RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive150

This is an archive page, last updated 23 March 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>, <144>, <145>, <146>, <147>, <148>, <149>, <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)

Smearing the good name of Dr. Paul!

Ron Paul is a neo-Confederate? You don't say? Scroll to the bottom of the post for a video of the good doctor giving a speech in front of a giant honkin' Confederate flag. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:15, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Clearly, he didn't know that flag was there, and wouldn't have signed off on that flag there had he known about it. -- Seth Peck (talk) 18:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Nah, it's shopped. Clearly an attempt by the establishment to slander Dr. Paul. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:30, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

If I were a libertarian, I would be incredibly conflicted between supporting the most vocal, mainstream, and visible proponent of my ideology (to the extent he is a libertarian, that is) and avoiding him because of his long-running and obvious embrace of support from white nationalists, neo-Confederates, and "white flight" racists.--^talk 20:14, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

The Paulbots of the Austro-libertarian stripe are rabid supporters while most of the "Beltway libertarians" (i.e., the Cato and Reasonoid set) seem to hate him. Check out the Lew Rockwell archives for some foaming at the mouth articles denouncing the Beltway types. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:18, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

RON PAUL 2012 RON PAUL 2012 RON PAUL 2012 La-la-la-la I can't hear you! Osaka Sun (talk) 20:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Libertarian socialism is moving away from central control to local control. Secession is a step in that direction. California has many reasons to secede. California is bigger than many nation states. The assholes in the fed gov continue to selectively persecute medical marijuana users in spite of California law. Slavery is bad, yeah. Nowadays they enslave prisoners of the wars on drugs and sex work. Succession is moving away from supremacy of the federal government. Dems are Reps play this game of who gets to be the supremacist this round. If you cut each other lose you can have more control of "your own" states. I'd be looking for a state with proportional representation so it is a little less easy for the financial industry, etc to buy off every side. Unicow (talk) 08:08, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Dr D G Amen , Brain Health infomercial - serious medical or woo ?

http://www.amenclinics.com/clinics/information/the-science-behind-brain-spect-imaging/

he seems to have good credentials but some of his claims seem extreme. Hamster (talk) 00:02, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

pure fucking woo. We simply do not know enough about how the brain functions to be much help in major diagnosis (skitzopheria, clinical depression, mania) to actually make any progress in a therapeutic diagnosis. There are some really tantalizing coorlation studies in those fields that is helping target drugs and treatments, but they are just in their infancy. we know, for example, in depressed people the hypothalamus shrinks. electro shocks can help it rebalance, and even regrow. we don't know why, exactly.--Godotoi, putain, genial, merci 06:26, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Palmistry for your brain! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 06:34, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Every sperm is sacred!

Williming DE has officially said that sperms are personhood persons! and the moment that a law is passed making women's eggs "persons the law should instantly apply to sperms as well. Making masturbation a dangerous sport indeed. Well, for men. women's masturbation is not problematic as no persons are being killed. here--Godotoi, putain, genial, merci 03:56, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

That sounds like Horton Hears a Who, only stupider. GodothasArrived ^{(super crazy fun time!)} 04:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

It's a council of several very angry women, and a few men too. They got ticked off at one of the various bills being debated on the State house of DE and said "f'it". Godotoi, putain, genial, merci 04:19, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Just an aside, Theodore Geisel explicitly said when he was alive that story was not a pro-life argument, nor did he intend for it to have anything to do at all with the abortion debate, and called out the people who kept claiming that. As does his widow and his estate to this day. --CoyoteSans (talk) 04:23, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Does this mean that if you are a contortionist with extremely large ears, you can curl up and listen to the 'whos' down in 'whoville' below the belt? KnightOfTL;DR^{just shut up already} 04:34, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I didn't even think about that, but it's nice to know. An American Fallacy ^{(super crazy fun time!)} 04:37, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

We actually have an article explaining just that. But, this is veering off-topic, so I digress. I suppose the only solution if I don't want to be guilty of spermicide after a wet dream is to get surgically neutered. --CoyoteSans (talk) 04:48, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

So if a sperm is a person...

Can anybody who gets off be brought to the international court for crimes against humanity? --il'Dictator Mikal 05:35, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Only if people find out. Ejaculation is murder: best done in private, with an alibi. Afterwards you hide your tools, dispose of the evidenc9e and pretend that nothing happened. KnightOfTL;DR^{longissimus non legeri} 05:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to my life as a christian!--il'Dictator Mikal 05:46, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

And bukkake is mass cannibalism. ^sshole 08:35, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

From now on I will mix my jizz with water and speak a prayer so that the little guys can go to heaven. --★uːʤɱ pirate 08:56, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, given the numbers of little people left to die in an old, smelly sock, surely it would be genocide, not murder? --PsyGremlinZungumza! 13:42, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

So, if you were tried for pleasuring yourself, but not convicted, would you get off of the charges of getting off? MDB (talk) 14:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

So can I vote on behalf of all my sperm? Sperm rights! No ejaculation without representation!--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 14:43, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I will have a negative tax rate this year due to my many million dependents. -- Seth Peck (talk) 15:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

What about all the millions of sperm that get wasted for every conception? What about all the sperm that get destroyed and recycled by the body?

Anyway, now I wish I was a sperm in that town: I'd get to keep my human rights, and I'd have space-agey lazers. If you'll excuse me now, I'm going to go taunt some macrophages. They can't eat me, or they'll be charged with murder. Neener neener neener.... The Heidelberg Kid (talk)

Encyclopaedia Britannica goes online only

No longer going to be doing print versions; which, given everything, is probably smart, a online versions more practical then a billion book set --il'Dictator Mikal 05:38, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I read that a few minutes ago actually. It's...kinda sad. I'll miss them. ;___; Mostly for the smell the old ones had.--Dumpling (talk) 05:39, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

i like old books, why i miss my original copy of 1984, it was from the 50's and was cool. my original copy of Animal farm was cool to, had a leathery type binding with one of those strap placeholder things--il'Dictator Mikal 05:48, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

OOOH~ Those are the best!--Dumpling (talk) 05:54, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I grew up with the half-dozen other brands of encyclopedias, the sort that usually populated public libraries, and I have fond memories of completing my various middle-school projects with their help. However, my one instance of contact with Encyclopedia Britannica's website left me disillusioned, because they'd picked a political hack to write their article on libertarianism. (Also, wooh! for my old, dead blog! LONG LIVE THE DECEASED RATIONALBLOGS, which died an unfortunate death when Icewedge forgot to renew the domain name!) Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 06:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

There was a "rational blogs" site? (It would be nice if archive.org was a just a bit faster...) Peter ^{horas non numero nisi serenas} 06:28, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Yup. From way back in mid-2008, it was an attempt at fostering a blogging community that was unofficially-officially associated with RationalWiki. Unfortunately, little came of it, and at it's peak it only had about 5 blogs that infrequently updated. Icewedge owned the Rationalblogs domain name and when he failed to renew it, the blogs disappeared. No one seemed to care, though.

Given how some users already kind of use(d) the site as a blog (viz The Cunning Log of Mei, Armondikov's ramblings, and Sethpeck's "Deep Thoughts", to name the ones' I can immediately think of), we could always look into renewing the project again. See if there's enough interest to sustain such a thing, and all that. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 07:48, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Could be interesting, though personally I presently fulfil my blogging quota at my own (wordpress) site. Peter ^{horas non numero nisi serenas} 07:56, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Wordpress does support custom URLs, so, if you wanted, you could change your blog's domain name from eyeonicr.wordpress.com to eyeonicr.rationalblogs.org. Ideally, we'd convince any existing blogs run by RWians to do so, because having (relatively) established bloggers on board would be the only way to prevent the project from swiftly becoming a deadweight ghost town. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 08:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

That simple, eh? What would you need to set the site up again? Where was it hosted? Peter ^{horas non numero nisi serenas} 08:16, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

That's really a question for the RationalWiki Foundation, I'm afraid. I'll ask Goonie if the Foundation's willing to resurrect Rationalblogs. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 08:25, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed Seth Peck's before, though I haven't seen The Walking Dead so I'll just trust that roasting Georgia like that is accurate. ^sshole 08:46, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

If there was Rationalblogs, I'd create a blog (and talk about subjects which I only have a cursory understanding of). An American Fallacy ^{(super crazy fun time!)} 14:16, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

If we could persuade Proxima to blog on Christianity, Godot to blog on weight loss and feminism and the cold fusion guy to blog on cold fusion that might free up a lot of activity on recent changes.^{— Unsigned, by: 193.200.150.82 / talk / contribs}

Not really sure why that would effect recent changes, since we aren't "bloging" or writing opinions in RC for the most part, but editing articles. Godotoi, putain, genial, merci 16:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Then what do I get to blog on? ...I know, MEMETICS! ^gnostic 21:38, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm amused at the BoN's choice of words; "free up activity on Recent Changes," like Recent Changes was some finite resource that must be carefully preserved, as opposed to being a glorified stock ticker. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 03:49, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

But don't you see, if we make too many edits, it means that someone will miss a critical post in what's going on at CP, adn their world will end. Godotoi, putain, genial, merci 03:52, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the Reds Republicans will win! Peter ^{horas non numero nisi serenas} 03:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

So i love/hate math

So this week math was awesome, actualy the last few have been awesome, more or less; but this one was patheticly easy, it was doing square, cube and X roots and graphs and stuff. Easy, simple, fun. Problem is, i finished both chapters and the homework quizes for it in 30 minutes, leaving me with 2 and a half hours to be bored on friday since i have to do 3 hours a week short of getting 100%'s the week before. Horray for me being stupid last week!^{— Unsigned, by: Mikalos209 / talk / contribs}

It's a hard knock life. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 01:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Great, now I've got Annie stuck in my head--User:Brxbrx/sig 01:30, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Which version of Kelly Watch The Stars do you prefer?

The original version by Air or Moog Cookbook's (the video based on this).Civic Cat (talk) 23:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Drug Testing

So, I've been offered a new job, and I've accepted it. Woo-hoo!

I have to take a drug test for it.

Now, passing it will be no problem for me; I can't claim 100% purity in that regard, but it's been years.

I have two objections to it:

1. I find them personally degrading. Sorry, I just don't like the fact I have to provide a sample of my "precious bodily fluids" to a stranger.
2. Unless you're in a position where public safety is involved, I don't think what you do on your own time is your employer's business. If you're showing up at work impaired, then I think there's reason to request a test. Or if you're, say, driving a bus full of passengers, or some other job where other people's lives are in your hands, I think an argument can be made that you should be tested regularly. (I'm somewhat iffy on that one, but I tend towards favoring testing.)

As an aside, I think there's irony in that the tests are best at detecting if you've smoked pot, and that's the most harmless of the illegal drugs. MDB (talk) 14:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

DON'T EAT POPPY SEED ROLLS - dead seriously. There's enough opium in the poppy seeds they put on, for example, bread rolls to fire off a false positive. This is a major issue with US prisons and drug testing. I'd find some refs but I thought I'd get this up here first. Jack Hughes (talk) 15:23, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Here you go As confirmed by Mythbusters. Jack Hughes (talk) 15:26, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

To me drug tests seem useful for one thing. I believe they can only test whether you've taken a hard drug (cocaine, heroin, etc.) in the past few days. This means that if someone knows they have to take such a test, and fail it, they can't stay off coke or smack for a few days. That's probably not going to be a good employee. The annoying thing is that it can test positive for pot several weeks later, which is much less of a problem. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 16:03, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm torn on drug testing. but at the same time, i know that pot, specifically, can effect you for hours after you smoke and I don't think people realize that. Given how stupid my teen relatives were when stoned, i'd not want them anywhere near anything to do with any job. --Godotoi, putain, genial, merci 16:11, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd better switch my morning "everything" bagel to sesame seed then. MDB (talk) 16:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

One thing that gets me - we've had testing for one of the most serious drugs around available since the sixties and yet they've never used it, indeed, they still don't. Why don't they test for alcohol? I'd rather my co-workers were high than drunk. Jack Hughes (talk) 17:19, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I have done testing several times at work and alcohol is very much part of the analysis. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 20:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and in Russia alcohol is pretty much the only one they do test for. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 21:53, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone pass? I don't know myself whether that's a serious question or not. Or is it one of those situations where you just have to know who to pay off? We read a lot about endemic alcoholism and corruption in Russia but I've always wondered how true it is. Doctor Dark (talk) 01:08, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Drug test

Alcohol testing is usually done on site rather than blood/urine analysis, also completely random (a colleague complained he'd been selected twice in three days; yes that's what randomising does) and when people really need the money then they can't afford to fail. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 10:05, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

You're right. It is degrading. It's just letting you know up front that your new employer doesn't trust you and views you as a potential criminal. Nobody should want to work for someone like that. It was one of the many things that pissed me off when working in India, watching white collar men and women have to line up to be searched on the way out of the building as if they were all potential thieves. Fuck companies like that. I'd say get a job with someone else as soon as possible. (BTW, showing up to work impaired whether by illegal drugs or legal ones is still not reason to ask an employee to submit to a drugs test. It's a reason to fire them, it's gross misconduct. There's just no good reason to do drugs tests.) --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:00, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

What kinda drugs are they testing for? Alcohol, nicotine, caffeine--the world's most popular recreational drug, or maybe Viagara, another common recreational drug.  :-D  Civic Cat (talk) 21:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

In safety critical roles it seems reasonable to choose to check specifically for drugs which impair performance. So, not really nicotine or caffeine. Sure, those aren't very good for you, but they probably aren't significant contributors to the fact that e.g. you let a train roll backwards 2.5km down a hill. For "safety critical" the acid test is: If you call your employer just before work and tell them you're feeling really tired, do they say "For fucks sake stay home and get some sleep" or "You'd better be here or you're fired" ? If your work is genuinely safety critical nobody wants you doing it when you say you're tired because you're going to get people killed. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 01:19, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, if you fly airplanes, you don't toke for a week or two. If you're a right wing radio talk show host, it might improve performance.  :-D  Civic Cat (talk) 01:32, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Don't be silly. Oxycontin is the drug of choice for right wing talk show hosts. Well, one of them at least. MDB (talk) 14:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Greenpeace-approved sillyness

I just read an interview in which a Greenpeace 'expert' says that "the risks posed by climate change is comparable to the risk associated with the operation of nuclear power plants" (Google Translate link). Erm, so he says that nuclear power kills more than 300,000 people per year?

Let me pull some outrageously pessimistic numbers out of my ass. Let's assume that nuclear power plants worldwide kill 32,000 people per year when operating normally, or 12.5 deaths per TWh, which is half the death rate of coal when excluding climate change effects. Let's also assume that the pseudoscientific turd by Yablokov is correct, and Chernobyl killed 1 million people. Let's also assume that Fukushima killed 100,000 people (Fukushima had 10% of Chernobyl's radioactivity release). Let's also add the highest estimate of Hiroshima and Nagasaki dead: 250,000. We get a total of 1,350,000 deaths from accidents. Nuclear power has been a major energy source for around 30 years, so the accident and baseline rate combined would give an average death rate of roughly 95,000 per year. Even this utterly bullshit estimate is only 1/3 of the climate change death toll. The realistic estimate is 1500 per year (0.66 deaths per TWh [1] * 2558 TWh/year) which is roughly 1/3 of the death rate from road fatalities in Poland.

If what he said was true, there would be little reason to worry about climate change. I don't think this level of organizational cognitive dissonance can last forever, so I wonder what will happen earlier: Greenpeace quietly endorsing climate change denial or Greenpeace quietly endorsing some form of nuclear power? --Tweenk (talk) 02:37, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Tweenk, I gotta say, it's real good to have you here to clear up the lefty/hippy bullshit that creeps around. You're an asset to the wiki--User:Brxbrx/sig 03:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

People forget that when they quote statistics or probabilities that they actually mean something. ^{d hominem} 09:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Maybe he lives in some strange alternate universe where the promise of nuclear power leads only to supervillains holding the world hostage by retrofitting them as enormous atomic bombs, threatening to blow countries like France off of the map, resulting in hundreds of thousands of deaths in catastrophic events. So basically maybe he comes from a universe written by Marvel or DC when they're trying to end a timeline so they can reboot it in the next series of issues?KnightOfTL;DR^{just shut up already} 14:32, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The stupidest candidate in the race

For a long time I thought the clear winner was Santorum, who is an idiot through and through, but now I see Newt is trying to give him a run for his money. Here's some things he's said just in the past few days:

1. He won't quit the race because he doesn't want to give the nomination to Romney. Of course the main thing preventing Santorum from posing a serious challenge is Newt's continued presence on the ballot.
2. He thinks a long drawn out primary is good for the Republicans because the Democrats had a long primary in '08 and they won. Apparently in Newt's world co-relation doesn't just simply causation, they are one and the same. In reality, this primary is the direct opposite of the Dem's 4 years ago. Their primary went on a long time because they had 2 popular, credible candidates with very strong and loyal followings, and it was difficult for many voters to choose between who was the best one. Now we have a handful of guys who no one likes, and the reason it's still going is because no one can decide which is the least reprehensible. The fact that at this stage "anyone but these guys" is still a popular option shows how sad they are.
3. He hopes to go to the convention, where he imagines he'll come out as the victor. The problem is, if there's one place where the establishment picks their favorite, it's at the convention (they're very conventional there). Newt has no support from them, and is making it worse by staying in the race.
4. As a precedent for his brokered convention approach, he uses Warren G. Harding as a model. The same Harding who is generally near the top of any "worst President ever" list.
5. He still thinks his $2.50 gas idea is going to be a game changer. Even Ben Stein thinks this is idiocy.

Are we sure this isn't Sacha Baron Cohen in a fat suit? Turpis 3:16 (talk) 03:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Everyone's ignored him since the moon base brouhaha. It's best to leave it that way. Osaka Sun (talk) 06:14, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I think at this point, Gingrich and Santorum probably both know Romney will be the nominee, but they want to fight for who gets second place. Why? Because the Republicans tend to give the nomination to whoever's "turn" it is, and as a good a definition of "turn" as any for these purposes is "the guy who came in second last time." So, basically, they're fighting for the 2016 nomination. (I've heard the idea that Paul is staying in the race, in part, to build a base for his son.) MDB (talk) 16:15, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

New abortion bill - can someone explain?

So the newest Wisconsin bill to pass house and senate says that a woman may not buy PRIVATE insurance which covers abortion. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm inscensed about the whole thing, but i'm really having a hard time understanding how "pro free market" republicans can agree to a law that denies corporations the right to attract clients/customers any way they want. if the insurance racket think's its more cost effective to proved coverage for abortions - why does the state care? (I'm guessing this will go down in any judicial review, but we'll see). huffpo --Godotoi, putain, genial, merci 03:12, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Social conservatism > financial conservatism? Peter ^{horas non numero nisi serenas} 03:19, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

They're pro free market, except when they aren't. ^bomination 08:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I think that the reasoning is that they are pro free market because they want to be able to do whatever they like, but when they can't get their own way then they obviously need to legislate so that they can. Pongo^{Orangutans are sceptical} 09:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I have a old quote buried somewhere on facebook that perfect for this. it went around the fact that being a social conservative and being a small government conservative; were two mutually exclusive concepts. --il'Dictator Mikal 10:06, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

If you wanna become a state you gotta speak english; it's a law

Santy to Puerto Rico: we'de love for you to join us as the 51st state!, but first, you gotta stop speakin that dirty spanish and do english as a primary language. Why? Cause thats a federal law. --il'Dictator Mikal 10:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

He's just saying what a lot of them are thinking. The whole movement to make English the official language (which is pretty popular in the conservative camp) sort of depends on Puerto Rico not becoming a state. With every current state, regardless of how large non-English speaking minorities are, they can make the case that English is the majority language, the language government is conducted in, and the de facto "official" language already. If suddenly we were to have a state in which nearly 90% of the population doesn't speak English at an advanced level (according to WP), and try to impose English on them, it'd be a huge mess, and the best argument the opposition would have to oppose such a bill. And we'd have to redesign our goddamn flag again, with a really odd number of stars this time. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 14:11, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The obvious solution to the flag problem is letting Texas secede. Vulpius (talk) 15:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

or splitting some states so the rural, republican part can actually make its vote count against the democratic cities. Cali and new york come to mind.--il'Dictator Mikal 15:15, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Cali is a swing state and with the exceptions of the Bay Area and Los Angeles county Democratic bastions are thin spread. But if you want to reform the American election system so that the voices of the fringes are heard more, tear the whole thing down and start from scratch.

I generally don't understand what the big deal is with having only more than one official language, especially in the US. So the second language would be Spanish, that wouldn't mean that all of a sudden Congress and the President would have to speak Spanish. The only thing that would mean is that every law, department what-ever and press release would have to be given out in Spanish too, or just bilingual to start with. It doesn't mean everybody has to learn Spanish... For fucks sake, if a state like Switzerland can operate with four official languages, America can deal with two... --★uːʤɱ pirate 15:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I only mind since i picked german in high school and college haha. as for the vote, my thing about letting other groups get a voice heard comes from the fact i live in nebraska, a solid republican state if there ever was one. us liberals here dont get lots of influence in things, especially the farther west you go.--il'Dictator Mikal 15:49, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The idea of having an official language of the USA is a little ridiculous, and really would only serve to exclude people who may not speak english as a primary language, at least in my eyes. There are perfectly legitimate people in the USA who may not speak english as a primary language (How about users of American Sign Language) who would then face even deeper social stigmas that their language is somehow worse than english in the USA? I do think that some service jobs and government employees should have to be able to speak english for safety purposes if their job involves dealing with a lot of english-speaking people (Somebody almost got themselves killed on my campus because an employee wasn't able to answer a question about food allergies) but the idea that english should be a point of national pride is a bit silly. KnightOfTL;DR^{just shut up already} 16:02, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

You can make sign language an official language too, you know. Peter ^{horas non numero nisi serenas} 23:47, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't call California a swing state. They may have been in the 80s, but they haven't voted for a Republican president or elected a Republican senator since then. Turpis 3:16 16:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘What's really burning-head-stupid about Frothy's assertion is that it underlies a complete misunderstanding of the Constitution, as well as Puerto Rico. Nevermind his misunderstanding of the Establishment Clause/First Amendment, or that he thinks a president has the power to overturn Roe v. Wade; for a U.S. territory to become a state, it's up to the territory to make the decision to join the union first. Sure, there are requirements to be met, like population, but there's not a damned thing in the Constituion regarding language. Furthermore, Frothy appears to believe that the American two-party system seems to extend into PR. It does not. There are actually three dominant political parties in PR:

1. New Progressive Party: wants PR to become state #51
2. Popular Democratic Party: wants PR to be a commonwealth (e.g., not an uncorporated territory)
3. Puerto Rican Independence Party: wants PR to be its own country.

Furthermore, given the number of Catholics in PR, you'd think the Republicans would actually want to have Puerto Rico join the union. Talk about a tie-breaker! -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:19, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Depending on the context of the quote, it's a bit unclear as to wether he believes the law says English has to be the language, or whether he's just saying "if you want to be a state you better learn English". For the legal point there's no denying he's dead wrong. If he's trying to relate the reality of the situation, he might be right, at least as long as the GOP can filibuster. I'd bet there's at least one Senator who'd filibuster Puerto Rican statehood on the language issue, and I'm not confident enough would go against it to override. These aren't exactly guys with a hell of a lot of scruples. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 02:52, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

well that's better

now to avoid productivity..... joya^{BAD KITTY!} 13:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

hoily shit. that wasn't better at all. joya^{BAD KITTY!} 14:13, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense. Тy^No 14:15, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Fiksed nao. PS, where do I send the exes for burning. Yes, they are all witches. Or bitches. I can't remember which, but most of the letters are the same, so it still counts. --PsyGremlinSermā! 14:18, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

now it is, thanks to ty being awesome. I have a roommate who is perfect for the stake in case the exes are too wiley joya^{BAD KITTY!} 14:24, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Goldman keeps it professional

Who were the beneficiaries of their "shitty deals"? Muppets! I love these guys. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 15:32, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a shitty deal to me. In fact, it's such a shitty deal that I may have to go around telling people it's a shitty deal for the next month or so. The Symphony of Punk ^{Can't sleep, clowns will eat me!} 16:57, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

This will complete your day

Darth Vader, wearing a kilt, on a unicycle, playing the bagpipes.

No, really. Darth Vader, wearing a kilt, on a unicycle, playing the bagpipes.

I have to say that again: Darth Vader, wearing a kilt, on a unicycle, playing the bagpipes. MDB (talk) 18:27, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind. The link quit working. MDB (talk) 19:00, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Couldn't have been as good as the pic my friend showed me of Chewbacca riding a kangeroo. Or amything in my pop up star wars AMassiveGay (talk)

Can find it through Google image search. Didn't really complete my day. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Dude, the internet is full of shit like that; it's kind of lost its shock/awesomeness value. GodothasArrived ^{(super crazy fun time!)} 22:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

YouTube version. --Tweenk (talk) 00:44, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

More awesome than a monkey wearing a tuxedo made out of bacon riding a cyborg unicorn with a lightsaber for the horn on the tip of a space shuttle closing in on Mars, while engulfed in flames? ^{d hominem} 00:52, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

http://imgfave.com/view/1598221 . 86.166.152.230 (talk) 18:37, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

How the fuck

do these wandals get away with repeatedly wandalizing from schools, corporations, and government agencies when I get questioned by IT whenever I do harmless vandalism reversions on Wikipedia from any institutional setting? DMorris2 (talk) 00:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Clearly it's an issue of cunning. Peter ^{horas non numero nisi serenas} 00:23, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

A good portion of vandals (particularly one's from schools) probably aren't even computer nerds though; they just see that button and think it's cute to write their friends' names on articles. Then they do it again, and again, and again, and again, until the IP gets schoolblocked or anonblocked and then they do it from home, and then they end up being a notorious sockmaster with an entry at WP:WP:LTA. And many of them some how don't get caught unless somebody at Wikipedia calls and complains. Interestingly, it seems to be the same cycle at Conservapedia. DMorris2 (talk) 00:34, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

And some of the wandals at Conservapedia are people that started wandalizing at Wikipedia. It's actually very common to see wandals' residential IPs from checkuser have a long "record" at Wikipedia too. Interestingly, some, but very few, of the vandals at Conservapedia also vandalize RationalWiki. DMorris2 (talk) 00:42, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Fucking ediots and channers most likely. ArchieGoodwin (talk) 01:26, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

If that's the case, there must be EDiots and channers in every high school click, because I've on occasion plugged names spammed in articles into Facebook, and often it's people not the least bit "nerdy" looking; I see A LOT of cheerleaders and sports players, some band members, some prom queens/kings, some ROTC kids, some dancers, and other kids that don't seem to be the anon type. Before anybody says they're just spamming the popular kids' names and it's not actually them doing it, I used to sometimes send them messages about it back when I was still in high school myself and it was less creepy, and often it was close friends of their's, and sometimes it was the person themself that posted their name on Wikipedia. Then again, anonymous members are "anonymous" and nothing really surprises me anymore. DMorris2 (talk) 01:43, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, in one sense yes, there probably are lots of high school kids on 4chan. However neatly dropping a high school student into a slot like "nerd" or "prom queen" is lazy stereotyping. It's OK for a two hour movie when we have no time to do character development on every student in a class of 30, but the real world is not a Hollywood movie. "Prom queens/kings" is a particularly useless label. Nature doesn't care about our ideas of being "born equal", it's perfectly content to ladle beauty, health and intelligence into one individual and give the next nothing. So the "prom queen" may be a future Supreme Court Justice who finally dies in her sleep aged 95 leaving a nation mourning her loss, while the plain-looking girl from next door struggles in all her classes, then drops dead of an unsuspected heart defect at age 19 and even her classmates have forgotten her by next summer. "Life is unfair. Kill yourself or get over it" is how the song lyrics go, right? 82.69.171.94 (talk) 10:51, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, when I was in high school, there was a cheerleader in one of my classes that knew what all of my technical computer jargon meant, sometimes even when the anonymous worshipers didn't, and I knew a 4chan fan that hadn't heard of the wp:storm worm, one of the most badass (and most ridiculous) viruses/botnets that ever existed, but tried to say Anonymous is a better hacker group than the ones who made the storm worm, essentially trying to say that Anon is better than anything else. Additionally, being in honors classes and having a 4.0 was an "in" thing, and the students in them were mostly popular kids, and our prom queen was one of the nicest (and prettiest) girls in the school, unlike in movies where the prom queen is usually snotty and bitchy. It was nothing like Hollywood movies. DMorris2 (talk) 12:24, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

You should consider going to therapy about this cheerleader obsession. 12:53, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Whatever NR, I state a fact and I have a "cheerleader obsession." My point is, a lot of the school vandalism at Wikipedia comes from people one wouldn't expect to be a stereotypical "EDiot" or "channer"; I guess after seeing enough vandals on Wikipedia that appear to be cheerleaders, and having a vandal who goes by "LBHS cheerleader" screw with some articles I had been building and tweaking at Wikipedia, one starts to associate wiki vandalism with cheerleaders and some people see it as an obsession. I sometimes forget how much in love this wiki is with that stupid little troll here whose name escapes me at the moment, you know, the really annoying one that I consider to be a pathetic LBHS cheerleader wannabe. DMorris2 (talk) 23:34, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Jesus, this is long for a message so simple to get across

Drink whenever you see the '"I need to know I can still count on you"' picture. An American Fallacy ^{(super crazy fun time!)} 06:08, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Thankgoodness I'm a minor... Peter ^{horas non numero nisi serenas} 06:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know which part is funnier...."My office owes 82,462.60 to Larry" or the part about the homosexual inner sanctum super seekrit warehouse where they *gasp* write up petitions! ^{— Unsigned, by: Joya / talk / contribs} 06:49, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

oops joya^{BAD KITTY!} 06:57, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

What is "Thought Control" (capped) in homophobe parlance? --Godotoi, putain, genial, merci 14:33, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Hate crime/speech law, I'm guessing, but it could be anything, since he never really refers to anything directly. An American Fallacy ^{(super crazy fun time!)} 14:42, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Russell Brand

Since Steve Jobs died I cannot bear to see anyone use an iphone irreverently, what I did was a tribute to his memory. I, for one, am totally convinced. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 11:51, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

How is Russell Brand a Star? He is but 1 step above Reality TV in Celebrity Hierarchy. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:16, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I hope they assess double damages on him for iDoucheBaggery. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 12:38, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

He should be but 1 step above Reality TV in Celebrity Hierarchy, but since he seems to bizarrely popular & gets cast in proper movies etc., unfortunately not. & It's mostly down to attention-grabbing crap like this. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:00, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

James Madison's Notes

James Madison's notes on the Constitutional Convention have just been put online. This should be a useful resource for discussions about what the Founding Fathers really thought. Here's one brief quote-mine: "Reason tells us we are but men: and we are not to expect any particular interference of Heaven in our favor." TerrenceKoeckring (talk) 21:58, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Calling all Brits

Anyone willing to take on this research proposal? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:08, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I wouldnt be surprised, given who OWNS the news media these days--il'Dictator Mikal 03:10, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Our standards feel... kind of low,

I'm serious, compared to the big wiki. Decided to look up the haemocytoblast. The article looks just like a RW gold-brained article, maybe even a bit better. Yet the article doesn't even get a "good article" rating (equivalent to a bronze here). It feels like we may need to raise our standards here.... Just sayin'. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 01:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Who the fuck are you to tell us our articles are shit HBK? --il'Dictator Mikal 01:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Mikalos, chill the fuck out. --User:Brxbrx/sig 01:14, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

You chill the fuck out, CamilleT. DMorris2 (talk) 01:17, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

"Shut up, Brx."ArchieGoodwin (talk) 01:24, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

We do our best. But we don't want to end up like Citizendium. This is a small community compared to WP's millions of users.--^talk 01:12, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This wiki is more casual, and we're still sloughing off chunks of its past (fun space, CP space). There are also several projects meant to improve article quality, like the better references project or the article rating project (which you're well familiar with...). I think that if we can have all new articles rely on plenty of references and if we continue to add references to our older articles, we'll be looking real good.--User:Brxbrx/sig 01:13, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) RationalWiki has always had low standards, just look at how easy it is to get sysop tools here. It's always been a layed back wiki, and I think it will crumble if anyone tries to make it into anything else. DMorris2 (talk) 01:14, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

From what I've seen around here, articles get rated whenever someone goes on a wikiwalk. ArchieGoodwin (talk) 01:24, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Rationalwiki is not an encyclopedia. Comparing the two is just stupid, 'cuz they're not at all the same thing. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 01:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Moreover, Wikipedia is a hideously bloated bureaucracy. There is no cabal, but there is a legion of individuals with their own set of priorities and political goals that make editing anything on the site at all an exercise in arbitration and protocol dancing. Before it ended, Wikitruth exposed a lot of the talk page politics and bureaucratic nightmares that lay just under the entries of Wikipedia (much like how this wiki exposed the authoritarian regime that lies within Conservapedia's talk pages). We have our own set of rules and standards, but we don't make them so tight they choke us to death. --CoyoteSans (talk) 02:22, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Then again, issues aside, they are very successful at what they do, so go figure. GodothasArrived ^{(super crazy fun time!)} 02:27, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

as are we--il'Dictator Mikal 02:29, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

What do we do, anyways? An American Fallacy ^{(super crazy fun time!)} 02:32, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I imagine you like to hang out at the Wikipedia Review, CoyoteSans. The fact is, Wikipedia is the largest and best online encyclopedia, and it gets better everyday. User politics are inevitably subsumed by their structured bureaucracy, and if you don't make bad edits, you won't get reverted--User:Brxbrx/sig 02:35, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

You really believe this? Wikipedia Review participants include the most experienced Wikipedia users, arbitrators and ex-arbitrators, and, yes, many disgruntled users. Nobody who has done much serious work with Wikipedia, in areas where there is controversy, has not experienced good edits getting reverted. Sometimes this is caught, sometimes not. The one thing on which everyone knowledgeable agrees is that the process isn't reliable. It does often work, which is why Wikipedia is as good as it is.

But Wikipedia never valued the labor of ordinary editors, and it wastes it, every day. And, yes, article quality can decline, which happens when "good edits' are reverted. Or are mixed with poop by Randy from Boise. As long as it doesn't look like vandalism, and, even then, sometimes it escapes notice for years. Many long-term users have left in disgust (including myself -- while I was eventually banned, it was after I formally raised my middle finger. User:Abd). As to "user politics," hah! Dream on! There is no "structured bureaucracy." That's directly contrary to what Wikipedia says about itself. What it actually says is misleading, as well, but so what? There is a caste system, i.e., administrators and non-admins, with the vast bulk of the work being done by non-admins, but most real power being in the hands of admins, who are, unless they offend too much of that supposedly non-existent political core, administrators-for-life.

If an administrator decides that an article shall be a certain way, the "policy" that administrators have no extra power is almost completely useless. ArbComm rarely enforces it. You could spend a month on a case -- I did -- be confirmed by ArbComm, they say to the admin, now, Don't Do That! Be Nice! And then do nothing when the admin completely ignores it. The system only works if enough administrators and users can be arsed to get involved, and the best burned out long ago. Overwhelmed by the onslaught of drek and nasty users. They collect there.

RationalWiki and Wikipedia are not comparable, at all. Different purposes. I'll reserve comment on RW, after all, I've only been active here for a few weeks -- and I'm mostly Out Of Here. Just saw this. --Abd (talk) 21:12, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I love both Wikipedia and Conservapedia, but they both have their flaws. DMorris2 (talk) 02:42, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Brx, I have never made a single edit or account at Wikipedia, nor have I ever been to this Review you mention. I have no desire to get mired down in that madness. That's why I like smaller wiki's like this: common sense is more potent when the community is smaller. --CoyoteSans (talk) 02:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

PF is correct. Also also, I read, in a typical week, probably 50-100 articles on WP (don't ask why), and again, typically, fix issues in about half of them. Give us a dozen years and a million editors and we'd be... well, boring, probably. ħuman 03:19, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I pissed away most of my high school years on Wikipedia. DMorris2 (talk) 12:25, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

So did I, but you don't see me ragging on about WP. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 23:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

The right and proper things to be deleted

Read the comment the nihilistic opposition DOESN'T WANT YOU TO READ [2]

Already this stirs controversy. [3]

...and has instituted a chicken coop discussion complete with retribution plan preprepared for your convenient voting.[4] Now is your chance to rectify! Unicow (talk) 00:14, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps, like Dawkins, he has become an agnostic too?

Refusing to debate me on the divinity of Christ after I emailed him a challenge, the Archbishop of Canterbury is stepping down in order to avoid a debate! Perhaps God has turned him into a chicken? How many more Christian leaders will resign in order to avoid debating atheists? Operation Plasmic Orchestra is going full throttle! Ole ole ole! Turpis 3:16 (talk) 14:32, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations on your fine victory. I'm mostly concerned with the picture illustrating the article. Phil clearly is infected with some kind of zombie plague and is on the verge of biting the bish and then eating liz's brains. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 15:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams to stand down Perhaps he's finding the job too stressful at his age. The big question - Who will replace him? By the way Magdalene College, Cambridge is pronounced, "Maudlin College" but spelt as above.

Is Rowan Williams having serious religious doubts? Your guess is as good as mine. A leading figure in the British establishment won't "let the side down" by admitting to being an archbishop with religious doubts or by giving any indications about doubts. Proxima Centauri (talk) 19:04, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah maybe. Or perhaps the Illuminati who gave him his position now have other plans for him in the New World Order, or a more suitable replacement who will be better equipped to mobilise the Anglican Church into a merciless crusading army and help bring about the global apocalypse. My baseless speculation is just as good as yours. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 10:48, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

In his resignation speech Williams said, "I don't think that there is somehow a single great argument that the Church is losing." [5] Well Dr Williams, you're a scholar and an intellectual, try looking at this website and you'll find plenty of important arguments that Christianity is losing. Proxima Centauri (talk) 18:48, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

You know he's probably not reading this. & Has anyone ever told you you're like Ken's liberal twin? ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:49, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I like to think that one of his junior secretaries may read this but mainly I want to show RationalWikians how that university trained Dr Williams uses poor arguments. Note the way he talked about losing a "great argument", that way if it can be shown that the church has lost an argument he can always say that argument wasn't great by his nebulous definition. Proxima Centauri (talk) 22:05, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

What argument are you talking about? Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 02:45, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm about talking 2 types of arguments, first poor arguments that the Archbishop uses and second about arguments that the church loses. Proxima Centauri (talk) 05:36, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Deletion

How does one delete spam pages round here? Do you need special rights? Pongo^{Orangutans are sceptical} 16:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I just gave 'em to you. Read this. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 16:20, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

(Psst: you don't really need to read it.) An American Fallacy ^{(super crazy fun time!)} 16:20, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, looks like a lot of hard work. Pongo^{Orangutans are sceptical} 16:27, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

That's why we share it around. Jack Hughes (talk) 16:31, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, "share it around". An American Fallacy ^{(super crazy fun time!)} 16:37, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Like herpes. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 21:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Okie just passed an "anti science" law.

Per NCSE, Oklahoma has just passed a new anti science law. Do we have a page (or should we build a page) that is sorta a "current events" page tracking anti science? I know I've kinda built one for women's issues, since it seems every week something new is going on, but as our mission statement is really about science, it seems that would be a good page to make and keep up to date. It also could tie in well with Trent's ideas for watching how the media covers this aspect of science, anyhow. Godotoi, putain, genial, merci 17:14, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I think that's a really good idea, and if done right could end up being a widely used resource. Doctor Dark (talk) 18:10, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Really, what the fuck is wrong with you people? Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 18:29, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

"us people" me for thinking this is a good article? Or "god damn americans out to destroy your kid's brains" us people?Godotoi, putain, genial, merci 18:33, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

The latter. I know there's a lot of good Americans but there are just too many idiots in that God-blessed great country of yours for the rest of the world's peace of mind. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.}

Yeah, I think there's enough stupid Americans to warrant scorn for us all. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:05, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I have the (halfway kidding, halfway really thinking this) hypothesis that all the smart guys on the ships died and only the strong and stupid survived... that would, at least, explain a shitload about American pop culture. --★uːʤɱ federalist 20:52, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

There appears to be two sorts of immigrants in the USA, those who went there to make something of themselves and those who were driven out of other countries for being too wacko. Pongo^{Orangutans are sceptical} 21:23, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd be happy to throw the research together, and get the laws cited, if someone else would help on what it should look like. (Ie., by date, by type, should it be like a WIGO in that it can scroll as new things are added? etc. But i'll start with the info first, get it all together. Godotoi, putain, genial, merci 18:35, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it largely depends on the rate at which such stories could be accumulated. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:43, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

If Texas ever gets around to seceding, Oklahoma will probably try to jump on the bandwagon. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:46, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

If so, I wait for the day when it comes full circle and some smart ass science teacher gets to go apeshit on the "strengths and weaknesses" of creationism. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:50, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

My history, like many things, sucks so I don't know "which side" CA was on, but man do I wonder what life would have been like, if we'd just let them leave, Dec 20, 1860. We would need CA though...Godotoi, putain, genial, merci 19:21, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

California was on the Union's side. Life would also be a lot different for African Americans in the South. --★uːʤɱ secularist 20:49, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

It might have been better. Last time I looked, every nation on earth has outlawed slavery. Most did it without a civil war. So, we had a civil war, but, then, there was Reconstruction and chattel slavery was replaced with economic and social slavery, and that lasted until recently, and still persists in some forms. The racist aspect, though, is mostly dead or in hiding. Still, great and enduring harm was done to African-American culture and population, as much by the war and the aftermath as by slavery itself.

As to the original subject here, that Oklahoma law could actually help science teaching. Those passing it may imagine otherwise, but the actual provisions of the law are fine. (See the Floor version, the House. Were I a teacher in the Okalahoma public schools, I'd take this bill as permission to seriously go after "creationism" as a scientific theory. Respectfully, of course, the law requires that. If I even present it at all. Is it a "scientific theory"? How is that determined? It is very, very clear that this law does not prevent the teaching of evolution or, say, the evidence for anthropogenic global warming. The opposite. What it might prevent is the teaching of any topic with part of the scientific evidence being suppressed. In many fields where there is controversy, there exists unresolved contrary evidence against the majority position. (That is certainly true for AGW, and the IPCC reports recognize that; last time I looked -- it may have changed -- AGW was merely very likely, not a certainty, but my purpose here is not to argue that. The statement about contrary evidence remains, regardless.) "Controversy," however, doesn't establish "scientific evidence," and I certainly would want my students to be able to critically evaluate evidence, which is what the bill, on the face, seeks to promote.

Those promoting this bill may be imagining that the "evidence" will favor creationism, or perhaps allow it some kind of equal footing. But isn't that a fantasy? So why should we deny them their little fantasy? That bill absolutely doesn't establish any position as authoritative, or to be taught, but clearly intends to promote "science," the process. Good thing, I'd say. But the devil is in the details. How will the courts interpret this? --Abd (talk) 21:41, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

There would indeed be some irony if the Law of Unintended Consequences applied in this case. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 21:49, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the provisions are not fine. They allow a creationist to teach creation science, without any censure. 10 year old kids won't know to question it. Godot What do cats dream about? 21:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Really, there is creation science? The way I read the bill, no. Not allowed. The application of this bill depends on the interpretation of "science," "scientific evidence," "critical thinking skills." Perhaps you are thinking about teaching "scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories pertinent to the course being taught." It doesn't say "religious strengths and religious weaknesses." Scientific. I see nothing there that protects a teacher who tries to teach creation "science" religion. I do see protection for students against discrimination based on their personal beliefs, and I think that's a good thing. I'd still expect the student to know science, if that's being taught, or religion, if that's being taught (as it sometimes is in schools, i.e., as a part of history or cultural studies. Not as truth, but respectfully). I predict that if this law passes, and if the State tries to use it to encourage the teaching of creation nonsense "science," the courts will reject it. And they will be stuck. Are you folks really opposed to teaching the "scientific strengths" and "scientific weaknesses" of "creation science"? The first one is pretty simple, eh? Basically, it isn't even science. The evidence meets no standards for "science," being unfalsifiable, and wouldn't it be brilliant to have an opportunity to show that in court? Theory of evolution? Do you fear that students will be exposed to stupid ideas and won't be able to see through them? If evolution is taught from a religious perspective, it will not fly, the courts will not allow it.Certainly we would want students to understand that there are unsolved problems in real science, right? Science is not a body of dogma set up to be immune to challenge. When there is truly "official science," science is about dead. Or on its way. There can be relatively wide consensus, that's all. Science thrives on being challenged. This will be used by the courts, but even if it were not there, the U.S. Supreme Court would require it, with my emphasis:

The provisions of the Scientific Education and Academic Freedom Act shall only protect the teaching of scientific information, and shall not be construed to promote any religious or nonreligious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs or nonbeliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion. The intent of the provisions of the act is to create an environment in which both the teacher and students can openly and objectively discuss the facts and observations of science, and the assumptions that underlie their interpretation.

I'm very aware that under some circumstances, a law might be interpreted entirely differently from the letter and open intention, and I read Orwell before most of you were born. Possibly all of you. However, if the courts are going to interpret this as newspeak, it would already be a problem, and this law is not going to make it any worse, it would merely expose the hypocrisy. People are reacting to the perceived intention, not the law itself. My suggestion: let them shoot themselves in the foot! --Abd (talk) 03:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, have fun in your little fantasy land. I mean, all the creationists want is a little "academic freedom," what's so bad about that? What could possibly go wrong? More freedom is always good! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:57, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Heh, methinks Abd needs to read some Orwell. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I read the law, and wrote about it in the start of an article on this stuff. There is no way to read the law that blatently suggests that ALL CRITICISMS and WEAKNESSES and ALTERNATIVE THEORIES should be discussed, would not open the door to creation science. and again, as I wrote, there is nothing in the law that would censure a teacher from teaching creation science. I'm glad you say "there is no such thing", but get over yourself, you and science are not who is "teaching" science classes, especially in OK. This is a horrible bill, and it opens the door for anything to be taught in a class. Including the idea that we never landed on teh moon, and that global warming is a lie. --Godot What do cats dream about? 04:21, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

If you are going to go off the deep end about a law, get the text right. It does not state what you wrote it "blatantly suggests." You left out "scientific." It allows the teaching of "scientific information." You think a teacher could say, protected by this law, that "global warming is a lie"? Then you must believe that this statement is "science." The courts will not agree. "Lie" is political or social polemic, not science. The biggest flaw in the bill is that "science" is not defined. But the courts will handle that, and they do, generally, know the difference between science and politics. Meanwhile, if you prefer to be hysterical about this, with all caps, etc., fine with me.... Now, why are you opposed to the teaching of critical thinking? The problem here, for you, is not really the law, it's the whole society.

Maybe you should practice critical thinking, yourself. You are reacting, not to the law itself, but to an image in your mind of what Oklahoma is like, and so you interpret the law in that light, and ignore contrary language in it. The image is cranky. --Abd (talk) 20:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Obama

I know it may seem rude of me to do what seems like a single guy shifting the tones of entire major articles here on RationalWiki, but the stupidy of the Pro Left is a big concern of mine. Obama is not perfect, but he's by far the best we've had in a long time. People on the left were much more hesitant to attack Bill Clinton, who was far more moderate than Obama and failed to achieve many of Obama's accomplishments (notably Health Care Reform). I advise people here read Milt Shook's Please Cut the Crap blog, particularly this and this. I'm just putting this up so that many of the people here on RationalWiki see the arguments that I and other "Obamabots" are making. I've seen the arguments of the Pro Left, and indeed I was once one myself, but now I realize that negativity towards the better party always benefits the worse, and we should at the very least be neutral on people like Obama and other Democrats, rather than take the Pro Left road. Mr. Anon (talk) 03:23, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit: I realize that many of the parts of articles I cleaned up were snark. I'm not so good at doing snark, as you can obviously see from my rather serious edit history. If I have misinterpreted jokes as actual attacks on Obama, please let me know. Mr. Anon (talk) 03:24, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem with what you said is you called the democrats the better party; when both are shit.--il'Dictator Mikal 03:26, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

"both are shit" does not mean both are equally shit. The Democrats is still the better party, even if it is shit. An American Fallacy ^{(super crazy fun time!)} 04:25, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for paying attention to the points I made and reading the sources I listed. If you would like to read more, this is a good read. Glad I could help you out. Mr. Anon (talk) 03:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

You will find that many editors here are not Americans and that to them Obama is a right wing president. Тy^rant 03:30, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

That's also pretty problematic. US issues =/= UK, Candada, or Australia issues. The terms "liberal" and "conservative" mean different things in themselves in other countries. Mr. Anon (talk) 03:31, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes. This is an international wiki with users from all over. Nor is it a Democratic wiki. Тy^rannis 03:34, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

So we should shill for the DNC? Brilliant plan! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:37, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I get the most hilarious stuff in the mail from the RNC. Тy^YAUA 03:38, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I realize this, but what I'm saying is that articles about American politics should be from an American point of view. A UK view of Obama is OK, as long as it is labeled as such and clarified. I don't touch articles about UK politics because I don't know anything about UK politics, and it sure would be annoying for British users here to see US views of their politics on articles relating to them. 05:20, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

when did it become possible for only those in america to talk about american politics?--il'Dictator Mikal 05:22, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Can we only talk about Stalin from a Soviet perspective? Peter ^{horas non numero nisi serenas} 05:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

You know, it's Americans like this, combined with the wingnuts, that really make me consider turning them back into colonies. The mob doesn't care about your health care reform, it doesn't care if you make enough to pay rent and it doesn't care about the place of birth of the holder of the highest office in your land. I know this because it's not in the mission statement.

This argument that only Americans should be speaking about American politics and any 'foreign' opinions should be labelled as such is so fucking moronic I honestly expected to see a Discovery Institute logo on it. Does this mean that Democrats can't criticise Gingrich's hypocrisy unless they've been married three times? Or that Republicans can't poke fun at Biden unless they've openly plagiarised something? If you've got problems in your land of the free, home of the stupid then I suggest you do something about it other than whine like a fucking emo. Go community organise, raise issues or cast ballots for dead people, but don't come here and abridge our freedom of expression just because you're worried about being buried under Santorum. -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 09:57, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know to whom you think you're replying, but Mr. Anon did not say that only Americans should opine on American politics. What he actually said, quite sensibly, was that it doesn't make much sense to use European or other sets of relative labels to describe Obama. Goddamn, what the fuck is with you people? He might have expressed himself a little badly and may even be wrong, but he was polite and was trying to explain his point of view. Don't be an asshole about it.

It's pretty clear that the solution is just to clarify labels, Mr. Anon. Obama is "conservative" in European terms but he's "center-right" at worse in American terms. And even that's oversimplifying, because of the hard rightward turn America took in the past fifteen years (approximately about the time of Clinton's "triangulation").--^talk 10:56, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

The left in the UK recently had a similar problem with New Labour to what the American left has with Obama. We were disappointed with a lot of what New Labour did we thought they were too right wing, we felt betrayed. Then the Conservative-Lib-Dem Coalition came along and we knew which was worse. Do you left wing Americans want to give Santorum or Romney a chance to turn back the reforms Obama managed to achieve against the odds? Take care you don’t make Obama unpopular. Proxima Centauri (talk) 12:55, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, here is why I think Anon isn't right: The articles linked to are right, the whole bitching, whining and complaining because it wasn't exactly what you wanted isn't helping, and even though I could care less because as harder as the American economy plunges as more powerful becomes the European one (adjusting, of course, for a slow decline and enough time to move markets), it disturbs me too. But, RationalWiki isn't an American site, RationalWiki is an international, skeptic and rationalist site. We have half-arsed sworn to work based on the scientific method and on scientific consensus, that's what most of the articles on creation here say. We go by facts, but just because most of us are on the political left of the US and, hell, even the left of Europe and those facts agree with these systems of thought doesn't mean we are they're organ. We can not and should not be an organ of the Democratic party that say "YES" to everything he does, and neither of the Labor party in the UK, the German Greens (to pick one party of Germany, I've got no clue what the other Germans on RW are voting for) or any French party. That isn't scientific, that isn't neutral and it's a far away from honest. We can't clap to everything Obama says, we would just be another Conservapedia, biased and unbalanced. We have to stay politically neutral, and keep calling everybody out on their bullshit, that's the only honest thing to do and it's the only rationalist thing to do.

Anon suggests we may only use American political lingo in articles about American politics. That's bullshit. Sure we can give that away too, but not for nothing as their been a whole fucking branch of social sciences called "political science". These are people that spend there whole life analyzing politics; and what each party belongs to; and how it moves and shifts. This branch isn't a thing people do locally and only for their country, this is thing has went international a long long time ago. Their lingo is what we should use. And for what they say, on an international scale, Obama is a conservative, UK Labour has gone neoliberal and both of the big German parties are centrists parties with almost the same policies. We know these things the same way we now that evolution is fact, aliens probably never landed of earth, the fucking sky is fucking blue and the earth is neither alive nor hollow. There's nothing to cherry-pick semantics about it. This international scale is what we have to go with.

If you want the progressives to have more power and a bigger and better meaning in the US and you are an American, don't abuse RationalWiki for that purpose (no attack against Anon personally, of course), go out there and do something. Built clubs, unions, alliances and PACs. Run for office in your town, run for office in your county, run for office in your state. Join the Democrats, the Greens or whatever small left-leaning party their is in your area and never stop reciting the facts, be patient about the stupid people. RationalWiki even if rooting for ya'll, isn't the place to push an agenda. /rant end --★uːʤɱ anti-communist 15:13, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I meant pretty much what AD said. Yes, from a European point of view, Obama is conservative. In other words, if he were to propose the exact same set of policies that he has in the US in a European country, he would not be considered a liberal. In the United States, however, all of his reforms are pretty progressive, more so than any other President since Lyndon Johnson. So if we are going to look at Obama, we have to keep this fact in mind. Calling him "center-right" or "conservative" doesn't make much sense since compared to most Americans, he's pretty liberal. Mr. Anon (talk) 16:17, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Fuck context -- I want to call Obama a communist. An American Fallacy ^{(super crazy fun time!)} 16:49, 17 March 2012 (UTC) (i like tildes again)

What Anon says about Obama makes good sense, my fear is you may take his advice. American editors here, however, don't understand the GOP any better than non-Americans. Just the day Southern Baptist bible thumpers of Alabama & Mississippi had to choose between two Catholics and a Mormon. But to someone who thinks God plays no part in the real world, they are oblivious to coalitions being dissolved and others being remade. nobs^{We Are the 91.6% (still employed)!!!!(88.6% with a realistic Laborforce Participation rate)} 01:43, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, Anon

I want a list of so called "liberal" accomplishments of the Dems since 2009 (especially when they had the Congressional majority). Because you're going to need a lot more than Obamacare and Dodd-Frank to suggest he's more progressive than LBJ.

Much of Obama's critics here are centrists on the international political spectrum (ie. I usually vote Liberal and wouldn't mind choosing either the SDP or the centre-right CDU if I lived in Germany). Unfortunately by American standards that means we're more commie than Stalin. Just because Obama's policies are slightly more to the left doesn't mean RW should shill for him on every occasion. Osaka Sun (talk) 16:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

We already got one of those lists of "accomplishments," replete with the usual administration/DNC spin. I love how TARP is included as an accomplishment -- indeed, the bailout money was paid back (as long as you don't count the trillions committed by the GSEs and the Fed [6] [7]). Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:57, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I already gave a list; I just didn't copy/paste it into here because it would look like a Gish Gallop. You can decide for yourself which of those are "liberal" enough for you. But I'd say obvious examples are the repeal of DADT and the Lily Ledbedder Act. And then of course there is the ending of the Iraq War, and winding down of Afghanistan. He also ended torture in US prisons, and opened restrictions on Stem Cell research. Mr. Anon (talk) 18:12, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

"ending the Iraq war" you mean that agreement bush signed? Yep, he sure ended it, about 2 weeks before the deadline to withdraw. --il'Dictator Mikal 18:17, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Keep in mind that John McCain would have extended US involvement far beyond that. Also, in regards to the TARP comment, that article specifically stated that the money still owed is not from TARP, but other bailouts. Mr. Anon (talk) 18:23, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I really dont give a fuck what McCain would have done. it's hard to attribute the end of the iraq war to somebody who waited til time was up to get out of the place. --il'Dictator Mikal 18:24, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

And since when did "not being as big an asshole as the other guy would've been" qualify you as a liberal? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 21:26, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Damnit I am not having this debate. Rationalwiki can hold whatever point of view it wants, and all I really care about doing is removing blatently false or misleading information from articles. Mr. Anon (talk) 18:26, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

As I'm feeling lazy - and as I'm a European - could you point out which of the articles here you feel to be at at fault? For all I know you are right I'm just wondering which ones we are talking about.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 18:31, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I already fixed a lot of errors in the Obama article, and I also rewrote much of the Glenn Greenwald article, both of which initially contained many false and misleading statements. Mr. Anon (talk) 18:34, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

OK. :-) So the issue is?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 18:41, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I created this section initially in response to an edit war that arose (ironically, that edit war was solved shortly after I created this section), and brought it out into a larger point that went nowhere. Mr. Anon (talk) 18:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 18:49, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

"ending the Iraq war" --> you mean "privatizing" it. Also, usually, when wars end, the countries they were fought in typically enter a state known as "peace." If we define "ending the Iraq war" as "creating conditions of peace for the Iraqi people," Mr. Obama has failed miserably. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 22:14, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, it's hard to imagine how anyone could fix the mess in Iraq. Vulpius (talk) 22:56, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

If by privatizing it, you mean letting the Iraqi people handle their own problems, then yes. However, you act like we just immediately pulled out troops and left them helpless. That's not the case. Much of Al-Qaida there has been destroyed. As Vulpius said, it's still a mess, but it's not our problem. Mr. Anon (talk) 00:00, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Another Radio 4 plug

Just listened to a profile of Jimmy Wales featuring David Gerard. Should be available for download after Sunday evening's broadcast. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 19:24, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Ooh, I'll have a listen. (They sent someone round to interview me and all.) - David Gerard (talk) 19:33, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Or maybe I won't. No idea why that one's not on "listen again" - David Gerard (talk) 19:35, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

It only becomes available on the website after the repeated broadcast. When they introduced the programme I said to Mrs. K that I bet David Gerard is on. ;) Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 19:38, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Did we get a plug? And does this make you WP:Ntastic? Sophie^{because liberals} 19:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

No, RW was not mentioned. If it had then we would have had to forfeit our non-notability at WP. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 20:33, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

On listen again now: [8] Not bad. Pretty shallow, but we're talking about a relentlessly positive 15 minute radio bio - David Gerard (talk) 21:59, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Desiree Jennings & Woo

So watched some tv show about her and so... RW. give me a abridged explanation of the situation--il'Dictator Mikal 01:40, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

You mean like this? Doctor Dark (talk) 02:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Why didnt i look for that before i asked..?--il'Dictator Mikal 02:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

*grins evilly* Do you really want me to answer that? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 03:22, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

... Maybe?--il'Dictator Mikal 03:24, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Alright, then. The reason you didn't look before asking is because you're a moron. That's why your mom held you hand whenever you crossed the street up until you were 18. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 03:27, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Great job, post-racial America!

17 year old black kid gunned down by man for being "suspicious." In the gunman's defense, the boy was carrying a bag of Skittles and a can of iced tea, hallmarks of suspicious activity. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 02:24, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Police may have tampered with the witnesses. It's a double-whammy of justice served! Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 02:27,

coulda stolen em, easier to nip this waiting murderer in the bud. --il'Dictator Mikal 02:34, 18 March 2012 (UTC)18 March 2012 (UTC)

What the hell are you on about, Rob? Please try to stick to the topic at hand, and while you're at it, provide some sources for those conspiracy theories of yours. Copperhead^Hisssssss 02:46, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

the shooter looked Hispanic to me so whats racial about it ? Hamster (talk) 03:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The shooter being Hispanic doesn't change anything. Like it or not, Zimmerman (the shooter) enjoyed the privileges of (a) living in a gated community and (b) owning a gun without anyone being uncomfortable about it. Like it or not, he enjoys an immense social advantage over, say an unidentified black kid walking in the neighborhood. Even African-Americans can be racist against African-Americans. It's "racial" because the kid most certainly would not have been shot if he had been white. Throw in corrupt police, bringing up long-standing resentment between minorities and the justice system, and you have a perfect clusterfuck of racism. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 03:57, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Although I shared your gut reaction when I heard about this case Stabby, I think that on reflection we should wait until the full facts are known. It seems to me that there must be more facts to this story than what is currently in the news for him not to have even been arrested. It's easy to jump up and claim racism before we know all the facts. It may be that Zimmerman actually can show the necessary components for self-defence. I am sure we will be in a better position to judge when we hear the results of the investigation, which will need to be filed by the police. --Damo^Hi 04:21, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Artificial intelligence

I would put this in the to do list, but cybernetic revolt/technophobia is something I would like to talk about more in detail (maybe further elaborate in the technological singularity section).

Do you believe the cultural notion of robotics turning on their owners (the "Terminator argument") is verging on near-discriminatory, anti-scientific thought? It's hard to find a mass produced piece of science fiction since 2001: A Space Odyssey reversing this trend. Probably going to be a huge ethical issue in the years to come as we approach creating sentient artificial beings. Osaka Sun (talk) 05:43, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes. An American Fallacy ^{(super crazy fun time!)} 05:50, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Humanity would not tolerate a credible threat to itself, the moment we felt threatened by AI we would crush them. So there is the threat AI would, but it wouldnt get the chance to. --il'Dictator Mikal 05:56, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Brooker on Kony2012

A must watch[9] Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 10:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

If not available in yr country, you might need this one[10] Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 10:07, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Brooker is awesome. One day I hope he and David Mitchell do a show together. They could just sit around being indignant and it'd never get old. --Damo^Hi 10:37, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not but in case you're not, they have a show together. X Stickman (talk) 16:44, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Doug Walker on Kony 2012. -- An American Nihilist (fuck four tildes)

@X Stickman. We don't get that here so I'd never heard of it. Looks like a pretty good show, I'll have to check out Youtube to see if someone has uploaded some episodes. Thanks. Damo^Hi 20:35, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Sans Lauren Laverne, I think they mean. Mitchell and Brooker ranting is the best part of the show hands down, and if they could rig the interviews to give them more time to actually discuss interesting things and didn't force David into shoehorning in the necessary jokes then we'd be onto a winner. ^{d hominem} 15:35, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

An (perhaps) old law article I dig up that is tl;dr

Anyone got library access to tell me what this (The Yale Law Journal, Vol 87, No. 3, pp 515-570, 1978) was about? When the footnotes occupies 3/4 of a page it is simply too much for normal people to read properly. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 23:10, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I would love to, but I can only get the first page without subscribing, no doubt for more coin than I want to pay. Got the rest of it somewhere? --Damo^Hi 00:04, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I have it, will e-mail to both of you. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 02:33, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I've read it. It is basically a very out of date (1978) summary of the law regarding the teaching of evolution in schools. There are some interesting points, including an attempt to brand teaching evolution as being

Subjection of students in public schools to classroom instruction that is predominantly adverse to their religious convictions may also burden religious liberty by violating free exercise of separatist practices

with reference to a case by an Amish community who objected to having to send their children to school as it was hostile to their religious practices. All in all though, you would be better off getting a more recent article on the subject.

Don't worry about all the footnotes. They are there so that if you want more specific information on a certain point you can read up the case itself and get it from the horses mouth. --Damo^Hi 01:09, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Tulpas

I've heard some people I know talking about Tulpas and Thoughtforms and how dangerous they are, and generally being the most serious they ever are. Has anyone heard about this? Is there any research on this or related woo? ^{— Unsigned, by: 24.0.191.131 / talk / contribs}

created by Tibetan monks http://www.davisanddavis.org/harvey/tulpa.html so a very real and credible threat. Hamster (talk) 03:50, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any more specific info? These people seem genuinely scared about these unspecified dangers and I would like to know more about this. It's clearly woo, but I can't just see something this weird and not wonder. ^{— Unsigned, by: 24.0.191.131 / talk / contribs 2012-03-18T03:56:52}

That article is a wonderful piece of nuttiness.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 07:45, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

See also wp:Egregore. (It brought memories - there was the website of some Bulgarian nutter that included a list of "egregors" featuring pearls like "Egregor of teenage lolitas". The whole thing could have been replaced with "get off my lawn!".) --ZooGuard (talk) 10:14, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I have read people talking, in complete seriousness, about animal possession and flickering lights, and treating their "tulpas" like they were actual sentient beings that are apparently really dangerous. This is all much less scary than the thought of people I know being taken in by this nonsense. ^{— Unsigned, by: 71.59.82.134 / talk / contribs}

Christians don't believe in God?

According to Religion in the United Kingdom Diversity, Trends and Decline more than half the UK people don't believe in God but over 70% say they are Christians. What in the name of the Holy IPU and the even holier FSM does all this mean? Do people self identify as Christian without believing in God? Should we be careful about taking census results too seriously? Proxima Centauri (talk) 11:09, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I think that this was essentially the point that Richard Dawkins was making a week or two ago. However, I've been thinking about it and can see where people are coming from. Like it or not we do have a Christian history and this has diffused into our general culture so that people can like things such as Christmas or church weddings despite not being believers. Similarly, Sunday is still regarded as special as for many it is a quieter day and one when many families get together. So people like to keep it different and may object to the relaxation of Sunday trading laws but not from a particularly religious perspective and identifying as a "Christian" is a more a question of culture rather than of faith.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 11:26, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

(EC)You'd be surprised how many people would tick the boxes due to being baptised/christened into Christian sects, even if they don't believe in God. Both of my parents were christened and baptised (mum's Catholic, dad's C of E) and said they were Christian, even though neither of them have set foot in a church in their adult life other than for weddings or funerals. I'm just so grateful they didn't bother drowning me in magic water when I was a baby so I don't feel an obligation to call myself something I'm not. SJ ^Debaser 11:30, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The 70% figure is from the 2001 census (2011 data not released yet) & the 50% one was from the British Social Attitudes Survey (2009). There are all sorts of reasons why people might identify as Christian in a census while saying otherwise in an opinion poll. There's also the difference in the question asked. The BSAS asked "Do you regard yourself as belonging to any particular religion? If yes, which?", whereas the census asks the rather more assumptive question "What is your religion?" (see the British Humanist Association's campaign on this issue) and is a voluntary question rather than a mandatory one, so (although "no religion" is an option) many non-religious people may skip the question as not being important or relevant to them. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 11:51, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, neither the census nor the BSAS asked about belief in God specifically, and we can't assume that all "no religion" respondents are necessarily atheists. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 11:54, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

"The Social Contract: Defined and Destroyed"

Interesting video in which an anarchist attempts to take down the whole social contract using logic. My impression is that he's arguing that there's no logical justification for the primacy of the government's social contract from which its power is supposedly morally derived. Only takes 5 minutes to watch. Thoughts? Blue (pester) 06:40, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Cool story, bro. In practical terms, guns > logic - David Gerard (talk) 09:45, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Watched it. This is one of those efforts I'd classify as "enough to bamboozle amateurs." I'm an amateur, and the logic strikes me as good. But that's exactly the problem: I could generously be described as a single-term philosophy and rhetoric student, which is undoubtedly his primary audience: people educated enough to appreciate the overtures to logic and moral philosophy, but not sophisticated enough to sniff out any bits of horseshit he may slip in. It'd probably be for the best if a real philosopher, or at least a serious amateur like Richard Carrier, addressed this. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 09:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

This is dumb, and not valid logic. He defines the social contract as "unilateral, geographic, and implicit," then argues that any other contract that is unilateral, geographic, and implicit must also be a just contract if we think the overall social contract of our respective governments are just. That does not make sense. It's like me saying that a sandwich must have cheese and sauce, and then arguing that anything with cheese and sauce must be a sandwich. But a pizza is not a sandwich, and a non-sovereign individual living under an already-agreed higher social contract yet acting in direct contravention to it is not a constitution unto himself.--^talk 10:24, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Or AD. AD will also do for refuting this. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 10:42, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

It's gish galloping nonsense which hinges on a very dubious definition of "implicit". An implicit contract is one which is not signed or formalised but is implied. A guy deciding spontaneously to buy cars on other people's behalf, or send the government a bill for made-up taxes, does not carry the same implicit authority or agreement as an elected government raising taxes and imposing laws on society. As for the social contract only being possible if it's "the highest good and the greatest evil simultaneously", I don't even know what that's supposed to mean. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 11:29, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

That last bit about highest good and greatest evil is the cut-rate argument of an unread autodidact. He's saying that the social contract of a society is only binding if it's the "highest good" (because he's somehow confused the highest law of a land with the highest principles of a land). Further, he says that other contracts with the same properties as the social contract must be equally binding and equally good to it. And further, he argues that the other contracts cannot exist in the same space as the social contract since they tend to contradict it (i.e. his stupid example about a car salesman) so those lesser contracts must be the greatest evil since they oppose the greatest good. Thus, through the transitive property (greatest good = social contract = other contracts = greatest evil) the social contract is both the greatest evil and greatest good. It's plausible for four seconds until you realize it has the same validity as the elementary-school joke: "Ray Charles is blind. Love is blind. God is love. Therefore God is Ray Charles."--^talk 12:19, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

He fails already on the first slide: a social contract is between the people of a region/land/country/continent/city on a balloon or whatever, the government follows out of that social contract and is the instrument with which the scial contract is upheld, guarded and changed. The social contract can as that not be between the government and it's people, as without the social contract the government doesn't exist. The car dealership example has the exact same fallacy, as the social contract is not implicit but instituted by the the first action of cooperation (building a street, sharing a meal etc), a single being can not institute a social contract with others all on his or her own as the others have not shown one sign of willingness for such a cooperation. Neither can any other laws on the same level of a social contract exist, as everybody has agreed in some form or capacity to adheare to these laws it (and other laws that span out of it) automatically means that other contracts of contractors within the social contract have to follow the social contract, therefor a contract that contradicts the social contract is invalid from the beginning. --★uːʤɱ heretic 14:11, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Holy shit, the person who does these videos is crazy

"Why are you unemployed? Because if you do get a job, you'll get thrown in jail." What? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 09:59, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Part of the argument is classic glibertarian nonsense, but the minimum wage is the domain of the economically illiterate liberal. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

"Faster than light neutrino" refuted

Submitted for the community's comments. The Symphony of Punk ^{Can't sleep, clowns will eat me!} 12:41, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm 95% certain that neutrinos don't travel faster than light. Proxima Centauri (talk) 14:49, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, it was always a "we've got an anomaly, and we can't figure out why it's wrong, answers on a postcard" more than "OMFG we're refuting all of Einstein's physics for sure!!!!!11" ^pathetic 15:07, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Isn't this in our article already?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 16:26, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah -- from what I've read, the CERN people acted like real scientists, while it was the media (of course) that blew it up. GodothasArrived ^{(super crazy fun time!)} 17:43, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Don't blame CERN. This was the OPERA guys in Italy.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 17:49, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Whatever >:( GodothasArrived ^{(super crazy fun time!)} 17:53, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

It makes a difference because the OPERA guys went down the "science by press conference" route. You can't really blame the media for following their lead. --Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 07:43, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Obligatory xkcd. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

A Bib-Lit perspective on the Conquest of Canaan

So im sure you all know the story of divinely ordered Genocide, And how it contrasts heavily with the attempt to portray Yahweh as a loving just god. I'm using the Introduction to Joshua section from my Copy of the bible: An English Standard version Study bible. So, It starts out saying that the questions against the rightness of the conquest are legitimate and Christians Should condemn such types of things, in other Circumstances. What gives them a right to the land, according to this intro to the controversy?God, through Moses, told them it was ok. It then also says that "They had different laws of war for inside and outside holy Land cities; and only the inside cities were to be wiped out!", so it's ok as long as they only did it to the cities god said they could.

It then lists a few others, in detail:

• 1) Since god Created the world, and the Canaanites are sinful, god has a right to decide who lives where and when and how to judge them.
• 2) Since everybody is sinners, Israel is not exempt from also following as god can and as shown, will, punish Israel if it acts bad.
• 3) Under the "Sinaic Covenant" Israel is a theocracy, and any not-Yahweh worshipers could (and somehow easily will despite Yahweh being a active god) lead Israel Astray. Therefor, to prevent this the Canaanites must die. But Christians don't have to do this since The chosen people aren't just the Jews anymore
• 4) Also, since the way the Laws saying "Go commit genocide" weren't much different from other ANE statements, the way Israel applied them left room for some Canaanites who truly converted to Yahwehism to live.

So there we have it, the Genocide was ok because God is God and he told them to; so that the Israelite wouldn't be corrupted.--il'Dictator Mikal 21:41, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

...and this, kids, is why believing that good equals god leads to bad stuff happening. --★uːʤɱ kant 22:20, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Good old euthyphro dilemma. I do like Scott Clifton's take on this sort of thing. ^{d hominem} 09:30, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Though it's closer to 11:30 into that vid where he's more closely discussing the sort of thing above, aka "it's fine 'cos Godsaidso". ^bomination 09:35, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The answer you are looking for can be found if you look hard enough. Damo^Hi 10:33, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Metapedia

I registered an account in Metapedia just out of curiosity. But they immediately blocked my account. Is it because they find me at RW, or WP, or is it because my IP is Indian IP (a non-white country)? Any guess? --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 11:56, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Well if you're going to do shit like that then why use the same user name as here? You should expect the paranoid to do internet searches on new members, just like CP.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 12:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Pretty much agree with Lily. IIRC, they did the same thing to Ace McWicked once. We all told him to wear his perma-block from the Nazi Wiki with pride. The Symphony of Punk ^{Can't sleep, clowns will eat me!} 12:25, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Someone with a nice Germanic name and nice Germanic edit also got blocked. I think they do it to all newcomers and I don't want to edit that crap anyway. Proxima Centauri (talk) 12:34, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

It's only 3 days, so maybe that's enough time to do a background check. Of course mentioning it here is a bit of a giveaway. One thing I will say about MP is that (excluding the actual content) their main page is more aesthetically pleasing than CP which continues to be the pits.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 12:41, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Warning to RatWikians! Too many of us are starting accounts there just now, unless you can change your IP Adress easily wait before starting an account. They may recognise you're from RationalWiki. Proxima Centauri (talk) 12:44, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Or just do the obvious and don't start an account there at all. last thing those dolts need is any attention. The Symphony of Punk ^{Can't sleep, clowns will eat me!} 12:58, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Ditto, but they don't know my IP anyway.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 12:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

You're all just a bunch of genetics-egalitarian race-denialists. Also filthy sodomites. GodothasArrived ^{(super crazy fun time!)} 16:57, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

You forgot Cultural Marxists, and politically correct! Oh, and Judaic propagandists and Rothschild shills! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:37, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Since it's a 3 day block, I'm guessing it's an anti-spambot/anti-vandal measure, & probably they do it to most all new accounts. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:17, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Grawp paid them a visit. Proxima Centauri (talk) 20:30, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

And we care because? Let it die. Copperhead^Hisssssss 20:32, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Grawp is an entrenched internet meme like Anonymous; there's no reason to believe it's always the same guy, nor to care. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:37, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Krager beat Paul

Openly Gay Republican beats Ron Paul in Puetro rico. --il'Dictator Mikal 17:54, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Good for Puerto Rico. Sad that they're primary was winner take all. Copperhead^Hisssssss 17:56, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Metapedia on Einstein

Albert Einstein was Jewish, therefore he must have been wrong. See Einsteinism. Proxima Centauri (talk) 18:57, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Not new. As a matter of fact, a very old idea. Copperhead^Hisssssss

Just once I'd like these people to go "You know, x are usually stupid/wrong/etc., but Y (part of group x) was smart/correct/etc." But of course they're not going to do that. GodothasArrived ^{(super crazy fun time!)} 19:15, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

This is how bad it's getting here

Little Stevie begins attack ads on the 3rd place interim party leader while an election is not expected in three years (unless Robocallgate goes full-on Tricky Dick in the next few months).

Can we do an ancestry test to see if he and Berlusconi are related? Osaka Sun (talk) 20:25, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Spambots

Are we ever going to implement something to make it harder for the spambots, or are we going to sit on our arses and let them have their way with us? --PsyGremlinZungumza! 13:16, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Talk to the server guardian. The Symphony of Punk ^{Can't sleep, clowns will eat me!} 13:17, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

We're also running old MediaWiki software. Just sayin'. An American Fallacy ^{(super crazy fun time!)} 17:45, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

What would you have us do differently? Tmtoulouse (talk) 18:21, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

We've already suggested lots of ways to combat spamism in the barchives. Just implement a captcha for new users when they add links or something. An American Fallacy ^{(super crazy fun time!)} 18:24, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

There's already a captcha whan creating a new account. I doubt adding more of them would do much more than inconvenience legitimate users. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:27, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, there are other things you can do, like maybe that not letting users add external link for their first two or three edits or something. An American Fallacy ^{(super crazy fun time!)} 18:29, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

How do spambots get around CAPTCHA anyway? To this amateur it would seem like a pretty solid system. Since they apparently know how to do it, I assume nothing is given away by explaining it. Doctor Dark (talk) 23:33, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

You pay a bunch of college students to fill them out. Тy^rannosaurs 23:42, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

At the heart most techniques are using humans to answer them. The straight approach is to hire people to just do it constantly, the scripts feed the captcha to a GUI and people just fill them out all day long. Other ways include forwarding a CAPTCHA on a site you want in to a site you run and have people trying to access your site fill it out. Common for low-end porn sites. To see the naked pictures just do this CAPTCHA test. Tmtoulouse (talk) 02:20, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The solution to something human-proof is to use a machine; the solution to something machine-proof is to use a human. An American Fallacy ^{(super crazy fun time!)} 02:30, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The solution to people creating spam pages is to not let new users create new pages until they've made 5 edits. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 02:32, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

OCR can see through some captchas. DMorris2 (talk) 02:52, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

If we do that, the spammers aren't going to just go away. They'll change their methods and soner or later we'll find ourselves revert-warring with a spambot over the 'external links' section. As it is, it's fairly easy to work out that a page is spam - but if we make them adapt then that may not be the case. That's the solution to them making new pages, but it's not the solution to spam in general. Peter ^{tanquam ex ungue leonem} 02:39, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I quote:

Well, there are other things you can do, like maybe that not letting users add external link for their first two or three edits or something.

An American Fallacy ^{(super crazy fun time!)} 02:46, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

And is that an acceptable plan of action? What if a BoN wishes to dispute the accuracy of an article, but can't cite sources? What if somebody signs up for the express purpose of rewriting an article on a subject they are knowledgable about, but gets reverted because, again, they can't cite sources? Peter ^{tanquam ex ungue leonem} 02:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not very worried about the injustice of making someone make a couple edits before they can do that. GodothasArrived ^{(super crazy fun time!)} 03:08, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I am - you will turn people away. And what happens when spambots spend their first few edits changing articles from British to American spelling and vice versa? Worst of both worlds. You can't win, but right now they're at least not hard to take out. Peter ^{tanquam ex ungue leonem} 03:11, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Unlike Psy, I don't see spambots as a big enough problem to worry about. The fact that even a casual lurker like Dumpling can stop them is enough of a sign that they aren't a serious concern. We're not losing members over it, we're not being inundated by a truly overwhelming flood of the stuff, and it's not a burden on the server. So where, exactly, is the problem? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 02:53, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

You guys should put together a lawsuit against the spammers under federal and New Mexico anti-spam laws. I know in Florida email providers can sue spammers for $500 per email sent in violation of the state anti-spam legislation. DMorris2 (talk) 03:04, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Is that true? It's my understanding that state anti-spam laws were superseded by passage of the You-CAN-SPAM act at the Federal level. 04:02, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Some state anti-spam laws still apply, and the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 is actually federal anti-spam legislation. I'm sure you'll find that the recent spam on this wiki does not comply with the federal legislation or any legislation that may be present in New Mexico. DMorris2 (talk) 22:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Blacklists

There are two MediaWiki extensions that make lists of "prohibited terms" that can't be included in link URLs or page titles - Spam Blacklist and Title Blacklist. The bots can still register but can't create spam pages. The prohibitions can also be limited to a certain user group, e.g. not-Autoconfirmed. --ZooGuard (talk) 07:34, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Just thought I'd point out that Conservapedia has been using those for quite sometime to combat vandalism; the effectiveness has been varied. DMorris2 (talk) 22:36, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Someday we shall streamline the process of reporting IP's to the mothership, identifying how long before the IP will be used by a non-spammer (to automatically set block time), and blacklisting those who make false spam reports from adding to the spam blacklists. In the mean time someone who is good with scripting on the posix machine could import massive IPs blacklists (or other things geeks might be able to understand from that manual). But how will we know if censors put non-spammers on these lists? Unicow (talk) 02:52, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Another idea

Since ReCAPTCHA obviously doesn't work very well, maybe we should implement a question-answer CAPTCHA -- you know, put "What is the fifth letter in the name of this site?" and stuff. An American Fallacy ^{(super crazy fun time!)} 22:40, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

If the spammers farm out the CAPTCHA to porn site viewers then that is not a bad suggestion. Alternatively, can there be a time limit on Captchas? Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 09:23, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Providing an email address should be compulsory, only after email verification, a user can edit. --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 09:26, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

That question-answer thing stopped spam at Teflpedia.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 09:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Wow, that is a very good site. Just registered. --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 09:34, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Plagiarism

I came across wikipedia's new article on Freeman on the land recently, nothing much that isin't already covered here in ours but I did notice this link to a court service publication "Nonsense or loophole?", Benchmark, Issue 57, February 2012, p 18]. While I'm pretty chuffed that rationalwiki gets a mention (page 19) in something that's used as advice to members of the judiciary it's also pretty obvious that the article in question has just plagiarised this one without any credit or mention of the source, in breach of the CC-by-SA licence. What's the communities position on this. Ydam (talk) 01:58, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Wow. That's actually pretty recent. Anyways, as long as the info is out there, who cares if we get plagiarized? This isn't the "give me credit to stroke my ego" wiki.--User:Brxbrx/sig 02:05, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Arguably the link provides attribution, but the "SA" part is not upheld. --Tweenk (talk) 05:19, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

One would have thought that a publication produced exclusively for the legal profession would be aware of such niceties. Perhaps we should ask them about it? --Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 07:19, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

No idea about the legal ramifications, but I find it highly amusing and disturbing that we're being cited by legal documents. Go RW! ...I think. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 07:32, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Where is the Wikipedia article? wikipedia:Freeman on the land redirects to wikipedia:Serfdom - David Gerard (talk) 08:40, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Getting the same. Still, we got mentioned by the UK judicial system and no one told us until now? Osaka Sun (talk) 08:44, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

It's wp:Freemen on the land, which AFAIK violates Wikipedia's naming policies. :) And yes, the text of the WP article seems somewhat familiar...--ZooGuard (talk) 08:55, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd say it's pretty cool that a law journal is using us as a source. I wouldn't bother arguing with them considering they do link to us as the first citation, and it's all good publicity. Best not to discourage people from sending traffic our way. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 09:22, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The first version of the WP article actually used RW as an external link which was eventually removed by the originator.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 10:54, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The wikipedia article doesn't bother me too much as it's been written using various sources including ours, which is fine. The Benchmark article however is clearly just a copy and paste job from here. Aside from the odd copy edit to suit the format, it's word for word from our article. I'm pretty suprised that the judicary of all people seem to think it's ok just to lift copyrighted work from elsewhere and pass it off as their own work. I do however think it's pretty cool we're being cited like this though. Ydam (talk) 13:22, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

It does make me notice a particularly annoying thing: almost every paragraph in the article begins with "Freemen [verb]". ^pathetic 13:58, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating the article for gold on this basis: that it's good enough to be lifted wholesale for use as professional legal material, and for this use to be suitable source-laundering for Wikipedia - David Gerard (talk) 09:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I must say that I did wonder why it wasn't gold already. It's certainly a better article than the one at WP. Pongo^{Orangutans are sceptical} 09:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I've just noted on wikipedia:Talk:Freemen on the land that the Benchmark article is being used on Wikipedia as source-laundering, and editors wanting to enhance the Wikipedia article should look over here :-D - David Gerard (talk) 09:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and please go and support the nomination :-) - David Gerard (talk) 10:01, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

That's quite humorous actually. We are not a reliable source - but if we are plagiarized then we are!--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 20:43, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you people?

This discussion was moved to file talk:Foucault5.jpg.

Archiving timestamp. Тy^Ahoy! 13:20, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Agenda 21

Any volunteers for writing an article? It's in RW:TODO and apparently, Tennessee voted to condemn it: http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2012/03/14/tennessee-house-falls-victim-to-agenda-21-conspiracy-theory/ --ZooGuard (talk) 10:00, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Agenda 21 is like the new NAFTA Superhighway. I haven't seen any specific conspiracy theories about it besides just yelling REDSREDSREDSREDSREDSREDS!!!!!! though. Been slacking off on my Alex Jones watching. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 14:10, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm the one who TODOed it. I thought about just starting the article myself after seeing a political cartoon mention it as a "current pressing issue" the mainstream media is ignoring in favor of birth control, but decided I didn't want to risk my sanity wandering into that conspiracy rabbit hole. --CoyoteSans (talk) 02:34, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm interested. If no one gets to it first, I'll make one this week.--^talk 02:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Agenda 21. Please improve on my poor efforts.--^talk 00:55, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Met Ace

am drunk. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 12:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Is Ace as awesome in real life as he seems, or is he even more fuckin' awesome? The Symphony of Punk ^{Can't sleep, clowns will eat me!} 13:00, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

You're not expecting any sympathy, are you?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 13:01, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Are you in NZ or is he in SA? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 13:07, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

He's a damn genuine bloke. Sadly our time together was limited, but we had a good time, quaffing champagne under hot African skies. --PsyGremlinSprich! 13:12, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Shit man, you caught me on a good day. I have spent the last 3 weeks vomiting up anti-malaria pills and tossing back vodka orange. I was very mellow earlier but now in transit at Sydney airport and the vicious rise is hankering for trouble. Nice to meet you though Psy.....you're a good man and even better company. Ace^Moderator 04:10, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

No pictures? Come on. Osaka Sun (talk) 04:37, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Lariam is hell.--Brendiggg (talk) 06:03, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

...Yeah! Where are the pictures! I want a slideshow with dramatic music and sunsets!--Dumpling (talk) 06:34, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Admit it, you just want to perv over pics of the two hottest RWians, don't you? PsyGremlin講話 10:02, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I will be making a picture of myself available on Thursday, which all RWians will want to masturbate to. -- Seth Peck (talk) 15:52, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd make a picture of myself available, but I don't want you all to suffer the horror. MDB (talk) 16:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

You got abortion in my Pepsi!

So I was trawling NaturalNews for some prime clogo material and came across this article on Pepsi, which links to an anti-abortion site. A common trope with the anti-vax crowd is that vaccines contain aborted fetuses, which is obviously not the case. Wondering how we could work this into a (new or already existing) article, either something about the pro-life/anti-vax alliance or "Help, there's abortion in my food!" scares. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:08, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

If it helps, I had spent some time on this when the story broke out at Conservapedia[11] Maybe there's something someone can use--Brxbrx 16:31, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Snopes article Jack Hughes (talk) 16:37, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I guess I'll add this to the abortion article. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:52, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, there's an updated Snopes entry Jack Hughes (talk) 11:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Tebow is done in Denver.

Where is your god now? P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 16:47, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding hypocritical, Thank Fucking God. -- Seth Peck (talk) 16:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

It is just like the trials of Job from the Bible, or something. He'll probably end up with one of the Florida teams where he was appreciated during his collegiate years. Aboriginal Noise ^{with 4 M's and a silent Q} 18:04, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Ahem. Osaka Sun (talk) 20:35, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Serious question: Does manning really have anything left?Godot What do cats dream about? 22:27, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think anyone really cares at this point. Osaka Sun (talk) 02:55, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm just glad to see Tebow leave the limelight...regardless of whether he plays for another team or not. Don't let the doorknob hit you on the way out, you compulsive liar! -- Seth Peck (talk) 15:51, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Americans...

Please don't tell me you're this oblivious. Osaka Sun (talk) 22:02, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

You really don't need to post every link you come across over the course of your day. P-Foster Talk ""Santorum is the cream rising to the top."" 22:17, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's related to sex ed in a way. Abstinence education = "Durr, that was a turn on?" Osaka Sun (talk) 22:30, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Wait, sex-ed teaches you how to respond in situations so you can get laid? Man, I got gypped then. GodothasArrived ^{(super crazy fun time!)} 22:42, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Not exactly what I meant... Osaka Sun (talk) 22:44, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't really see how being taught what a condom does or how many people have genital warts relates to understanding when a woman wants to have sex with you (a male), unless your sex-ed was much better than mine. An American Fallacy ^{(super crazy fun time!)} 22:46, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

1. I don't see what being an American has to do with that at all, aside from the fact that story occurred in Georgia. This story could have happened in Bruges or Brasilia or Beijing.
2. You seem to lump all Americans together in a single group when you post these kinds of things, OS. It doesn't piss me off, it's just wildly inaccurate. Like comparing someone from Saskatoon to someone from Montreal.
3. The story is of dubious veracity, though quite amusing. One of those "Son of a...!" retrospective moments that many seem to have, and not always about sex.
4. Nevermind the possibility that he could have easily lost his job for fraternizing with a patron.
5. The second time he missed an opportunity (with the roomie)...well, when you're 23, and women are subtle, it's easy to miss the cues, and if you "don't think of them that way" it's even easier to not think about it. Even if it's not a "Let's fuck!" opportunity...well, I don't have enough fingers on my hands to tell you all the number of times I didn't pick up on a friend or classmate who suggested we should date or hang out more or whatever, from the time I was 15 through my junior year of college. -- Seth Peck (talk) 22:52, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Jeez, do you think I was that serious? Osaka Sun (talk) 23:07, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Sethpeck doesn't joke around, homebrew. The RationalWiki Saloon Bar is serious business. GodothasArrived ^{(super crazy fun time!)} 23:09, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

OS asked "Americans" to please not tell you we were that oblivious. I obliged in spades. GK did the same thing above re: Oklahoma science law—as if anyone here not from Oklahoma had anything to do with it, or anyone else would even agree with it. -- Seth Peck (talk) 23:15, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I guess it's really hard to do hyperbole without smilies. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 16:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, I've been haranged for the exact same thing before here. -- Seth Peck (talk) 16:50, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm guessing you weren't as atheistic/liberal/homosexual and therefore not as nerdy when you were younger? GodothasArrived ^{(super crazy fun time!)} 22:54, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

You seem to have missed the point of #2 above...about making assumptions. -- Seth Peck (talk) 22:58, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Are you lumping me into an assumption-making group? An American Fallacy ^{(super crazy fun time!)} 23:02, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Nope, I very specifically called out you on that one. -- Seth Peck (talk) 23:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

"Sethpeck" (obviously your parents were unbelievers to give you such a pagan name), you may choose to disbelieve that Jesus rose from the dead, but there is nothing illogical about that Christian statement. I looked at many of your edits before reverting them and you say you don't believe Jesus is God, so there's a 95% chance you're insane from San Francisco values. Furthermore, you deny that a larger tax cut for the wealthy stops Shaken Baby Syndrome. Whatever the mainstream media might say, knowledge creates opportunity. --Andy Schlafly 23:08, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm amused by this given that my name is Biblical in nature. -- Seth Peck (talk) 23:17, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I am confused at the context of this comic. This isn't an American thing, this is partially a developmental/kid thing. There probably was a part of our lives where, while we liked the sex of our preference, we just wanted to play video games/listen to music/read comics/read books/do things rather than focus on romance or sex. Heck, it's not even a kid thing. There's plenty of times I am confused about asking a male friend of mine to play video games or riff on movies with me because I am unsure if he'd see it as a date/romantic proposition. Insinuating that this kind of thing isn't normal and only 'Americans' do it (and rage comics are often about shared experiences as well as exceptional ones! The funny ones are good because we understand and relate to the people in them and their screw-ups and victories!) is really just kind of insulting. Rather than funny. KnightOfTL;DR^{walls of text while-u-wait} 00:50, 20 March 2012 (UTC)