RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive155

This is an archive page, last updated 25 April 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>, <150>, <151>, <152>, <153>, <154>, <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)

A new addition to the dictionary

At this point, the dictionary definition of "unmitigated gall" should include "See Also: Jerry Sandusky".

He is trying to use insurance funds from the charity he founded claiming to help children to pay for his own legal defense against charges he molested those children.

The insurance company, fortunately, is saying "not so fast."

I don't believe in a literal Hell, but this makes me hope I'm wrong, so that piece of shit can burn there for eternity. MDB (talk) 22:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

He only needs to repent at the last minute and he gets to go to heaven with Ted Bundy AMassiveGay (talk) 22:33, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

And all of those guys from Chick Tracts. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{more at 11} 22:34, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeh, its only atheists that go to hell. Atheists and catholics. AMassiveGay (talk) 22:37, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm talking about all those horrible people who go to heaven because they convert at the last possible second while morally superior, but HEATHEN people go to hell for their good works.±KnightOfTL;DR^{free guybrush threepwood! no new taxes! down with porcelain!} 22:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

That was actually my point/joke in the first place AMassiveGay (talk) 22:44, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The horse was already dead before yall started beating it :) TheCheat^{I run on alcohol} 13:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Astronauts for denialism

Breaking news from the deniosphere: Retired astronauts castigate NASA for spreading the global warming hoax! No scientific arguments are made in the letter, which is apropos for deniers. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 00:08, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Seems to be a low-rent conservative version of The Onion. [1] [2]

One is the chairman of "Plants Need CO2", oh dear... ^pathetic 16:36, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Another is a Heartland flack, quelle surprise! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:31, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Long live Kim Il-sung

We will show the world how our great leader has inspired us to greatness. <snigger> Pongo^{Orangutans are sceptical} 05:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

They should never have chosen Friday the 13th. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 17:35, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Colbert grills Murray

Just saw this simultaneously hilarious and scary Colbert interview with Charles Murray. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 06:23, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

On the one hand, it seemed bad form on Colbert's part to bring up an almost 20-year-old book in talking about the current one. On the other hand, Murray's comeback, that The Bell Curve was a 900-page book with 1500 citations, was worse than pathetic. Find me any scholarly work with an average of 1.6 citations per page, some of them junk, and I'll show you a solid D if not F (forget about passing peer review). When was the last time you heard of a student defending a 9-page term paper with 15 footnotes? Junggai (talk) 07:24, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

How do liberals explain this?

How do liberal atheists sites like RationalWiki claim to be anti-racist and like black people so much, yet then mock anyone who is a religious Christian? Don't you realize that blacks are the most religious people in America? When you mock creationists and churchgoers as stupid and superstitious, you are mocking the vast majority of Negroes.

Then again, "anti-racist" liberals also praise socialism. Yet I knew a lot of neo-Nazis when I was in prison, and most of them called themselves socialists. There seems to be a strong correlation between being a Democrat and liking kinky sex (talk) 06:45, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

— Haamer (talk) 06:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I love that username, because very few people I know would view that as a bad thing. ^narchist 09:04, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmm.... let me rephrase it. There may well be a strong correlation between being a liberal (in the US sense of the word) and being sufficiently comfortable with one's sexuality not be scared to explore outside the norm. Bob Soles (talk) 09:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

1) Skin colour ain't a choice, religion is. Saying we can't mock someone because they're black (not for being black) is pretty racist, not that we do that anyway. Very few editors on this site (if any at all) hate individuals for their religious beliefs in the same way that a racist hates someone with different skin colour. You'll find, generally speaking, it's when fundamentalists use their beliefs to attack and affect the lives of others (i.e. obstructing homosexual relationships between two consenting adults, rejecting scientifically based research, telling children everything they do is evil) that RWians have a problem with them, something that likely holds true for many "liberal atheists".

2) Liberalism and socialism are two different things. One could be a social liberal with fiscally conservative views (i.e. classical/laissez-faire liberal) and this website has several prolific editors who don't consider themselves liberal at all.

3) When describing themselves, did these Nazis place the word "national" just before "socialist"?

4) Everyone enjoys a li'l bit of kinky sex now and again. Don't let not being a Democrat stand in your way. El Taj^{Don't make me do stuff} 10:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Wait... your heroes have sex with strange men in public toilets whilst banged up on crack and I'm the kinky one? --PsyGremlinZungumza! 10:20, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Isn't it past your bedtime, DMorris? Godspeed (talk) 10:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Oooooo! This is a fun game, can I play? So riddle me this, Mr. Kinky Sex, you complain about Democrats, but do you realize blacks are the racial Demographic most likely to be Democrats? Therefore, when you say "I don't like Democrats" what you're really saying is "Blacks are terrible subhumans who should be enslaved." That's pretty damn racist. Why are you such a racist prick? Turpis 3:16 (talk) 11:04, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I really hope this OP is a troll with a troll question because it displays zero knowledge of sociology. There are also plenty of white christians; is saying that we don't think that christianity explains the natural world racist against white people, too? Yes, many black people are religious, but that has to do with the intersectionality of race, social class, and religion. While not true for all individuals, if one is black it's more likely (due to existing cultural biases in hiring, as well as economic background of previous generations of individuals) that they are also of working or lower class, and in turn if one is working or lower class it's also more likely that that person turns to religion for community and support in a world where it feels like they can't get ahead by design. Not to mention the comparatively poorer education in many lower-income areas does not always provide good critical thinking skills or the will to go against local culture and belonging. Yet, none of these traits are inherently connected: they are only culturally connected. Saying that we're racist because we don't think Christianity has the answers of the universe and therefore we don't respect black people who are religious implies that black people and their religion are fundamentally connected, when that's not true. I myself believe it's far less racist to strive for a world where what we call minorities now (they really aren't minor or small in any way) have the same starting springboard into education, social class, and simply just understanding the world as our culture's more favored demographics. Many of us came from difficult demographics, too-- and the ones that have are probably here because they overcame those societal hurdles and got that education, got that job, or shook free of their religion or otherwise repressive corner of culture.±KnightOfTL;DR^{more at 11} 11:19, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I knew a lot of neo-Nazis when I was in prison? WTF, dude. Couldn't you try to be less obvious in your trolling? Pongo^{Orangutans are sceptical} 11:29, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

A lot of white people believe in homeopathy. I'm trying to work out the consequences of saying homeopathy is silly.--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 11:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I really hope this OP is a troll with a troll question because it displays zero knowledge of sociology. - well duh. ^sshole 12:16, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I have been reading through rationalwiki a few weeks now and i must say that the website isn't just liberal - there are articles about the left, islam and black racists. Rationalwiki clearly hates a lot of people. B.voorne (talk)

'Hates' =/= 'knows is wrong.' Sure, there are people worth hating, but liking a person and knowing if they are correct or not are two different things. Though I admit I at least tend to not like bold-faced liars as much as people who genuinely try to uncover and express the truth. Regardless of political, racial, or religious affiliation. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{critical thinking is the key to success!} 15:41, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure B.voorne was being facetious.Omar (gibber) 15:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Dude agrees with Glen Beck, I am unable to tell if any statement is serious or not. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{walls of text while-u-wait} 15:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Well i am not trolling, if that is what you are implying - i genuinely like this website and i only troll Buddhists because thanks to there meditations techniques they can keep going a long time before they get angry. B.voorne (talk) 16:23, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Mostly what we hate is Jerboas. Bob Soles (talk) 16:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Praise the Holy Goat and DEATH to the heretics! ^moral 16:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Donated to Science

Several months ago I downloaded a BBC4 documentary called Donated to Science. It was a New Zealand film about people who had decided to donate their bodies to medical science at the Otago Medical School. I finally got round to watching it on my iPad and am currently beset with tears at the emotion. My deceased father-in-law donated his body to Southampton University and Mrs. K and myself have registered for the same at Liverpool, which is our nearest medical school. I guess it's difficult to think of these things while you are young but I encourage anyone, especially those with a rationalist and scientific leaning, to make similar provisions. Not only has the programme has strengthened my conviction that I am doing the right thing but it has changed my approach to how I will deal with the subject in my will. You might find clips of it on YouTube but probably not the whole programme. If anyone is interested I can upload a copy to my public Dropbox folder. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 16:02, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

In my anatomy class we were always told to respect the generosity and good grace of cadaver donors--"Shut up, Brx." 17:22, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

That was one of the main points in the documentary. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 17:29, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Everything's getting donated when I die, either to science or organ transplants. Whatever's left over and can't be used can be burned and disposed of Lebowski-style. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:25, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely. I registered as an organ donor as soon as I could. I'd like my organs/body to go to a nice cause, and I couldn't care less what a medical school, hospital, etc. does with it after I die so long as furthers a good cause. άλφα^Ταλκ 20:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Mmmm…

Porn? No, Awkward Engagement Photos. Well worth a wander through, if you're bored. In fact, the whole site is.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 17:35, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I've got to say that I'd really need to be quite bored to spend a lot of time there.--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 20:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Thirty seconds with nothing to do is enough to get me fidgeting. So I'll tend to look through just about anything to stave off boredom and incipient brain death.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 00:16, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Journals on twitter

Any suggestions for groups to follow on Twitter? I signed up on the recommendation of a friend with the hope of using it as a news aggregator, but I'd like to follow something that would give me updates about published research, since that's mostly what I'm interested in. Any ideas? άλφα^Ταλκ 20:33, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Any other suggestions for follows are great too. Since I was on here at the time I even followed RW! άλφα^Ταλκ 20:33, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

My standard suggestion for anything involving Twitter is that the site should be doused with gasoline, burned, machined gunned, buried in a deep hole and sealed in concrete. I imagine you'll find this suggestion less than helpful, however. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 21:02, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Twitter is somehow even more narcissistic than facebook, considering over 70% of tweets are never read by anyone. It's just people talking, assuming others want to listen. If you want a research aggregator, use the RSS on pubmed. Occasionaluse (talk) 21:07, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Twitter is good for playing games of Late Arrivals with friends. If you use it like instant messaging without the instant, it's great. If you want to use it like a blog, you're doing it wrong. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:17, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Twitter is no different from anything else: it follows Sturgeon's Law and so 99% of the time it's crap. Where it works well is with fast-breaking news: the Wisconsin elections last year in 2010 (or 2011 - I forget) were covered far better on Twitter than anywhere else. I can't remember what hashtag it was, but I knew the Republicans had won hours before it was official. For the real political junkies out there, it's great. The trick is knowing what to follow. rpeh •T•C•E• 21:20, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Obamacare.

This discussion was moved to Forum:Obamacare. 16:54, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Allen West's call for a new McCarthyism.

"I believe there's about 78 to 81 members of the Democratic Party (in the House of Representatives) that are members of the Communist Party." This guy's almost as stupid as Rob. P-Foster Talk "The existing superstructure has handed out crumbs. We don’t want crumbs; we want the whole loaf now.” --Ras Frank I 21:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

It was a joke. A moment later, he said he was talking about the House Progressive Caucus.--^talk 21:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh that's different....no, wait, no it's not. P-Foster Talk "The existing superstructure has handed out crumbs. We don’t want crumbs; we want the whole loaf now.” --Ras Frank I 21:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Quote mined and sensationalism! I'm loving it. Fuck what he thinks, I think 95% of the GOP are hypocrites. TheCheat^{I run on alcohol} 21:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Kind of makes me wonder what would happen if you put them in a room with actual Marxists. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:23, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

How soon we forget. The next Republican bogeymen are out of the closet communists. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 15:01, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Shut the fuck up, Smith. You're an idiot. Stop trolling the wiki. P-Foster Talk "The existing superstructure has handed out crumbs. We don’t want crumbs; we want the whole loaf now.” --Ras Frank I 15:05, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Glenn Beck

Has Glenn Beck been reading the Conservative Bible Project? MDB (talk) 11:58, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Gah. At some point you'd think religious wingnuts would wake up to how badly they're being used. When they're being told flat out that the two taxes that at least put a partial brake on eternal oligarchy, inheritance tax and capital gains tax, are evil and that Jesus hates them they must realise something screwy is going on here. I don't think it's too paranoid at this point to think that the Republicans are gearing up for a push to tax the wealthy at a flat 0%, and screw the rest of society. And those god bothering morons who are swayed by idiots shouting about planned parenthood are going to be the ones who allow it to happen. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 13:54, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Wow. Glenn Beck is still around. Actually, the ideas behind the CBP (i.e. liberals are corrupting the Bible for their wicked schemes) aren't unique to Conservapedia. Despite the Sermon on the Mount explicitly saying otherwise, many conservatives hold "eye for an eye" as a Christian principle. They tend to be rather fickle as to deciding whether to follow the Old Testament or the New one. I wouldn't be shockprised if CP has done away entirely with the Sermon on the Mount. Also, I think Glenn Beck missed out on a great opportunity to inform those Protestants of his Mormon beliefs. That would have been a very interesting program.--"Shut up, Brx." 14:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

By the way, does anyone else think it's hilarious that a Mormon is lecturing people on how the country is straying from the religious beliefs of its founders? Turpis 3:16 (talk) 14:33, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, the good thing about having a living saint is that you can justify all new decisions.--"Shut up, Brx." 14:35, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

People like Beck who convert to mormonism are a very, very, very special kind of stupid. "Say, this gold-plate-in-a-hat story makes sense!" Occasionaluse (talk) 15:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Beck, most people choose evil over good - just look at the lax attitude towards Islam and Mormonism most people have. I mean, both religious teach sexualperversions like having sex with underaged children and having several woman at the same time. B.voorne (talk) 15:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you can find underage sex in the bible as well. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 15:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

True, and bigamy too - but Jesus wasn't a pedophile and a bigamist, if you have ever studied Islam and Mormonism you will eventually turn on the lives of Muhammed and Joseph Smith - both men where pedophiles and bigamists, period. Muhammed was worse then J. Smith because he actually raped womand and J. Smith just married 13 year old orphans girls. B.voorne (talk) 16:01, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I doubt you'll find too many people here praising Mohammad or Joseph Smith. You know, I was reading a bit about Mormonism and it seemed that the religion caught on mostly because Smith was ridiculously charismatic, which makes sense. That obviously doesn't account for its popularity these days. So what is their excuse? Turpis 3:16 (talk) 16:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Early Christianity didn't incorporate the Old Testament into its teachings, it was a later addition. So when so-called Christians decide that the OT takes precedence over the NT (specifically the alleged teachings of Jesus), it does annoy me somewhat. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 16:10, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Their parents got them into it, the missionaries made some convincing arguments, or, more likely, they joined up for the singles' programs--"Shut up, Brx." 16:11, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

The reason people are attracted to Mormonism is the emphasis on family life and group identity - the harder question would be, why would anyone be a Muslim? So that they can opress there woman and feel the constant rush of hating the more wealthy and succesfull unbeliever? B.++++voorne (talk) 16:16, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Why would anyone be any religion? Because they're brought up (and indoctrinated) that way. Once they're conditioned it is difficult to kick against their family and community and walk away. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 16:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Islam≠Sharia. Also, people that condemn people that lived hundreds of years ago that married 13-year-olds always make me chuckle. First it completely misguides others into believing our modern day norms were in effect then (because around 500, or even 1800 it was so not normal for teens to be married!). And then, so if having sex with a 13-year-old makes you a pedophile, is sex between two 13-year-olds in 2012 sex between two pedophiles and are they raping each other? Or does the situation change all that dramatically if one of them is 14 and — say — 1, 2 or 3 months ahead? Is that than an awful crime that should be punished? These barries of age are freakin' hilarious and completely removed from all reality. --★uːʤɱ soviet 17:12, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think i really make you chuckly - because time is essentially meaningless and religious people know this, that is why they take there religions seriously. If all religious people looked at there religions in a progressive way, then sure - blaming an medieval religion is funny and deserves chuckes, but they don't. They believe Mohammed's and J. Smiths lifestyle are still true today, they belief this - because they don't believe in progress and they don't belief time matters.

Also, you can't really belief that my opinion on what pedophilia are, are removed from reality - because if you did, you would be saying i can't talk from experience about a childs sexuality and since everyone was a child once, everyone has a right to decide what is good and what is bad for children based on there own experience. B.voorne (talk) 18:09, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

What a creative way to avoid the actual question. So tell me (and I'm assuming you are a Christian or a Jew, as as mentioned in the section above you agree with Glenn Beck, which doesn't leave a lot of possibilities except those two) if the moral code provided by religion is, in the minds of religious, eternal, when and whom did you stone?

And no, I was not saying your personal opinion is far removed from reality, the somehow casual categorization on who to demonize based on age strikes me as weird. Picture this: 18th of March: Girl is (let's say) 15; 19th of March: Girl is 16. So if somebody believes it's ok to marry (or have sex with) a sixteen-year-old, but not a fifteen-year-old from on day to the next it's suddenly ok. From one minute to the next, actually from one second to the next it's ok. That's what I call removed from reality. And I know that legally you need some sort of timeframe when to lock somebody away, but that shouldn't have that much to do with what your personal believes concerning ethics are.

Of course, you can talk with experience about a child's sexuality. That child is you. (Or was, not sure how grammar works here) And could you (building and the strawman that you agree with Glennie) provide me with part/verse/sentence/random words from the Bible that condones such behaviour? ★uːʤɱ netlabelist 19:09, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

First let me make it clear that we never decided that i was going to awnser all of your question, so clearly i am not being creative in trying to get around question i never agreed to awnsering.

Alright let me explain what is wrong with your thinking - 1. You desperately need me to be a Christian or a Jew, i am neither - i actually grew up in a traditional labour-household, my dad now votes liberal. 2. You know nothing about basic judicials terminology - for example the difference between being 15 and 16 is called being in capacity by law, the ability of seeing the consequences of actions is called capacity by will (PS. I am not English, so i am translating from Dutch) - the two are very different, for example the law may state that a 14 year old girl needs to be protected from sex because most girls that age are to immature at that age, the girl personally may not be immature.

3. You where saying that my personal opinion is far-removed from reality - you don't say to arachnophobe that there fears are far removed from reality because most people don't fear spiders. 4. You call legalising sex from 16 years of age removed from reality, while i am saying that every judicial system in the western world works that way - do you believe that our entire system of law should be thrown in the garbagecan? and wat kind of law do you want to replace it with? 5. Your telling me that my personal ethics should not comply with the law? Wow, you must be naturally laid back, or you would be in prison. 6. You again desperately want me to be a Christian, i have a question - why don't you supply me those bible quotes? - if you are expecting me to quote them, then save everyone a bit of time and quote them yourself. 7. I am probaly wasting my time, a leftist fundie is really not different from a Christian fundie. B.voorne (talk) 20:27, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

PS: I do have a good question for you, if you wish to awnser it - How much trouble have you gone through searching through all my edits on RationalWiki and googeling my name online? Oh, and have you figured out already that i changed my post 3 times already?

As I wrote the whole "You surely are a Christian or a Jew" came from the section above, a weird way of stereotyping all Muslims into mysogynistic hate-mongers and was from the beginning a guess/strawman, if you're not, forget all the questions related to those. 1 Good to know. 2. Actually I do. I know about capacity, I also know that it is in and of itself a simple set age from which systems of law opperate. But as our human development isn't the same with every person and may change slightly from generation to generation, these set frameworks of law sometimes miss the point they were made up for entirely. 3. Actually as long as the feared spider isn't deadly in some way, I would. And actually I have done that. 4 Not entirely. The difference between ethics and law is practice. While ethics are advice on how to be behave, with law actual regulation follows. A problem is that those who opperate on that law, sometimes only act on the letters of law and not after common sense. Short: A lot of laws are to tight, the single person with all their individuality can't breathe. 5 As I just wrote, the difference between ethics and law is practice. No, no ones personal ethics have to or will 100% comply with the law. But even if I don't think that something that is outlawed is unethical, does not mean that I nesseraily still do it. I may decide this through a stiff belief that I shall never break the law to keep up my side of the social contract up, or through simple pragmatic use of game theory á la the prison dilema which tells me that if I cooperate within the subset of rules even though my own beliefs go against it, I will be rewarded or don't have to put up with a loss that would otherwise ensue. 6 Again, sorry. To be honest I don't have a Bible and was actually interested. If somebody knows an answer I'd still like to hear it. 7. Mmh, wouldn't call myself a fundie. Possibly somebody making conclusions way to soon on wikis, but not a fundie. I honestly couldn't tell you "my dogma" would be, so, yeah... To answer the questions in the postscript, none, I haven't. No I didn't look into it. --★uːʤɱ structuralist 22:56, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Again - let's take you apart. A-1. I judge Muslims based on my experiences - having gone to school in Rotterdam and having worked in a social wellfare office in my teenage years and having studied there religion, i am pretty sure i got Muslim right just by talking to them and listening to them. My experience on the matter is this - Muslims, especially the orthodox ones, beat there wives and hate seculiar, democratic and western values. 2. Yes, they can miss the point - i can give you an example, the Dutch government lowered the age someone can learn to drive a car after it was discovered by tests that it made no difference - but, that is changing the average standard to the better. You can't take a concept like maturity or mental stability and test it for every teenager, because that would require an enormous amount of psychologists, judges and bureaucrats, it would be more pragmatic to allow every teenager this or that freedom at this or that age and let the criminal courtsystem sort the mistakes out. 3. But some spiders are deadly, so there fear in itself can not be far removed from reality, unlike the fear of ping-pong tables. 4. I find your statement itself to be a value-judgement - for example, i don't find Dutch law to be tight enough and i don't think i would find American law tight enough. But i must disagree with your concept of ethics being advice and laws a guide on how to behave, i would turn it around - ethics are a guide on how to behave and laws are an advice. My behaviour must come out my own confictions and not just some law outside myself. 5. Again i would say they law can never accurately reflects my ethics... etc. 6. Well, i do have a Bible - a Catholic, an Old-Dutch-Standard (statenvertaling), a New-Dutch-Standard, the King-James Bible and a German Lutheran Bible and the Wachttower Bible, Book of Mormon and a collections of Gnostic Bibles. Then again you know perfectly well you can read quote several version of the Bible on the internet - so you are still trying to find out if i am a Christian. 7. Well i guess you can't be a fundy - your reply was reasonable enough. B.voorne (talk) 10:37, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Actually, I think Beck has been reading some Gary North. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh wait, you were serious

I love the way this is matter of factly reported. Sure, theft you say. I'm sure the police will get right on that. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:22, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the laptop was abducted by gay aliens. --Tweenk (talk) 01:35, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Pretty funny.--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 08:51, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Severe weather this weekend

so yah... been impossible to miss this out where i live, predictions of severe weather going to slam the midwest saturday. Fun! --il'Dictator Mikal 05:04, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Midwest? Does New Zealand have a midwest? nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 05:48, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

It is better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than to open it and remove all doubt. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 07:21, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

"Blessed is the man, who having nothing to say, abstains from giving in words evidence of the fact" [3] --Tweenk (talk) 16:27, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Andrew Napolitano JAQ-ing off all over the keyboard.

The only type of punctuation to be found in this editorial are question marks. Pretty impressive. P-Foster Talk "The existing superstructure has handed out crumbs. We don’t want crumbs; we want the whole loaf now.” --Ras Frank I 15:03, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

What if, instead of fear mongering, we actually attempted to portray reasonable things? What if hyperbole stopped being the means of communication between teh media and the plebs? What if statistics actually were used within reason, rather than used to sell a position? What if my cat actually let me sleep in on a Saturday? Godot On a perdu le contrôle 15:16, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Would you like a pony with that? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:05, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

"Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel." Emphasis added for the lolz. What an idiot. ħuman 00:27, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

A new approach to science teaching

One that's not about "teaching the controversy" or anything like that. P-Foster Talk "The existing superstructure has handed out crumbs. We don’t want crumbs; we want the whole loaf now.” --Ras Frank I 19:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Rename request

Could someone rename me to "Stabby the Misanthrope"? Passover's over, so I'd like my old name back, please. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 04:47, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Only after you sign this wavier outlining your acceptance of the risks such as those that occurred when Ty got renamed back and lost some of his contribs to 'Tyrannis for now' in the process. Peter ^{tanquam ex ungue leonem} 04:50, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

See ya next April, Stabby the Misanthrope. ħuman 04:54, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

It's worse than I thought - you've lost the lot... Peter ^{tanquam ex ungue leonem} 04:58, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

And there goes RC. We need a better way to do this. --il'Dictator Mikal 05:07, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, a way like human was asking to remove logs from RC. Does anyone here actually know Javascript? Peter ^{tanquam ex ungue leonem} 05:09, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

A little, one of my friends does but I haven't seen him for about a month and to lazy to call him--il'Dictator Mikal 05:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, dammit. Is it too much to ask that MediaWiki not mess up the very things it's supposed to be able to do? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 05:28, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Yep. Peter ^{tanquam ex ungue leonem} 05:30, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Holding hands: the gateway drug to sex

Tennessee officially condemns holding hands as "gateway sexual activity." Does that mean I've been committing incest with my family all this time? Damn it. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 09:45, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

This is what's really going on. I'm sorry. — Haamer (talk) 11:04, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

It is a weird statement - i would honestly say that three things perverts don't do is holding hands, smootching and looking into eachothers eyes because that is intimate behaviour and not sexual. B.voorne (talk) 11:59, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Depends on whom you think "perverts" are I suppose.--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 12:06, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Of course, all The Onion needs to do these days is just report things as they happen in the most blunt terms possible and it can just mooch off real life for the gags. ^pathetic 13:01, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

These people make the preacher from Footloose look like a slacker. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:56, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Of course, they're right. It's not unlikely a couple who are now boning like nobody's business did, at one point earlier, hold hands. Same is true of gateway activity like "conversing," "looking at one another", and "leaving the house." Turpis 3:16 (talk) 17:58, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't this also mean removing all references to family (and its values)? Because as we all know, relatives are evidence of sex, and sex is hardly a fitting subject for sex-ed! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:12, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

How far of a logical step is it from this to say that being born is a gateway activity to murder? ^pathetic 12:48, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Would that mean abortion is OK? Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:50, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

This is really funny (and sad, of course) in various perspectives. Take South Korea for example. Despite the fact that couples aren't usually anywhere near as public about things as in America, close friends of any gender hold hands in public on a regular basis - to the point where many foreigners mistakenly think there are a plurality of openly gay couples there. If only they knew the dangers of this gateway sexual act! Q0 (talk) 18:14, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Sicily too; very common to see male friends walking arm in arm or old men holding hands. Anyhoo, this gateway activity stuff reminds of the Christian side hug. In fact, some of the lyrics suggest that you have to be married to hold hands or hug somebody while facing them.^link ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:16, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Alfred Webre

So, Alfred Webre is crying about potentially having his article deleted from Wikipedia. Should we do him a favor and write an article about him on here? Is he in scope of interest? Quote from Wikipedia:

Webre believes that as exopolitics posits, the truest conception of our human circumstance may be that we are on an isolated planet in the midst of a populated, evolving, highly organized inter-planetary, inter-galactic, multi-dimensional Universe society. He believes that we live on a planet that has been quarantined (the Zoo hypothesis) and that we are now being given an opportunity to join the rest of the spiritually evolved Universe Society in peace, thus an opportunity to avoid environmental global self-destruction or global self-destruction through war.

And from his post:

My view is that Wikipedia's action continues to be part of the CIA time travel controlled US Presidency's retaliation against me for having exposed Soetoro/Obama's participation in a 1980-83 secret CIA jumproom project.

(If not in scope, I hope you guys got a lol at least.) — Haamer (talk) 10:34, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh hell yes, that sort of madness deserves to be immortalised in MediaWiki markup. ^narchist 12:45, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

The best you can do to fight crackpots is get there biography on wikipedia - that way they are part of the system. B.voorne (talk) 17:00, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

We definitely need to port the bio over ASAP ... then enhance it with the Wikipedia story. This has also been a source of lulz on wikien-l - David Gerard (talk) 18:52, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I know. ;) — Haamer (talk) 19:09, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Alfred Webre. In between the jawdroppingly tedious puffing-up is some sterling lunacy. But it needs further serious hacking down to size. Also, all cites need checking and anything self-sourced is likely delusional. Also not sure whether to use "UFO" or "conspiracy" navbox. I also helpfully noted on the Wikipedia AFD that I was taking it for RationalWiki, so I'm sure his fans will be along shortly to help - David Gerard (talk) 19:33, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Scientology and Fox News

I was just browsing the Fox News site for my daily dose of bias and crazy and spotted that they have advertisements for Scientology. I never noticed such advertisments on "respectable" news sites. Is that a common practice? Where I live, Scientology is usually confined to some shady back offices and some crazy people talking in the street.--Th. Bernhard (talk) 08:40, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Didn't you get the memo? Fox News has sold out to Barack Obama. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 09:08, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

What's that got to do with the price of fish? Vulpius (talk) 13:42, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Shut the fuck up, Smith. You're an idiot. Stop trolling us. P-Foster Talk "The existing superstructure has handed out crumbs. We don’t want crumbs; we want the whole loaf now.” --Ras Frank I 14:48, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

P-Foster, a question: Do actually feel you are being effective with your trolling? Do feel you are serving some sort of common interests with humanity, or beating down the bad guys, or defending reason & good, or sumpthin? Thanks. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 15:05, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Shut the fuck up, Smith. You're an idiot. Stop trolling the wiki. P-Foster Talk "The existing superstructure has handed out crumbs. We don’t want crumbs; we want the whole loaf now.” --Ras Frank I 15:06, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Such hate. May God, if he exists, have mercy on your soul. And if he doesn't exist, we should invent him so he can be merciful to such hate-driven, misguided souls such as yourself. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 15:14, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Shut the fuck up, Smith. You're an idiot. Stop trolling the wiki. P-Foster Talk "The existing superstructure has handed out crumbs. We don’t want crumbs; we want the whole loaf now.” --Ras Frank I 15:06, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Haha, nice troll Rob. Could we get back to the subject or would you like to dance a bit more, while Foster screams at you?--Th. Bernhard (talk) 15:17, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Did you get Cliff Kincaid's memo, "Fox News sells out to Obama"? Or Don Irvine's, "Fox’s moves to beef up its liberal lineup continue to confound conservatives". Maybe the Scientology ads have something to do with this new target market. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 15:23, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

And CNN is going to hire Gingrich, because they're less biased than Fox. Being a conservative has to be hard, what with keeping all the machinations lubed. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:29, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

....so...more dancing Rob...nice...but it actaully all makes sense now. Fox News sold out to Obama, Obama, as we all know is the Antichrist, the Antichrist is also like Xenu, and Xenu just recently broke out of galactic prison to become POTUS and thats why Fox News advertises Scientology QED. But what's all that got to do with the price of fish?--Th. Bernhard (talk) 15:35, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

(EC) CNN hiring Gingrich makes sense; before the primaries he was a Fox News consultant. Now he's just a cheap claimer. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 15:41, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

It makes sense for Gingrich because he truly is a selfish piece of shit of a person. The only reason he's still in the race is to raise speaking fees and book sales. The campaign is bankrupt, so it's time to "get a job" at CNN. Murdoch's personal inclinations are solely responsible for Newt's departure. If Pravda or al Jazeera could afford him, Newt would be on the next plane. Truly shameless. Occasionaluse (talk) 15:51, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Fox News is the Belmont Park of cable news, and CNN is a bush track. Gingrich once was a graded stakes winner, but since his old age and injuries, he dropped in class and was claimed by CNN to run in the bushes. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 16:01, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

HEY KEN KEEENNN!!! My cat just made doodoo. It's about as sequitur as your "comments"--Th. Bernhard (talk) 16:03, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

This is race track jargon. Gingrich dropped in class (the drop from FOX to CNN, or stakes to claiming, or Class A to bush, or from high price to cheap). Racetrack jargon is common in presidential politics, for example "Santorum is a stalking horse for Romney". But I can understand this may be over your head. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 16:09, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

HEY KEN KEEEEENNNN!!!! Now my fish made doodoo--Th. Bernhard (talk) 16:12, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

You could make it on the racetrack, they're always hiring. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 16:18, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Rob, not a bad analogy. Occasionaluse (talk) 16:27, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

HEY KEN KEEEEENNNNN!!!!! My horse just made doodoo and out came a commie-hating troll, who thinks NZ is a third-world country. I think im going to name him...chin chin--Th. Bernhard (talk) 16:31, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Back on, um, topic. Many ads served up on websites are catering, as much as possible, to the individual user's interests. For instance, there is one site (FB?) where I often see ads for things I just bought (f'ing brilliant, that) on MCM Electronics. Cookie poaching? Sharing? Perhaps. Also, Google knows shit about you that you don't even know yet. In the brave new web 3.0 world, the ads on any random spam site will be a faster way to find what you are actually looking to buy right now than any kind of directed search activity. Yeah, you read it here first... ħuman 01:11, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I made the same obversations with ads. Searched once for the GoPro camera and have seen it since on a daily basis in ads. I find G-Mail especially scary since they seem to scan the content of my mails and compile their ads accordingly. But Scientology on Fox News seems still a bit strange though, since I'm not particularly interested in Scientology an certainly did not visit sites that were somehow connected to Scientology, nor did I google it in the last few months...btw: I aplogize for my childish behaviour above. Just wanted to anger the troll--Th. Bernhard (talk) 17:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

By being anti-something I have sometimes gotten ads for being pro-something. Talking in my emails about how Rick Santorum is a butt hat has sometimes gotten Rick campaign ads (until he dropped out) to show up, simply because analytics can't always scan the context of browsing and mail... it sometimes can only scan the content. So searching or writing "Rick Santorum is a Joke" can make it look like I am interested in Rick Santorum in general. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{free guybrush threepwood! no new taxes! down with porcelain!} 17:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Hm, so could it have been RWs fault then? About the only site I've visited in months, that has any stance on Scientology. --Th. Bernhard (talk) 18:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

A question for so-called "rational" wiki

If successful have to pay more tax, why shouldn't they have more votes? It's unfair and unjust that one man can pay a hundred times more in tax than another, yet have the same number of votes. Troll who pretends to adopt an extreme conservative stance but which in fact is not conservative as most conservatives would understand it (talk) 09:35, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

"Troll who pretends to adopt an extreme conservative stance but which in fact is not conservative as most conservatives would understand it" (your insulting name is getting tiresome), I reread the beginning of your rant at the top of this section and you rely on a secular conception of the past, so it's obvious to me you're another liberal enemy of conservative principles. You also clearly deny that feudalism deters insanity. As I've said before, most of mankind's greatest insights were by teenagers. I can tell you, though, that you'd be happier, more productive, and more insightful if you accepted the possibility of the truth of long-held views that you currently reject out of hand. You're not going to be allowed to rant in a nonsensical manner or smear our work.--aschlafly 09:43, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

My understanding is that the poor are much less likely to vote - especially in the US - so we sort of have this situation anyway.--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 11:24, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Simple: because it would go against everything the founders of the United States had envisioned. It would set up an aristocracy similar to what the American colonists were trying to escape. Therefore, to support a voting system that favors the rich over the poor is the epitome of being anti-American. Don't believe me? Read anything and everything that the Founding Fathers every wrote. A system that favors Aristocracy was scoffed at by the Founders. It's the reason that Washington asked to be called "Mr. President" over any title such as "your majesty." This was easy to answer. Next question. 11:33, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah! and it explains why all those poor people became president! It's not like you need millions of dollars or anything.--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 11:44, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

On a side note, I've always been amazed how the first generations of presidents, while popular men, were anything but wealthy. Thomas Jefferson, for example, died completely bankrupt. Dr. Frankenfurter (talk) 11:49, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Ones vote isn't bought or sold. Everyone that votes, regardless of socioeconomic stature, has much vested in society as the next, and their own advancement as the next. Personal wealth is irrelevant. Next question. Ace^Moderator 12:34, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I suppose one could flip it around and play the game a bit more with different hands. Soldiers risk their lives for their country, so why don't they get more than one vote? Those in manual labour jobs oil the entire economy, and without them being willing to do skilled jobs for less pay, those rich people wouldn't have their millions to pay more tax with, so those guys should get more votes. In fact, we should all have more votes. 10 votes each should do the trick! (Though here's a semi-serious point; what if you got 1 vote by default, but could buy another by paying a certain amount? Would you actually get anything accomplished then? Would the rich actually spend that money or not? And if they did, would the 1% then collectively form a larger voting block than the 99% because they could outspend them?) ^sshole 13:07, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Anyone can flip it anyway they want but my view is a democracy is not dictated by the role one puts into it, it is dictated by ones membership as a citizen. You start dividing votes up by who has put in the most effort then you begin deciding who has greater membership and society becomes stratified by class based on the simplest action of who can vote. I am the first person to rail against rednecks, racists, fat people and lazy benefit bludgers but they still have a vote. Just like me. Ace^Moderator 13:13, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Short answer? You're confusing citizenship with consumerism. P-Foster Talk "The existing superstructure has handed out crumbs. We don’t want crumbs; we want the whole loaf now.” --Ras Frank I 13:15, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

+Marx's theory of labor/I don't feel like elaborating but he can look it up himself if he wants to know the answer--"Shut up, Brx." 13:45, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

But this is in fact the case with the Democratic Party's Superdelegates. By virtue of party standing, one Superdelegate's vote supplants 50,000+ common scum peons and regular party voters. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 14:47, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Shut the fuck up, Smith. You're an idiot. Stop trolling us. P-Foster Talk "The existing superstructure has handed out crumbs. We don’t want crumbs; we want the whole loaf now.” --Ras Frank I 10:48 am, Today (UTC−4)

This system is already in place de facto. See "soft money," lobbyists, etc. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:51, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

It's also unfair that someone who makes no effective contribution to GDP can "earn" a hundred thousand times more in wages than someone who didn't have the benefits of a privileged birth and upbringing. The sole condition for equality in a democracy is by virtue of being a person and has nothing to do with taxes paid (or avoided). Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 02:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Wait wait wait. "someone who makes no effective contribution to GDP can "earn" a hundred thousand times more in wages" Personal consumption expenditures are the single largest component of GDP. Care to explain your reasoning farther? nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 12:12, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

If all they have done is take that money from others, thereby depriving them of purchasing power, then that is not an effective contribution to GDP. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 12:30, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Wages and consumption make upto about 92% of GDP; the rest consists of permanent things like buildings or manufactured goods that have a useful life beyond the year of they were created, and savings that take the form of some financial instrument. So would you agree, the inheritor of an estate, who draws wages or compensation from an inherited fortune, is a significant producer who adds to GDP? If you disagree, that puts you at odds with commonly accepted economic science, thinking and reasoning. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 13:00, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

See here. The red line is GDP; the orange line is Personal Income (yah right, the greedy corporations make all the money); and the blue line is Personal Consummation Expenditures. This should give some idea of what portion of GDP goes for wages & consumption, and what Adam Smith means by "What is annually saved is as regularly consumed as what is annually spent, and nearly in the same time too." nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 05:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

It is called the social contract. TheCheat^{I run on alcohol} 13:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Cassandra died an alcoholic

When it comes to climate change, the science is getting stronger but public opinion is getting weaker. Personally, I've given up. There's realistically no way to convince enough people (or enough people who can do anything about it) to change the macroeconomy to the extent needed to prevent disaster in time. My "solution" is to just enjoy the life I've got as much as I can and never have children. If the greedy and ignorant want to destroy us all, I say let them. I'd rather spend the rest of my days knocking back a cold one and singing "it was fun while it lasted" than spend them trying to seal cracks in a bursting dam. --CoyoteSans (talk) 03:40, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Meh, it's the Torygraph. ħuman 04:00, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I can't be so cynical about it, personally. I never believe that giving up is the right answer. Every generation before ours lived fighting for a better world for their children (with only a few exceptions, if any!), and to give it up would just be sort of lame in my eyes. Would make it all sort of pointless, really. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{longissimus non legeri} 04:31, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

It's the Torygraph covering a pretty depressing take on things on the part of James Hansen, and what he's saying shouldn't be "meh"'d. P-Foster Talk "The existing superstructure has handed out crumbs. We don’t want crumbs; we want the whole loaf now.” --Ras Frank I 13:20, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Nothing newsworthy in that article, Hansen has been saying the same thing for quite a while. I love how they have a quote from that hack Peyser at the GWPF, who had to retract his criticisms about Oreskes' paper on the consensus, for "balance." Any wonder why public opinion is getting weaker when the media will regurgitate FUD from any old shill? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:23, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

It probably is too late, but on the other side of the coin mankind may achieve nuclear fusion ignition this year (in America, GO USA!), so we may soon have a power source to take us to the stars! Or at least the ability to create them on Earth. TheCheat^{I run on alcohol} 13:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

It's quiet ... too quiet.

So where is everyone today? The Bar would normally be running at a cracking pace ...

(I've been reading silly intertelly sites and taking the kid to the park, despite the cold and intermittently drizzly weather. She has a fancy new coat she loves. This is actually the most interesting thing about my day today.) - David Gerard (talk) 18:57, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

It is rather quietish. (Sitting on the front porch) Тy^{sic semper} 19:03, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I've noticed things running slowish on & off most of the last week or two. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:08, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I went out to buy milk and had a natter with my old singing teacher. Exciting times. Sophie^{because liberals} 21:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I am sitting in my office feeling nauseous and ill. Ace^Moderator 21:34, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

debating if it'll be cheaper and time effective to just buy the ultimate edition of new vegas or get the remaining 3 DLC on steam--il'Dictator Mikal 21:35, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Now I feel dizzy. Might go home sick but I have a meeting in 20 mins. Ace^Moderator 21:41, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, at least it's still marginally more lively than the Weeping Lion or Brx's Bodega. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 06:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Meanwhile, on Mars

Moved to Forum:Recession or not Sophie^{because liberals} 21:15, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Query: What happened to skepticwiki and why does its URL now redirect here?

We still had a couple of articles with external links to SkepticWiki which I just purged. On some topics SkepticWiki had a somewhat different approach then here (especially with regard to the possible existence of a historical Jesus- looked like that article was written by Tim Callahan or a reader of same). When did SkepticWiki fold, and why was it's URL directed here?--WickerGuy (talk) 22:26, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

It was part of a push for additional lebensraum. We anheusched it. Just kidding, I haven't a clue--"Shut up, Brx." 22:31, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you meant anschlussed --Tweenk (talk) 01:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I meant, thanks. Not the first time I've mangled the German language.--"Shut up, Brx." 04:11, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Not the first time confusion with the German language has led to unfortunate misunderstandings. El Taj^{Don't make me do stuff} 10:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

This may go some way towards explaining things. Peter ^{tanquam ex ungue leonem} 22:40, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

It seems then to be temporary situation due to a server loss of data, but it's been out of commission for at least a year.--WickerGuy (talk) 23:34, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

They possibly just gave up. The site seems to have been in the same state for some time, but a few months after that capture they started redirecting to here. The domain expires in October, so it will be interesting to see what they do (if anything). Peter ^{tanquam ex ungue leonem} 23:42, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Here we go:

December 23, 2010: "Also, soon there will be a version upgrade of the wiki. This will result in some down time while this occurs, more information will be provided about that when I have the development instance upgraded and the process documented." [4]

February 3, 2011: "You'll notice your account is missing, along with every article ever written for the Skeptic Wiki." [5]

And no change since, until the redirecting in (well, by) July. Peter ^{tanquam ex ungue leonem} 23:52, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

A lot of it still seems to be wayback machine. I find that their Freeman on the land article is quite good.--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 06:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

If there were references to SkepticWiki and the pages can be found in the Internet Archive, you can leave links to the IA copies instead of purging them.--ZooGuard (talk) 07:12, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Shit. Can the RWF buy the domain name? It's too cool to let go. If they're redirecting here already, I presume they'd be amenable to transferring it at cost - David Gerard (talk) 16:15, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I thought we already owned it, but I am probably wrong. We haven't had a meeting in a goat's age. ħuman 03:59, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh noes I did it again!

Isn't that the title of a Britney Spears song from wayback? ħuman 03:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I think it Was Opps I did it again or something. --il'Dictator Mikal 03:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that! Thanks! ħuman 03:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Pirates!

I see that the latest Aardman Animations film The Pirates: In An Adventure With Scientists is being rebranded in the US as The Pirates! Band Of Misfits. Quentin Cooper has a couple of theories but having been engaged with creationist loonies for the past 5 years (since I first discovered CP) I'm wondering about the Darwin element being the issue.
P.S. I'm now considering getting a (little-needed) bald cap and a pipe. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 04:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Probably comes off too much as a Discovery Channel documentary with the word "scientists" in the title -- not that the Discovery Channel is particularly scientific. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Retitling for the US market (or any market) is pretty common, & often no more complicated than picking a title the distributors think will sell better. E.g. Harry Potter & the Philosopher's Stone was changed to & the Sorcerer's Stone, despite how the item itself was still referred to as the Philosopher's Stone throughout. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 06:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

it works both ways round. Around fifty years ago it was reckoned that British children wouldn't recognise the phrase "Top Cat" so, in the UK, the cartoon was renamed "Boss Cat". What this actually did to this viewer was confuse the shit out of him because, if the program was called "Boss Cat", then why, according to the theme tune, did his friends call him TC? Bob Soles (talk) 08:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Really? I always remember it as Top Cat. Never heard of Boss Cat. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 09:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The show wasn't called "Top Cat" in the UK because it was a brand name (for cat food), it was felt that regardless of whether the cat food manufacturer had any financial stake in the TV show it would give the appearance of advertising, which was unacceptable for a children's TV show on a channel which doesn't carry advertising. Nevertheless the character's name in the show remains "Top Cat" for practical reasons, and most viewers remember the character as "Top Cat". Today the cat food brand doesn't exist and the cartoon would most likely feature in a slot for adult nostalgia where the perceived risk of confusion is smaller (indeed the BBC feels able to show actual advertisements for obsolete brands in these shows). 82.69.171.94 (talk) 09:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, BoN. Not that I doubted you but this led me to look at the WP article which expands slightly on what you've posted. Bob Soles (talk) 09:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

It was always Top Cat when I was a child. It used to confuse me when my Dad refered to it as boss catAMassiveGay (talk) 18:12, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I've seen the scenes where they re-libed "Sorcerer's Stone" into it. And WP says it, so it must be true. ^moral 10:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

In the UK trailer they say "Girl Guides" but in the US version say "Girl Scouts". Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 11:05, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The last episode of David Attenborough's show "Frozen Planet" wasn't picked up in the US because it mentions global warming (or rather, the last episode is all about global warming). The rest of the series was picked up, though. in fact I think the whole series was eventually picked up but there was definitely an issue around the last episode at first and that bugs the hell out of me X Stickman (talk) 11:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The "official" reason for that from the BBC is that the last episode is mostly Attenborough talking to camera, but since no-one knows who the hell he is in America (heathens and philistines) it wouldn't make sense and would be an unnecessary episode to tack onto a system where they're set up for 6 episodes. Although I'm sure that's not the only consideration. ^theist 11:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Different titles in different regions happens all the time. Its usually because of similar sounding titles in the other region, or just different marketing strategies. When 'The Madness of King George III' was released in the states as 'The Madness of King George', there was a story going around that the 'III' was dropped to stop americans thinking it was a sequel. The story wasn't true but us britishers do enjoy laughing at thick americans. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Conservative persecution complex ramps up

The Derb, Trayvon, and the war on women -- is it just me or are the attempts at deflection coming from the wingnut-osphere getting especially pathetic recently? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of Derb, didn't the National Review endorse Obama in 2008? nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 23:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Christopher Buckley endorsed him on The Daily Beast, and then "resigned" after the outrage.--^talk 04:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

So did Wick Allison, former publisher of National Review. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 04:21, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Asinine atheism

So I was looking through some of the recent WIGO:Blogs and someone posted this. It was good up until about half-way in, when it became utterly un-moored from reality:

"People who doubted their beliefs would never know..."

Okay, so far so good.

"...would we know about the Roman Catholic Church’s systematic abuse..."

Wait, so atheists single-handedly exposed the RCC sex scandals? They launched all the lawsuits, and the investigations and inquiries like the John Jay Report and the Ferns Report?

"Would homosexual people ever be able to openly and freely express love for one another?"

LGBT groups have done nothing? All theists are virulent homophobes?

"Would we even know that the Earth revolves around the sun and not the other way around?"

Galileo was an atheist?!

Apparently skepticism goes straight out the window where atheism is concerned. This sort of thing reminds me of the Christian apologists who lay claim to all the achievements of Western civilization. Certainly we'd all be living in grass huts beating each other over the head with clubs if it weren't for atheists. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

We have people here who write like that, only worse. Our job is to patrol and amend and improve their work. And eachother's. This is why a wiki can be better than a blog. ħuman 03:28, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

And yes, I know there's an apostrophe missing somewhere in there. It's your job to correct that. ħuman 03:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

This is so common in a variety of "intellectual" forums. "We, and we alone, with our Big Brains (tm) and our Awesome Ideas(patent pending) are the only reason humanity has every done anything". Not withstanding the fact that most discoveries, humanistic ideas, and social improvements don't come from big brains but every day people who generally have simply seen too much to put up with "it' any longer. Godot On a perdu le contrôle 05:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Do we need an article? Clueless atheism? The closest we have right now is Atheists say the darnedest things and it's... meh.--ZooGuard (talk) 07:11, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I get really irritated when people use atheism and rationalism/skepticism as if they were synonymous. If somebody claims to be a rationalist and says something stupid we have a right to be surprised because we know that they have claimed to be rational.

The only thing we know about an atheist is that he/she does not believe in the existence of one class of of mythological being. That's all we know about them. They may be as sane as you and I or a loopy as Stalin and Ayn Rand.--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 10:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Evidently, the logic is that if you're gay and/or don't generally like organised religion you must be an atheist. It's so easy to project each and every one of your beliefs on to people you agree with, and I've seen plenty of "skeptics" make that assumption - and then flat out deny they're being stupid when it's pointed out. And the converse is almost always true. How often do you hear things where people sing the praises of someone and then completely change their tune and think they're the devil incarnate because of one lonely, solitary opinion on one single item. Opinions on Bill Maher and Christopher Hitchens being some of the worst offenders for that. ^sshole 10:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Sure there's a no true Scotsman in all of us. But that's not the point I'm making. We should react when rationalists are stupid. But if athiests are stupid - so what? A particular atheist would not believe in god, but might believe in faeries for all I know.--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 11:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Depends on the item, really. I would say there's a big difference between making one offhand comment about the wonders of chiropractic and (in the case of Hitch) dedicating endless column inches in major media outlets for years carrying water for neo-con warmongers. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I can think of a lot of silly things atheists have said. Glad to find out about this article.

Worst atheist book I ever read: "Time-Travelling with Science and the Saints"- published in the 1990s and revives the myth of a medieval flat earth (they knew it was round) a long with a lot of other canards (Exactly how were Roger Bacon's books placed on the Catholic Church's Index of Forbidden Books 350 years before it was created?????). All the research was done from dated encyclopedias.--WickerGuy (talk) 16:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Eh. If you arrive at godlessness through rationalism, the two can be easy to mix up. The substance is there, even if the champion is 'reason' and not 'atheism'. Q0 (talk) 20:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

If that's how you get there, sure. I would imagine that most rationalists are athiests. That is because rationalists ask for evidence before belief and if they perceive that evidence for god is lacking then atheism is the result. But in that case the important thing is rationalism, and such people would (presumably) also not believe in faeries, ghosts, homeopathy or whatever.

If the only thing you know about somebody is that he is an atheist then they might believe any other strange thing you might care to mention. The only thing you know is that they don't believe that god exists. So I can never understand the "Gasp! an ATHEIST said that!" comments.--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 22:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's one thing about an atheist either pulling a "spiritual not religious" or taking up alt med, but it's something else for an atheist blogger who, in theory, should know what they're talking about to say slightly stupid things about religion. After all, if you're discussing atheism, one expects for you to know at least something non-straw-manish about religion. Right? Clearly, the above post is from someone who regularly blogs about skepticism and has attracted the following. You hold their opinions to a different qualitative standard to someone who posts "by the way, I'm an atheist and I think X, Y and Z" as a random aside to their usual posts about dick and shoes. ^bomination 23:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

OK.--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 09:20, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Hope not Hate's Counter-Jihad Report

Thought some people might find this interesting - a ountry-by-country breakdown of "counter-Jihad" groups and individuals, from Pamela Geller to the BNP. The Swedish groups have awesome names. Balaam (talk) 21:11, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The mole does find that interesting. Mole (talk) 12:34, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Some dude in my SSA posts his brainchild

Some guy in my Secular Student Alliance branch posted this on the facebook today. His claims seem somewhat dubious to me. I don't really believe that history has been preserved properly regarding the formation of religion (the oldest bible we have is incredibly different from the modern versions) but this seems a bit... strange. I don't have the specific knowledge required to fully evaluate the claims within, but he doesn't provide citations so I am a bit baffled. Rationalwiki, what do you think about all of this? ^{— Unsigned, by: KnightOfTL;DR / talk / contribs}

Sounds like someone's been watching too much Zeitgeist. Just make sure he doesn't start railing against the Jooish bankstahs next. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

To claim various religions borrowed myths from one another and that legends usually have a basis in reality is not so far fetched. But he seems to be making up his own myths. The next question is... Why/how does it affect us if Moses was real or based on Sargon the Great? I used to think people's minds were in a religious prison and if freed we could have a utopia. The fact of the matter is we are dumb and we will find other reasons to hate each other. Don't worry though; ignition in 2012! GO USA! TheCheat^{I run on alcohol} 14:46, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be great of Moses was based on WP:Sargon the Sorceror. That would drastically change how I viewed the Pentateuch and religion in general. Omar (gibber) 14:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

How do I substitute another image for the logo?

I am creating a page, and I would like to know how to replace the logo. Bootmii 06:42, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

You have a number of options:

• If you only want/need yourself to see the logo, add the equivlent of

  .page-RationalWiki_Saloon_bar #p-logo a { background-image: url(http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/images/8/85/RWWW.png) !important; }
  

  to your custom css file (probably User:Bootmii/vector.css).
• Or, if you want everyone to see it, manually move the image to the correct place with something like

  <span style="position:absolute;top:-150px;left:-180px;z-index:1;">[[File:Swirlysparkly.gif|155px]]</span>
  

  (that precise code won't have the image in the correct place, mind).
• Or you could use the first option but make it work for everyone by persuading a tech to add the css code to MediaWiki:Common.css.

Does that help? Peter ^{tanquam ex ungue leonem} 07:29, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The mole is wondering why you wish to replace the logo on a page. Mole (talk) 12:20, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

It looks absolutely terrible on the skin i use though, so don't do that--il'Dictator Mikal 13:20, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The span type does, yes. But as for the css, what does Fun:RationalWikiWikiWiki look like for you? Peter ^{tanquam ex ungue leonem} 21:39, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Earth calling Rob (or Nation shall speak peace unto Nation)

Moved to: Forum:Rob_does_not_know_how_the_BBC_works Sophie^{because liberals} (pp User:P-Foster 13:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

How's the penguin?

Newt Gingrich bitten by penguin. Sophie^{because liberals} 10:49, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

My contacts inform me that the penguin has now been "indefinitely detained". Mole (talk) 12:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Sure, Newt Gingrich gets bitten by a penguin and it's all over the news, but no one hears about SSgt. Ernest Plimpton of the 101st Airborne Division who was bit by a penguin on February 13, or PFC Tony Abercrombie of the 75th Ranger Regiment, bit by a penguin while on active duty in Khandahar last Winter. Why don't they make the news? Turpis 3:16 (talk) 13:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Celeb culture. :( Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 13:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I have been told that penguins are excellent judges of character. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{critical thinking is the key to success!} 15:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Our zoo is the best zoo. I think I'll donate again this year just to support these penguins. --CoyoteSans (talk) 17:36, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I only wish there were more news stories with headlines that start with the words "feisty small penguin". ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:14, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Cast off the mammalian oppressors! Copperhead^Hisssssss 22:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

State of Consumer Robotics 2012

Still prohibitively expensive, but getting better (sorry it's a clickthrough sideshow, PC Mag apparently got rid of the "printer friendly" option for articles). I've got a weakness for robotic crap, what can I say. I particularly like that Roomba clone for pet owners. --CoyoteSans (talk) 23:55, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Atheism is a religion...

...people join to appear smarter. ^bomination 13:57, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Not appear. Apppear. Vulpius (talk) 14:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Not wishing to appear stoutist but... Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 14:29, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Loooking a litttle bit smug is sommmething of an occupppational hazzzard, I supppose. ^sshole 15:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Serious question - do any of you atheists actually "Debate" it? I mean, i guess I "debate" the merits of a bible centered literal christianity. But I just can't see the logic of saying "I will logically prove there is no god, or that it is not likely, and do so with people who think there is a god, and at the end of the day, take something fulfilling away from the activity." Godot Tout s'acheve par commencer un autre voyage 21:12, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Typically only in reaction, I don't go out looking for people to debate. Copperhead^Hisssssss 22:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

My friends and I sit around talk about how stupid and gullible theists are....though, usually, it involves politicians. -- Seth Peck (talk) 22:05, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the point of debating re atheism is to inspire people to question their beliefs & assumptions which they often take for granted rather than to prove that there isn't a god. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:23, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Rarely do people change dearly-held, life-long views because of a debate; they tend to get petulant and defensive. As for debating creationists, well I don't recall ever meeting one in the UK apart from JWs knocking on the door. The only ones I've ever met in the wild were Nigerians or Americans and as a foreign visitor I'm not going to start trying to convert them. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 01:49, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Likewise, I've never knowingly met a real live Creationist. And if I did, I wouldn't know where to start. Ajkgordon (talk) 07:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

As it happens, I grew up in a creationist family in the UK. Yes really. Though I accept this is unusual.--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 12:40, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Does this mean that atheists that didn't get into it for 'fame' are actually smarter? --Rutherford (talk) 23:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Debate is a chance to refine your arguments and, in the odd instance of humility, admit that you were (gasp!) wrong. So I don't have much patience for blatant nonsense such as the creationists spouting off about "no transitional fossils." Living in the Ivory Tower, though, you get a lot of liberal theists -- the occasional Kierkegaard fan is fun to proselytize to because we tend to agree on many fundamental philosophical issues except the god parts. Never managed to convert one to the one true faith, though. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 09:02, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

White nationalism: now with bunnies!

I was looking around YouTube and I found this (and this). Some white nationalist podcaster has decide to promote his views using an elaborate analogy involving cartoon animals: white rabbits represent Caucasians, pink rabbits apparently represent race traitors, and the pink rabbits worship an Evil Red Hippo which represents... I dunno, communism? Balaam (talk) 08:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Pop psychology pwned!

Came across this excellent quote by Tyler Cowen of Marginal Revolution fame. He sums up trendy pop psych books in a nutshell (h/t):

“”There’s the Nudge book, the Sway book, the Blink book… [they are] all about the ways in which we screw up. And there are so many ways, but what I find interesting is that none of these books identify what, to me, is the single, central, most important way we screw up, and that is, we tell ourselves too many stories, or we are too easily seduced by stories. And why don’t these books tell us that? It’s because the books themselves are all about stories. The more of these books you read, you’re learning about some of your biases, but you’re making some of your other biases essentially worse. So the books themselves are part of your cognitive bias.

Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 09:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

So the solution is to stop reading books! I can live with that. ^theist 09:51, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. I was wondering what the logical conclusion of this insight would be too. Does Tyler Cowen write books? Should we read them to find out these things? Is the problem confined to books and should we only read bloggs and wikis and listen to the radio? It's all a bit of a puzzle.--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 10:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

This is something about which I have often thought - the narrative fallacy, or the tendency to construct events and people into elements suitable for traditional narratives. I'm working on a note on this topic, although I doubt it'll be publishable.--^talk 10:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Science of Discworld is really good at exploring the whole "people think in stories" trope. Because the gimmick there is that it's contrasting the real world (which runs on rules) with Discworld (which runs on narrativium) then it's a great way to frame how narratives work. But, I wouldn't be so dismissive as Cowen seems to be. We all have to compress things down into stories to make sense of the world, and so we react to stories far better, far more efficiently, and with greater resonance. The trick is to avoid the narrative fallacy, not the narrative. Of course, I'm unsurprised that if we explore and attempt to correct for one bias we'll enforce another, as that's just a side-effect of the fact we're not going to turn ourselves into mere adding machines any time soon. ^gnostic 11:05, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I thought the quote dealt with self help books and not all books in general? Am I missing something or does the quote advocate not reading all books? Your possible sarcasm is lost on me A! We find ourselves looking at the mirror rather than looking into and through the mirror. When we do that we can finally see the reality of how beautiful we are. There are probably many examples of actual good 'self help' books, but a lot of them are probably woo. TheCheat^{I run on alcohol} 15:36, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, totally fucking sarcastic with the "not reading books" thing. Just because the quote, on its own at least, doesn't really define what it really is that it's going against so might imply that avoiding everything is the solution! There is a great deal of bad pop psych and science out there, but statements that are too sweeping and didactic are a bit baby-and-bathwater because there's also very good pop science out there - indeed, everyone experiences some degree of dumbing down to their level, for instance I'd teach students a fairly "dumbed-down" version of NMR that avoids product operator notation, and I'd tell family and friends (when they inevitably as "so what do you do?") something even simpler that doesn't even go into quantum theory. Yet what I know, is a simplified version because I don't know shift operators and density matrices (yet). Each story contains a different amount of detail, and a different degree of "wrong". Because of this, I'm weary about people being too dismissive about "pop" books just for the sake of it without them being far more specific in their criticism. ^narchist 18:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Without a winking smiley ;P TheCheat^{I run on alcohol} 18:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

"The trick is to avoid the narrative fallacy, not the narrative." True, but Cowen's point is that mention of said fallacy is left out of the books. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:46, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Spanish white elephant shoots itself in foot.

So the Spanish royal family is giving the Spaniards lot to talk about. The King, who is president of the Spanish branch of the World Wildlife Fund, went off the radar for a few days last week. This is not so unusual but while taking his little break he broke his hip while killing elephants in Botswana. (Presumably all the seal-clubbing tours in the arctic were booked up.)

At more or less the same time his 13-year-old grandson also shot himself in the foot (although this time literally) when he was either hunting or cleaning a shotgun - reports differ.

One can only hope that he had no intention of continuing the family's tradition of fratricide as the present king - of elephant-hunting fame - is only king because he shot and killed his older brother when he was a teenager. My bad, younger.

So I guess that we Europeans - or at least the more blue-blooded ones - may be as stupid with guns as some of our transatlantic cousins.

All this might have passed unnoticed some years ago; after all we expect royalty to be "eccentric". But the king has recently been exhorting Spaniards to put up with salary cuts and high levels of unemployment as Spain frantically tries to avoid becoming the next Greece, and this is not really the most politically appropriate time to disappear for a bit of expensive free-lance bloodletting.

Added to this is the fact that his son-in-law, associated royal princess and possibly the King himself, are presently the subject of a complex fraud and corruption investigation.

If this were they UK they'd be a laughing stock but the Spanish press are usually very deferential to the king - but this time it looks like he may have gone too far and "questions are being asked".--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 13:33, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I thought it was his younger brother who was killed. Ajkgordon (talk) 13:42, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, my bad. Two Spanish people have just told me it was his elder brother, but Spanish and English WP say younger. So I must be wrong. --Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 13:49, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I think there must be a hierarchy of awesomely pointless "sports" to which you become more inclined as you get richer and more privileged. Golf certainly features on the list, as does polo. Hunting is definitely up there. Real tennis and fencing are probably staples too. If this were Conservapedia I'd probably start a "mystery" and put "add more!" at the end of my list. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if just "hunting" would go. Big game hunting and trophy hunting definitely, but some of us grew up in families where hunting was still a major source of food. Omar (gibber) 16:29, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I ate more deer growing up than pork or beef. Тy^{Please do not click on this} 16:36, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Fencing? Nah. My wife is a fencing Master at Arms. It's all very egalitarian these days. At least in Europe. I'm guessing it might be a bit Ivy League in the US. Ajkgordon (talk) 17:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

In the US, "fencing" is an activity involving a large coil of chain link and wire cutters. -- Seth Peck (talk) 18:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you here all week? Should I try the fish? Ajkgordon (talk) 18:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Hunting seems to have many branches and factions. There's the 'This is a tradition in my family,' school, the 'omg go out and kill things I am manly look at my phallus cool gun' school, there is the 'I am hunting for trophies/rewards' school, there is the 'I am hunting for meat/for my family' school, and there is the 'I am sophisticated shooting rare animals' school that I wish had died in the '20s. And of course, you know, poachers. Several people I know who hunt are actually humiliated by images of hicks shooting things for fun; they do things safely and properly and support firearms education, awareness, and sensible restriction. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{going galt: the literal crazy train} 17:15, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I tend to use the ever-so-glorious conservative logic when arguing against most of the types of hunting, asking why they need firearms to kill animals that our ancestors killed with crude spears and bows. Do they not value the traditions of the past? Are they not man enough? Can they not wrestle a bear with their bare hands? Now, I have to admit, spending a good part of my life in the American south I've personally known people who go out hunting wild boars with nothing but knives. Those are definitely the exception and not the rule, though (they're also a bit crazy). Q0 (talk) 18:32, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Which school is my dog that I had to chase around the yard to recover a dead bird she found/killed? I am leaning towards 'omg go out and kill things I am manly look at my phallus cool gun' school reguardless of the fact she has a cunt and no gun. It is fun how humans pretend to be somehow elevated over the rest of nature, usually citing a primitive understanding of the universe as an excuse. Life feeds on life... Full Diclosure: I do not hunt but I do eat meat. TheCheat^{I run on alcohol} 18:39, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Fucking Hippies

Well not all hippies, but this guy seems to give both hippies and science a bad name. Was searching for footage of the volcano in Mexico and I happened upon him. 1000 videos, his last page of videos is oddly NSFW. At what point does crazy deserve an article? TheCheat^{I run on alcohol} 23:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Spare me having to watch a vlogger (I've yet to watch a single vlog in my life, and would like to keep it that way...).--what does he say that's so remarkable? Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 23:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

He just reads headlines like a human news aggregator for weird 'climate change' stories. "It appears the evacuated workers were right. this is more gas than was seen in the Total videos of a leaking wellhead, with 4 small pin holes. They may have cracked the sea floor. If so it will destroy the ozone above the arctic vortex, no protection from the increasing solar activity..is this the plan?". Nasa conspiracies. He does do proper connections I think with like the bad tornadoes in the USA and other actual climate change induced stuff, but he throws in all kinds of crazy conspiracy shit. 8500 followers, 2 million views. TheCheat^{I run on alcohol} 23:37, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Goddamned fucking hippies! I hate hippies. Ace^Moderator 23:41, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

This phenomenon is pretty widespread. I have this friend, she's genuinely curious about food politics and how they effect her kids, she's concerned about environmental issues and reads the smart stuff about climate change, but she also doesn't have the critical thinking skills together to keep that genuine desire to be informed about science and politics from sliding into conspiracy stuff-chemtrails, etc. She'll psit a really smart article about climate change from Scientific American in the morning, and then something from a fringe blog about vaccines in the afternoon. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 23:43, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

He seems more like a broken clock than that, more like an all around environmental nut. I guess not every nut deserves an article though. TheCheat^{I run on alcohol} 23:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

oh boy oh boy. New diet fad - eating through your nose

Feeding tubes are all the rage in Europe, and traveling to the US at a Bride's to Be near you! newsy.Godot Tout s'acheve par commencer un autre voyage 21:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Bleh. Copperhead^Hisssssss 21:59, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

...No thank you.--Dumpling (talk) 23:26, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

That's pretty fucking desperate. ^bomination 09:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

And it uses the Daily Mail as a source too so I believe all of it.--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 12:37, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I can't find that as a trackable activity on Fitocracy. -- Seth Peck (talk) 16:32, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

This reminds me of a running gag from this movie. --Tweenk (talk) 00:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

The (racist) cake is a lie!

Already added to WIGO:World, but seriously, what the fuck? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 08:37, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

It gets weirder once you realise that the "head" is actually the artist himself. ^gnostic 09:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

People are starting to see the whole thing as a trap set on the unsuspecting minister by the artist. The real artwork wasn't the sculpture-cake, it was the resulting photo as a statement about racism and imperialism. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 22:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Interesting discussion re: religion in contemporary America.

Dude has some interesting insights. Might read his book. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 19:33, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you'll really like it. It is more a call to Christians than to "religion in america" though he tries to tie in generalize religion into it. But American Civil Religion has myths specifically about being rich, being self made, and financially successful as the pinnacle of self identity that you knew it would have to infect the actual religion of xianity as practiced here in teh US. There's a Facebook meme that is a bit like this, "Jesus was a liberal" or versions of that. --Godot Tout s'acheve par commencer un autre voyage 21:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

This Ross Douthat? - David Gerard (talk) 21:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The same. I'd never heard of him before this. Seems like a bit of a douche. That aside, he says some interesting things on the radio. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 21:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, his personality is unfortunate for someone with a name so easily twisted to "douche-hat" - David Gerard (talk) 22:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

He's one of (at least) three moderate conservatives with a column in the New York Times. These tend to be the more rational conservatives, but they tend to be rejected by the ultra-right as RINOs.--WickerGuy (talk) 23:06, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Better than Bill Kristol, at least. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:26, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

This site has promise... sort of

I have to admit, your site has promise. I came here after having a disastrous experience at Conservapedia. And articles like Conspiracy theory are quite heartening; as a scientifically-minded individual, I find constant pain in the conspiracy theorizing and pseudo-science I see go around every day. (You're reading from the guy who used to believe in creationism... until he actually attended college and found out the truth).

All of this said, it just so happens that I am an intelligent conservative that cannot stand stupidity, no matter which bias it takes. So I cannot help but be saddened by the... yes, liberal bias on this site. Media Matters for America, an idiotic left-wing site which panders to the lowest common denominator, is treated with kid-gloves, while NewsBusters, its right-wing equivalent for stupidity, is heavily criticized. Liberal media takes a heavy-handed tone to knocking down the idea that the MSM is liberal, when it plainly is (Fox News and talk radio being the main exceptions); the data supporting this is strangely absent from the article.

It would be nice if we could have a site to combat the non-scientific idiocy of the world without ourselves resorting to this sort of partisan POV-pushing circle-jerking that we claim to despise. 98.235.166.47 (talk) 07:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Welcome! It's unfortunate that you see some bias here: many of us also came from CP (although not all) and left because of ideological differences, so that's perhaps inevitable. But please create an account and get editing! If you see some problems, fix them: help us improve.--^talk 07:47, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I am not a conservative but I am highly critical of the left and political idiocy from both sides of the fence. My politics are at odds with many here but no one seems bothered. Ace^Moderator 07:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

This is just because American media the most skewed in the world. Fox is an extreme caricature, but not even Maddow comes as close to that level of spin in the opposite direction. To try and say "mainstream" US media has a liberal bias is, frankly, delusional - not least because anyone trying to tag the "mainstream" with a bias is really just revealing their own in a roundabout way. We see it all the time with the BBC which is simultaneously accused of being a mouth-piece for the left, and a right-wing hate group depending on who's watching at the time. ^sshole 08:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

This is a bit of an aside from what I was stating above, but I'll bite, because I love debate! Actually, the bias is present in that people who self-select as journalists tend to be the type that prefers out-of-the-box thought and lifestyle over structured thought and lifestyle, which is almost exactly the definition for "liberal." This is probably the most improtant factor. Journalists are usually also college-educated, which tends to a liberal bias (at least on the four-year level; not quite as much post-graduate); this is probably the second most important factor. And finally, the media is usually centered in big cities, where people are more liberal. The evidence for these being the reason behind the bias - the fact that the media so ardently supported Obama over Clinton in 2008 (Obama was supported by college intellectuals, think-outside-the-box types, and people in cities).

Think about a corrolary - to claim that "mainstream small-business" or "mainstream church-goers" couldn't be conservative because they are "mainstream" - and yet studies clearly show that both groups tend more conservative.

I do think the BBC is by-and-large pretty good, especially compared to American media, almost none of which treats things neutrally. I could be wrong but I do think they occasionally betray a bias. The example I would give supporting my assertion is the BBC's initial coverage of the Tea Party as basically a group of racist rednecks (certainly the Tea Paty is full of racist rednecks, but the movement also had a very legitimate side to it; for a corollary, think about how Occupy Wall Street has a legitimate side but also its share of thieves, vandals, drug addicts, and people who do things like defecate on cop cars as a "statement" of protest). 98.235.166.47 (talk) 08:34, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I can't really comment too much on the Americo-centric stuff, but as far as the site is concerned you might wish to read RationalWiki:What is a RationalWiki article? which talks about our POV.--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 09:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

the type that prefers out-of-the-box thought and lifestyle over structured thought and lifestyle, which is almost exactly the definition for "liberal." Not in my book, it isn't. What a condescending pile of dingoes kidneys. If you want to come here for interesting debate you might want to leave your preconceptions about liberals at the door. Or are you just trolling? Bob Soles (talk) 09:20, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Trouble is the definition of liberal is so varied and changeable it has almost become useless as a word. Ajkgordon (talk) 09:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

As an Australian, every time I see the word "liberal", I have to mentally remind myself that it doesn't mean conservative. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree, the Tea Party had a very legitimate angle. Pity it was co-opted by fanatics and cretins like Palin et al. Ace^Moderator 09:30, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Although it's nice that you've come out here and stated your opinion, I somehow don't think that outright coming around and telling people that their wiki is garbage is the way to make a bunch of people who mostly think their wiki is not garbage to change their minds. I'd suggest getting an account and beginning to edit some of the pages you find to be factually incorrect. If people have counterpoints and arguments to your content, they will revert, move it to talk page, and you can exchange evidence and debate there. I have to warn you, though: you will need to find actual evidence of your points if you debate. When presented with evidence and a well thought out point, most of us here will go 'ah, OK,' and consider the possibility. But that goes for you, too. Sorry, I just am getting visions of the tons of other people who come here to argue both refusing to bear evidence of their claims and also the refusal to accept that they can be wrong about something. Not saying you are wrong by default (far from it!) or that you are one of these people, but we get them rather often and it's not really that pleasant to engage in discussion with people who don't know how to discuss things. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{critical thinking is the key to success!} 11:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I know there are some polls out there saying this man has a 32% approval rating. But guys like us, we don't pay attention to the polls. We know that polls are just a collection of statistics that reflect what people are thinking in "reality." And reality has a well-known liberal bias. [6] TheCheat^{I run on alcohol} 14:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Get the feeling the BON didn't even read the liberal media article, especially when they say "data supporting this is strangely absent from the article. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:21, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

No, I meant data supporting the idea that the media is liberal, not supporting the point of the article (my bad) - such data does exist, actually. Also, @KnightOfTL;DR: of course. I didn't say your site is garbage, only expressing sadness that parts of it are badly writtten, and trying to get a feeler for how the community would respond to what I think is legitimate criticism - a test I ran on Conservapedia and which it failed with flying colors (although you're correct, as of yet I haven't provided any data to back up my claim). The way a community responds to legitimate good-faith criticism is a hallmark of whether it's worth the effort to try to make changes. 98.235.166.47 (talk) 23:21, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

True, but any reaction can be effected by the tone of the criticism as much as by the substance. Ajkgordon (talk) 07:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, try again, BON. "Data" supporting "liberal" media bias (i.e., Goldberg and Groseclose and Milyo, probably the two most popular cites for this "fact") are cited and rebutted in the article. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 09:24, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

IMO, there is a certain amount of liberal bias in the mainstream media, but they are better at trying to self-correct for it than the right-wing media. Also, the right THINKS there is liberal bias in the New York Times only because if its thoroughly urban perspective ignoring their many moderate conservative commentators.--WickerGuy (talk) 16:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps reality has a "liberal" bias.--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 16:33, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Tupac and RW

So we have been having significantly higher traffic than usual the last few days. There were no back links, or referrals I could find that were bringing more traffic than usual. I poked around a bit and realized that our Project blue beam article is bringing more traffic, particularly from search engine traffic. The google traffic from searching for project blue beam has increased several thousand percent. A bit puzzled, some more poking, and apparently whenever the Tupac not-hologram gets mentioned in discussion boards, videos, blogs, etc. people start bringing it up as proof of project blue beam. Interesting. Tmtoulouse (talk) 02:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

One tweet does it all. Our website was already the top Google search for it beforehand, and voila.

*re-enters the shadows* Osaka Sun (talk) 02:54, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So... Shamefully materialistic hip-hop artists and producers exploiting the legacy of a more socially conscious deceased hip hop artist means NASA is trying to start a freaky new religion?--"Shut up, Brx." 02:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

These morons bring up anything as proof. There's some people out there saying that digital projection mapping is testing for Blue Beam. ^sshole 08:44, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

And what about those little holograms on credit cards? See? See? Sophie^{because liberals} 08:58, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

The more citable stupidity, the better. Blue Beam is becoming the Universal Conspiracy Theory. (What was it before? Illuminati? Jews? Catholics?) I've created Tupac Shakur from all this - David Gerard (talk) 12:59, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

It begins…

Mwaahahahaha, etc, etc. One step closer to being the perfect Doctor Who villain. (Warning! Link may contain a tiny bit of corrupting Science).-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 12:23, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Gay Rights Protesters' Placards

Says it all on the tin sign really.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 16:04, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, lol. ^{d hominem} 17:00, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

What a lovely website!

A quite charming look at logical fallacies, perfect for linking to when people commit them. Each fallacy they include has a nice, clear description page that I'm sure that all but the most dense can understand. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{longissimus non legeri} 16:59, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Loving the accompanying graphics, too. ^theist 17:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

...which are CC-BY-SA ^pathetic 17:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone have a direct link to the Illustrator sources? The torrent link appears to be broken. I was thinking about making a translation. --Tweenk (talk) 08:05, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Americans & Britons

Don't forget to vote. Most states have April or May elections for "local" elections (Mayors, City Council, Boards of Directors for school, fire, and water Districts, etc.) and we get something like 10-30% returns cause no one cares. But little, local elections are where your real power as a voter lies! (public message for the day).Godot Tout s'acheve par commencer un autre voyage 15:09, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Is this the one where the bad guy is going to win in your neck of the woods because of a procedural error? Something to do with schools, maybe? Bob Soles (talk) 15:21, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Anti tax dude, 3 years behind in his water bill and his local taxes, trying to win on a platform of... um... 'pay for me, cause I don't wanna". :-) --Godot Tout s'acheve par commencer un autre voyage 17:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd LOVE to vote, only nobody advertises for it or tells you whats going on for it, most i keep seeing is the fact theres a vote over whos replacing the resident democrat in the senate.--il'Dictator Mikal 15:41, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Local elections are amazingly bad at that. The laws are archaic, I think. I just have to publish in one paper (and we choose some cheep 'nickel paper' that comes out once a week; and I don't have to let you know by mail or any other means. but now that Colorado has gone to mail ballots, you'll get it automatically in the mail. You don't have to request it or know the day of the election or anything. course, that doesn't mean you'll know anything about the 5 guys or gals on teh ballot. Godot Tout s'acheve par commencer un autre voyage 17:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's also Local Council election season for the Brits. Well, for some of us, anyway. Really send a message to the political parties by going out and voting — for an independent.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 16:09, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

In nebraska? HA!--il'Dictator Mikal 16:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

In Britain at least, voting for an independent is a fairly expensive way to teach one person a lesson (the independent voted in gets taught, and the lesson is: you need a political party to have any clout). Local politicians flyer their districts in Britain (does this not happen in the US?) and if you're a registered party member you'll be reminded that way too. As the day gets closer the news and politics channels in the UK will also mention it more in the last week or so before 3rd May. At least show up and make it apparent that you've noticed you have a vote (I don't vote for anyone but I make sure I collect my ballot anyway). Speaking of flyers, if you see one that's especially bizarre or outrageously false, scan it and upload to http://www.electionleaflets.org/ 82.69.171.94 (talk) 09:42, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

A fbk friend of mine (who i've actually previously complained about being a moron) updated his status the other day with "Vote Boris [London mayor incumbent, conservative] May 3rd". I resisted the urge to comment saying, "Thank you for that, I was having trouble deciding who to vote for. Now I've seen your status I will definitely vote for another five years of Boris Johnson. Thank you again for telling me who to vote for. You'll make a great politician one day." El Taj^{Don't make me do stuff} 10:36, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Duh…uh…what?

I know it's the Daily Fail and all, but that's a new twist on the meaning of hypocrisy for me. Charlie and Racist let it be known that personally, they don't like wind turbines, but the Crown Estate, an entity run by a group of independent trustees have said that they have allowed six energy companies to build wind turbines on Crown Estate land. How exactly is that hypocrisy, given that Charlie and Racist have absolutely no say in this matter, and it's part of the duty of the Crown Estate trustees to raise revenue from the Estate?-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 22:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

The Fail wouldn't usually criticise the royals, but when it's an easy excuse to complain about environmentalism ruining the English countryside, anything goes. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 10:32, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

It's like the article where someone said they preferred the NHS to a top California hospital. WHO DO YOU SIDE WITH!?!?! The dissonance in the Mail's office must be unbearable sometimes. ^gnostic 11:33, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Just because…

I really should have done this on the 21st February, but forgot. Have some Nina Simone.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 12:35, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Pretty good, but this is still my favourite version of that song. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 14:27, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Pseudopsychology

Finished my hub/overview of pseudopsychology. I think I got most of our relevant articles linked in there -- add any if I've missed them. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:41, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, how do I add the page to the pseudostudies navbox at the bottom? (/Noob) Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:50, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Turns out it isn't dpl ^narchist 21:18, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

The "State of the Bible."

Fewer Americans believe that the Bible is "sacred literature. Fewer Americans agree that the Bible contains "everything a person needs to know to live a meaningful life." "Nearly half (46%) of Americans couldn't differentiate between the teachings of the Bible, the Koran, or the Book of Mormon.". Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 00:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

last two paragraphs are sickening."Godot Tout s'acheve par commencer un autre voyage 01:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

So, if you look back in the early days of the formation of this country," says Vest, "it's impossible to separate the formation of our democratic republic from the foundation of Scripture." The survey reveals how much more work is needed to prove to the public that the Bible is not a dusty out of date, rule book. The ABS, says Vest, is not trying to get people to go out and buy new Bibles, just to make good use of the ones they already have. —

Yes, yes they are. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 01:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The original survey seems to suggest that the bible still has significant impact on the US.--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 07:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Though the funny stuff comes at the end. When asked: "The Bible says that Abraham raised his staff and Red Sea parted. Please tell me if you think this is true or false." only 50% were confidently able to answer "false". And when asked how often they actually read the thing the majority either never looked at or only opened it a handful of times a year.--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 07:19, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not like you need to go through it, after all, how many people do you think make Cthulu references and LOTR references without having to trudge through HP Lovecrafte and Tolkein respectively? For the most part, you can hold your own just through memetic osmosis, and not least because everyone else you'll ever really talk to about it will have the same level of knowledge! The difference, of course, is that the religious equivalent hold their book as some awesomesauce moral code, to be held in regard above everything else, and as essential reading to save your immortal soul. Being someone who has "just watched the film" is a little less understandable. ^postate 10:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Even by cultural osmosis you'd expect more than 50% of the these people - who seem to generally maintain that they get so much benefit from the Good Book - to get the test question right.--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 13:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

You'd think that. ^moral 14:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Well I know everything I have learned from the bible I have gotten from Mel Brooks Gibson. For some odd reason I also have a weird distrust of jewish people. So the vile secularists are winning?!?! Ignition 2012! TheCheat^{I run on alcohol} 13:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, cultural osmosis. But I don't think the Bible is special except for its abuse as a moral code. People who've seen Aliens are still quite likely to believe that Marines! We are leaving! is a line from the movie. They've sat in a theatre and heard the actual line, and they'll still probably get less thsn 50% correct if asked about that. 188.220.41.110 (talk) 15:53, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

OK. I'll take it all back. It's not at all surprising that 50% of bible readers did not know that the bible does not say that Abraham raised his staff and the Red Sea parted.:-)Perhaps that sentence would flow better if I cancelled out some "nots". --Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 16:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ None of this is terribly shocking to me, given the ignorance of most of the bible thumpers I talk to...but I still find this way more disturbing and indicative of current conservative attitudes in America. -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. Another biblical "verse" which does not, in fact, exist is "Spare the rod and spoil the child."--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 18:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Is the concept of a paraphrase new to you? ListenerX^TalkerX 07:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

And...exactly HOW is atheism in decline? -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Where does it say that? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:30, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

On CP. Duh :p -- Seth Peck (talk) 21:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm confused. Why does the Bible society collect these statistics? Are they going to change the Bible to appeal to a broader audience if reverence for it falls off too much? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

When you get away from agendas of these types, there is an interesting thing happening in religious expression in the US. It appears from most academic accounts, that religiosity is declining, as is the idea that a "religion" has a right to define how a person interacts with god. Study after study is showing things like : Youth turning form organized religion to form discussion groups on social networking sites about their own personal experience of God and Jesus (and/or spirituality in general); decline in church attendance; an increase in the understanding that xianity is one of many paths, not "the" path. All bad signs for the fundamentalists. Yet at the same time, as something is dying, it screams the loudest. More rules in the US to try to push fundi views onto the country; France, German, and teh Uk reporting an increase in Fundi views; and the biggest, baddest of the churches with all the money to scream their messing - being funded by people who are not feeding the plebes what the plebes care about. which is workign, for now... but is (to me, at least) a death keel for Xianity in the very near future. kids/youth who self identify as christian or "believers" don't identify with the message they are being force fed. Godot Tout s'acheve par commencer un autre voyage 21:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

That's the interesting contradiction in American politics -- organized religion is in decline, but the political machinery built by the Moral Majority et al in the '70s and '80s gives the fundamentalists disproportionate access to political power. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

As the percentage of those who don't hold any religious book to be sacred has increased by ~50% I think that proves that American atheism is on the rise. Olé! Olé! Olé! Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 09:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)