedly, I didn't actually read the report. Fallacy (talk) 08:14, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

...are you asking us to read things for you?--^talk 11:21, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Fallacy suffers from selective readingphobia. (Incidentally, "Bibliophobia" technically only covers books. What if you have a crippling fear of all text, though?) Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 11:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Hm. Well, I suppose it'd be anagnophobia, from the Greek root for reading.--^talk 11:47, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Uhm... reading the first page, and this: "The questions that feed this report are: Have you done any of the following the past month? Donated money to a charity? Volunteered your time to an orgnaisation? Helped a stranger or someone you didn't know who needed help?"... I mean, I am shocked that a western nation without a functioning social security system, which depends on charity to feed the poor etc, would be #1. And that countries with functioning social security etc, where said charity is much less needed ranks low. I mean... Really. Dendlai (talk) 12:09, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Somebody should take those numbers and ad the budgets for social and health departments in there. The US would hit the mid field hard, and what is a social net if not a standardized and planned and guaranteed charity on a grand scale — after all, if the people really wanted it, they could vote away with it quite fast. --★uːʤɱ anti-communist 01:29, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

A huge pile of stupid

Just, no. Ace^{Ace For Mod!} 11:00, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

They're spreading, Ace. Like animals floating on mats of vegetation, they're spreading. Even your beloved New Zealand is no longer safe. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 11:32, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

After all these years of reading creationist crap it still never ceases to amaze me when people interpret the Global Flood literally. SJ ^Debaser 11:56, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I misunderstand - but what would be the non-literal interpretation of "Global Flood"?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 17:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Mess with God and he'll fuck you, your family, and everyone you ever knew or cared about up. Fallacy (talk) 20:02, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah. That's "eventually" I guess.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 20:07, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I find it amusing that somebody can write something like "one possiblity is via large masses of floating mats of vegetation created during Noah's Flood" with (presumably) a straight face. If the Bible doesn't give you the answers, just make up some shit that's vaguely connected with it. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:58, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

It never ceases to amaze me how they won't consider the obvious answer because it's taboo. They're birds, dipshits. Just because they can't fly doesn't mean their ancestors couldn't. They fucking flew to New Zealand. If it couldn't swim or fly, New Zealand didn't have it. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 15:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, what do they think the mechanics of this are anyway? Did the two Kiwis on the ark waddle to India or something before embarking on the good ship Vegetable Mat? Or did they embark directly from Turkey and take a med cruise before rounding the cape and island hopping to New Zealand? It's fucking crazy. They're out of their trees. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 15:56, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

please dont forget that in Noahs time the world had just one big continent. It broke up in the days of Peleg. So all the Aussie and new zealand animals just walked a short way from the Ark , sat and waited for their countries to break off and move to the places in the south. The penguins were just to the one side of the wombats, so went to antartica. Hamster (talk) 16:02, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

A relentless torrent of utter bullshit... and guess who's paying for it

I work for a big public service organisation in the UK and just recently I happened to find the website of one of our suppliers. We don't spend a lot on this one supplier, but the fact we spend anything at all ticked me off given what this woman stands for: complete rubbish. Just look at that introductory sentence:

I feel that we are being asked to come off the karmic wheel and there is much evidence of the positive effects of karma from past incarnations that are enabling people to feel the joy in their re-connection to the Source Energy – whatever their concept of that is.

I am literally yes literally vomiting brain cells as I type this. Here's a quote from her personal blog on the site:

I have just finished the Last week of the College of Healing diploma Course at Peacehaven in Shropshire. It is quite a land-mark as it was the last one to be run over two years in four weekly format. It was an amazing week covering Negative Energies, Earth Energies, Death and Dying, and the Elemental Kingdom.The students grew as healers able to do some powerful healing with clients on their healing assessment.

Apparently we buy hypnotherapy, psychotherapy and "counselling supervision" from her. For all I know, those services are valid. But her site... her site... ^{ONE / TALK} 11:58, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm dismayed that any of my taxes go to towards this crap. I blame New Labour and the then First Lady. Ajkgordon (talk) 14:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Did Blair do this? Osaka Sun (talk) 18:27, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Hah! So it's not just the US that has blinding stupidity! Fallacy (talk) 20:03, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Blinding stupidity is part of human nature. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

PZ Myers has spent some effort in the past trying to stop the sullying of the good name of the University of Minnesota at the hands of the Center for Spirituality and Healing (more appropriately called the "Center for Spiritual Quackery and Stealing"), which only just recently had to do a quick whitewash to try and pretend it was not promoting homeopathy. ListenerX^TalkerX 19:02, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Psycho minister Bradlee Dean has his own "FBI Incident"

That's right, Bradlee Dean puts a youtube blogger on "FBI Notice". Who said all fundies were not created equally insane and stupid? The Symphony of Punk ^{Can't sleep, clowns will eat me!} 13:17, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

While taking it to the FBI is undoubtedly stupid, publishing "we will find you and stop you . . . by any means necessary" messages isn't exactly a smart move if you want to stay out of trouble. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:45, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

True, but I think that that's a play on the name of Dean's "You Can Run But You Cannot Hide" fundie organization. The Symphony of Punk ^{Can't sleep, clowns will eat me!} 13:48, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

The Republican Party isn't racist

No, really. Despite calling Obama a skinny crackhead. MDB (talk) 17:19, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

That guy (Brent Bozell) doesn't appear to be a Republican Party spokesman. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:24, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

He's not, he's just a guest.--^talk 09:40, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Totally not racist. Osaka Sun (talk) 18:20, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Racism is structural in American society, and you can find it in any party just about anywhere on the political spectrum. Nothing to see here. PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 18:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Obligatory. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:25, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

You seem to have an "obligatory" for just about everything, Nebby. Blue (pester) 21:27, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Genghis Khant does it even more often—he has an anecdote for everything. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 12:36, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I do? I guess it's just part of getting old and having travelled a lot. All I have left is my memories. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 18:06, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I like to think you wear suspenders and carry pocketfuls of hard candy around :-) Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 00:10, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Suspenders like this or suspenders like this? ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 15:17, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I've looked at clouds from both sides now

But would have really liked to see these ones. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 21:37, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I saw a lot of them in the Rockies, but I never thought of the UFO likeness. These two are dead ringers. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Dead ringers, or... Sam ^Tally-ho! 02:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I was lucky enough to see them. Picture 3 (on the article) is taken from the bottom of the Aire valley in Bingley (I recognise the buildings), and I live on the volley looking down on Bingley. An incredible sight. ^EXTERMINATE 04:30, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

The Bleak Old Shop of Stuff

All I have to say: You brits do humor wierd! GodotI live in the Infinite monkey cage 05:26, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Ever seen League of Gentlemen? This is a local shop for local people! There's nothing for you here! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:36, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Looks to be incredibly bizarre yet oddly entertaining. Sam ^Tally-ho! 07:19, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Try checking out Psychoville sometime... X Stickman (talk) 13:23, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Just watched Bleak Old Shop on iPlayer & enjoyed it a lot. The humour is a bit hit & miss but the parody of Dickensian clichés is spot on. Thanks for the tip, Godot. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:09, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

They're only a pair of shoes

Really, where are people's priorities? Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 09:43, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Evolution didn't happen after all. --79.50.118.138 (talk) 12:20, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Don't ask me how I found it...

But there exists a machine that can make up to 5000 plain egg omelettes an hour. What in the name of holy Goat would you do with 5000 plain omelettes? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:10, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

What couldn't you do with 5000 omelets? Get some imagination, man! Fallacy (talk) 17:24, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

"Ovobel—your partner in egg products" has got to be the laziest company tagline I've ever read. If all you think of is "Your partner in X products," then don't even bother with a motto/tagline—just slap your logo up and call it a day. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 21:55, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Feed 5000 people and declare myself to be the son of the Omnissiah. ArchieGoodwin (talk) 02:50, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, because some people here pay attention to American football (whether they care or not)

Tebow is starting to show his Plummer-liness. Guess his 7-1 record going into Patriots, and the subsequent media attention, made him forget about Romans 12:3. /snark -- Seth Peck (talk) 20:59, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Holy crap, Buffalo destroyed them! Good to see the Bills win a game again. Sam ^Tally-ho! 21:55, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and Jesus had nothing to do with those four interceptions. Sam ^Tally-ho! 21:57, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Clearly you've never seen Angels in the Outfield. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 00:13, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

dream

help me ratwiki, am I completely fucked up? last nite i had a dream, and hitler was raping some poor SS officer up the arse. is my brain gone? have i lost my soul? am i possesssssed by the devils own? oh yeah, and merry christmass motherfuckers! ^{— Unsigned, by: 58.163.175.174 / talk / contribs}

Oh. That dream. Everyone dreams that after editing for a little while on RationalWiki. It's almost a rite of passage. DickTurpis (talk) 04:22, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Is that you Brxbrx? Or is it Mara? Only you two filthy perverts could dream something so obscene! Brxbrx and Maratrean, your presence is unwelcome, please leave immediately (talk) 04:31, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Is Niall Ferguson this loony?

I read a couple of his books and thought they were good, but they were some of his earlier material pre-2000-ish. I remember reading one fluff piece from him a while back pining for the days of Kissinger, and now he's just endorsed Newt. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:54, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

It's hard for me to understand how people read so many books, especially non-fiction books. I read, like, a book a year. --User:Brxbrx/sig 03:58, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Normally I'd be mocking Brxbrx so hard right now, but I haven't read any non-fanfiction fiction works for the better part of two years. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 06:00, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Fan-fiction? Ewwwwwwwwwwwwwwww(cont.). Fallacy (talk) 07:08, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Just for that: *GLARE OF INTENSE DISAPPROVAL*

I learned to write in school; I learned to write well by reading fanfiction. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 12:30, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Another week is another book on average, depends on my free time. It takes me a few hours to read a 400 page novel, slightly longer for nonfiction. Now^what? 13:57, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Ferguson is a total loon and anything he says can be discounted without further discussion. On the plus side, him leaving his wife for Ayaan Hirsi Ali means that two other people were saved from a lifetime of misery. PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 15:03, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, Brx, how the hell can you read a book a year and use Foucault as an avatar? This is out. Get on it. PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 15:05, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, do you work full time, Brx? I assume you do. I work full time but still get in about 1 major non-fic a month, and like 10 or 20 crappy ass, "Calgon, take me away" vampire loving romances a week. but those are 180 pages long, and seriously "high brow". ;-) -- Courage of Truth? I'm on it now. Didn't even know it was out GodotI live in the Infinite monkey cage 17:26, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I used to get through a lot of books a few years ago. Now I get distracted too easily. Terrible what the internet can do to you. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:29, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Someone wrote a book about that. PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 20:46, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

No doubt a gross abuse of the concept of neuroplasticity. Facebook is melting our brains! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:06, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

It's 2AM on the 25th here in Japan, so Merry Christmas! EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 16:50, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey ho, Happy Christmas all from Ireland. Time to listen to Tim Minchin's Secular Christmas Carol again....kinda just how I feel about things too. DogP (talk) 02:05, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

That wouldn't be the one that ITV dropped would it? Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 18:09, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I like that song mostly because it doesn't mention snow, sleigh bells, chestnuts roasting fires and other stuff that is irrelevant to a country where Christmas is likely to be over 30 degrees centigrade. - π 22:39, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Merrrrry Christmas! Ho ho ho Sam ^Tally-ho! 04:27, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I time traveled, so this is on time. MERRY CHRISTMAS! --Dumpling (talk) 03:24, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Four things atheists and believers should stop doing.

Cracked.com. also, am I the only person here old enough to remember Cracked magazine? PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 17:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

It was out about teh same time as Mad Magazine, right? I was into Shawn Cassidy and "Teen", but my brother had Cracked and Mad. GodotI live in the Infinite monkey cage 17:58, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Re the article: Meh. I expected more from Cracked, this was pretty substanceless. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 18:11, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Even by the cracked standard of shitty link bait, that was outrageously shitty. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:31, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm amused by #2 especially, given that 75% of religious teenagers, 81% of Christians and 61% of born-again Christians think it's a quote from the Bible and don't recognize it as a statement by Benjamin Franklin (numbers from a study, I looked it up awhile ago on Wikipedia). But yes, in general, it's kind of a drekky article, and usually Cracked.com's "X things that Y" articles are at least somewhat palatable. -- Seth Peck (talk) 21:10, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Pretty much of a yawn.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 12:34, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Ditto on the "meh." Granted spittle-inflected rants about Bronze Age sky daddies get old after a while, but it is the internet. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:22, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

oh what holiday fun

Where is that stupid UPS/FedEx deliver guy when they promised the gift would be here no later than Dec 22 and it still hasn't arrived and there's no updated tracking info - grrr! Now what am I supposed to do when the stores are all closing in 2 hours? why don't we have any more scotch tape? why didn't I wrap these stupid gifts all week when I had the time instead of waiting until the last minute and I have other things I need to do... Oh don't tell me I have to go out to the grocery store AGAIN to get some stupid ingredient/item I need for this stupid thing I'm supposed to cook... oh shoot!darndarndarnit DON'T hit "reply all" to an email when it's meant to be a personal reply to only one person in the group and you are talking about the others --- !! I hate Christmas. Refugee^{talk page} 18:44, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

lol. We forgot to get my dad his gifts this year. We always order these hand painted sweatshirts (scenes of nature - usually animals) for him, cause he loves them. So I didn't buy much from teh store for him. But I'm wrapping yesterday and said "OH SHIT I FORGOT!!!" guess who went out last minute shopping... in the crowds... on a snow day. yeah! Have you seen the 12 pains of christmas? I'll see if i can youtube it.--GodotI live in the Infinite monkey cage 18:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I did the majority of my Christmas Shopping on Black Friday and the week after. I'm set. ;D--Dumpling (talk) 03:26, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Do we need to waste our time with this?

Creation and Miracles, Past and Present (full length) is just under an hour long, it proves that the Earth was created roughly 40,000 years ago, that the Global flood happened through the Hydroplate theory etc. A Christian blessed me and begged me to watch it. I've only watched a quarter so far. Proxima Centauri (talk) 13:00, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

However you want to spend your Christmas, Proxy. I'm probably gonna watch a Bond film or the Great Escape or something like that. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:24, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I have been watching Bond films all weekend on Epix. I tried to explain the concept to a rather studious 17 year old girl who has seen about ten movies in her entire life. Imagine how successful I was (to cater to her intelligence, I tried to paint it as a study in chauvinism and international relations over 50 years of film making. Ugh.) -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:20, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

So 40,000 is the new 10,000 now? --GodotI live in the Infinite monkey cage 16:44, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Aparently the Earth is just that bit older than most YECers supposed. Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:02, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

@Weaseloid: I don't think Proxima has a life outside of being as atheist as possible. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 19:54, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm so atheist, I go beyond thinking that no gods exist -- I think they have an inverted form of existence, which is negative-existence, which means that if you multiply two of them together... :O You get an existent god!

Hm... so Jesus × The Flying Spaghetti Monster ... Fallacy (talk) 20:00, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi

δλερνερ ^{διαλέγομαι | συνεισφέρω} 06:12, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

You people and your fucking custom signatures. Jesus. F_ucker^{talk to me :D} 06:38, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Wassup. Sam ^Tally-ho! 06:41, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

How do I get one? Restoration Christian Church (talk) 06:45, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Restoration Christian Church/sig

Preferences --> Signature --> Restoration^{Christian Church (talk!)} and check the box. F_ucker^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 07:04, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Did it work? Restoration^{Christian Church (talk!)} 07:08, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Ooh yes it does! Thank You Very Much! Restoration^{Christian Church (talk!)} 07:08, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Deja vu? Merry Boxing Day. Peter ^{Urist for Mod!} 07:14, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Urist for mod? Ew, gross. F_arter^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 07:20, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey, shut up! :P Sam ^Tally-ho! 07:22, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

He'd make a great mod, what are you on about... Peter ^{Urist for Mod!} 07:37, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey DL. What's shakin'? Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:37, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Can I rename my user please?

I want to be "Restorationist" instead. Thank you and Goddess Bless! Restoration Christian Church (talk) 06:48, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

You can place your request here. Just start a new section for December 2011. Sam ^Tally-ho! 06:57, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Sam! Restoration Christian Church (talk) 07:01, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Biggest science scandals of the year

From The Scientist. The inclusion of the Wegman Report is like flypaper for internet denialists. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 15:46, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

French internet copyright "sweep" catches French President's residence

An IP address to the Palais de l'Élysée has been implicated in one of the first "anti piracy" sweeps in France. 3 cops have also been arrested. And you know if SOPA goes through (despite the other horror shows) politicians and movie producer's kids will all have tons of pirated stuff. ause I'm not even sure most of piracy is about money but ease of use. --GodotI live in the Infinite monkey cage 16:43, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

My hypothesis is a lot of kids pirate things because:

1. They don't have much money -- duh.
2. They want to bypass their parent(s)'/guardian(s)' restrictions on what they can have. Fallacy (talk) 18:02, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's about not having the money, so much as wanting to have something for nothing rather than paying for it if the option is there. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:11, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

3. They don't actually understand that they're stealing stuff. PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 18:45, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Pirating isn't 'stealing', it's unlawful copying. There's a nuance there. Fallacy (talk) 19:28, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

It's a bullshit nuance. I took something, and the person who owns it didn't get paid for it. That's stealing. PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 19:29, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

No, stealing is taking something from someone else. Pirating is copying -- the original person still has whatever it is, now just someone else has it as well.

Eh, semantics. Fallacy (talk) 19:33, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Like the time you swallowed? --85.77.248.161 (talk) 23:17, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I assume you're referencing semen? If so, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense, I'm afraid. Fallacy (talk) 00:48, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Never ask a thief if what they do is a crime: they'll always say it isn't. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 19:39, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree it's a crime, and that it's usually 'wrong'. But I won't agree it's theft. Fallacy (talk) 19:42, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Damn you Fallacy, you've stolen my idea! Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 20:35, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Flat what. Fallacy (talk) 20:43, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Pirating if you don't have the money to buy it is as much "stealing" as the majority of people is "stealing" from the rich when taxes are increased. What really ticks me off though, is these companies that couldn't produce anything halfway decent but still spread this major bullshit woo that every download would equal a sell. A lot of downloads are also done because you can't get it any other way. --★uːʤɱ netlabelist 21:02, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree -- I think that whether pirating is unethical or not depends on what you're downloading. Pirating a mega-billion blockbuster or game that's been out of production for ten years -- who cares? Pirating an album from a group of starving indie artists -- you're an asshole. Fallacy (talk) 21:22, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Possibly. On the other hand you might be surprised at the number of well-known acts who make nothing (or nearly so) from sales of recordings because of the way their contracts are written. I'd like to think that indie labels are better about this than the majors, though I don't know whether that's true. One can argue that depriving a major label of cocaine money for their junior executivestheir rightful earnings is still wrong, but the "you're stiffing a poor starving musician" line is greatly overplayed. Doctor Dark (talk) 21:42, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I really do believe that the musicians that don't read their contracts before signing them haven't deserved it any other way, and those who do and still sign might make music, but they are professional fame whores. --★uːʤɱ kant 23:12, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

So is everybody else in the entertainment industry. That doesn't really have any bearing on the ethics of piracy or piracy laws. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 01:09, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

No it doesn't and I wasn't saying that (strawman or did I imply something by accident?). I don't think everybody in the entertainment industry (what is the industry for you? does that imply indies or only major?) is a fame whore (not more than anybody else). But something I don't want is throwing money at these people (that doesn't mean I'm downloading their stuff, that means I'm completely ignoring them), actually the only thing I want to throw at them are vegetables, cooked if possible. --★uːʤɱ netlabelist 01:53, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

@UHM, taxes aren't "stealing"; they're a legal obligation. Your analogy makes no sense. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:35, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Pirating isn't stealing either, it's copying illegaly. That's what I was saying. --★uːʤɱ pirate 23:12, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

"Home Taping Is Killing Music". There's good reason the music industry is looked upon with suspicion regarding copyright and stuff. Crying wolf does that. Dendlai (talk) 22:56, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I have kinda a strange view on it. When napster first came out, much of what was copied illegaly was very rare stuff... bootlegs of acts long defunct; japanses versions of stuff you loved in teh 80s, and lots and lots of rare blues that people had collected. Also for me, I found massive amounts of french music that I would not (this was 92 or 94ish) be able to buy unless I was there -- bands I'd never heard of and would have no radio to listen to. And I found 10 or 20 new acts from france that I then went out and bought when I moved there. On the other hand, I've never once downloaded a major motion picture, a hit album, or a popular game. I really think record companies could let their long defunct bands at cheeper downloads (one buck per song is nuts...), or stuff from the 30s-50. GodotI live in the Infinite monkey cage 03:41, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, piracy is a good for music. It means that acts actually have to go out and perform for their money. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:45, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

It's also good for keeping prices sensible. I remember videos of movies (before DVD) being pretty expensive in the 80s & 90s, whereas now you can buy DVDs (of anything except the latest releases) very cheaply. I think that's largely because competition from piracy/downloading & also the second hand market which has grown online (eBay etc.) means it's not viable for distributors to price them so high. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:56, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

One other thing about piracy. I would not know who David Attenburough, Brian Cox, or du Sautoy were if not for Horizons. I would not have seen QI, or Black Books, or Misfits and god forbid, no IT Crowd. Steven Fry would just be a name that Dr. House mentions now and then... Same with french TV. Any time I try to legally stream these shows, they say "you can't have it in your country". bah humbug.GodotI live in the Infinite monkey cage 17:56, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Black books is on hulu. Now^what? 03:20, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

You have excellent illegal download taste. Ajkgordon (talk) 18:04, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of all things illegal and BBCish, MV Group just posted a copy of Ascent of Man. It seems it was digitally remastered within the year. My library has a copy! (13 discs). Has anyone seen it? Wiki calls it "groundbreaking". I think it was one of the first produced by David A? GodotI live in the Infinite monkey cage 03:27, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Somebody uploaded the entire Ascent of Man series to Youtube. I watched the first 5 or so episodes and I heartily recommend. Bronowski shows some serious intellectual muscle. The episode about agriculture had a particularly interesting insight about the origin of war. --Tweenk (talk) 23:53, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's one way to celebrate Christmas...

So, my cousin's children, a couple of years ago, came up with the idea to have birthday cake for Jesus at Christmas. (I'm sure they're hardly the first kids to think that up...)

Okay, fine. Even as a believer, I think it's silly, but they're kids and it's Christmas, so let them have fun.

I'm still wondering which of my relatives decided Jesus' cake needed the candles that re-light after being blown out. MDB (talk) 23:09, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

What, all 2,011 of them? ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:04, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

A believer? On RationalWiki?! Ostracize, ostracize!! F_litzer^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 00:19, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

The use of relighting trick candles for this particular birthday: fucking funny. -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:19, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Really? MDB has been a high-standing RWian for some time, coming along regularly to remind us that some of those believers out there aren't that crazy, but have a reasonable level of crazy on par with everyone else's. ^pathetic 02:49, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I officially hate statistics.

Looking through the new UN crime reports for the end of 2011. 125 pages long. Y U NO SUMMARIZE? Osaka Sun (talk) 06:37, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

You perhaps missed the "Executive Summary" occupying the pages between 9 and 14? ListenerX^TalkerX 06:52, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Ugh, thanks. A lot of stuff conservatives won't like again. Osaka Sun (talk) 06:58, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Wingnuts, at least here in the U.S., dislike everything the U.N. does. What in this report specifically would they object to? ListenerX^TalkerX 07:16, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it all smells like one world government to me. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:13, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

TCG Part II: Acoustic Boogaloo

Good opening? F_arter^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 08:05, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Some of your sentences are a bit too long and your gender-neutral pronouns are just weird. Personally, I'd only sparingly write stuff in parenthesis throughout a novel. For some reason I find that odd. Otherwise it seems alright to me. Sam ^Tally-ho! 08:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

"Amount" is for uncountable nouns, not countable ones. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 11:33, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

The reason parentheses seem odd is because in narrative prose it is odd. The idea behind parentheses is that whatever is contained in them can be omitted without affecting the sense of the work. If something can be omitted without effect, narrative economy suggests it should be. There's nothing between those brackets worth saving, and once you're rid of them you can restructure the sentence to make some sense. It also suffers from over specificity. Do you really need to say how many families there are? Do you really need to say exactly what the temperature is at the instant described? All I get from that is these are some sort of super-people who aren't dead after a few hours exposure to that temperature. Was that the impression you meant to convey? It's hot, but they're feeling cold. Describe the effects of the heat, not the exact temperature. Show, don't tell. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 13:16, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and ditch the fucking gender neutral pronouns. While some authors can make made-up words work for them, you should probably stick to real words. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 13:19, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think gender neutral is what ey's going for. "Wer" & "wif" are archaic words for "man" & "woman" respectively. But arbitrary use of quainte olde worlde wordes is at least as silly as using gender neutral neologisms. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 16:08, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

For the anti-nuclear crowd here

This blog post is quite interesting and should dispel some of your concerns. The English might be a little broken, but I found it to be quite informative--User:Brxbrx/sig 09:25, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

It's Christmas, and I demand twelve dozen nuclear weapons as my presents. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 09:47, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

The problem with nuclear safety is that, while safety technology for nuclear energy production has been on a cresendo upwards to the point where plants built in the last 20 years will most likely never have a Chernobyl or Fukushima type emergency, the most pressing safety concern stems from older plants (mind you, most nuclear plants in the United States were built in the 1960's) that do not have the capability for critical safety upgrades with new technologies (since most of those upgrades would require a complete re-design on the plant itself, which would cost far more than it's worth to the generation company) and also the safe disposal and storage of waste. Mind you, also, that the Fukushima plant was over 45 years old and had never had critical upgrades that are available nowadays to deal with "extreme situations" where generation power is completely lost. In the United States, it's been illegal to reprocess waste into fuel since the 1950's as a result of concerns that the Soviets would steal some and make it into a bomb (kid you not), so nuclear plants here are forced to store it with no alternative which creates tons and tons of nuclear waste casks lying around all over the country which (thus) leaves all the danger associated with storing it safely for millions of years. For example: the Prarie Island plant here had an emergency last spring when the river they stored their waste near (I can't remember which one) started to flood onto the pad where they were storing spent fuel rods. While the casks are concrete, one can only imagine the environmental damage that could've been done if there had been some sort of leakage from any of the casks. The Symphony of Punk ^{Can't sleep, clowns will eat me!} 09:52, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

OP's blog post link has some things backwards. For example, there was no fire in unit 4 spent fuel pool and it did not run dry. The explosion in unit 4 was caused by hydrogen from unit 3 which creeped into unit 4 through shared piping. There was little if any damage to unit 4 spent fuel. BTW, it is now established that the reactors at Fukushima I were not damaged in the earthquake.

High flux radiation meters not being available - that's mostly because it's not possible to construct a high flux Geiger counter. A Geiger counter relies on detecting single particles hitting a gas, ionizing it and allowing some current to flow through it. At a high flux, the particles hit the detector so fast that it becomes impossible to tell apart individual ionization events. It is possible to construct a high flux scintilation detector, but this kind is much more expensive that a Geiger counter and has different hardware than a low flux detector (e.g. no photomultiplier tube). Given that high flux detectors would only be useful in extremely rare emergencies and even then do not provide a lot of useful information (the distinction between "you're dead" and "you're slightly more dead" is not that important), I'm not surprised they are not available at every plant.

Regarding the dry storage casks: they do not contain any liquids that could leak, they contain complete fuel rods including cladding, which is watertight. If one of those casks was flooded, there would be no radioactive release. It should remain safe even if it was tipped over or washed away. --Tweenk (talk) 23:38, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, you're the resident nuclear expert--User:Brxbrx/sig 21:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Headaches and science

Anyone know any good sources that talk about modern theories on the causes (and maybe cures) of non-migraine headaches? I wanted to read up, as I have chronic headaches, but I either hit sites that are just routine, like WebMD, or are new-agey, pseudoscience type. I'm not sure I can really weed through the articles at PubMed, but that's probably my next destination. Anyone know anything better? GodotI live in the Infinite monkey cage 18:13, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Unless you have some other condition causing them, headaches are usually caused by muscular tension or constriction of blood vessels in the head, though all the causes are not known. If aspirin isn't good enough, you can try the real version of magnetic therapy. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:28, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty convinced they are not migraines, since i don't have any auras or nausea, but they are not classical "tenstion" headaches, either, as any change in blood pressure (bending over, standing up, laying down, etc) causes them to go insane in throbbing. Asprine makes them manageable, but doesn't really take them away, and they are getting more common as I age (every week or so, vs. once a month). I have a history of cluster headaches, so i've had MRI's on the noggin, and know there's nothing wrong beyond "headaches". but dear god, someone must have a good idea what triggers them. lol. sugar? I ate all day yesterday? :-) Bleah, getting old sucks. :-) (PS, that magnetic therapoy is some wacky amazing stuff. I've seen work with it on depressives, as well as those with chronic pain, and others with PTSD. Some of the trials and sessions are having amazing results. Like it's rebooting a computer in some wierd way or something)--GodotI live in the Infinite monkey cage 18:36, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Too much wine with sulphites? Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 18:49, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Have you talked to a doctor much about the headaches? Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:08, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Not an MD, but I have a little checklist that I go through when getting headaches. (i) Dehydration. Have you been drinking enough water? Also drinking other things that cause dehydration such as alcohol or lots of coffee. (ii) If you're a caffeine user, too much/little caffeine or too long since your last dose. (iii) Enough sleep of decent quality? (iv) Eyestrain from reading paper or computer work. Also, from some of your comments it seems possible you're approaching the age where your close-up focus is deteriorating -- check if you need bifocals or better yet indoor glasses (I prefer that term to "reading glasses"). For me the most effective headache pills are the ones that combine aspirin, acetaminophen and caffeine. Doctor Dark (talk) 01:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Weasel, my health care is typical "low cost american insurance". so to the extent that you can "talk" in 10 minutes? Yeah. Enough to rule out anything major and enough to know they aren't migraines. (I always thought migraines are just bad headaches - never knew they were actually a syndrome that headaches are part of). Beyond that "Call me if it becomes debilitating or interferes with sleep for more than 2 days straight, or causes issues in "real life". Great, huh? :-) hence my reading on my own. Course I do that about most things anyhow. I did eat lots of salt on Xmas. hum... GodotI live in the Infinite monkey cage 03:17, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough I guess, but self-diagnosis/internet-forum-diagnosis is never ideal. Anyhoo, our evil socialist healthcare system has a pretty good online resource: here, help yourself. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 11:43, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

'as any change in blood pressure (bending over, standing up, laying down, etc) causes them to go insane in throbbing' - I had similar sounding headaches whn i had sinusitis. Beating myself off would cause blinding headaches also, but I don't know how much of an issue this is for you AMassiveGay (talk) 09:04, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Christmas is over

How long must we endure that santa hat monstrosity desecrating our beloved brain? Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 16:11, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Hear! Hear! (or is it Here! Here!??) PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 16:18, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Probably for about as long as there will continue to be commercials on the radio that sell cars to the tune of bad Christmas songs. (and it's "hear", PintOfStout) -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:22, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Until 12th night of course, when you're obliged to take the Christmas decorations down. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:17, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Like tree decorations, tinsel, xmas cards on the mantlepiece, etc. -- but surely nobody waits twelve days before taking a hat off! Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:57, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I dunno, I've been wearing this hat since I bought it. SJ ^Debaser 19:34, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I've got to say that I'm shocked! The traditional Ratwiki Yuletide "Great Christmas Hat Debate" really started late this year. --Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 10:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I was expecting a debate the moment the hat came up.--Dumpling (talk) 10:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the secret is not to ask permission, just to fucking do it. Saves aggro. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 11:51, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Damn, that's a secret known only to a select few, how do you know it?! ^sshole 13:01, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

It has to stay up at least until Orthodox Christmas (Jan 7th) - David Gerard (talk) 10:39, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

But the santa hat associates it with St Nicholas Day rather than Christmas, which would be celebrated in early December by Orthodox Christians. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:53, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

it needs the Valantines day logo put up. I mean Walmart has snack cakes for Valantines day already (sure thay would be stale if actually kept till february but thats not the point.) Hamster (talk) 16:06, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Assholes are everywhere...

...even the "holy land" is no exception. --★uːʤɱ soviet 18:33, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

It's like a real life Anti-Sex League. Also, obligatory. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:54, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

[insert obligatory Spaceballs! reference here] -- Seth Peck (talk) 19:11, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

While you may politically, religiously think what is going on is wrong, where the fuck in the bible does it suggest that spitting at innocent kids is a useful way to change society? how do adults justify their actions to kids WHO HAVE NO CHOICE. (not that they would choose otherwise... but the point is, they are kids- mom and dad decided, and the society made the school).GodotI live in the Infinite monkey cage 19:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Probably the parts of the Bible where God conducts systematic slaughter of a lot of people because they aren't very happy or mocked a bald guy. -- 00:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Spitting is probably an improvement on the usual stoning that the bible demands. AMassiveGay (talk) 09:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Public Advocates of the US

I've been receiving e-mails from them for quite some time. Look at this. F_ucker^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 17:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

We could do with an article on this. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:07, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I love this quote: "If I fail to raise $46,359.17 by December 31st, I’ll be forced to broadcast our weakness and vulnerability to the Homosexual Lobby." Firstly, do you think they can raise that money without going to a very wealthy televangelist? Second, I find it amusing that they acknowledge the weakness and vulnerability of their own argument. -- Seth Peck (talk) 18:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

That really is weird. It reads like some sort of blackmail threat against themselves.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 20:40, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Not to mention that they use the word "I" instead of the word "we". Is this one guy? Who is it? -- Seth Peck (talk) 20:43, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I made an article about them: Public Advocates of the US. It could use some work, but it should hopefully clear up some of the confusions. F_idgeter^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 20:49, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Seems like the kind of guy we need to piss off. Perhaps in the style of George Takei: "Mr Delgaudio, one day, when you least expect it I will... HAVE SEX WITH YOU!!" ^theist 21:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd love to mess with them, Pharyngula style, but how? F_ucker^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 21:24, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, fun, their ringleader is another resident of Loudoun County, Virginia. Remember? -- Seth Peck (talk) 21:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power

Has anybody read this? I saw the author on Jon Stewart a while back, and I thought it all seemed rather sensationalistic, possibly even fabricated, conjecture based on some vague findings. Of course I've not read the book, but looking at some of the reviews on Amazon I can't help but think these are just regular ol' fundies and not the Calvinist Illuminati. Maybe we could have an article on it, but skeptical of the whole conspiracy thing.--User:Brxbrx/sig 21:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the fundamentalism that has its grips on American politics in any secret. F_idgeter^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 21:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Is this the same "The Family" we have an article about already? -- Seth Peck (talk) 21:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Time for a redirect! F_ucker^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 21:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Yup, that's the one! The whole thing seems to have as much to do with hypocritical fundies finding a way to cheat on their wives as it does political maneuvers, though. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 00:55, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Libertarian or Rapper?

Can you tell the gun-and-gold-loving, tax-hating libertarians from the gun-and-gold-loving, tax-hating rappers?

I only got two out of ten. I would have done better flipping a coin (a gold coin, of course.) MDB (talk) 15:54, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Got 9 out of 10 on pure guesses. Not too tricky. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 16:01, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

6/10. --★uːʤɱ constructivist 17:33, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

7/10. Would like to see the two join forces -- straight outta Fort Knox. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:04, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

10/10, on the first try, with purely guessing. The best part, though, is the comments. F_ucker^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 19:08, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

10/10 because of a shameful background in hiphop. Also, I think this is the closest you're going to get, Nebuchadnezzar. WF Lizardbrain (talk) 00:07, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

6/10 - I'm re-evaluating my opinion of rappers, they seem to be more profound than I thought. I've also stopped vaguely liking Ron Paul, although not as a direct result of this quiz. -- 00:51, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

8/10 via alternating guesses after knowing the first one. RJ 03:08, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I hate these people

These people, that wamt to keep a language pure and free from influence. It's not only that what they want just plain doesn't work, it's also that unbelievable disdain of an intellectual understanding how languages work on am evolutionary level mixed with this weird post-modern pseudo-nationalistic fake high-brow ado. Seriously, I hate these people. --★uːʤɱ secularist 13:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

My grandfather's like that. He gets upset whenever anyone uses English slang around him. Of course, he's also quite fond of recalling that the majority of the English language is based on French, thanks to the endeavors of William the Conqueror. I tried pointing out the irony, but he was too stubborn and just said no.--User:Brxbrx/sig 13:09, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Hardly the majority, but OK. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Such people tend to be the older generations who thankfully are dying off. We just have to play the waiting game. ^{ONE / TALK} 13:20, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Weaseloid, I don't mean to sound like a nationalistic douche, but check your dictionary. A huge chunk of modern English is derived from French, on account of English nobles speaking French (or some older version of it) in the courts up until the Renaissance (or something like that- the details are a little fuzzy- I had looked it up because at first I didn't believe my grandfather when he would say that. He has a tendency to exaggerate)--User:Brxbrx/sig 13:26, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

29% of English words are derived from French - definitely not a majority. Weaseloid is simply correct on that. Source wikipedia. ^{ONE / TALK} 14:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

And where does the French derive from? Mostly Latin, of course. And many others deriving back from their use in English, and that's not just slang. It's really quite a weird thing to care about because of such back-and-forward fluidity and the limitless "so where do those words derive from" questions you can ask at each stage. ^theist 14:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, nobody can dispute that. But to say a majority of English words derive from French is to make a factually incorrect statement. ^{ONE / TALK} 15:09, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

For the sake of pedantry: French derived from Vulgar Latin, not Latin. --★uːʤɱ anti-communist 15:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

You're right, guys (except that my point was more or less lost and now you all think I'm a douchey nationalist)--User:Brxbrx/sig 15:57, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Trust me, not all of us think you are a nationalist. I get such a kick out of watching my husband go into hissy fits over the youth speech in French. I think he would be a happy little member of the Academy, telling people that they should not use "en live", when there is a perfectly good "en direct". Or listening to America's own love of the word "like", as in "like I was going to teh school, and like she was there, and she was like 'hey', and I was all like 'no.'". GodotI live in the Infinite monkey cage 16:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Ouch, you like just totally, like, hurt my brain. -- Seth Peck (talk) 20:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Same thing happens in Spain with people complaining about the influence of English. I think such complaints are common from older speakers of languages at all times.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 20:43, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Aren't most new Spanish words technology-related words imported from English? F_lubber^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 21:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Officially - possibly. Unofficially there are things like "a parking", "a camping". As "ing" is a popular English word ending the Spanish (and possibly other Europeans) use "footing" for "jogging". The Spanish have also invented "tumbing" for "lying on a sofa". (from the Spanish verb "tumbar") so there's a lot of unofficial infiltration of English.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 21:50, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

For those Nirvana fans here...

Kurt Cobain: About a son (full length) a documentary of interviews with Kurt Cobain. Very good, IMO. The Symphony of Punk ^{Can't sleep, clowns will eat me!} 13:27, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I love that guy and I love a good biopic. Dimm (talk) 04:40, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Christmas Lectures

They are about the Brain this year. Yet still I do not see any of them. The should have been brodcast on the 27, 28, 29th. That's one whole day of British kids knowing more about the brain than I do. (I hate america. you get Christmas Lectures, we get Ice Age, the Christmas Tail). GodotEn live 22:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

And Doctor Who Christmas episodes (what's that about, anyway? The first seven Doctors never had one...). -- Seth Peck (talk) 22:05, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't watch Dr. Who, but I've always wondered. by xmas special, you mean "aired over xmas" or do they actually do something xmas related? GodotEn live 22:15, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Both. A Christmas-related story, produced and aired for Christmas. One had Daleks. -- Seth Peck (talk) 22:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

What, "Daleks roasting on an open fire", or "you better watch out, you better not cry, cause Daleks are coming to town".? heh. GodotEn live 22:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

They just turned them upside-down so the homeless at least had a fire place. --★uːʤɱ pirate 22:26, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

The first one was pretty good. A lot of it was a subtle introduction to the Bayesian-like way the brain works, but not with any technical jargon. I've yet to see the other ones, but iPlayer is a wonderful thing. And watching a grown man have his motor control mangled my a pulsed magnetic field is educational and utterly hilarious. ^gnostic 00:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

i fart in your general direction. iplayer doesn't work in the US. cause we don't pay your taxes. I'm willing to pay TV taxes. I am! just send me the good stuff! GodotEn live 00:34, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Get yourself a paid-for VPN service that has a UK IP. There are free services available but you will probably suffer from bandwidth issues. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 09:23, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Anybody else listen to death metal?

More specifically, progressive death metal, technical death metal, death jazz, or technical progressive death jazz? Or progressive metal or technical metal or metal jazz or progressive technical metal jazz? Or technical jazz? Or really good orchestral? Or anything similar?

Because I'm looking for new bands to subject my ears to. F_arter^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 04:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

You kids and your hair and your music. Check this guy out, for aggressive jazz. PintOfStout Talk Do you think expletives make you look intelligent? I dunno. Do you think being self righteous makes you look like a prick? 04:18, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Queued the album 'Pulse' by xem up. If this doesn't rock I'm going to stand on your lawn, old man. F_litzer^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 04:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

So far I'm liking it, even though it's just drums. F_ucker^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 05:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I have a regular client at work that is a Death Metal artist from California. DMorris2 (talk) 05:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

What band, if any? F_lucked^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 05:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

By "really good orchestral," do you mean actual orchestral music, or some kind of funky metal orchestral? Blue (pester) 05:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Either? Right now I'm into technical and progressive music -- mostly of the metal variety, but I'm willing to go beyond the genre. I just have an irrational dislike of simple music. F_litzer^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 05:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I used to listen to a lot of metal, death and black in particular. But that's not my thing anymore, not at all. Too loud, too much distortion. But if you're looking for suggestions, I suggest Archenemy and Septic Flesh. Septic Flesh is black metal, but it's similar and they are pretty damn good at making music. Try Mechanical Babylon. Excellent album, if I recall correctly. Of course, I ended up selling it and buying Siouxsie and Rosetta Stone albums with the money. That's growing up for ya (not that metal is childish, it's just that you change as you grow up. I've an uncle, whom I respect very much, who is about fifty and he listens to all sorts of metal). Also, some more obscure acts, if you can track them down, might be Supuration and the Count Nosferatu Kommandos. Both from France, I believe, and the Kommandos really tear it up.--User:Brxbrx/sig 05:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

maudlin of the Well? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 11:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Also John Zorn's Naked City. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 11:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

RationalWiki on heavy metal fans lol Secret Squirrel (talk) 11:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I laughed at the music. Really fits the discussion at hand. Osaka Sun (talk) 11:55, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

We have Totnesmartin to thank for that quote. But seriously, you have read those pages, right? They are quite possibly the very worst things in the world and one of the reasons I don't really recognise genres any more. ^postate 12:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

What..you don't recognize Pirate Metal, Teutonic Angst Metal and Anvil Sludge Metal as significant genres? Heretic! Secret Squirrel (talk) 12:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Is "not recognise" the same as "never heard of"?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 16:17, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I pulled those last two out of thin air on the spot. Pirate Metal is apparently real, not that anyone except its fans care. Secret Squirrel (talk) 23:20, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, Alestorm is pretty awesome - if you're prepared to stick your tongue firmly in your cheek while listening to it. ^bomination 01:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Here's an example of what I was talking about. The band is even called 'Atheist', so you have to like it. Haven't listened to what you idiots wonderful people have linked yet. F_ucker^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 19:23, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Oooh, or this (seriously, the most amazing jazz-ish instrumental evear). F_ucker^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 19:25, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeah, Elements is a great album. Weren't there rumors that Atheist was going to reform recently (and if there weren't, now there are)? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, they came out with a new album, Jupiter, last year, so probably. And it's not that bad -- not as good as any of their earlier three albums, but still solid. F_lucked^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 22:33, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Guess I'm behind the times. The only thing left to do is sign up for Kerrang! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:58, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, listening to it again now, I'm surprised at how good it is, especially the lyrics -- I think about half the songs are anti-religion/god, and one of them is about Catholic child rape, which is pretty awesome.

Fraudulent Cloth:

Fraud woven into cloth

Draped upon the have not's. Tried to secrify, while you close your eyes. So they continue... same criminal, different venue. Hide the cardinal file, you lied you pedophile. You know what you've done, and you know they were molested Step upon this soul you should most surely be arrested. Immuned behind the cross. Innocence of many forever lost. Rights and privilege, over sacrilege. Felon for all to see. Please tell me why this man is walking free? Fraud upon the cloth, fraud upon the cloth!

You knew all along and you facilitated priests. A predator, a little child, you hypocrite, you beast! No other court in the world, would allow any man to escape The participation and cover up, of a little child who was raped. Fraudulent, the fraudulent cloth, fraudulent the fraudulent cloth

FRAUD!

F_lucked^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 01:21, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Is the search tool not working?

It seems that I'm not getting any results when using it. Anyone else have the same problem? Osaka Sun (talk) 09:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I already raised this at Tech Support. It's been down since the site went offline for an hour or two on Tuesday. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 10:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

When the site goes down the search is usually the one thing that doesn't enable itself again automatically, it's happened a few times before. It's usually just a case of flipping a digital switch on the server and not too drastic. Could use Google in the meantime. ^postate 12:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The search daemon is supposed to start on its own on boot, but it's not running now, so yeah, Trent needs to kick it into gear. -- Nx / talk 15:14, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Are we sure Trent is alive? Osaka Sun (talk) 18:43, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

It works if you're looking for a page rather than a keyword. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:15, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I've been asleep for 22 hours

Is that healthy? AMassiveGay (talk) 11:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Depends what you mean by "healthy". It's not harmful, but not a normal sleep pattern either. If you've been short of sleep, ill or depressed recently, that might explain it. Similarly if it was drinks/drugs related. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 11:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

a little bit of all of the above I thinkAMassiveGay (talk) 11:16, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually asleep or just in bed and can't be arsed to move? If you've been asleep straight for 22 hours it's probably exhaustion from a previously fucked up routine. People who temporarily use polyphasic sleeping patterns to work 20+ hours per day can often find themselves sleeping for near enough 24 hours at the end of it. ^theist 11:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I was mostly sleeping. I did awake temporarily. Still a bit groggy now. I also haven't really eaten anything since christmas. I am going to make drastic changes to my lifestyle this new year I think. I need to at least AMassiveGay (talk) 12:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Ooooh! We should have a New Year's Resolutions page, wherein we compete to not break our our self-imposed resolutions. The prize: a self-service pat on the back. ^{ONE / TALK} 13:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm trying to quit smoking again. I've already cut down by about 50%. MDB (talk) 15:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Mine is not a resolution thing. I do not think I can make the changes I need to over night AMassiveGay (talk) 15:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Good luck to you. And I'm really hesitant to say this, but based on things you've said here before... have you considered professional help? MDB (talk) 15:45, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Ta. Professional help has been advised by many people. Not sure if it for me though AMassiveGay (talk) 15:50, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, as I said, good luck, whatever method you choose. You seem to know you have a problem, which is a good start. MDB (talk) 17:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to stop fucking swearing so fucking much online. ^pathetic 02:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Unions and nuke plants

What do you think? This entire thing was so tight-lipped nobody knows what actually happened, but does that stop the public union bashing and bullshitting about "janitorial positions worth 65 grand a year?"

...Nope. Osaka Sun (talk) 22:16, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

"Polls for the moderator position will open at 7pm EST. "

I can't find it. ħuman 02:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Here you go. Ty^{Bother me} 02:53, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Somehow managed to find it on my own via recent changes. It should not be so difficult. ħuman 02:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

It's not difficult, Tmtoulouse just forgot to put a link to it in the announcement box. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 03:06, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The 2011 Wipe!

It better be uploaded on YouTube tomorrow. Osaka Sun (talk) 03:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

"don't impose your morality on me"

"Don't impose your morality on me", "It's not the function of the law to impose personality morality on others", etc. Several times have I heard these arguments made with respect to debates on issues like abortion, homosexuality, etc. Personally, I generally agree with the end result intended by those who deploy these arguments (i.e. I'm pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-marriage equality), but don't think myself these are very good arguments. But I was actually looking for someone making this sort of argument (e.g. in a magazine or journal article), but haven't been able to find much, only people from the other side of the fence criticizing them. Anyone know of a source? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 07:31, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

You might try a libertarian site, like The Advocates.

I think a better argument in that area is that the State is set up to maintain civil order and the rule of law and it should stay within that mandate, so while some "morality" may be "imposed," it should never be imposed as such. ListenerX^TalkerX 07:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

The government is obviously going to have to impose some sort of 'morality'. F_ucker^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 08:19, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Not necessarily, unless "imposing morality" includes throwing people in irons for unlawful acts that they consider to be moral obligations, such as blowing people up. ListenerX^TalkerX 08:31, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, what government doesn't have a court and prison system? Or, really, what government doesn't have laws with punishments? F_ucker^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 09:09, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

It is a sad specimen indeed who equates civil laws with morals. ListenerX^TalkerX 09:27, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

How are laws not based on a certain system of morality? F_idgeter^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 16:33, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

It's generally live and let live. That's why killing is illegal. And it depends what you consider "morality." Having a socialistic society is often interpreted by tea baggers as forcing them to be charitable, but I see it as making sure the few don't take advantage of the many (capitalism) and that all citizens have a safety net (healthcare, food, lodging).--User:Brxbrx/sig 09:49, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Telling people not to break their children's bones might be seen by some as "imposing morality" on them. "They're my children, and I'll break as many of their bones as I want. Stop imposing your morality on me!". (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:00, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how cliches like "you can't legislate morality" are anything but nonsensical. Where is this magical line between civil law and morality? Obviously it's not the totality of morality, but laws are ultimately based on some kind of moral system. The question is whether some morals ought to be state-enforced or not. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 10:08, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I agree. Just because something is immoral doesn't mean it is morally required or permissible for the state to seek to prohibit it. For example, I think being unkind to your friends is immoral, but it would be wrong for the state to try to legislate in that area - such intimate involvement by the state in private affairs is a recipe for tyranny. On the other hand, I also think murder is immoral, and I think the state is morally required to take reasonable action to try to prevent murder. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:11, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree it's not the best argument, certainly on its own like that, but it doesn't make it completely invalid. If you're talking in a legal sense, it's always about "restricting someone's actions" (usually for a common good), and for the most part phrasing it that way is far less emotively controversial than "imposing a morality" on someone - which would probably come up only when someone is against a particular law. So when you say you can't legislate against being unkind to your friends it's quite uninformative because shooting one in the head would be considered pretty unkind, no? - so really it's about legislating against actions rather than attitudes. We can legislate against you shooting your friends (murder) punching them in the face (assault) or even shouting at them (verbal assault, public order offenses, hate crimes) and definitely taking their property (theft, burglary). All of these would fall under "being unkind to your friends" and we've legislated against them pretty effectively. So what actions can't you legislate against that are "unkind"? It's right to say there's no magical line between civil law and morality, but that won't stop someone drawing the line in chalk themselves after they think someone has crossed it. ^narchist 10:25, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, when I spoke of "unkindness to friends", I was speaking of the kind of relatively minor unkindness of which what is colloquially called "drama" is composed, rather than seriously "unkind" things like murder or rape or assault (the kind of things for which the word 'unkind' is an understatement). Like not returning their phone calls, forgetting their birthday, not paying back money you borrowed them, saying bad things about them behind their back (but not things sufficiently bad enough for the law of defamation or slander to get involved), telling the world their secrets even after they swore you not to, discovering that their partner is cheating on them and choosing not to tell them, maybe at the absolute worst stealing their boy/girl-friend. etc. Now, some people would consider this sort of behaviour to be immoral and/or unethical (to me the two words are synonyms), others would not - but I think most would agree, that if this behaviour is indeed immoral/unethical, it is not the sort of immorality/unethicality in which the law should be involving itself. Some of the reasons why the law should keep out of it would include its lack of seriousness, and that the wrong caused by the law's exceed (the costs) would likely greatly the wrongs prevented thereby (the benefits). (((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:58, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

There's an important difference between morals and ethics. Morals are concerned with what is good or bad, while ethics are an answer to the question "How should one behave?". That might not seem like a big difference, but considering moral dilemas (situation in which only bad things are option, like e.g. you travel back in time and have the chance to kill Hitler (bad, you're killing a person) or let the holocaust happen (bad, you're letting millions die)) the difference becomes more clear. Of course, for most people morals and ethics are synonymous as a result of the answer "Good, of course." to the question "How should one behave?", but in practice morals can also concern actions all by yourself (mastrubation, overeating, laziness) while ethics are allmost exclusively used when considering other beings, as the question what is good and bad becomes a matter of private decision for most people — or is simply just irrelvant. For example we would probably all agree that rape is immoral and unethical, animal testing can be moral but unethical while mastrubation might for some be immoral but not unethical (morals are also bipolar (good/bad), while ethics can me much more distinguished (ethical/unethical/not unethical, etc.). Legislating morality would be to impose your view of what is good an bad on others that might not share that view, even though you might not have any other argument than "It's bad/wrong!" as a defense to your proposed legislation. Legislating morality is bullshit, while legislating ethics is just about right — with the exception that some laws would be too tedious, too much micro-management or blatantly go against the ethics of government most of us share (freedom/liberty). Such ethical restriction are then on a societal level given rule over to parents, teachers, rulers over a certain area (bosses, property owners, etc.) or just the individual itself (consciousness of actions, via own judgement and moral code the society left us with). Of course we also restrict these powers as we grant each other fundemantel rights, for example that a parent is not allowed to brake their childs bones, is not so much a question of good or bad in that certain situation, but many of us would argue that the child has a right to not be physically harmed by anybody, no matter if it is their parents or not. --★uːʤɱ anti-communist 11:46, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm familiar with the distinction between valuation (good vs. evil) and oughtness (obligation vs. permission vs. prohibition), but I'm not familiar with labeling one as "morality" and the other as "ethics". I agree that if there are true moral dilemmas (and also if there are supererogatory goods), then the relationship between valuation and oughtness is more complex than a naive approach might suggest. But that doesn't mean the two are disconnected either, in my view they really are a unified whole, like two sides of the same coin, even if the relationship between them is somewhat complicated. Your distiction between ethics vs. morality seems to me to be somewhat idiosyncratic, although maybe you are following a distinction made by some authors of whom I am unaware - or maybe what you are saying makes more sense in German. Personally, rather than labeling the valuation vs. prescription distinction as ethics vs. morals, I'd just call it valuation vs. prescription. Or maybe axiology vs. deontology (although that is not exactly standard, since both those words have somewhat competing meanings already established.) And leave ethics and morals as synonyms. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The problem isn't valuation or oughtness (both morals), but the question of what a field of study ought to answer. And no, for all people that believe in a metaphyical value of good and evil, right and wrong, bad and good the difference is minimal, but in determining what fields are seperate one should determine their reach by imagining their boundaries of what can be given as their relative answers. Maybe morals (I'd say morality is the value, not the field that studies that value, no matter if that act of studying is normative or descriptive) would be better served to be a subbranch of ethics (as a field that is only called upon when considering that the duty of an ethical entity is to behave good or bad). I'd say language (not only English, but all languages I have encountered as of yet) plays a big role in how such distinctions, if at all, are made and that a tighter set of definitions and maybe even a new set of words might be needed to make a distinction clearer. --★uːʤɱ pervert 17:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

It's just a glorified way of saying that your morality sucks. --193.64.22.247 (talk) 12:23, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

UMH, i've read this distinction throughout my basic level philo, and I'm left not thinking you can make such a distinction. Let's look at the killing of another human. Our society has defined killing as acceptable in particular circumstances. those change over time. It used to be (here in Denver in the Wild Wild West) anyone on yoru land, at all, for any reason could be shot on sight. Then someone started to ask if that was really "good", and "what if it was an accident", so the law was changed to 1) give 3 warnings, and/or prove the trespasser had done or intended to do harm to your property. But that too was challenged over time, and now you may not shoot "in self defense", without risking being sued for overreaction. (there is a belief by the gun owners in Colorado, that if you shoot someone, you need to do it while they are in your home, and you need to kill them so they can't claim that they wouldn't have harmed you.) Each time, it's based on "right and wrong", or what is a "better humanist result". Yet I'm sure Kant et all would discuss how it is an ethical decision within the law. Those two terms always seemed very much part of the same equation.GodotI live in the Infinite monkey cage 16:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Before I start, every time somebody uses "philo" it confuses the living crap out of me. What is meant, philosophy or philology? From context I'm going to assume you meant philosophy.

The problem, as I see it, is that many people look at the result rather than the basic question of the academical subject. Let me draw an analogy, just because biology discovered ways to ease mechanical flight from looking at animals that actually do fly, that does not mean that biology and engineering are the same subject. Even if we finally invent androids that copy the neural networks of humans or other advanced species, they are not the same subject, because very much as morals and ethics they are two destinct subjects with two distinct basic questions. In this case the overlap is so huge because many people answer the basic question of ethics with morals, and without realising it change academic subjects. The question in morals is "what is good and what is bad?" for which there are simple answers, but in ethics good and bad/right and wrong can be ignored. I actually do subscribe to utilitarianism and the thought that "good/right" and "bad/right" do not exist but are social constructs of metaphysical character. So if ethics and morals are the same, I would not be able to come up with rules how to play within society or restrain myself from a hedonistic lifestyle. (the theist's argument of atheists not being able to have morals/ethics comes to mind)

But instead I subscribe the concept of "beneficiality to society" (a problem is that many utilitarians simply say beneficial equals good and unbeneficial equals bad, but I think this is just plain laziness in arguing). So because I say there is no metaphysical "right" and "wrong" morals is for me a null subject, but ethics isn't. Morals is linked to good and bad as concept, while ethics is not linked to a concept but a situation, as much as biology is linked to a chemical phenomenon knows as "life" but engineering is linked to the question of how to built things. Others by the way might subscribe to different answers to the question; "Whatever you think is best for you" in egoism, "Whatever you like" in hedonism, etc.

Maybe you have read John Stuart Mill' put this quite neatly in On Liberty, while what a drunkard does might be immoral, we can, based on his right to decide for himself, only restrict him if he begins to hurt others. Mill subscribes to two fundementals: liberty of every person and beneficiality to society (actually it's only beneficiality, because liberty of all is what he views as beneficial, but for simplicities sake let's say its two). Your example of shooting someone is problematic as it automatically effects two people, the one that shoots and the one that gets shot, and therefor automatically effects all of society.

Sure, for those percent points of mankind for which the way to behave equals the answer to the question of what is right and wrong, morals and ethics might seem like the same thing, and like a flight passenger that arrives a few minutes (or hours) earlier, you don't really need to care, but starting with the result of an academical subject rather than it's basic "mandate" bugs the living crap out of me. ;) --★uːʤɱ digital native 18:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

"Philology" is a term not commonly used in English; the English-speaking academic word tends to call it by other names. The only times I've ever heard the word used in English, it's in reference to German academia. If someone from the Anglosphere says "philo", they almost certainly mean the -sophy.

I think your attempt to distinguish between ethics and morals presumes a utilitarian approach to normative ethics. If someone was approach the issue from say a virtue ethics or deontological approach, I'm not sure your distinction would make much sense. Whether there is any difference between "ethics" and "morals" is really a question of metaethics rather than normative ethics, and I prefer to approach metaethics without assuming any particular system of normative ethics is the right one. Logically, metaethics comes first, and normative ethics comes second. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Philo: Oh, well then.

I don't see were I presume a utilitarian model, I just used utilitarianism as an example — one shouldn't confuse that. The same example I could very well make with egoism, hedonism, pragmatism or any another non-deontological ethical code. And I'm also not trying to push these definition into or unto your or any other deontologists personal set of definitions used within that philosophical system, but because we spoke of morals and ethics on a state or society-wide scale we should use the smallest common denominator which, in my view would be the mandate of the field of study. --★uːʤɱ digital native 17:55, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

It is true that behavior cannot be legislated, and legislation cannot make you love me, but legislation can restrain you from lynching me, and I think that is kind of important. —MLK

--User:Brxbrx/sig 13:06, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Society has an intrinsic right to oppose its morality on you, to a certain degree. You don't have the right to kill another human, unless it's sanctioned by society (war, self-defense, abortion) and those sanctions are about morality. In the US don't have a right to do drugs, even though you harm no one but yourself, but you do have a right to use (and abuse) alcohol - again, an issue of morality, as you cannot make one single rational reason why one and not the other. We have determined you do not have a right to beat your children, but time out is ok. (is going without dinner ok, today? that was my folks favorite punishment). Virtually all laws are some form of imposed morality, it's just that society tends to be a bit more rational and look for the 'least harm' when limiting your rights based on moral codes. At least that is my hope. GodotI live in the Infinite monkey cage 16:49, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

This whole discussion makes me think about how the U.S. legislatures, as well as some of the individual departments in the executive branch, have Ethics Committees but not Morals Committees (and I shudder to think what might happen if they had one on morals), whereas the U.S. military DOES have moral standards (whether you agree with them or not). -- Seth Peck (talk) 18:30, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

AFAIK, the only reason why those exist is to keep bad PR from happening. --★uːʤɱ socialist 18:37, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with LX on this. Laws are (or should be) about maintaining public order & curbing activities which are disruptive to society, not imposing moral standards. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:34, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Because it's not a moral standard that the status quo should be maintained?

Anarchists would disagree with that maintaining public order part. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 00:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Anarchists would disagree that an identifiably separate government should maintain public order, but most would instead suggest that all the members of society would work together to maintain public order. On a small scale this is the rule rather than the exception in everyday life already. On a large scale it is Utopian (it requires an almost universally wise populace in order to be effective, a pre-requisite not met in any nation-sized societies today) but otherwise perfectly reasonable. Anyway it makes no difference to the general ethical problem discussed above. Whether government experts or ordinary citizens decide, difficult ethical decisions have to be made. The alternative isn't anarchy, it's Chaos. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 09:49, 29 December 2011 (UTC)