RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive144

This is an archive page, last updated 16 February 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>, <133>, <134>, <135>, <136>, <137>, <138>, <139>, <140>, <141>, <142>, <143>, <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)

Republican Primaries

Considering how many people have done well in the Republican primaries, can we now call the entire race a "frothy mix"? MDB (talk) 15:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Has "Clusterfuck to the Whitehouse" been used before? Bondurant (talk) 15:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the Daily Show used the clusterfuck thing during the 2008 elections TheCheat^{I run on alcohol} 16:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

It was more true in 2008 when both parties had wide open primaries. It was the first time since 1968 when neither party had either a sitting President or VP seeking the nomination. (Nixons had been VP, but was out of office for eight years.) For political junkies, it was a great election. MDB (talk) 17:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

This is the most contentious primary since 1984, I think.--^talk 20:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I don't know... Clinton/Obama in 2008 was pretty nasty. MDB (talk) 12:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The thing about GW

What i never understood is why (Some) people always act like the earth heating up/cooling down is a completely unnatural and terrible thing... when it isn't. The amount of time Ice was on the surface of the earth appears to be few; while the time the poles were warm more plenty; and that our ice age is going to inevitably end oneday; even if that means our current habitat isnt what we like anymore. --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 22:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The political and economic changes that will come with things like mass flooding and massive crop failures will be horrible. P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 22:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

And inevitable. Our species cant be so stupid to think it can change 4.6 billion years of Ecological history--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 22:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Cause it will kill us, likely. or at least drastically kill off most of us. It will kill of the cute arctic foxes and the Brazilian orchids. Cause the change is too rapid for adpation, so things will go by bye and have to totally "reinvent" themselves -- thinking "big giant asteroid". Cause we're no where near curbing the changes we are making to our earth, and the time it takes for them to "effect" the earth is a lag. So pretty much we are fucking ourselves and every other living thing that currently exist. Will life survive, sure. But not as we know it. GodotGrow a vagina 22:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Species come and Go. the world changes.life goes on. Life has survived in a way the current living ones wouldnt recognize many times now--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 23:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

It's very easy to sit and say that sort of thing when you live in the US or Europe, where there are (reasonably) strong economies and a temperate climate. But in drier and warmer regions, where millions do actually live, the effects of this are (there's no "going to be" about it) devastating. ^theist 23:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Fine, life has survived, but that's not exactly comforting to know, when you look at your kids, or think of your grand kids, or whatever, and know they will be fighting for resources like we havent for 100's of years. and i rather like arctic foxes. don't really want to see them regulated to a few specimens in zoos, thank you much. GodotGrow a vagina 23:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I think our grandkids will curse us root and branch. We're the greedy generation. We do everything to excess, using what we can grab with no thought beyond tomorrow, or possibly the day after. Maybe this is a middle aged man doing the "to hell in a handbasket" rant as we're prone to do but the problems that are facing all life real soon now will be beyond anything we've seen before. Jack Hughes (talk) 23:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree, but I don't think it's fair to call us the 'greedy generation'. As I understand it, humankind has always been like it -- it's only just recently that we've been actually able to pollute the Earth to this degree, though. F_idgeter^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 23:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

While we *may* sorta have been, it is to an extreme in today's world. WE do things cause we "can", not thinking of why, or if we should. We used to have to ration, not knowing when starvition would hit, for example. WE didn't through out old things, cause they were hard as hell to make. now? got a rip in your sock? buy a new one, or a new ipad cause yours is one year old, or disposable baggies cause you don't want to wash out the one you just used, etc. GodotGrow a vagina 23:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

With a world population of 7 billion and up, things are eventually going to get sticky no matter how zealously the population holds to ascetic standards. ListenerX^TalkerX 08:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

What LX said. But to respond to the original question - of course global warming won't destroy all life on the planet. What it will do is make life very difficult for the human species. The vast majority of us live near the sea and radical changes in sea level will make life extremely difficult for the people on every continent. And sea level rise is only one of the problems.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 12:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Since when does Joe Barton have an RW account? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I lol'd.

Endless. Santorum. Jokes. Osaka Sun (talk) 06:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I know (or at least, I believe) that this santorum business originates with gay people, but does anyone else detect an undercurrent of homophobia in the gleeful way straight anti-Republicans are now applying it?--

Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 12:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Nope, if anything I see the opposite. 64.28.248.125 (talk) 14:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

It's almost impossible to call straight anti-Republicans homophobic, that's one of the reasons why they're anti-Republican. Osaka Sun (talk) 19:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Spam flood

I've had enough of the spammers. It's time to twiddle the works so new users can't create articles and userpages until they've proven themselves OK. Rennie McGreet (talk) 12:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

BTW do we have a spam filter installed? Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 13:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I have made this point twice in the last week to no avail. P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 13:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the usual response is "just delete it". A bit of prevention would be nice instead of repetitively applying the cure. Rennie McGreet (talk) 14:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

We do have various spam filters installed, including the AbuseFilter extension, which is programmed to block the most repetitive spam. The problem is that none of the current spam is very repetitive now that I've blocked that "Jobs" spam. But if people see any spamming links that are repetitive, please let me or another "Tech" user know what the link URLs are so we can add said spam links to AbuseFilter 11. So far as other fixes (i.e: first edits can't be new articles), that would require you to take it up with Trent. The Punk Symphony of Noise ^{Your mental puke relief} 14:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

One problem is that the techs aren't here most of the day. Ty^Annoy 14:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I am usually here every day, though I don't edit as often as I'd like due to not having a whole world of time. Still, I check in a few times each day and, if you see links that are spammed all the time, let me know. I'll gladly add them to the AbuseFilter. It doesn't take that long to do. The Punk Symphony of Noise ^{Your mental puke relief} 14:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Your talkpage needs more veiws anyway. Ty^Annoy 14:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

So should look at their links for blocking purposes rather than shoot on sight. will do. Rennie McGreet (talk) 14:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Yup. If we see sites spammed that would never have anything to do with the mission here, let me know what the URLs are so I can add them. It only takes a second to add them, and it'll save us the heartache of deleting the same spammed sites over and over again in the future. The Punk Symphony of Noise ^{Your mental puke relief} 14:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

So, just log the URL's keywords to your talk page, gotcha. Enjoy keeping up with *that* one. ^pathetic 14:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I've changed my mind. A better place to log spam URLs (and the place I'd prefer you put them) is here. The Punk Symphony of Noise ^{Your mental puke relief} 14:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

An extension to do that thing

I knocked up an extesnion that prevents page creation before you've made your first edit. I'm not entirely sure that's what we really want to do, but we could do that I suppose:

The problem with "no first page creation" is that creating a userpage is what many experienced wiki users expect to be able to do first thing.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 16:23, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

And spammers will just post their spam over an existing page when they can't create one. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree, if we need to DO SOMETHING then I think not permitting external URLs for unapproved editors & BoNs is a better option. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 19:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Spambots don't work that way. They probably don't even check whether a post succeeded or failed. It's a volume game. They aren't going to change their behaviour based on countermeasures employed by just one site. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

That and, if you check the abuse log, the #1 problem with denying a spambot page creation or external links on the first edit or two is that, whether or not the spam is successful, the spambot will continue to try and try and try the spam again. 99% of all spambot that trigger the spam filter have numberous hits on multiple attempts. It's not just a one time deal. The Punk Symphony of Noise ^{Your mental puke relief} 21:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The Census Bureau is a burlap sack of shit, according to the New York Times

An example of how patriarchy hurts both sexes. F_arter^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 15:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

A warning from 1981

"I don't want to see religious bigotry in any form. It would disturb me if there was a wedding between the religious fundamentalists and the political right. The hard right has no interest in religion except to manipulate it."

Who said it?

Billy Graham. MDB (talk) 15:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

SPROING! -- Seth Peck (talk) 16:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Billy Graham, unlike many Christian religious leaders, has pretty much steered clear of politics. His son is another story, including some birtherism. MDB (talk) 17:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, except for supporting the Vietnam War, and palling around with Richard Nixon discussing Jews and "They don't know how I really feel about what they're doing to this country", and... Tired of Billy Graham getting a free pass when he was as bad as Falwell, that's all. Secret Squirrel (talk) 01:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

House is ending

After eight seasons. I do agree with the general opinion that the show's quality went down over the last few years. Still, I'm going to miss the misanthropic asshole.

Osaka Sun (talk) 17:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I finally quit watching a few weeks ago; all the episodes just seemed the same. I'll probably watch the finale, though. MDB (talk) 17:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll miss it, but where can you go after you drive a car into your "girlfriend's" house, go to jail, etc. It was a great show, then they couldn't hold it at teh level and had to up the insanity. Speaking of which, where is Nurse Jackie. she also had this delicious self destruction going on. GodotGrow a vagina 17:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The 4th season of Nurse Jackie starts in April. Osaka Sun (talk) 17:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, the second season of Sherlock starts in the States on May 6. So, just around the time Sherlock Holmes as an MD in the modern world ends, we'll be able to get three more episodes of Sherlock Holmes as an MD in the modern world. MDB (talk) 17:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Estrangelo's point, though -- at this point, they really have only two options for continuing to develop the character, without just "what wacky thing will he do to end this season?":

1. House reforms, and becomes a nice guy, completely ruining the series.
2. House destroys himself (metaphorically or literally), ending the series.

Personally, after seeing Hugh Laurie playing a doctor for eight seasons, I'd like to see him play The Doctor. MDB (talk) 17:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Never going to happen - the Doctor keeps getting younger. In the next incarnation, he's played by Justin Beiber. --PsyGremlinHable! 17:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

If I wasn't sure you were joking, I would open a vein now. MDB (talk) 17:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Not to mention that they'd never let a filthy Canadian play a role perennially reserved for the British. I predict a Potter kid (perhaps one who played a lesser character like Neville Longbottom) to be the twelveth Doctor. -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Hugh Laurie is a Brit, not a Canuck. MDB (talk) 18:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

By "filthy Canadian", I meant Justin Beiber. -- Seth Peck (talk) 18:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Can't we get Obama to nuke Canada for foisting Beiber on humanity? MDB (talk) 19:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey, we hate the bastard just as much as you do. And we kind of sell you most of your oil, so... Osaka Sun (talk) 19:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Why does Justin Bieber get so much hate? Because he's not 'masculine' enough? He's a stupid pop star, to be sure, but it's not like he's the only one that's ever existed. F_ucker^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 19:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

It's how the media mindlessly props him up like the next Michael Jackson. I couldn't give a shit if he hasn't reached puberty or not. Osaka Sun (talk) 19:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Who? ^theist 19:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I would say, regardless of his haircut or the hype or whatever, I think it ultimately boils down to this--and yes, it's not just Beiber. -- Seth Peck (talk) 20:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I can't understand how Bieber-bashers ever survived the 90s. Now there's only one insufferable twerp to hate, but back then we had multiple boy bands full of them. Vulpius (talk) 20:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

With our radios tuned to other stations. -- Seth Peck (talk) 21:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I too don't get why everyone hates Bieber. I don't, and you know why? I've never listened to one of his songs. You don't have to either. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 23:42, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Pop music has pretty much always sucked. The good music is usually in the less mainstream genres. F_ucker^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 23:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

are you good or evil?

For anyone in the UK, Horizon:are you good or evil? has just started on bbc4 AMassiveGay (talk) 20:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

So, from what I gathered from the synopsis, they'll be looking at how environmental factors influence a person's personality and make them do 'good' and 'bad' things. Nothing new, but could be interesting. F_lucked^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 20:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Dealing with interruptions

We've probably all heard stories about live performances being stopped when a cell phone rings in the audience.

This violinist had a better response. MDB (talk) 17:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Like a boss. Osaka Sun (talk) 18:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I can't understand people who leave the phones on in performances, cinemas and lectures. It is so damn inconsiderate. -- 18:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm willing to chalk it up to forgetfulness.

I was once at a church service when the pastor's wife's phone rang -- during the sermon. That got some laughs. MDB (talk) 18:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

"I was once at a church service"

Why?? F_ucker^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 18:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

MDB is one of the minority non-wingnut Christians on RW. Osaka Sun (talk) 18:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I am now going to discriminate against xem. F_ucker^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 18:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, barely Christian at this point. Except for attending a funeral, I've not set foot in a church for 2-3 years now.

But if you discriminate against me, I'll have God smite you. MDB (talk) 18:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I really don't understand the mindset of somebody who visits sites like these, agrees with most of our positions, but is still religion/theistic. F_idgeter^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 23:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but WTF?! I am OUTRAGED!! What unspeakable cur still uses the Nokia ring tone on their phone? --PsyGremlinSiarad! 18:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm more shocked by the fact that someone still uses a Nokia phone. Vulpius (talk) 20:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

My ringtone is a recording of myself coughing, so I don't have that problem. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

This is why my phone is always on vibrate only. Admittedly it is not so good when it gets lost in the couch cushions. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 19:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Makes me wonder if it was staged because of that, actually. ^narchist 19:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I was at Covent Garden last night watching The Dream when some dickhead's phone went off about two rows in front. He only went and answered it! Ajkgordon (talk) 19:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Neb you evil genius I think I am gonna have to steal the coughing ringtone idea for myself. TheCheat^{I run on alcohol} 20:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

@Fallacy - I don't see why it's a problem for religious people to be here. Like any other user, if one has valid arguements to contribute constructively to the debates on here (religious or otherwise - we don't just talk abt. religion, after all) then what's the problem? No one seems to mind my (sporadic) contributions here. I've never expressed any hostility to those heretics (I'll let the gods burn them for their evil, no need for me to do it - BWAHAHAHA!) and they have never sought to recruit me to their lifestyle of vile baby-eating atheism. -- 23:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Because I'm a militant atheist, and therefore believe that all religious people are idiots and are unworthy of basic human empathy or compassion. F_lubber^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 23:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Well you see, that's why you'll be bound, have your head chopped off, have your body parts cooked, then discarded in a lake of fire. Sorry 'bout that, I don't make the rules, I just translate 'em (badly) ;) -- 23:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I <3 rational theists. TheCheat^{I run on alcohol} 20:29, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The success of "conservative" films

So CP pointed out this to me, which made me curious. I found a bunch of sites referencing it, but no sign of the actual list and figures used to come up with this "conservative" films made an average of $59 million while "liberal" ones made an average of $11 million. It seems to me they're using the terms rather arbitrarily. Anything with a "good vs. evil" plot is conservative, anything with teh gays is not. So I looked at the top movies of the year here, and I'm not seeing much all that conservative, but, admittedly, I saw about 5 movies last year. The tops are:

1. Harry Potter 7 - Can't be too conservative, as the fundies are always up in arms against this series, but it is a "good guys win!" flick, which apparently is all you need to be labeled conservative.
2. Transformers 3 - I can't see this being an overtly political movie (I don't think I can bring myself to see it period), just another good v. evil thing I imagine?
3. Twilight 3 or 4 or whatever - They specifically say this one is dangerously liberal
4. Hangerover 2 - ditto
5. Pirates of the Caribbean 4 - This I did see, and I saw little politics there, the hero is a pirate for fucks sake
6. Fast 5 - Isn't this pretty violent? I think they had violence down as liberal, which really throws a lot of these top 10 out of the conservative column
7. Mission Impossible 4 - ditto here, but I guess they call it "patriotic" because the heroes are American
8. Cars 2 - I really doubt there's any politics in this film at all. They probably have it down as conservative because, like all kids movies, it displays less moral turpitude than A Clockwork Orange
9. Sherlock Holmes 2 - Don't know much about it, but the first had little political about it. I guess it had "values" in the sense that the hero thwarts criminals.
10. Thor - (A non-sequel? How did that get in here?) More good vs. evil, I guess. I did see this but was too high to remember much about it. Anyone think a case can be made for conservatism? I mean, Pagan gods?

Then I looked at the Movieguide award winners. Among them are Mars Needs Moms and Hugo (two of the all time biggest movie flops), The Way (grossed just over $4 million), and the Muppets, which I thought was basically just an adaptation of the Saul Alinsky playbook. Also, this must be net profit's they're talking right? Few major release movies gross less than $10 million, and for every Hangover 2, there needs to be 25 movies grossing just $1 million. These numbers just don't seem right. Can anyone find the Raw Data on this? Turpis 3:16 (talk) 20:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

How the fuck is the latest Twilight movie liberal? The main 'character' specifically doesn't have an abortion, even when the little piece of shit vampire hybrid could and probably should have killed her. Yeah, those are some pretty liberal values there.

Honestly, sometimes I just want to strangle these people... F_lucked^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 23:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The whole meme of claiming regular mainstream movies (or TV, novels, songs, whatever) with little/no political content as either "conservative" or "liberal" is pretty silly. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Very true, as Andy has taught us repeatedly. But looking at just the numbers if nothing else, I don't see how they can add up. If they're talking gross, than once we've put Twilight and the Hangover in the liberal column, that means all the remaining 103 liberal movies of the year would have to have a combined gross of only a little more than the sum of those two blockbusters, or an average of around $6 million, which is tiny for any movie but the smallest indie flicks. Throw Bridesmaids in there (pretty sure that's a liberal flick, with all the pre-marital sex) and that means that the remaining 102 movies made a total of about $450 million, or much less than the sum of just those 3, and averaging out to just over $4 million each. If they're talking net, the calculations become much more difficult until we know the specific films, but considering the two biggest money losers of all time are conservative (losing a combined total of $238 million), they're off to a very poor start with their averages. Add Cowboys and Aliens and the Green Lantern, which I imagine are conservative based on their other selections, and we've got a further net loss of over $160 million, for a total of over $400 million. Hell, even Cars 2 is estimated to have lost a few million. (I initially had Happy Feet 2 in there, but apparently that's liberal (environmentalism?) so I guess the other column has a big flop weighing them down too.) There must be some huge losses and a bunch of low budget, low earning art-house flicks to make the liberal average that low. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 21:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

If Happy Feet 2 is anything like Happy Feet (which is an allegory to the modern struggle of homosexuals against religious beliefs) then the movie is about as conservative as Kinsey. -- Seth Peck (talk) 21:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah. Didn't realize that. Never saw either. I just thought they were about dancing penguins. Seemed harmless. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 21:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

There's a similar subplot in A Shark Tale, where the son of a tough-guy mob boss (the mob = sharks) self-identifies as a dolphin. -- Seth Peck (talk) 22:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I thought the Muppets were teaching our children to be evil liberals. That's what Fox News says, anyway. Is the great debate REALLY "Which stupid shitheads should America listen to?" -- Seth Peck (talk) 21:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

This is simply retarded to even discuss, IMO. And Harry Potter the conservative flick of the year? Just try telling that to JK Rowling. Osaka Sun (talk) 21:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it shows that films involving magic or the supernatural do well - as 1, 3 and 10 show. Also "pirates" was pretty supernatural as well. So that's 40%. I guess that the unstated argument is "financially successful = true" so, hey, magic is true!--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 21:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the highest grossing films of all time, it seems most can be pigeonholed as conservative based on the "good guys win!" model of values, but the top 2 seem pretty liberal. Avatar, which I didn't see, I believe has Americans as they bad guys, and indigenous population of environmentalists as the goodies. Titanic has premarital sex and rebellion. Furthermore, the good guy is a poor slob who gets by mooching and gambling, and the bad guy is a job creator. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 22:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Since when is "good guy wins" an expression of political conservatism? It's just conventional storytelling; only "conservative" in the apolitical sense that it conforms to a reliable narrative formula. If "good guy wins" films are among the most popular, it's because they tend to be most satisfying, narratively & emotionally, regardless of the film-makers' or audience's political affiliations. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, I can see where they're coming from when they say that movies with very clear and obvious heroes and villains are conservative, and movies with more complicated morality are liberal. Absolute, objective, simple, black-and-white morality is associated and often is a feature of conservatism, while liberalism tend to have more nuanced and relative morality (I myself am a complete and utter moral subjectivist). The problem is is that they're reducing everything down to two very broad political terms (probably has to do with their belief in black-and-white morality), which is fucking stupid. If you want to say a movie has simple black-and-white morality, say that instead of saying it's 'conservative' unless it displays actual politically conservative values. F_ucker^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 23:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

"Good guys win" has been an expression of political conservatism for as long as the conservatives stuck their flag in it and labelled it moral and conservative. They're taking the rather vague notions of "moral" and "values" and equating it with conservatism. Of course it's stupid, but if their idea of "values" is "good lessons for kids" then, sure, most of the top grossing films of all time fit the bill, so call them conservative. Only the ones with moral ambiguity or icky things like two guys kissing get to be called liberal. Andy's labelled movies conservative just because it has unambiguous bad guys who lose in the end (Star Wars), but even by these very loose standards, some of the highest grossing films of all time are "liberal". Turpis 3:16 (talk) 23:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Conservatism is associated with Christianity --> in Christianity, the 'good guys' win --> therefore, movies that have good guys who win are conservative. F_ucker^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 23:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

No one tell CP (or anyone else) about The Last Supper. -- Seth Peck (talk) 23:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, lets give this a try. I read that the study categorized movies on twelve categories such as capitalism/socialism (I'm guessing that's the batshit insane defintions), promoting/denigrating biblical principles (complete BS), violence, sex, political correctness, revisionist history, environmentalism, feminism and homosexuality. My guess would be that they didn't account for a topic just simply not being mentioned, and if you think about it what does for example Thor have or Captain America have to do with homosexuality? You've got better things to do in 2 hours than tell people why it is ok to fuck another guy were the sun don' shine. So, they probably look at this and go "Well, if it's not pushing a liberal agenda we'll count it as conservative" — which would be a gigantic metholigical error (believe me I have done such things before). So, if every movie that doesn't mention something that pisses them off is conservative, and by nature of industry popcorn flicks make more money while social issues are abcent in them, that gives us naturally that those movies are "conservative" and "more successfull". But that is only because they (probably) didn't "count" right. If they have really bad morals they put a lot of oh-so "pretentious" foreign movies that played only in big cities in there, although I doubt that they are such frauds. I'd still really like to see this study for myself to pint-point exactly to were they fucked up.

I would make it a scale from -5 to +5 with 0 the issue not being mentioned at all, and making three categories (liberal, unpolitical, conservative), I'd guess the biggest and most successful category would be unpolitical, simply because "lets sit back relax and have ourselves entertained" is the greatest common denominator and it always helps the moviegoing experience if you don't have a big fight after the movie. --★uːʤɱ socialist 00:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I have a different theory. They defined "conservative film" as "successful film" and then went from there.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 06:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Kind of ironic that the Hollywood Reporter article used that still from Hugo - if you've seen the film, you'll know that those two kids broke into the cinema illegally... Balaam (talk) 10:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Again?

Afghanistan Marines found posing with SS flag. Osaka Sun (talk) 21:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Weird. What the hell were they thinking? Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm interested in what FA has to say about this, but really, it's unremarkable. Racism is a strong force in "Western" society. Take a bunch of people from a society that has racism, put them in an extreme environment where a lot of the rules that define daily conduct back home are suspended, and shit like this is going to happen. P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 23:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

According to them it was scout snipers but... welcome to the Krusty Komedy Klassic! is the easiest way to sum it up. --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 23:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

There's no way it was coincidental. The SS in the flag was clearly modelled on the Nazi emblem. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

(EC) Racism is a strong force, but it's only a few wingnut extremist groups who actively identify with Nazism, while most casual racists avoid it. I'm sceptical that this whole platoon consists of legit neo-Nazis. More likely this is some kind of ill-advised & tasteless 4-chan style pseudo-irony: posing with a Nazi style flag because LOL it's funny rather than because of genuine Nazi sympathies. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd guess their group already being abbreviated "SS" (which was poor thinking on someone's part but probably not theirs) they decided to go with Nazi imagery because it's badass. Yeah, the SS were really bad guys, but they were badass. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 23:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I think there is a big "badass" element there, but I'm not inclined to be that charitable. There is a shed load of racist indoctrination in the lower ranks of the military about the "sand n*****s" which gets mixed up with "USA #1 FUCK YEAH!" and "Defendining American Values". Put that together and you get a dangerous mix of groupthink, ultra-nationalism, racism, and the potent idea of barbarian horde endangering "western/white civilization" that must be fought off. Throw in disorientation, fear, ultra-violence and suspend the normal social rules - now stand back and see what you get. -- 00:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I can wrap my head around the idea that these people do these things to begin with. I don't particularly agree with it but I can get it into my head that this is a thing that people do. What I can't understand is why they take photographs and/or videos of it. When has that ever worked out? X Stickman (talk) 10:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

All the times we've never heard about. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Way back in the early days of the internet I remember a long-defunct website called something like "Rick's Museum of the Macabre". One set of pictures concerned a woman, her husband and her lover. I can't remember the exact details but the husband was killed and the woman and her lover dismembered his body they then took some pictures of the severed head and penis; really funny stuff like the head with the penis sticking out of the mouth. As this was pre-digital photography days the lover then took the pictures to be developed at the local 1-Hour Photo store. Needless to say when the developers saw the pictures they informed the police and the pair were arrested and later found guilty of murder. So yes, taking pictures rarely turns out well. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 12:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Tim Tebow is very serious about his faith...

....and would never in any way cheapen the gesture of prayer by posing while "Tebowing" with a hot chick. P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 23:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Y U NO GIVE LINK?

Edit: He's such a virgin. Osaka Sun (talk) 23:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey -- I'm a virgin. :( Unless you count fervent masturbating as sex, which I'm sure some right-wingers do. F_ucker^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 23:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm so tired of hearing about this guy, & I've still no idea who he is or why I should care. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Remember the episode of the Simpsons where Bart becomes the "I didn't do it" boy? We're getting to the point where the audience are sat there in dumbed silence, forgetting to laugh. ^moral 11:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

In Britain, Tebowing has existed for decades. We call it Forsything. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

He also made fun of Tebowing at the NFL awards. He's being a good sport about all the attention he's getting. The only less cool thing he could have done when Maria Menounos asked him to Tebow was tell her about how it was sacred and he won't cheapen it. Plus bro has hella donut holes in that pic. First two cool things about Tebow. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Calamities Of Nature

does it again Jack Hughes (talk) 08:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Amnesia: The Dark Descent

Anyone played it? I think I might buy it (was looking at piratebay but had an attack of conscience when realising the developers are just a few guys and it's quite cheap) and it looks pant-shittingly scary. Ace^Moderator 10:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Sounds pretty fucked up[1]. I'm in! Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 11:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Good writeup too[2]. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 11:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BryDhtGXY9g&t=1m11s, it stops early on in the game --145.94.77.43 (talk) 12:29, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Homeland

I just finished up the first (and only so far) season of Showtime's Homeland, and holy. shit. it was awesome. I'm amazed at how great it was considering their other flagship shows, Weeds and Dexter. Sure, they started out with some promise (though not nearly as much as Homeland), but both went quickly downhill. I urge everyone to check it out. Amazing performances by Mandy Patinkin, Claire Daines, and Damian Lewis, and a great plot that keeps you guessing throughout. Cow...Hammer^time! 14:57, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it is one of the best new shows this season. Showtime allready ordered a second season [3]. --★uːʤɱ socialist 15:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Good show, doesn't do much to help cure Isamlophobia, however. --PsyGremlinHable! 20:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it did a good job of showing both sides. There were plenty of muslims that were perfectly upstanding (e.g. the imam and Carrie's partner), and *minor spoiler* Abu Nasir had a pretty good reason for being pissed off. They made it pretty clear that Islam wasn't the reason for any of the stuff going on. Cow...Hammer^time! 21:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Just how big is the Universe? and how small are we?

this is making its rounds on facebook. Pretty amazing. And to think, god built all that just so humans could "map their journeys and track the seasons". God even made things we can't see! Nice God!.GodotGrow a vagina 15:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

As I recall, that image (or an article connected to it) was one of the most popular articles on CP a long while back. Pretty sure that was RW's doing. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 15:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

It is the hubble deep field or something. I may or may not have masturbated to that picture. TheCheat^{I run on alcohol} 16:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I may or may not have masturbated to your comment. -- Seth Peck (talk) 16:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

BTW, I would love more information on that galaxy mentioned in your link that is too big to form according to our understanding of physics. A simple name to google would suffice if anyone knows :-/. TheCheat^{I run on alcohol} 16:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

It might be wp:UDF 423. Doesn't mention anything about it being too big to exist though. That could well be bogus. Things making the rounds on Facebook aren't exactly a Reliable Source. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 16:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Dick, that looks like it. I was curious if it was a noted anomaly and if its formation could be explained by a large clump of dark matter. TheCheat^{I run on alcohol} 17:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

In one sense all galaxies are "too big to exist" - that's the reason for invoking dark matter.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 18:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Very true Bob, I guess I was curious if this was any different than the already noted galaxy mass anomaly or if it was a freaky thing to itself. I love anomalies >:) TheCheat^{I run on alcohol} 19:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

"Scale of the Universe 2" was released a couple of days ago, definitely worth checking out although I don't know what the original location is, the link I had for it turned out to be 4Chan and was taken down. I have an essay in the pipe that references it. ^postate 16:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

This?--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 16:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Slightly more realistic than the Total Perspective Vortex, but the one problem I have with that GIF is the photoshopping of the moon into the picture. I understand that it's there just for reference of size, but that night-sky shot would be impossible during a full moon. Even if you were sitting on the Hubble taking that picture (or using the Hubble's camera) you wouldn't see all those stars in the backdrop. -- Seth Peck (talk) 16:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Red-hot conservative-on-conservative action

Cruising for gay sex at CPAC. MDB (talk) 15:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Meh... I always say to each their own so I don't find this too funny or weird even for conservatives. However when a dedicated anti-gay republican is caught in an airport bathroom soliciting sex and claiming he just had a wide stance... That shit cracks me up. TheCheat^{I run on alcohol} 15:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay the friend seeker one made me laugh. TheCheat^{I run on alcohol} 15:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course, anyone could have placed those ads as a joke. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 16:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

True enough. I'd say some of them are jokes, at least. MDB (talk) 16:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Council prayers found to be unlawful

Wow, count the logical fallacies both in the article and in the comments![4] Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 15:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I decided a long time ago that if I were ever called to testify as a witness, and they brought out a Bible for me to swear on, I would make a scene about how offensive it was to me. -- Seth Peck (talk) 16:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

You should bring... idk, some science book of note and swear on that instead. Or an encyclopedia. --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 16:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I doubt any book would provide a suitable substitute, as I lack "faith" as others would define it. My promise not to commit perjury should be sufficient under the law, as the penalty for perjury would be the same regardless of where my hand happens to be placed during a swearing-in. -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Fox gets something right?

I guess that they just copied this from the AP feed but it's a remarkably accurate and even sympathetic summary of what's happened crusading human-rights judge Garzon. I guess that Fox just forgot that he wanted to prosecute the Bush administration for crimes against humanity.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 18:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

If the prattle spewed by Fox and Friends every morning is any indication, their memories are pretty damned short—like the time they criticized Obama for wishing Muslims a happy Ramadan, forgetting that GWB did the exact same thing every year. -- Seth Peck (talk) 18:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

You underestimate them, it is selective memory. TheCheat^{I run on alcohol} 19:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Then technically I overestimated them, willing to forgive them for their forgetfulness when it's really out of malice, and they are lesser beings than I thought they were. -- Seth Peck (talk) 23:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I now have a short sig

Happy now, haters? F 18:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Its to colorful. that evokes emotion and emotion should be stamped out! --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 19:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know who told you that6 you have a long sig, but nertz to them. it was fine. GodotGrow a vagina 19:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

One person did, me, and i wasnt that serious, or actually expecting him to do anything with it.--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 19:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

It was definitely long alright, it might of been too long. Are people remembering you or the signature? Why does anything anyone ever says to me remind me of futurama :-( TheCheat^{I run on alcohol} 19:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Unraveling the mystery of consciousness

Bask in the awesomeness of a great Damasio talk. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Fascinating. Thank you. TheCheat^{I run on alcohol} 21:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Found this comic

http://www.hentairulesfiles.net/_2012/aldous_huxley_-_george_orwell,_brave_new_world_VS_1984_comparison.png Any thoughts?Ryantherebel (talk) 23:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Remember that 1984 also had the concept of "prolefeed" so the two ideas aren't entirely mutually exclusive. ^pathetic 23:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I always figured that comic presented a false dichotomy. The cynic in me says we're moving towards Orwell's vision by means of Huxley's. X Stickman (talk) 00:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Ditto Stickman. It's from Amusing Ourselves to Death, somewhat interesting but too much in the "kids these days"/"decline of civilization" school. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 00:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

It's the whole "when our liberties are gone, we'll be watching American Idol not to care" thing. I think it'll be a mix of both if society moves down that path. Osaka Sun (talk) 03:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I was about to say what stickman said--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 04:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I've got friends that just kick ass (metaphorically)

A bit of personal bragging, here.

This is my friend Sharon.

She just received her National Board Certification as a teacher, which I understand is not an easy thing to do.

And she's blind.

Take that, cp:Public schools. MDB (talk) 13:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

This is one of those times I wish RW had a like button. Your friend is amazing, what an inspiration. Sophie (talk) 13:07, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Being a History major but not known much History

So I was in black studies and we had a question about "what has sub-saharran africa (because north of the sahel doesnt usually count in trms of Africa) done as contributions for the world; when i realized, i honestly don't know; thanks partially to a lack of interest in the pre-slavery/colonization topics and partially because I've never really been taught much about sub-saharra africa besides names. (European and American history? No; I learned all about that)--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 16:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I didn't know how fucking ignorant I was on "general knowledge" till I met my husband who was educated in paris. I suppose I could name the major wars we've been in, and a bit about why we were there; i suppose i could find egypt, brazil, on a map; I could probably tell you what a salt is, sorta, or what covalent bonds are, sorta.... But by highschool, they know world events, world geography, science, etc., to a level that most US kids won't get till college. I'm not sure how the UK, Canada or the "land down under" compare, but i truly feel ignorant with him and his friends, his parents, etc. I cannot now, nor could not have when in college, answered that question posed to you. GodotGrow a vagina 16:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

OFFS did nobody here grow up reading almanacs for fun? Go to Geography Bee? Geography rally? Quiz bowl? Ty^Annoy 16:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Considering im one of those nerds who has atlas's memorized in his head; I can still understand that most people just dont CARE about geography. Now this doesnt excuse people for thinking Kazakhstan is a fictional country because of Borat. --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 16:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm a geography nerd too. I do find it amazing that people can't find pretty significant countries on maps. Costa Rica? Sure, I get that, but something like Japan or Spain? It strikes me as mind boggling. Oh, and for you fellow geography folks, give this a try. It ain't easy. It's very easy to skip over some without realizing you've done so. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 16:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I met somebody who didnt know where canada was once; it made me reconsider for a moment my desire to live. --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 16:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd say Sub-Saharan Africa's biggest contribution to the world would be the evolution of humankind. And, by extension, Nelson Mandela. -- Seth Peck (talk) 16:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

@Ty, i read romance novels set in other countries. Taht's teh same, right? GodotGrow a vagina 16:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Why would you read a Romance Novel. --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 16:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

For the sex? F_lucked^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 16:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

@cause I was 14, a geek, into science, wore glasses, and was too smart for most of the guys (I guess - at least that's what all my female teachers said) so the only kissing I was ever going to get near was from a book. ;-) GodotGrow a vagina 16:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC) (heh, Fallacy, that too).

WfG, your husband's French, right? When we moved from the UK to France half way through our children's education (and just early enough for our eldest to have enough time to prepare and pass his Bac), there was quite a gap in knowledge in what one might call a classic education. The French education system is very formulaic it seems. They learn very deeply about classical science, history, geography, languages, something they call civil education (what I call statist brainwashing), and even philosophy in their final year. So they end up with a very good intellectual education, even if it is a little by rote. And of course anti-intellectualism is nothing like as rife as it is in Anglo-Saxon countries.

What they don't get is the wider interest stuff. Schools are not good at field trips or student initiatives. They don't go in for the vocational aspect, unless the students leave school to do an apprenticeship obviously. They have their pillars of learning and very little in between. It's a bit soulless at least from my anecdotal experience of it.

I honestly can't say which I think is better, they're just different. What I do know is that by the time they pass their Bac, the standard of education is very good and their level of general knowledge seems to prevent many of the instances you see in the UK of young adults thinking Julius Caesar was last year's X-Factor winner or that summer is when the earth is closer to the sun. Ajkgordon (talk) 16:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

It does seem very factual based to me, yes. I don't have kids, so can't say what they learn, but for a guy who's from the country of Sartre, deBeauvoir, they didn't seem to do much *thinking*. He doesn't have lots of opionions about things that I yap about like human freedom, and where intellect comes from, and how important religion is or is not, etc. (But that could just be him, since he's a sterotypical IT guy). And they don't have sports, art, creative writing, etc., in their schoools, or I should say he didn't. (he's 40, as well). I was curious how the UK ranks compared to US or some of the european countries. Would the average person on the street know how to find Peru on a map? Or know the name of the leader of China (something I admit i don't evne know), or what money Japan uses, etc? GodotGrow a vagina 17:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The other thing about the French system (and i don't know if this is true anywhere else) is that you get "tracked" very early on, and too bad you, if you don't agree with the tracking. In what we would call 6th grade (so 11?) kids take tests, and if you get certian scores you go to a general track, lower scores a more "occupational" track, and only a few are marked for the higher academic tracks. Then you split again in 10th grade or so. If you want to be a doctor, but didn't have good scores when you were 16, too bad for you! In the US, it's quite reasonable that you could go to a local community college for 2 years, and then apply to quality higher education, even medical training.GodotGrow a vagina 17:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

They do quite a lot of thinking in philosophy but again it's rather formulaic, rather prescriptive. I think the tracking thing has relaxed more recently. Certainly my daughter has been told that even with a languages Bac she could still do science at university - she would just have to take an aptitude test and have a few crash courses in the first term.

One thing I found quite shocking was that taking a gap year is very frowned upon. I still don't know why. Particularly as most French seem to try delaying going to work for as long as possible. Ajkgordon (talk) 17:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and they do have sports, art, creative writing and so on. But it's limited. The schools rely more on external clubs for that, mostly state-owned or at least subsidised. All our kids did or do a lot of sport, music, etc. In fact we live next door to the music school and I can hear my son practising with his rock band through our one meter thick walls at 8am on Saturday! Ajkgordon (talk) 17:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The husband and I watch glee every week and he's always like "they do that in your highschools?" "cheerleaders?" "They get out of school for singing events?" I get the feeling that to him, you went to school and studied, then you came home to learn your violin, your football, etc. Course he was in the Electrical Enginnering/physics track so he didn't do much but study and play video games. ;-) GodotGrow a vagina 19:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Yup, sounds about right. Ours did/do a sort of minimum like PE and playing the triangle at school. But that's fine as they work closely with the clubs. The weekly agenda is designed to accommodate all the extra-curricular stuff like music, rugby, ballet, cycling. Trouble is if the parents don't organise it and the kids have no drive, well then they don't do anything. Ajkgordon (talk) 20:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

"what has sub-saharran africa...done as contributions for the world" I can't say a lot about sub-Sahran Africa. but sub-Sharan Africans created huge parts of the world we live in today. The labour of sub-Saharan Africans built much of the so-called "New World" and created a lot of the wealth that allowed for Europe's development after the 16th century. Moreover, African political systems, cultures and ideas which came over with the slave trade played crucial roles in world-historical events like the St. Domingue Revolution and the development of Maroon communities in places like Palmares. Also, cultures from sub-Saharan Africa were crucial in the shaping of much of the music, dance, cuisine, etc. etc. that make up the cultures of the Americas. Picture a world without rock and roll, or a history that didn't have cheap cotton and sugar, and then ask what Africans have done for you lately. --P-Foster who lost his passwords last hight and is currently IP blocked by MC Occasionaluse.

Perhaps they were indirectly responsible for the American civil war.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 17:29, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Where is SirChuckB when you need him? Refugee^{talk page} 02:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Ironclad would be my go-to guy around here for this question--he would do a much better job than my sketchy answer. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 01:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

You know what i'd like in a game?

When i go over the North or south pole, i show up on the other side of the pole, not the map. thatd be awesome--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 22:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

What the fuck are you talking about? As an aside, remember that game North vs. South? Ace^Moderator 22:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Since we're tripping down Nostalgia Lane, how about "Maniac Mansion"? -- Seth Peck (talk) 22:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

(EC)I do, but it sucked. Maybe if they did a re-release with Lincoln and Davis as playable characters. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I always get the north pole confused with the south pole. Which one is it where pole dancing originated? Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Pole Dancing originated around Ace's pole. Ace^Moderator 22:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know about pole dancing, but lap dancing originated in Lapland. Vulpius (talk) 23:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

So presumably table dancing started on Table Mountain? Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Didn't pole dancing originate in Poland? You know where the Poles dance?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 10:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

In FFVI you can decode a message that says "the world is square" in reference to the fact that the world map is, in fact, square rather than a more sensible ratio. Face it, these worlds are actually donut shaped. ^theist 23:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

So square dancing should actually be called donut dancing? I could go with that. Doctor Dark (talk) 00:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

John Titor

Wow its been ages since i even remembered this guy; but seeing Fallacy go on about black holes reminded me of HimFor those who dont know who he is, which i dont blame you, he's basically this name that popped up on a handful of boards back in 2000/1 who claimed to be a time traveler from 2036; where a civil war started in 2004, nukes in 2015 and omaha nebraska is the new capital of the decentralized US. So; anybody else know of him before i brought it up? --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 07:07, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I remember my friend showing me that back in the day. That was how I found the wonders of Above Top Secret. Behold, the future looks just like the 1980s! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 07:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey man, he had to go back in time to get a computer that could solve the 2038 problem! --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 17:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

A story I've waited decades to see

Senior Sun journalists arrested in police payments probe. Nice to see that cesspit rag take a tumble. Sophie (talk) 13:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

About time. Osaka Sun (talk) 18:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Linsanity

Does God watch basketball, now that that other girly sport is finished in the US?

“”Jeremy Lin did it again. Lin hit a free throw with 4.9 seconds left to overcome a dreadful second half and lift the New York Knicks to their fifth straight victory, 100-98, over the Minnesota Timberwolves on Saturday night.

Hmmm... Jeremy Lin... doesn't sound very WASPish, so probably not. --PsyGremlinSermā! 05:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Lin was born in LA, and Andy has a giant man-crush on him as of today. Check it out. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 05:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

On Greece

I don't think it's a stretch to predict world depression by mid-2012. This will not go down well at all. Osaka Sun (talk) 04:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The optimist in me wants to believe we wont; the cynical optimist wants it to just not happen where i am. the realist says "had to happen anyways" if it does obamas chances of winning plunge simply because its somehow his fault--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 04:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

In terms of historical analogy, the whole thing seems much closer to the Long Depression, where the economies of various nations moved in fits and starts but were still stuck in low gear for a prolonged period. Not a dramatic crash-and-burn, but a slow and dreary slog. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 06:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Though we are in such a unique state of world dependence, that while your analogy is on the dot, it's probably much much worse a wound this time.GodotGrow a vagina 06:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Although politicians are forbidden from saying this, the fundamental economy is fine. The fundamental economy consists of things like people raising cows on a farm, or turning building supplies into a house. That gets beaten up in a war, or after a major natural disaster like Japan's tsunami, but on a global scale it's OK right now. The problems are all in the layers built on top which are supposed to help the real economy function efficiently and are instead barely helping or actively getting in the way. The people raising cows should be able to use these upper layers so that tomorrow's cow meat money can buy today's cow feed, but somehow we've created an environment where the lending that would facilitate such things isn't happening. The strength of the fundamentals means a Great Depression type situation shouldn't happen, except in places like the US where inequality means that may well be exactly what happens. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 10:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Which politicians are forbidden from saying this? And by whom? And why? Ajkgordon (talk) 17:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Saying things are fine when they dont appear fine to the average person is political suicide. --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 17:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

And sorry but your definition of "fundamental economy" doesn't mean shit to me. I like to eat something other than rice and beans, I like to play on the computer, talk with friends around the world, be able to afford vacations to europe or japan every few years. Other people have kids they want to educate, college they are trying to get through, etc. I cannot think of a single person in the industrialized world who would be happy living on your near-subsistence description of "fundamental economy".GodotGrow a vagina 17:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC) (EC) - at Mikalos, it's also not true. things aren't "fine", if you want to live at or near the standards you are currently living.

Ah, yes, "the fundamentals are sound." Where have we heard that before? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

See? Politicians can't say it, because of how democracy functions. It doesn't matter if what you say is true, or if what you do works, the only thing that counts is the impression people have. That's what they'll vote on. What's nastiest for the politicians is that -- because the worst sin left in the 21st century is hypocrisy -- after they say a bunch of things that aren't true because no-one will believe the truth, they're then obliged to live as though the lies were the truth, or be called a hypocrite and lose their jobs. I actually don't know how anyone stands it. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 01:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

BoN has it right that the wealth creation potential, the "fundamentals", are still there. This is not a crisis caused by a sudden drop in productivity. For example, no matter what happens at the stock market, a factory can still produce useful items, people with power tools can still build furniture, restaurants can still serve food and programmers can still write code. It's the upper levels that trade in expectations, promises and bets that are screwed up. This causes problems with the flow of money between the people who provide tangible products and services. A big factor in the crisis is that in many countries, the expectations market is allowed to bleed into the real market, for example by compensating executives in stock or by requiring companies to make write-downs of real assets if their stock value plunges. Here is an interesting take. --Tweenk (talk) 17:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Except BoN is incorrect in equating the "fundamental" economy (whatever that means) with supply. If the demand isn't there, for whatever reason, then the fundamentals are not OK. Ajkgordon (talk) 17:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Bye bye Bjorn

A bit old for a WIGO, but the Great Danish Denialist gets the boot. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

To be exact, he once was a denialist. Now he just says that the focus should not be on cutting emissions, which is debatable but not outright bullshit or denialism. --Tweenk (talk) 23:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

"but not outright bullshit"

Yes, it is. F 23:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

He appears to promote adaptation, which is a solution that should at least be investigated and it's currently mentioned on the IPCC front page. I do not know much about his ideas or their scientific assessment, so I'm not trying to preemptively pick sides here. My current opinion is that emissions reduction should take priority, but some degree of adaptation will be necessary regardless of what we do unless there's some sort of miracle. --Tweenk (talk) 00:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure the emissions will get reduced worldwide any day now. --145.94.77.43 (talk) 03:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The big part of his "solution" is just launching tons of sulfuric acid into the atmosphere. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you are referring to geoengineering, e.g. altering the climate on purpose. I heard about this from other sources. This should be a last resort as it doesn't fix the problem of ocean acidification, but given the current lack of progress (there is more talk about phasing out CO2-free nuclear power rather than coal, which should be the real enemy), we might need to use it to save our asses. --Tweenk (talk) 17:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Very true -- I support geo-engineering research for that reason. Lomborg, however, thinks this should be a top priority. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I want to learn the drums

That'd be so cool -- I'd be like:

ba -- dum -- ba -- dum -- ba -- dum -- ba -- ba dum ba ba dum ba dum dum dum ba dum... ba -- dum -- ba -- dum -- ba -- dum -- ba -- ba dum ba ba dum ba dum dum dum ba dum F 00:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Ha ha. You know, the most important element of music is the length of the notes and rests, not the pitch. Hence why percussion instruments can still play good music. There's something called rhythm syllables which lets you put this in writing somewhat. That would give us a better picture of what you're playing. Or explain what the ba's, dum's, and hyphens are supposed to mean. But that was a good laugh. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 00:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

This is the only drumbeat you need to know Fallacy--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 00:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

No, this is. The Purdie Shuffle. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 01:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Nope. It's this. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 07:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Dick beat me to it, but I was going to post the 18-min. version. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

He could al;ways learn that thing the guy did in his spinning circle drumseat solo. --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 16:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The beat is only half of the deal. The rest is in the performance. X Stickman (talk) 19:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Hell, you don't even need a whole kit. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you guys get what I eventually want to achieve. F 01:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

If you would be so kind to inform me...

...about how long does it take for blood to go from the heart to the lungs and back again, and how much blood vessel must it travel through? As you may remember from a previous discussion, I'm writing a fanfiction of Il Etait une Fois... La Vie, and I feel this information would be helpful. Thanks! The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 00:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

We are not here to do your homework, look it up the same as anyone else would. - π 00:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Why the hell would we know that?--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 00:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh yeah, we were supposed to have a contest to see who had the most done on our respective works of fiction before something or something. F 01:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

You've got a while yet, Fallacy. Peter ^{Monomorium antarcticum} 01:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Can i join this so i can automatically win by having 3 years worth of typed work?--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 01:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, but is it any good? Peter ^{Monomorium antarcticum} 01:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

-shrug- It is to me, but i wrote it so... yah. im in the middle of reforming references to fit the expanded backstory; but im only joining it if im given a 100% chance of winning :P .If you wanna know what it is, its where Henai comes from; something between Sci-Fi and Fantasy (So somewhat space operaish)--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 02:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

You're probably out of these guys' league then, I'm afraid. Peter ^{Monomorium antarcticum} 02:09, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Good or bad out? icould take that many ways, and i demand to be praised for my work --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 02:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

(EC)Put it this way: you've actually written something. Although Fallacy has got alot of planning stuff done. Peter ^{Monomorium antarcticum} 02:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed he does, and its much more organized then mine; all of my stuf is scattered through the timeline document, and a few other documents that have long outgrown the original meaning the titles they have.--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 02:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

They always start tidy. We'll see how long that lasts. Peter ^{Monomorium antarcticum} 02:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

"Although Fallacy has got alot of planning stuff done"

What? I have like four (poorly written) paragraphs done, spread out across like five documents. I'm planning to have a lot of planning stuff but right now, no. F 02:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Planning to make plans is still something. Peter ^{Monomorium antarcticum} 03:36, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I could share one of my more traditional Sci-Fi stories, but i havent done nearly as much work onto those as i have the Henai Project--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 04:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

What's 'traditional sci-fi' in this context? F 04:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

stuff youd normally see in a sci-fi section. I do a LOT of random plot making for alt history, fantasy and sci-fi worlds in my freetime. --il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 05:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I myself am planning a trilogy: The Colour Gray, The Colour Blue and The Colour Red. F 05:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Technically Henai is 5 projects and a bunch of side projects in that wqorkd that dont warrant a project name. the others tend to be just me going "heres a map of the world, lets do x changes" with my narative "the roman empire fell differently" being the most worked on.--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 05:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘What? On top of the Persians?
Ever tried 'the Byzantine Empire survives to this day', btw? Peter ^{Monomorium antarcticum} 06:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

a few times. I tend to create world,s work on them for a bit and then abandon them. The Rome change and Henai are the rare exceptions, besides some work with a scenario set in 2300 involving world war IV.Im a story teller hahaBack on the rome thing though; the biggest early change was they took scotland and managed to hold onto Germania for a while; it did eventually split east and west; with the east lasting a little longer before being destroyed by a civil war.--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 06:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Ken's chicanery

So Kenny is using googletrends to try to prove that belief in evolution is waning (or something, it's hard to say what). He uses this as proof, and yes, it does show that searches for evolution as a percentage of all searches has declined a little over the last 8 years or so. What he doesn't take into account is that google is being used to search for more things than it was before, which means the general trend is lower for most topics, including conservative, conservatism (not sure what the deal is with those flat areas in '04 and '05), creationism, christianity (a significant drop), and Bible. christ is pretty flat, but appears to have a slight downward trajectory. Also, I notice googletrends doesn't seem to label its y axis. What's the deal? Turpis 3:16 (talk) 15:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The Y axis is not the percentage of all searches, it's the search volume (e.g. number of searches for this word). I guess this is either because more and more people notice that if you search simply for a generic term you are going to get the Wikipedia page but nothing really interesting, people are becoming less interested in everything, or they are migrating to other search engines. intelligent design is interesting: after a brief spike in 2005/2006, it is now moribund. "evolution" might be slightly falling, but "evolution of man" and "theory of evolution" are roughly flat since 2007. The flat areas for "conservatism" indicate that there weren't enough searches for this term in these time periods to make a graph. --Tweenk (talk) 17:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure that's what it's measuring? It says that it "analyzes a portion of Google web searches to compute how many searches have been done for the terms you enter, relative to the total number of searches done on Google over time." Besides, with Google's popularity and ubiquitousness growing, I can't believe almost all terms aren't being searched for more than they were in 2004, just because there are more searches total. Instead the general trend seems downward. That they don't label the damn y axis is pretty annoying. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 20:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Oops, you are right. I read section 8 but ignored section 1 of their About page. --Tweenk (talk) 20:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

How the hell do i change my Sig?

I desire to have it so i looks like this: il'Dictator Mikal, preferably in different colors so you know theres links. How do i do this?--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 17:09, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Try "Help", specifically: here Scream!! (talk) 17:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Ahh... i am an idiot... danke--il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 18:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

And now im all pretty =D--il'Dictator Mikal 18:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Happy Darwin Day!!

Ok, this is 3 years old, but the amount of unadulterated stupid Pat Robertson and his acolytes can spew is amazing. At 0:49 - did you know us atheists get together and sing Darwin holiday songs? That this is like the atheist Christmas? With roast Dodo, I assume. Seriously, how do these people breathe unaided? --PsyGremlinZungumza! 17:17, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Through their mouths. -- Seth Peck (talk) 21:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Rank 19 in Battle2P on Tetris Friends

I don't want to brag^{Do You Believe That?}, but I'm only one level away from the highest rank in the game. Yay. F 20:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Holy shit, I'm rank twenty now.

I'm pretty good at Tetris. F 21:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

tetris is nothing but soviet anti-christian propoganda desgined to make people be conformists--il'Dictator Mikal 21:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

You should play tetrinet. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

what i find amusing about spambots

is how often they get sent at websites that are filled with people who would never fall for them.--il'Dictator Mikal 22:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I thought you were gonna say:

-- Seth Peck (talk) 22:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

They play a number's game. It's just like how everyone says that advertising doesn't work on them - but it does, subtly and at a small level. For essentially no cost (running such a bot consumes minimal resources) they can ensure that at least one person, and more likely a dozen, reads their advertisement. And then maybe the next time they want to go on a trip, the idea of ski lodges occurs to them, and they don't remember how six months ago they deleted "Are you interested in getting away? Go on a ski trip this winter and-"--^talk 23:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Greece

Athens is looking worryingly like the Athens in God of War.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 22:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

This looks nothing new from what im used to seeing. you europeans, so uncivilized, cant even protest in peace like us occupyers!--il'Dictator Mikal 22:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Like in Oakland and Denver, right Mik? -- Seth Peck (talk) 23:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Those cities were ruined by liberals! --il'Dictator Mikal 23:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Frickin' frackin'

New study and commentary from Nature. That natural gas "bridge" is still looking like a bridge to nowhere. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Names

I just realized that all of my names are short -- and then I also realized that this is the future, so there's going to be a lot of new names and shit. Argh. MarcusCicero (talk) 05:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

a lot of the names in use today are based on names from 3-1 thousand years ago sooo :P; also, atleast you get to use real names, my world being SCi-Fi/Fantasy means i dont get to use real names--il'Dictator Mikal 05:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Or you can and just claim coincidence. Sethpeck (talk) 05:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I could but eh. one thing to remember is you and me, especially me since the entire story in told in the confines of a galactic civilization; have no sense of scale (because doing things realistically with space is BOOOORRRRINNGG)--il'Dictator Mikal 05:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Like bullshit they are. Realistic sci-fi is way more interesting than 'I have an energy saber and am going to use my magic powers to defeat other humans nowhere near Earth'. Edward (talk) 05:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

OH no, yah, hard sci fi is awesome, but it limits just what you can do without breaking the rules and not being hard: anything involving going to other stars or galaxies is completely out unless you want to do time skips, ect. Unless you wanted to do something funny like Hitchhikers where they have random warships from wars in the distant past show up and start attacking people long after the war was forgotten about because they're engines were slow (so the war of 1812 in space)--il'Dictator Mikal 05:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

In hard sci-fi, it's about being creative. ColbertFan (talk) 05:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Well the story in Henai Project doesnt work with Hard Sci-fi anyways so it doesnt matter in that world il'Dictator Mikal 05:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, The Colour Gray is sort of hard, but the others in the trilogy aren't, so eh. Doctor Dark (talk) 05:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Plus space battles are boring in hard sci fi; we arent doing that :P hard sci-fi is fun but it does limit what you can do, like i said;l so the story canbt be as Funil'Dictator Mikal 05:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think they'd necessarily have to be boring. In fact, a 'realistic' space battle would be refreshingly fun to watch/read. MarcusCicero (talk) 05:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay you're annoying the fuck out of me. It's like that Philip K Dick story they turned into a movie with Gary Sinise who has a bomb in his head. Fallacy (talk) 05:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

You're just mad because I have your name in my substitution repository. Lyra Silvertongue (talk) 06:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

"you are annoying me" for what, having a different story telling preference? --il'Dictator Mikal 06:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Try to keep up. il'Dictator Mikal (talk) 06:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

"Started a sex change at age 8"

I seriously don't know how I feel about this story. I appreciate the trauma of being trans-gendered, and I suppose it is better to start before puberty... but a little voice is telling me 8 is too young. And another is wondering just what influence his two mothers had... --PsyGremlin말하십시오 06:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Eh -- as long as it's what the child really wants, I don't think I have a problem with it. F_idgeter^{talk to me :D|see my shit} 06:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The Daily Fail doesn't fail quite so hard this time, actually. Their only glaring error is rampant pronoun misuse (though they do incorrectly claim MtF HRT raises the voice, which is false - FtM HRT lowers the voice, but the reverse is untrue). But to your point, Psy, the child only transitioned socially, and has not begun a sexual transition. That's the point of puberty blockers - she gets to decide when she's older. And I highly doubt lesbian parents had anything to do with it - this thing happens all the time for heterosexual parents. You've just not heard as much about it as much because it's not as interesting as "LESBIAN PARENTS PRODUCE 8-YEAR-OLD TRANSGENDER CHILD!" Blue (is useful) 06:29, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Psy: here's a movie relevant to your interests which I seem to recall being pretty good when it "came out". -- Seth Peck (talk) 06:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

What you did there, I see it. Blue (pester) 06:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

And another childhood gender story doing the rounds in the UK at the moment. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 08:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

What's happened to that family is just depressing. My favorite is when parents are put at fault for their kids being LGBT. Blue (pester) 08:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Sign her petition! Blue (is useful) 08:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

DONE!--Dumpling (talk) 08:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I think she is so lucky to have such caring and open-minded parents. Considering all the debates about same-sex parenting, I think the fact is that GLBT parents are on average going to be more likely to accept their children for who they are than straight parents, which means that on average GLBTs make better parents than straight people do. And I beheld the Goddess Masturbating.... Praise there be to that sacred sight! (talk) 09:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm guessing the Fail heavily moderated the comments section. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

"Gender" flip flopping

Dr. Phil stated an interesting possible statistic on his show. He said that something like only 20% of transgender prepubes decide to be the "opposite gender" when they get older. I'm doubtful of that but as a pansexual I'm also skeptical that these kids have bought into lies that there are two genders, that a "female" can't have penis or be loaded with testosterone instead of estrogen. Why shouldn't a gender "female" have a "male" sex? Who says they are born in the wrong body especially if they are lesbian? They might not like a male sex now but maybe this is only because they don't want to play that gender role. Hormone boobs can grow breast cancer. Hair can be removed. Strength/testosterone has advantages for gender females. This is much like the issue of prepubes having sex. You have to look at many cases of people who have had experiences with these things and develop a test that reliably predicts who will change their mind and who won't. You know, science? Gender is like race; some people fit the categories nicely but there are enough who don't that it makes absolute generalizations useless or unfair. ~ Lumenos (talk) 18:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Dr. Phil is not high on my list of people I trust about Cis issues. (god, Blue, you've converted me to using that term... i don't even think about what it means, just type it. sheesh). I would trust councilors who are specialists in that area. I do know that the decisions of Cis gendered parents are not in that different a position from the hearing parents of deaf kids. There are so many options on the market for deaf kids, but once you make ANY decision (all of which are highly imperfect) there is no going back. Fit a kid with Cochlear and you literally destroy every bit of natural hearing the child has. you may end up messing up a natural world for the child in exchange for an often painful, confusing, mimicry of "sound". Teach a child to talk instead of signing, or sign instead of talking and you challenge that child with different difficulties for his or her entire life. In Cis, a parent has even greater issues, though similar in that "pretty much what you decide now is not perfect. there is no going back". some surgeries (like cochlear implants) are better before teh child reaches 2 or 3. But surgeries that young could impair the child if you physically or emotionally "get it wrong". All I can say is i think, personally, the parents might even have it worse than teh child, cause they have to watch thier child struggle (assuming they are loving and accepting - i'm guessing many are not), and know any decisions they make before the child is old enough to understand, could have lasting positive or negative results. GodotGrow a vagina 18:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Gender identity has little to do with parental upbringing. I'm transgender but my parents were just like anyone else's, and socially-conservative seventies Wales and southwest England was no time/place to experiment with identities and roles, but here I am anyway, a woman in a man's body. There have been trans people around since Roman times. There's an ok-ish transgender article here, which covers the basics but leaves out the politics around definitions - you thought heavy metal was bad for genre arguments? Try gender politics! I'll try to beef it up (and leave red exclamation marks all over your nice recent changes). Sophie (talk) 19:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm in a bit of a rush so this will be a little more terse than I'd like:

only 20% of transgender prepubes decide to be the "opposite gender" when they get older Untrue, but limited studies have shown this number is less than a majority.

that a "female" can't have penis or be loaded with testosterone instead of estrogen A lot of people, cis and trans both, believe this. Some trans and cis people do not. There is a huge gender spectrum.

Why shouldn't a gender "female" have a "male" sex? BECAUSE THIS CAUSES DYSPHORIA IN A LOT OF TRANS PEOPLE. Not all, but a lot.

Who says they are born in the wrong body especially if they are lesbian? Gender identity and sexual orientation are separate, and there is no causal relationship between them.

This is much like the issue of prepubes having sex. No, it isn't.

You have to look at many cases of people who have had experiences with these things and develop a test that reliably predicts who will change their mind and who won't. Hey, wouldn't that be nice? Unfortunately the entire body of psychologists and neuroscientists have yet to accomplish this, just as they have failed to reliably predict how the young brain develops in countless other ways. Perhaps they will, one day, but it isn't as simple as "Hey, scientists, why don't ya do some science for once?"

Quick concluding note: you should do some reading up on basic issues for the next time you enter a trans discussion. Blue (is useful) 19:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Gotdot, specialists are salespeople. I want to see statistics of how many trans children became cis adults, trans adults or "pangendered"/genderqueer adults.

Sophie, didn't you learn the "female" gender role from your mother and others who play that role? What if our culture had no concept of male or female clothing, activities, makeup, restrooms, cliques, hairstyles, etc? What if there was no homophobia? What if no one had to look different to enjoy the privileges of being a gender or if they didn't require a "sex change" to "pass" as a different "gender" at any age? If aesthetics and roles are merely social constructs, there are only two issues left AFAIK. First is the ability to breastfeed. Transwomen usually require hormones to breastfeed. Second is coitus. Transheteros require surgery for coitus but transhomos can only have coitus if they forgo sex reassignment of the genitalia. Transhomos (transexual lesbians or gays) will lose the sensation of coitus if they get a sex change. ~ Lumenos (talk) 21:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

yes, I did learn about stereotypical gender roles, that was my effing point. Also, cutting out the word salad, and assuming this is what you mean by transhomo, why would, say, an MtF homosexual need to forgo gender reassignment surgery to have sex? they'd need the opposite - ie a vaginoplasty - to become a lesbian, wouldn't they? Also, I seem to be debating Lumenos. Sophie (talk) 21:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Debating Lumenos is never a good idea. "Transhomos will lose the sensation of coitus if they get a sex change?" What are you even talking about? And are you from the 1950s? Blue (is useful) 21:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Everyone please try to remain calm. By "transhomo" I meant transexuals who lust for their same gender no matter the sexual orientation of the ones they lust for. By "coitus" I meant penis-in-vagina sex but it is actually true of any penetrative sex unless the "clitoris" with MtF created is rather formidable. But then I thought that by using a double dildo (eg Feeldoe) it would be possible for both to experience penetration at once, however twice the movement is required for the same amount of total friction and creating a plowing sensation for both partners would not be possible with a Feeldoe. I have in mind some technologies which may allow this. Penis requires no middleman yet has more infectious potential and lacks infinite endurance. Hmmm where would I put my vagina testicles?

Why shouldn't a gender "female" have a "male" sex? BECAUSE THIS CAUSES DYSPHORIA IN A LOT OF TRANS PEOPLE. Not all, but a lot. Oh and this is OBVIOUSLY the dick's fault so chop that off and problem solved? Talk about blaming the victim. Is this dysphoria the product of instinct or "social construct" (homophobia, etc)? Once we know that we are closer to knowing if the dysphoria could be treated without "genital mutilation".

they'd need the opposite - ie a vaginoplasty - to become a lesbian, wouldn't they? No. Vaginoplasty only changes their sex not their gender or orientation. How often have you heard of lesbians who fall for straight girls? It might be nice to have a penis and a decent man costume if you happen to fall in love with a straight girl is all I'm saying.

Gender identity and sexual orientation are separate, and there is no causal relationship between them. I won't argue a causal relationship but a semantic one. If you are born with a vagina and you like men, then you find you are transsexual this means you are "gay" instead of "straight". Now I would think "gay genes" if they exist are hetero genes from females that got into "males" (or transgenders born with penises). Perhaps gay genes are only gay because we called them this, they may actually be female genes. Females are attracted to men because they have "gay" genes. Preposterous now isn't that?! ~ Lumenis (talk) 23:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh and this is OBVIOUSLY the dick's fault so chop that off and problem solved? Talk about blaming the victim. You really have no clue what you're talking about.

Is this dysphoria the product of instinct or "social construct" (homophobia, etc)? Once we know that we are closer to knowing if the dysphoria could be treated without "genital mutilation". Really, it's not mutilation. Reparative therapy ("treating" transgenderism or homosexuality with psychotherapy) does not work. Transition does. The theory that trans people are the result of homophobia or similar social pressures has been thoroughly debunked.

A society free of gender norms and homophobia and all that jazz would not eliminate trans people. Only a society free of sex would do that, but that society would be rather dystopian, I'd think, for most of us as humans. Blue (is useful) 00:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

only 20% of transgender prepubes decide to be the "opposite gender" when they get older Untrue, but limited studies have shown this number is less than a majority. (BTW that statistic was only a vague recollection.) Are you saying that less than half of transgender kids continue to be transgender for the rest of their lives? Doesn't this means it isn't so easy to know if trangender prepubs should be given blockers or hormones? If half the trans kids end up going back to the gender identity they were born with, how would you know if psychotherapy did not help some of them to realize this eventually? If they had a sex change before "realizing" they weren't "transgender", how could you say that sex reassignment (always) works?

This is much like the issue of prepubes having sex. No, it isn't. Errumm yes you are correct there. It is very different because we see transgendered prepubs have a strong need for their body to reflect their gender and if prepubs ever desire "sex" this isn't well known. We know that the desire for sex is common among adolescents and the comparison would be more appropriate for this group. We need tests to determine as best as possible if transgender prepubs should take hormones or blockers before puberty. We need similar tests to determine when adolescents should be allowed or enabled to have sex (before the age of consent).

You have to look at many cases of people who have had experiences with these things and develop a test that reliably predicts who will change their mind and who won't. Hey, wouldn't that be nice? Unfortunately the entire body of psychologists and neuroscientists have yet to accomplish this, just as they have failed to reliably predict how the young brain develops in countless other ways. Perhaps they will, one day, but it isn't as simple as "Hey, scientists, why don't ya do some science for once?"

Well they have to do an experiment for every transgender prepub. Either they give them androgen blockers or they don't. Either they try to convince them to be cissexual or they support their transgender tendencies. Someone looking at the differences in the lives of those whose transexuality was temporary and those whose transexuality was permanent, might find some differences that could be identified early.

~ Lumenis (talk) 05:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

We seem to be talking about different issues here. One is regarding appropriate treatment of trans youth, and the other is about transsexualism in a larger societal context. For the former, I think we are, unbelievably enough, in some kind of agreement about the need for better psychological determination of the permanency of trans feelings at a young age, and more effective puberty-delaying treatment. This is because the earlier transition starts, the easier it is and the less "lifetime lost." For the latter, we can say with some certainty that reparative psychotherapy for post-pubescent people does not work and, depending on the level of dysphoria (which will usually only get worse regardless of therapy), different degrees of physical and social transition are the only effective treatments. Including SRS for some.

Returning to youth for a moment, you have to understand that we condition cisgenderism into youth without therapeutic intervention, and a child really has to have strong feelings to be openly trans. Therapy doesn't convince these kids to be cis - they may naturally decide this later, but not because a psych told them they were wrong about their bodies. Blue (is useful) 20:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ "they may naturally decide this later, but not because a psych told them they were wrong about their bodies" Don't be preposterous. Talk is cheap therapy with inflated snake oil prices. Unless you are in love with your shrink, why would you care what they think? Aren't you concerned about those you are attracted to as friends or lovers? I may prefer having a peenis to having a vagoo, but if I knew that the gerl of my dreams was a lezbean and shee would mary me if I had a vaginee I would have to consider it. If I was born with a vagoone I would need to know of this gerl before having bubes deflated and inflate-o-snausage installed. I suspect the number one reason shemales want to invert their loinhorn is that they want to look normel in a bikini or for secsy time. They should know how many shemalia there are where they could be. Shemalias are those whose sexual orientation is directly centered on completely passable shemales. You would have to know a lot of shemalia before you would have reason to think they were worth keeping the junk in your drawers, in spite of losing the attraction of gynephilisexuals. (Gynephilisexuals are attracted to females with vaginas.)

"you have to understand that we condition cisgenderism into youth without therapeutic intervention" No, lamers do that. What we do is tell them about the aesthetic and functional gender factors. We categorize them like this at first:

• (1) sex
• (2) gonad
• (3) pubertal (aesthetic but for height/strength):
  • voice (some can change voice after puberty)
  • skeletal: facial, hight, hand/wrist/feet/knee size, throat, hip/shoulder width (might effect bone/muscle strength of post-pubertal hormones)
  • (nipple size?)
• hormonal (can be changed after puberty with hormones I think):
  • (4) aesthetic: breasts(nipples?), body/face hair, skin softness, scent.
  • functional: (5) muscle/bone strength, (6) breast milk
• (7) fashion
• (8) orientation
• (9) reproductive
• (10) urination (without squatting)

Three of these are combined into the aesthetic gender factors (pubertal aesthetic, the hormonal aesthetic, and fashion). Most would probably wish to have all the aesthetic gender factors harmonized as either male or female. So the aesthetic gender combines all these into one factor.

This yields a total of 10 gender factors followed by the possible options for each:

• (I) aesthetic: masculine, feminine, mix, (androgynous, none)
• (V) strength: beefy, strong legs weak arms, lightweight, medium
• (V) height: tall, short, medium

• (I) sex: penis, vagina, intersex, none
  • (V) urination: can use urinal?

• gonad: testes, ovaries, none
  • (I) fertility: sperm, uterus/eggs/etc, infertile
• (V) milk: teetz haz milky?

• orientation:
  • (I) gender orientation: androphilia (attraction to masculine gender aesthetics), gynephilia (attraction to feminine gender aesthetics), biphilia, panphilia, autophilia (in love with anima/animus/animi), aphilia (no romance maybe only lust)
  • (I) sexual orientation: androsexual (attraction to penis), gynesexual (attraction to vagina), bisexual, pansexual, autosexual (prefers masturbation), asexual (no lust maybe only romance and love)
  • Here I will list some neologisms that combine both sexual and gender orientation: shemalia (attraction to shemales), hefemia (attraction to hefems which are men with vaginas), androphilisexuals (attraction to males with penises [just the one penis for each male]), gynephilisexuals (attraction to females with vaginas)

I = important to both gender identity and orientation V = importance commonly varies by individual

The importance of gonads is not counted because their importance is reflected in the other factors: aesthetics, strength/height, and fertility. We have five important gender factors: aesthetics, sex, fertility, and orientation. Next we have the variable factors such as the "masculine powers" (strength, height, ability to urinate while standing, IQ?) which are often desirable in females. (It is self-evident that everyone wishes to be able to pee without squatting however less height/bone/muscle mass may require less food and maintenance; perhaps this has to do with the greater longevity of females or lower nutritional requirements.) And finally there is milk (no animals were harmed in the production of this milk).

Next I should make a table to illustrate how the many combinations of the important factors yield a plethora of possible gender identities and orientations. So that is what we do now.

~ Lumenis (talk) 04:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

What. The. Fuck. Did. I. Just. Read. Blue (pester) 06:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Godot, you have to see this (from the Every Sperm is Sacred article)

The Grauniad CiFers in full comedy mode again: a men's rights wingnut twists the "women's individual choice" abortion argument into an excuse that the male spouse shouldn't have to pay for child support. Osaka Sun (talk) 06:16, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Love it! Right up there with requiring anal probes to get boner pills which another woman from a different state proffered. :-) GodotGrow a vagina 06:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, enjoy your ability to love it. As soon as there's a Republican in the White House it's back to the kitchen and Breeding Centers for you... and that would be so much funnier if it wasn't true. ^pathetic 18:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

No kidding. There was a facebook image goign round of a (supposedly) elected official saying "women should be taken care of by men, and should not need to vote." if it's real, the most scary part is it was a female elected official saying it. GodotGrow a vagina 18:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Then it can't be sexist, then. F 18:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The child support opt-out is among the more convincing arguments from the men's rights movement. Getting somebody pregnant doesn't necessarily make you a "spouse" & (IMO) neither party should have a parental obligation if they don't want to. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. If you're the one who put the wang in, then you should (at least) cover some of the costs of the child-rearing after. Osaka Sun (talk) 20:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

& I disagree with that. If you never intended to have a child, you're not obliged to act as if you did. The suggestion that you're then obliged to be a parent whether you want to or not is the same one made by anti-abortion crowd (though for different reasons). Of course, the situation when a family breaks up is completely different & there should be a parental obligation on both parents. But in an unplanned pregnancy situation, where the woman chooses to be a parent & the man doesn't, the welfare system should pick up the child support tab instead. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Then use a condom. Get a vasectomy. etc. There has to be some external force compelling men who don't want to raise a child they fathered, being held accountable. There are measures to prevent pregnancy they can partake in. GodotGrow a vagina 22:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC) By the way, I meant to meantion that this is the one issue that actually has legitimacy in my mind. I disagree with you, but don't think your position is irrational. If i have teh control to choose to have the baby or not, then why do you have to live with the consequences of my choice. So while i disagree, it's not like you are saying the state should have a right to how I live, or the man should. Just that my choice might darn well end up on my plate. GodotGrow a vagina 22:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

(EC) Then use a condom. Get a vasectomy. etc. There has to be some external force compelling men who don't want to raise a child they fathered, being held accountable. There are measures to prevent pregnancy they can partake in. The same could be said for women, and often is by the pro-life crowd. However, the point of the pro choice movement is that, just because you made a mistake, you don't have to suffer the consequences. That should apply to men as well as women. The woman has absolute choice over whether to terminate the pregnancy, since she has the absolute right to make decisions about her own body. However, I do not believe that this automatically gives her the right to make longstanding decisions about another person's legal & financial obligations. That doesn't seem in the spirit of sexual equality or freedom of choice. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

[I don't know the filename for the 'good post' image. :|] F 22:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Goodpost.gif Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I suggest getting potential sexual partners to sign saying that they undertake to pay for any child rearing (if applicable this could be after a preamble explaining that both parties aren't intending the sex to result in pregnancy). My guess is that a lot of people won't sign, but in that case forewarned is indeed forearmed, you have to decide whether sex is worth a large percentage of your take home pay for perhaps two decades. And hey, if that idea took off you might actually get a bunch more adults who've considered the possibility of pregnancy before they get on with the fun business of inserting tab A into slot B. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 02:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

LOL, brilliant! So a man and a woman make a mistake, the woman chooses to keep the baby, but that shouldn't obligate the man into taking any responsibility, but he can obligate everyone else (welfare) to? Hahaha, you crack me up! Ajkgordon (talk) 10:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

As we already discussed above, the woman gets a choice. If she isn't the sort of person who says "Oh, a life-altering surprise, well that's always welcome" she can choose to abort. If she can't afford a kid and wants to keep it anyway after agreeing such a contract then she is the one putting the obligation onto other people. If that's unacceptable (and perhaps in your system of ethics it is) then you need to find a staff of burly men who will "escort" her to an abortion clinic involuntarily. I personally would find that unconscionable. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 11:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Both the man and the woman have responsibility for the child they created, mistake or not. If one of them or both of them are incapable of doing so (financially, socially, whatever), then the state steps in and helps. That the woman has a choice to abort is irrelevant. Man up and take responsibility for your actions. Nobody else should be obligated to. Ajkgordon (talk) 12:09, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you reading what you're writing? Men have to "man up" but women aren't responsible for their choices, those are "irrelevant"? What's the justification? Let me head two off at the pass. One, human life is inherently valuable -- adequately addressed by the thread title. People are valuable, human lives are of little consequence. Two, negative choices are special -- I might buy in some cases but this doesn't look like one of them. Pregnancy isn't like putting money in the charity box, it takes nine months, it's a life-altering change anyway. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 14:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I'm reading what I'm writing, you're obviously not. Of course women are responsible for their choices - where did I say otherwise? The man doesn't get a choice if the woman decides to go ahead with the pregnancy - tough shit - but he still has to be responsible. It's only everyone else's responsibility if he and/or she isn't up to it for whatever reason.

The man and woman both made a mistake - through choice. The woman, because of biology, is subsequently able to make a further choice (have or abort) that the man cannot or should not change. The man has to accept the decision the woman makes because it is her body. The man has to deal with it and take joint responsibility because he was equally responsible for the original choice and there is a burden that must be supported.

This ideological bullshit is what gives liberals a bad name. Handing over responsibility to the state like some sort of entitlement. FFS, grow up. Seriously. Ajkgordon (talk) 14:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually disregard the disrespectful language. I stand by my argument and fail to understand how you can take the view you do but my language was intemperate. My apologies. Ajkgordon (talk) 15:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

One of the reasons laws are there to force men to "man up" is cause women themselves "woman up" all the damn time. Statistically speaking, it is the man who leaves the family, not the woman. It is the man who finds a second wife, not the woman finding a second husband. And here's the thing, if men could just "walk away", then why would they ever take any percautions. "it's her choice, it's her problem". right? Someday, when society is just enhernatly more equal, what you want will probably be the way it is. But as long as the sterotypes play out - that men are less interested in caring for their families (especially in situations where no one has any money), then laws have to step in to force them to take care of their sperm. --GodotGrow a vagina 16:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Weaseloid did specifically refer only to unplanned pregnancy, but yeah. Ajkgordon (talk) 18:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Right, we're specifically dealing here with the case where at the point of intercourse both parties supposedly don't want any kids and (we presume) both are doing what seems reasonable to avoid that undesirable outcome. But what I'm hearing from both you and Godot seems to be "Oh, well if the woman changes her mind it's still up to the man to provide, because that's just the price men pay for sex". Now for me personally it's not an issue (no sex => no risk of pregnancy => no reason to dread a paternity suit), but in the abstract this seems unfair, and I've yet to see anyone explain why this unfairness is a good idea, rather than just assume I should accept it as given.

The divorce statistics can be misleading by the way. I have two uncles who are divorced and I've never looked at the paperwork for myself, but the impression I have is that on paper they're the ones who initiated things. The paperwork doesn't say "My wife tried to stab me in the chest and I had to flee the house with nothing but the clothes on my back" for example. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 23:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

"...(we presume) both are doing what seems reasonable to avoid that undesirable outcome." I think your presumption is naive. Most cases of unwanted pregnancy ^{(citation needed)} are, as you suggested earlier, a mistake. Sure, there may be cases of the woman tricking the man (saying she's on the pill when she isn't, etc.) But in most cases ^{(citation needed)} it's drunken sex or a ripped rubber or a miscalculated monthly cycle or a premature frothy or pure unadulterated hormone-driven passionate sex that results in an unwanted pregnancy. In any case, two people "made" the end result and both should be equally responsible for it. Insisting that the woman has the choice to abort therefore the man should be able to choose to walk away shows a remarkable lack of appreciation of the moral dilemmas that people, particularly women, experience when that choice is considered. Ajkgordon (talk) 23:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Well that's nice, but it's a different topic. We're here in the thread where I pointed out that if you really don't want the responsibility of kids maybe you should talk this through and get yourself a signed contract, and in which I explicitly called out the fact that in practice this probably won't go down very well. Nothing about drunk sex and Catholics who can't count. Also you've referred several times to me calling this a "mistake". I hesitate to once again ask if you're reading your own work, but, you do realise that all the places where it says "mistake" are you writing as Ajkgordon, while I'm the BoN who hasn't used that word at all, right? 82.69.171.94 (talk) 01:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Mistake, as in unwanted or unplanned pregnancy, is implied throughout this thread - I wasn't quoting you. And a different topic? I don't think so. And even if it was, which it isn't, that's how conversations work. Nobody is obliged to stick religiously to your narrow take on the thread. Ajkgordon (talk) 09:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Fine, see below for a thread about your drunk sex scenario. Did you have anything further to say in the discussion we were having before you got sidetracked? 82.69.171.94 (talk) 10:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Ajkgordon's Drunk Sex scenario

So, this is a completely different scenario that Ajkgordon wants to talk about, let's give it its own sub-section. To my understanding (I am sure they'll feel free to correct me) this scenario involves two people whose ability to reason has been significantly reduced by alcohol intoxication and who haven't made any formal agreement not to have kids, but have vaguely implied through their actions that they didn't intend to procreate. It's probably a one night stand, and let's say for the sake of argument that the condom tears during the act. There is now definitely semen in a place where, left to itself, there is a significant chance it will make the woman pregnant.

Now, as I understand it, the question is what factors decide whether the man ought to be financially responsible for a resulting child or children. There are several parameters open for the purpose of making a moral judgement. We also need to understand why we're making this decision. In my opinion it seems Ajkgordon's purpose is punishment. You have drunk sex? Roll the dice and if you're unlucky then too bad your life is now ruined. For me this position echoes some unpleasant arguments made against abortion-on-demand. It is very different from our attitude to other situations in which a foreseeable but unintended thing happens. The cost of your car insurance, for example, includes a significant overhead for people who are (statistically) clumsier than you and sometimes damage another person's car while parking. In fact in the UK it actually includes overhead for people who aren't even insured (the insurers collectively pick up the tab for this to avoid a corner case involving moral hazard). 82.69.171.94 (talk) 10:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Your insistence that I have been sidetracked is incorrect. Your opinion that my "purpose" is punishment is incorrect. Your assumption that the man's life is ruined is shallow. Your car insurance analogy is inappropriate. The issue is simple. Whether or not a man who creates a life without intending to should be responsible for it. I say he is simply because it should be nobody else's responsibility (except if he is incapable and that's decided by circumstance, social services, etc.). That the woman has a choice to abort is a corollary of biology and modern medicine. Unfair to the man? Tough. Ajkgordon (talk) 12:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

We place demands on people to take responsibility for things they never intended quite frequently. Hence why you can criminally charge people with negligence or manslaughter, for instance. Unfair? Yes. But then again people shouldn't be having drunk one-night-stands if they can't put up with the longer term consequences. If you want to use a car analogy, you have safe drivers, reckless drivers and simply unlucky drivers - yet they all made the choice to get into a car and take the risks in exchange for the benefits. Pregnancy is a corollary of sex, and that it takes two people to reproduce is a necessity of the act. Meaning whether intent was there or not, both parties share equal responsibility. There's only one factor that should determine if a man is responsible, financial or otherwise, for a child: a paternity test. ^sshole 13:35, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Quite. Ajkgordon (talk) 13:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

We, of course, can turn the point on its head and ask under what conditions should the mother bear the financial burden of a child. Suddenly that seems a lot different, doesn't it. ^{d hominem} 14:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Manslaughter is relevant in as much as of course you aren't guilty of manslaughter if you took reasonable precautions and they failed. That's called an accident. For example, if I suddenly and for no apparent reason decide to jump the barriers of my local level crossing and go across but I get hit by a train, that would be an accident and not a case of manslaughter by the poor traumatised train driver even though drivers are aware that there's a possibility road users will do that. If instead the driver accelerated past a signal at danger to enter the crossing when it was open to road traffic, and then overrode the automatic emergency brake caused by passing that signal, with the effect that they struck and killed me as I was crossing, that would be manslaughter.

So if we (society) do this "quite frequently" you'll need to find some real examples A. Preferably ones which don't intuitively seem unjust since that would just be helping to make my point. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 15:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that BoN's contention that the father's life is "ruined" by taking financial responsibility says a great deal about the starting point for his position. In terms of "ruined lives" guess which one will be left holding the baby. Guess which one's life is, well, not ruined, but definitely changed forever. A few pennies here and there is a pittance in comparison Jack Hughes (talk) 15:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Similarly, if someone took "reasonable precautions" then there wouldn't be an unplanned pregnancy. That too can be called an "accident". Now, are you seriously suggesting someone can worm out of taking responsibility for that? You sound like you'd be a totally shit parent. ^bomination 16:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

No, that's the whole point of this sub-thread, the couple took reasonable precautions. They used a barrier, just like the railway company. But, sometimes, even though you use a barrier, it doesn't work. That's an accident. If your point is to deny that "a condom" is a sufficient precaution then I think we're into the fine details. Would the male pill be OK? How about a vasectomy? All these things can fail. The resulting pregnancy is an accident. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 23:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

So, BON, if the woman in this scenario decided to not feed, clothe and shelter the baby because she believed that she had no obligation to take responsibility for her "accident," you would also be okay with that? P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 15:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The best thing about this conversation is the title! Ajkgordon (talk) 16:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

You mean if she hands the baby over to the state (or some neutral agency) to look after because she's incapable or unwilling after it is born? Sure, it's everybody's baby by that point, Forcing her to look after it doesn't help the baby or us. The baby will almost certainly become a member of society just like everyone else (assuming it's in an industrialised country where it won't die of some trivial ailment) and it's in our interests as fellow citizens to provide it with the best possible opportunities. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 16:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

No, I mean if she simply disavows any responsibility whatsoever for it. Leaves him in her apartment, locks the door, and moves to another town in order to avoid her responsibility. I mean, if the man can totally walk away without taking any steps whatsoever to ensure the well-being of the child, why can't the woman? P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 16:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh that. It's interesting that you bring that up. It isn't usually an apartment, it's some squalid place where a desperate young woman can give birth out of sight. If she owned an apartment she'd typically be in a position to at least think about caring for her baby. Of course, what we'd like to happen is that the baby quietly and anonymously goes to a good home and the young mother gets proper medical treatment. But there are people, not unlike Ajkgordon, who can't stand to see that happen. For them it's worth the occasional baby dying in a dumpster if they can only catch more of these sluts, who've had sex and aren't taking "responsibility". Allowing anonymous abandonment fills them with rage. Ideally they'd like the mother to pay actual money, but almost as important is seeing her publicly shamed. I guess they're moral descendants of people who invented the punishment for which our own 'A' is named.

Anyway, when it happens I am not "OK with that" in the sense that I think it's a disgrace to society if we aren't doing everything possible to prevent a woman from getting into this situation, and I include anonymous abandonment, universal availability of abortion and proper sex education. And yes, all of these would have to be paid for by people who aren't necessarily having drunk sex. Franklin was right, we must all hang together or... 82.69.171.94 (talk) 17:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

"But there are people, not unlike Ajkgordon, who can't stand to see that happen. For them it's worth the occasional baby dying in a dumpster if they can only catch more of these sluts, who've had sex and aren't taking "responsibility". Allowing anonymous abandonment fills them with rage. Ideally they'd like the mother to pay actual money, but almost as important is seeing her publicly shamed. I guess they're moral descendants of people who invented the punishment for which our own 'A' is named." Seriously, give it a rest and stop being so pompous. That's your interpretation, not mine. Under no circumstances does that describe my views on this topic and I fully reject any implication that it does. Bang out of order and a personal attack. Please desist. Ajkgordon (talk) 17:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

So it's not okay for a woman to disavow all responsibility for the unintended consequences of her sexual activity, but it okay for a man to disavow all responsibility for the unintended consequences of his sexual activity, then? P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 17:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Did you read what I wrote? Anonymous abandonment disavows all personal responsibility for the future well-being of the child. It just doesn't do it in such a way that the baby will probably die. Why is killing the baby so important to you? Have I visited MonsterousAnalogyWiki by mistake? 82.69.171.94 (talk) 17:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

HIs argument will be that "a woman has a choice to abort, therefore in not making that choice, she is making the choice to care for the child either herself or adoption". at least that should be his argument. And logically, i have no argument to that. But the real world does not work in "logic". it works in things like total abject fear of having a baby or having an abortion. Fear of the repraisal of a parent or sexual partner. And, yes, stupidity (often in the younger moms). My problem with BON's logic is that it works only in a society where we actually give a shit about women and do everything we can to not only help them make such decisions, but then support them on any decision they make. Until we do that, BONs argument holds cold. it may be a valid argument "if you give women choice, and they make the choice to bring a child into the world, then they have accepted a level of accountability". but that's not the real world. I live in the real world, and need laws to keep men from leaving pregnant women in the lurch with no financial (and clearly no emotional) support. but i do like the idea of pontificating on akj's drunken escapades. GodotGrow a vagina 17:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

EC I'm just trying to follow your argument that it's acceptable for half of the people involved in the creation of a baby to deny their responsibility to its logical conclusion. If "Anonymous abandonment disavows all personal responsibility for the future well-being of the child," why is it okay for men to abandon the child they created? Why is it only monstrous when the person with the vagina does it? Give me a reasonable argument as to why the man should not be held responsible but the woman should. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 17:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

P-Foster - Wait, what? I think you're proceeding from the assumption that I don't support anonymous abandonment, even though I explicitly said that I do support it. Lemme try it again in smaller words: Baby hatches? Yes please. Put baby in hatch. Walk away. End of responsibility. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 18:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ That presumably still burdens the person with the vagina with a degree of responsibility not shared by the person with the penis. Why should she be responsible for making that decision and acting on it when the guy has no similar burden? P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 18:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

That would be human biology for you, guys don't give birth, no matter how much it would be morally convenient or how much they're legislatively impelled to do so -- there's no social intervention there, just as it's futile for men to complain that they can't abort the pregnancy or breast feed a baby. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 23:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)