RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive159

This is an archive page, last updated 24 May 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>, <155>, <156>, <157>, <158>, <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>

, (new)(back)

wassup

WASSUP HOMIES ^{— Unsigned, by: ISwagHard / talk / contribs} 05:36, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Fo-shizzle my mc-nizzle. ^gnostic 11:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

JESUS, that's what! ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 11:25, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Put a warning up before you link to Jack Chick like that! ^sshole 11:30, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

But warning people would undermine the entire tract system... ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 16:41, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Most distasteful movie ever

Just out of curiosity, what would you consider the most distasteful propagandized movie you have ever seen? I think it is the patriot, and as I am watching it at school, I want to throw up. Your thoughts? ^{— Unsigned, by: 70.68.30.118 / talk / contribs}

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, by far. Cow...Hammer^time! 16:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Why are you watching The Patriot at school? Ajkgordon (talk) 16:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Triumph of the Will? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:49, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

180. -- Seth Peck (talk) 16:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Expelled or Passion of the Christ for me. The Symphony of Noise ^{The official spikey-haired skeptical punk} 17:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, we could always go for non-controversial examples promoting racism such like Leni Reifenstahl's Triumph of the Will and DW Griffith's Birth of a Nation. And if you're looking into Mel Gibson movies such as The Patriot, I haven't seen that one but was awfully thrown off by Passion of the Christ whose only virtue was to get period details more convincingly than earlier Hollywood Jesus pictures (but that's true of Scorsese's Last Temptation as well.)

Incidentally, I'm highly sympathetic to the politics overall of Michael Moore, but find his documentaries awfully heavy-handed even when I'm mostly in synch with their conclusions! A logical fallacy in one of his films is documented on this wiki, the article quote mining .

I would have skipped Expelled, fearing I would have to expel my dinner after seeing it. It wasn't playing anywhere remotely near my neighborhood.

BTW, I took the liberty of correcting a minor spelling error in the original post.--WickerGuy (talk) 16:57, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

American Revolution. Somehow, propaganda is educational. IN CANADA70.68.30.118 (talk) 18:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, that's weird. Your teacher should be fired. Ajkgordon (talk) 09:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Silence of the Lambs for content, Ace Ventura 1 for effect, but I'm biased. Blue (is useful) 19:24, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

THose aren't really propagandistic movies and as such don't address the question.--WickerGuy (talk) 23:22, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I take a liberally postmodernist view of propaganda. Blue (is useful) 23:30, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The Robe was positively nauseating and full of glurge. Тyrannis^{An iron, but caring, fist} 19:29, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

What about An American Carol? Didn't see it, but the summary on The Other Wiki is bad enough. --Tweenk (talk) 22:49, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Not a movie, but 24 was hard on the border of Keither Sutherland having an erection while reading the Patriot Act out loud. --84.158.66.239 (talk) 23:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I felt like taking a shower after The Voyage that Shook the World. It is 46.2% of the reason I find CMI to be such a vile pack of liars. 00:38, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Interesting to note that two major Jesus movies of the 50s and 60s had initial scripts so bad that a script doctor was called in to completely rewrite it from top to bottom. The script doctor on Ben-Hur was Gore Vidal who put in a gay sub-theme into one scene. It was directed by William Wyler. So it's a Jesus movie directed by a Jew and mostly written by a homosexual. Is that why it's actually a half-decent film? The script-doctor on King of Kings was science-fiction writer Ray Bradbury. Whatever limited literary value it may have is destroyed by Jeffrey Hunter's performance in the lead role.--WickerGuy (talk) 23:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The Bloodlust of the Jews has to be in the running. --MtD^{Prematurely Indeterminate} 02:18, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Just about anything in here i'd sayil'Dictator Mikal 03:03, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

How about Ed Poor's category:movies with 12 year old girls and football coaches ?70.68.30.118 (talk) 16:45, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

The thing is most of the movies that have been named were always intended as propaganda pieces, whereas the original question was "shamelessly propagandized", which I took to mean being compromised from what it should have been to what it became. I think Blue's closer than most people because of this. I'd have to say Spider-Man 3 due to the unnecessary shot of him landing before a fucking huge colonial flag before going and fighting the bad guys, a guy with oily skin and someone made of sand... -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 11:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I think you're reading a bit much into that. It's certainly gung-ho ra-ra America stuff, but I think it's a big stretch to say that the big blonde Caucasian Sandman and Topher-Grace-Venom represent other countries. That Spiderman franchise always leaned heavily on positive appeals to national/local spirit, as in the first movie when New Yorkers throw things at the Goblin and in the second movie when civilians stand in Dr. Octopus's way.

On the other hand, you chose as your moniker the name of an infamously venal traitor to the Jews, so perhaps you represent anti-semitism!--^talk 12:15, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I admit that in a vacuum it could be seen as equally a stretch as the validity of the time cube, but at the time with the war(s), it seemed more than the pro-post 9/11 sentiment that was expressed in the previous films. Instead of a New Yorker solidarity spirit that was expressed in the previous two film it seemed to me like a clumsy attempt to show "our hero" as the epitome of Americana going against people whose main weapons were sand and the power given by an oily looking substance. Maybe my cynicism...

As for my chosen handle, surely traitor should be looked at due the cost/benefit ratio of the overall population based on a possible Roman crackdown? Also the meaning changes somewhat if you consider the Gnostic paradigm? -- Iscariot ^{Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012!} 22:08, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Judas betrayed the jews? --il'Dictator Mikal 01:14, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah, in this case Transformers would qualify. To me it was basically a showcase of American military equipment, with the implication that even all this equipment is not enough and the U.S. needs more. Independence Day is another serious offender, and is also guilty of indulging in the absurd trope that nuclear bombs never seem to work except when used in space. --Tweenk (talk) 12:37, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

What about Team America: World Police? I'm normally a fan of the Stone/Parker œuvre, but this film ended up being an overwrought justification instead of satire. Omar (gibber) 13:21, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Independence Day didn't have military backing, though, because of the Area 51 connection whereas Transformers did. ^pathetic 13:33, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Twilight pretty much has my vote. Some of the things it 'teaches' young girls is just volatile. According to the film, if a guy watches you sleeping without you know than it's heartwarming instead of creepy. It also just feels like it's setting back womens' right back by several decades. Bella is basically a piece of scenery that gets used and passed around rather carelessly and just seems to be one big plot device. Basically, I find the message as this: You need a man in your live to be truly happy, no matter how dangerous and manipulative they are. ...your faithful student, Twilight Sparkle. (talk) 18:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Everything Bad is Gay!!

Look out! Gays are horrible horrible people! Also, MarkCarthy, is this you? ±KnightOfTL;DR^{longissimus non legeri} 23:08, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit: also, there is a dude sitting in a chair right behind her that is flipping out laughing. This man for president. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{walls of text while-u-wait} 23:11, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Did that woman get her information on the gays from Conservapedia?AMassiveGay (talk) 01:39, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh my. The weird gay obsession, the atrocious grammar - this is Ken. Ken is a transexual she-male. It all makes perfect sense. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 01:57, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

No...words.........that woman...what just happened? Aboriginal Noise ^{What the hell is that thing?} 02:16, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, now that I have composed myself... This may not be Ken, but it could very well be Gene Ray's sister. Aboriginal Noise ^{What the hell is that thing?} 02:24, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

What is this I don't even Q0 (talk) 09:40, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

It's perfectly simple: we have to choose between Jesus (a celibate) or Judas (a homo). We have to choose. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:31, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm transcribing the whole diatribe, and I gotta say, I think it comes across even better if read straight and seriously. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 02:10, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Is it just me or does it sound like she's translating from Morse code? "Gays are evil, stop. Gays recruit our children, stop." Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:02, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I think she just brainstormed as many negative thoughts about homosexuality as she could come up with, then read her notes verbatim rather than try to construct them into a coherent argument. Like a dumbed-down (even further) version of the Gish gallop. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:14, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I would love to get Ken's reaction. Funny how most people in the audience didn't bat an eye (although they were also old white people). Occasionaluse (talk) 13:34, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Cultural question

Ok, this might be a silly question, but at the moment my kind is boggling and I've heard it from two entirely different sources, so it must be true.

Do Americans really hold their fork in their left hand to cut food, and then transfer it to their right hand to eat the food? 'Cos if they do, that is the weirdest thing I've heard in a long time. --PsyGremlinSermā! 11:19, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Тyrannis^{An iron, but caring, fist} 11:23, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes. The other method is sometimes used, more commonly in the South, and is called "continental style," but remains frowned on as a deterioration of proper etiquette. Much like the word "soccer," the American style came from traditional Europe, and was preserved in the USA even as it was abandoned across the pond.--^talk 11:51, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Americans cut food with their fork? How impractical. --2.34.89.79 (talk) 11:55, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

(EC x2) In the US I feel like a weirdo when I use a knife and fork simultaneously. Apparently the reason is that Europeans used to eat with a knife and spoon which they carried around with them, the knife was used both for cutting and for spiking the less runny food to put in the mouth; it was your own responsibility to keep your "spike and spon" clean - hence "spic and span". The fork was a late arrival on the cutlery scene in the US and the etiquette of its use developed in Europe largely among the upper classes. The Americans carried on in the same manner of initially cutting with the knife then eating with spoon - the four-tined fork being sometimes known as a "split spoon" - and the Americans continued to utilise it like a combined spoon and spike with one hand. The widespread usage of forks for dining only really developed during the 19th century. (I got this from an American book, The Evolution of Useful Things by Henry Petroski). Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 11:56, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

If you're right handed, all the strength is in the right hand. There's nothing unusual about wielding the knife in the right hand when cutting. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 12:06, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

No there's not, but it's the transferring of the fork from left to right that's odd (to me). Using the left hand with the fork means you've got the knife there to use to help push food on to the fork. What if you're eating say a casserole, then you eat that right-handed too? --PsyGremlin話しなさい 12:26, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm with the whole not-transferring-your-fork-from-hand-to-hand thing, but using a knife to push something onto your fork would be a faux pas in the States. It's really all a matter of perspective, though. Did you know that in Thailand, it's considered rude to put a fork in your mouth at all? You're only supposed to use it to push food onto your spoon. Godspeed (talk) 13:44, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

But say you're eating steak & chips & peas. You've cut up your steak and now you're going after everything one-handed, so to speak. How do you eat the peas? Stab them with fork as you chase them all over the plate? Now, that would be frowned on with us. --PsyGremlinPraat! 13:52, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

You're (well, here, anyway) supposed to use a piece of bread to push the peas onto the fork. Hey, I didn't make the rules... Godspeed (talk) 13:57, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I flip knives and forks between hands all the time (it infuriates everyone) but I at least dual-wield at all times. I might suck at drumming, but I'm co-ordinated enough to push stuff into my pie whole with either hand. ^pathetic 15:00, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

It is a cultural question. We Americans are used to eating a big, fat juicy Texas steak, whereas the rest of the planet dines on rice, or fish, or something. Even foodstamps in the US make it possible for the least privileged to dine on beef tenderloin regularly. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 12:37, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

As an American, I've never heard or thought about this issue. I'm also left-handed, though, so my hand usage is a bit random. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 12:22, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I see a lot of people do it, but I've always held the knife in my left hand. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 12:52, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Now that is unusual. Are you left-handed? Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:47, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm pseudo-ambidextrous. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 14:04, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I remember I had a really strict great aunt (prominent local Republican, go figure) when I was growing up who made all the kids in the family watch these videotapes on manners, one of which had a huge section on the whole knife thing. I always felt it was laughably stupid, like so many other formal dining practices. Personally, I rarely ever use a knife while eating if I can get away with it. Chop it up beforehand so that you don't have to later.

And for what it's worth, Rob was making a decent point about the prevalence of meat in the US, perhaps despite his intent. Q0 (talk) 13:14, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

The whole shift-your-fork-to-your-left-hand thing mostly exists in the kind of ettiquette films that I had to watch in home ec classes back in the 80s. I seriously don't think anyone cares anymore.

One stereotype about Americans is that they eat quickly, whereas Europeans take a more leisurely approach to their meals, so it's strange that the more cumbersome switch-your-fork style is associated with the U.S., Godspeed (talk) 13:44, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

People switch? --il'Dictator Mikal 14:43, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, now that you mention it, my husband switches. I don't know if it's cause he mimics Americans subconsiously, or cause he's always do that. My mom (from german heratige, born in NY) cut all her food first, then never used the knife again the entire meal.Godot 18:06, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't cutting it all in advance just... just... why? ^pathetic 18:14, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Haha, I meant before cooking it. Q0 (talk) 20:07, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I never realized switching was considered odd until I began traveling internationally. When overseas I keep my fork in my left hand - when in Rome, etc. But it still seems awkward no matter how much I do it. Using my dominant (right) hand just feels more natural. Of course if I had been raised elsewhere doing it the other way would probably feel more natural. Doctor Dark (talk) 20:24, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I actually think this is something I started doing a few years ago without realising it because my right hand is so dominant. I think it might have been an injury to my left hand that has permanently weakened the grip in the last two fingers that may have started it. The fun one I have is that my future in-laws are Persian and so use a spoon and a fork for everything. They actually use the edge of the spoon for cutting. We were having lunch the other week were a knife, fork, and spoon had been set out by the host. She only noticed when she to serve desert and most people no longer had a spoon, but there were clean knives on the table. - π 10:20, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm still trying to understand this. So in the States you use both a knife and a fork. You hold the knife in your right hand and the fork in your left while you cut things up. You then put the knife down and transfer your fork to your right hand in order to actually eat the food. Is that right? Is this really what most people actually do? Or just the super-polite?--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 20:26, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is what anyone with decent etiquette does in the States.--^talk 20:39, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, a left handed person probably cuts and eats with their lefthand. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 20:54, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

The correct etiquette in the UK is hold your knife in your right hand and your fork in your left. When using both, the fork should not be turned over like a spoon. You should only hold your fork in your right hand if you're not using your knife at all, i.e. it stays where it is on the table. And holding your knife like a pencil is a criminal offence. Ajkgordon (talk) 08:05, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The correct etiquette is to demand your interlocutor's phone while flashing the knife semi-concealed in your dominant hand - David Gerard (talk) 12:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh look - a Millwall supporter. --PsyGremlinSnakk! 12:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I have a knife in my hand right now (well, not right now as I'm typing) but I just can't figure out how holding it like a pencil even works. Or do people hold pencils differently over there? It certainly doesn't work with my sketch-pencil grip, held like that it would bounce off butter. ^pathetic 11:07, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Standards are much looser in California.--WickerGuy (talk) 03:52, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

When scientists go woo-ie

I'd like to write an article about scientists who turn to woo, or hold highly non rational positions. I just read an article about Maiam Byalic (sp? Blosson)'s new book on attachment parenting, and the fact that she is anti-vax. Sam Harris thinks anyone who speaks arabic should be frisked in the airport. I'm sure there are many others. The problem is I'm not really sure how to frame it as an article. One article with examples? or articles on individaul wierdness, or what. I just find it doubly bothersome when educated, scientific type people show off their moments of "what exactly is this word 'rationality' you speak of". Any suggestions?--Godot 20:46, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

How about wp:Roy Spencer (scientist). Award-winning scientist who is a global warming denier and creationist. Doctor Dark (talk) 21:05, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Kary Mullis. sterile^{evolutionist story telling} 21:31, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

There's the Nobel disease, but you need one of them medals to get in the club. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:39, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I say write individual articles on individual cases rather than pigeon-holing this as a specific phenomenon. There are examples of cranks in all sectors, within & outside of the sciences. I don't think scientists (specialising in one area) holding pseudoscientific views in another area of the sciences or unorthodox views on some other aspect of society are inherently weirder than anybody else holding those kind of views. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:36, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Link added as one suggested starting point. ħuman 01:22, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Shermer did a complete chapter on Why Smart People Believe in Weird Things in one of his books.--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 07:07, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

That chapter in part cribs from Sternberg's Why Smart People Can Be So Stupid. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:10, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree with the Weasal here. Writing individual articles about said scientists and their nonsensical beliefs is a far better route to go. Did somebody say Michio Kaku? 13:06, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Question for the Lawyers and wannabes out there

On Friday, Gov Brewer of texas signed a bill that would allow employers to ask you if you are using birth control for "medical" reasons or not. Now here's my question. When on birth control pills (or shots or the patch) one generally has much more mild cramps, fewer days on, etc. Some forms of BC even stop your period all together. So, seeing as I like those things, and would stay on the pill whether I was having sex or not, does that mean my use is "medical" or just slutty? Inquiring minds and all that. I think this is going to be overturned quite quickly. I have no idea how they think they can write laws like this. --Godot 01:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Both -- obviously anyone who uses the pill is automatically a slut, some just get medical exemptions. I'm kind of surprised that the GOP has let the Anti-Sex League wing of the party run wild. I mean, I know the end game for these people is a quasi-theocracy, but usually they're a little more discreet about it. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:05, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Does this bill apply to men as well? OK, I see now. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 07:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

For the (various types of) pill women's reactions vary a lot, because hormones do stuff to your brain and body. For every woman who finds she can shut the cycle down more or less completely (e.g. 2-4 periods per year for the branded products, off label you can push it further) with no side effects, or side effects far more tolerable than the menstrual cycle itself there are others who try several types and don't tolerate any of them even with the as-designed 28 day cycle so (if they're het) they're stuck with condoms until they can find a long term sexual partner who is willing to get himself fixed or until nature takes its course in late middle age. It seems our Godot is somewhat lucky here.

But, as a non-American who is mostly horrified by US employment law, what does Brewer think employers are going to do with this information? Is the idea to identify women who are sluts? Or women who might get pregnant (and thus cost the company money... or is the US a total third world country and you just get fired when you start showing?) Or what? 82.69.171.94 (talk) 08:41, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I read more and the legal answer is "they've decided their medical insurance mustn't cover the pill unless women have some other reason to use it" (though presumably the "you're a slut and so we don't like you" aspect will come up later if this law survives challenge). I think you are just getting stronger and stronger arguments for single payer - the Obamacare approach is a typical American attempt to paper over the cracks rather than biting the bullet and solving the real problem. All Americans need healthcare, so buy healthcare in bulk for all Americans, duh. Your employer has no more reason to be making moral decisions about your healthcare than they do about your choice of reading material, but by making healthcare a responsibility of employers the US system has confused matters just as it would if you had to buy all your clothes through the employer, or the company canteen was the only place you could eat food. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 10:08, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

When I worked for Texas Instruments during the 70s one of the questions on the biennial medical form was whether you had ever had a venereal disease (as STDs used to be known). The British doctor doing the exam told me to ignore it as it was none of their business. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 11:24, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The assumption is that the state law is to permit employers to discriminate against women whose use of birth control they deem slutty. The huge problem for women is that the employer is going to articulate bullshit pretextual reasons for the discrimination tailored to whatever federal law they're trying to evade. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act (part of Title VII) covers employers' treatment of women "affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions." The new federal health insurance law requires employers to provide prescription coverage that covers birth control if they provide it at all. I haven't researched whether the PDA covers staying un-pregnant, such as it is. The PDA does cover employer provided health insurance benefits, but it would impose an absurdity on congress for an employer to be required to provide birth control if it provides health insurance, yet permitted to fire a woman simply for using the pills. Beyond the PDA, treating women (they're the only ones taking birth control pills of this natre since the male birth control pill is out later this year at the earliest) different than men also implicates equal protection problems. Seems to me that Brewer is setting Arizona employers up for years of expensive litigation one way or the other. 13:47, 14 May 2012 (UTC) (this is incoherent - I'll edit it when I get off the train)

There are also all sorts of other concerning pregnancy and employment, and many parts of the USA at least where women are systematically discriminated against using their families as the excuse. For example, some employers are not required to have maternity leave, or are not required to accept the female employee back into the same position as when they left to have the child. The careers of many women are put on "mommy tracks" where they are now stuck at a dead-end (and usually lower-paying, the wage gap still exists for unmarried young women and it increases for married women, and it increases yet again for married women with kids) job because the employer expects the mother to have to break to care for her child, thus becoming a less devoted and valuable worker. Thus, women are quite often seen as less valuable than men as hires, at least within the common mothering age (and career building age) between 20 and 40 (Older women are often deemed less risky, because none of them would ever consider tending to their family, right?). They are paid less and let go more readily, but also hired quite often because of these traits. It's possible that the growing presence of birth control as an option could remove the 'risks' of hiring a woman, the idea that women are less valuable workers than men, and thus take away the usual excuses for paying them less... something I doubt many corporations would like to have happen. All of this exists in a very shady legal area I admit I don't know much about. So while I don't doubt the ideological cause of discrimination (no sluts at our workplace!), I suspect there is also a money-based cause (keeping the glass ceiling and pay gap intact) of discrimination as well... ±KnightOfTL;DR^{free guybrush threepwood! no new taxes! down with porcelain!} 14:06, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

And, once again, I thank goat that I live in a country with socialist socialised medicine. I'm not saying the UK is perfect and we don't have mummy_tracks but a woman's reproductive choices are wholly her own concern. Bad Faith (talk) 14:55, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Again, I must breathe a big SIGH at this moronic state. Now that this somehow made it into law, I'm curious as to whether or not this will actually be implemented (i.e. whether employers will actually ask). Luckily, I happen to know at least a few people that this would affect, so I'll keep an eye out! Cow...Hammer^time! 15:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

At least some will yeah. Long after the headlights of the oncoming lawsuit were visible some US companies continued to use "as necessary" clauses in salaried employee's contracts to work them 60+ hours per week 52 weeks per year. There was a perception that the company was entitled to use labour in this way, and if the employees didn't like it they could quit. Well, yes they could, but they could also sue and that's a lot more profitable if you win. I don't have any objection to "as necessary". I've worked at a startup, if it needs doing tonight then I'll do it tonight. But in larger companies the temptation is to abuse it and do this evening what could otherwise be done tomorrow. Any company that treated its employees like people would hear the grumbling and put a stop to it. Employees are mostly reasonable, having had their grievance addressed there'd probably have been no lawsuit. But plenty of company owners stuffed their fingers in their ears and waited until they got served. Those same owners will be happy to hear that they can now have more leverage against female employees in AZ. I hope it costs them dearly. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 09:34, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Powdered cheeseburger and other things

So i saw this at an anime thing and... how do you come up with the idea of making a cheeseburger, french fries, ketchup and soda from powder? The cheese, meat bread also are from powder. --il'Dictator Mikal 07:08, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

An unhealthy fixation on powder and what you can do with it, evidently. Peter ^{with added ‼Science‼} 07:55, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Surely bread has always been made from a powder known as flour? Powdered french fries have been around for a long time; dried potato powder, reconstituted and extruded they are a completely different product from the traditional British chip. I can't say I'm enamoured with powdered meat and I've never thought that cheeseburger cheese was real. You can make tomato soup from powder, ketchup is just a bit more concentrated and sodas are largely just flavourings and colour which can be in a syrup or a powder, heck I even remember a product called Creamola Foam back in the 50s which had the fizz in powder form. The essential part is that you are basically removing the water from the constituents, because water is heavy and bulky to transport. One of the major problems in space exploration is water management because you don't want to be heaving tons of the stuff into orbit on rockets. So finding native water on the Moon or Mars is tremendously important for future colonisation. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 08:30, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Didn't a Japanese company (Suntory?) try and market powdered whiskey a few years back? --PsyGremlinHable! 09:19, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Apparently it exists (Not April 1st) but I'm highly skeptical of "powdered" ethanol, especially given that whiskies are 30% and above in alcohol content. Now, extracting the flavours and tannins and then mixing them back up with a water-ethanol mix I can imagine, but a few spoonfuls of powder mixed in with water to make a bottle or so of whisky just leaves my "hoax" sirens screaming. ^sshole 12:56, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Not convinced. The other Subyou site (from Google, not from the links there) seems to suggest it's an energy drink thing. ^moral 12:59, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Paypal charity

So I've been doing a bit of online shopping at eBay both in the US and the UK, and noticed that Paypal has a charity donation button at checkout. The US site lets you donate $1 to Blue Star Families while the UK site lets you donate £1 to RSPCA. Does this reflect a fundamental difference between the two countries? Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 15:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

To save me the trouble of looking for myself, how do they choose which charities are available. Neither of the above particularly gets my vote. Bad Faith (talk) 15:25, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

It would appear that eBay/Paypal have just chosen them, no reason given. I've noticed a few sites adopting charities recently. Screwfix have a "round up the pennies" for a testicular cancer charity. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 15:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

paypal is pretty shitty when it comes to charity. you people raised 30k in 9 hours to help new orleans? FUCK YOU. other reasons paypal and charity do no9t mix--il'Dictator Mikal 15:57, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I use eBay a hell of a lot & it always offers a different charity, so either it's randomised from a list of charities that PayPal supports (or vice versa?) or else it changes on a daily basis. I must admit, I've very rarely ticked the box. Not that I don't give to charity, but it's not something I want to stop & think about when I'm in the middle of buying something, + they're often not charities I would particularly choose. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:52, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh yeah. We're a bunch of misanthropes here in the UK. I for one would rather help a kitty than a person. Kitties are nicer than people. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:52, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Do people go outside of their designated bowel-relievement zone, scratch you when you try to pet them, and mooch off your food?

Yes. Nihilist 19:05, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Which is why I'd rather help a dog. The worst they do is try to hump your leg. Vulpius (talk) 19:41, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

It always seemed to be RSPCA on UK website but I guess it could have been random. The Blue Star Families site does mention eBay on their home page. And for those that didn't check, the BSF is a charity supporting families of the military. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 20:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, so I perused the eBay website and it looks like the charity is chosen by the vendor. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 20:23, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

If we lived in a world without the wisdom of repugnance, a charitable organization could feed the homeless with meat from euthanized pets. Think of the savings! Just sayin... Occasionaluse (talk) 20:48, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Or vice-versa! Cow...Hammer^time! 20:53, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

You mean feeding the homeless to euthanized pets? How would that work at all? --Tweenk (talk) 12:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

If you're asking about whether it says something about the country, remember that the RSPCA was formed in 1824, but it took another 57 years for someone to get around to founding the NSPCC. ^gnostic 20:52, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The two situations are pretty different though. At the time of the RSPCA's founding animals had very little criminal protection in law. Whereas at that time (and thus before the NSPCC was created) children had many of the same protections as adults. In 1824 you could kick your dog in the head until it died and nothing of consequence would happen. But if you killed your own child its death would be investigated, you might well be prosecuted, found guilty and hanged.

The behaviour of the two outfits is very different as well. The RSPCA has found it convenient to appear to be a police-like agency. Its employees wear smart uniforms and are trained to give the impression of authority they do not have without getting prosecuted for impersonating a police officer. In general animal abusers tend to be poor and not very bright, and certainly don't have lawyers so this works surprisingly well.

The NSPCC in contrast has employees who look and act a lot like social workers. They're concerned primarily with the welfare of children. Getting adults arrested for harming children is a side show, to be parcelled off to the police. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 10:42, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I was mostly being facetious, but point taken anyway. ^bomination 10:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

When selling stuff on eBay recently ([1]) I've seen "donate" button options, with two usually presented, but a link to more. I guess. Seems stupid to me. ħuman 02:25, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Cystinuria Clearinghouse

Have any of you Poe's Law enthusiasts and fans of fundy web design ever ran into this one? Cystinuria Clearinghouse - partly a site about cystinuria, a kidney/bladder condition (& linked for further reading from WP:Cystinuria), but also hosting a lot of Christian fundamentalist/paranoiac content, especially on its "Sunday Morning Sell Out" list of heretical churches.

Of the bits of text I've tried to read so far, none of them leap out as parody (although I do wonder about this "Are You A Cult?" bit), but the graphics are just unreal. Check this shit out. I also like how the cystinuria homepage (linked above) lets you choose from a selection of vivid background colours, none of which are very comfortable to look at. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:26, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

It's like she took an html class in middle school, and, by God, she's going to use everything she learned. Also, she misspelled the color "mocha." Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 19:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I quite like the line "Evil triumphs when David J. does something." I'll have to borrow it for something less stupid. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 19:53, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I quite like the line "Save me from hell you gorgeous hunk of man you!". I doubt I'll put it to much use, though. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

"proud to Be a Patriotic Neo-Natzi Anarchist Take that America the Beautiful!" What in the fuck does that mean? --Revolverman (talk) 22:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

EneNews

I recently stumbled over EneNews, and it's full of something I would call anti-nuclear porn. It has videos of notorious cranks such as Michio Kaku, Chris Busby and Arnie Gundersen saying e.g. that Chernobyl's core is still molten, that Fukushima will cause 1 million cancer deaths, that nuclear weapons have caused 60 million cancers, and other outrageous bullshit. The comments are even worse. Under this post they are cheering for anarchists who shot, but did not manage to kill an Italian executive which had some connections to the nuclear industry (Italy has no nuclear power). What the hell is wrong with those people? --Tweenk (talk) 02:39, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The Voluntary Human Extinction Movements notices us

On a blog (under an assumed name) I made mention of our article and they retort...here. Lets pick this shit apart. Ace^Moderator 23:45, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

MY main problem with them, beyond the part where they want me to say "hey, past generations? fuck you, imma just not keep us going" is that they took the "well we cant hope for ourselves to fix it beyond killing ourselves, so lets not bother trying!". Also... they said they don't advocate murder or suicide... but are perfectly ok with us taking down "artificial intelligent Robot buddies" if they are also dangerous. fuck yah genocide is ok so long as its killing what we consider bad!--il'Dictator Mikal 23:59, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I open it up and the first thing I see is, "The world will never return to what it was like before humans evolved: we’ve already eliminated too many species. Evolution is naturally not a peaceful process."

On one hand, this person is right; the world will never return to what it was like before humans evolved. But that's how the world is, constantly, not just for humans, but for every change in population and change in environment. There's no such thing as 'going back to the way it was' in evolution. And talking about removing species as the reason for fault... no. That's just a big plea to make humans look like they're holding a smoking gun; yes, humans have eliminated species and habitats, but that's not the reason why we changed the path of adaptation on this world. It's because of not just species, but a change to a whole global environment. For somebody who wants to wipe out humans, this person is incredibly egotistical about being a human. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{longissimus non legeri} 00:04, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind we changed the world so that we could do what every species in general has tried to do since the dawn of time: ensure our comfortable existence while making sure our children could do the same. --il'Dictator Mikal 00:14, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah, just in time. One of my acquaintances recently announced his support of the movement. I'd be glad to devote some time to taking this down. Mr. Anon (talk) 00:20, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

It's a rather moot point anyway. Climate change will likely accelerate desertification and severely increase extreme weather occurrences to such a degree that a large proportion of the Earth will be rendered unsuitable for sustained human habitation faster than human governments will be willing to adapt to cope. I doubt humans will die out completely, but we're basically living in a global version of Rome just before the fall into the European Dark Ages. --CoyoteSans (talk) 03:05, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

More like Timbuktu prior to the decline of the Songhai Empire. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:41, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I've been a member of VHEMT since the late 90s - I mostly agree with what Les has stated but I also agree with the article here. I guess my attitude (and the attitude of most members I've been in contact with) has been that, honestly, the goals of VHEMT are intentionally exaggerated for effect. That being said... yes, voluntary extinction is a stupid goal. But then again, isn't that kind of the point? Omar (gibber) 04:07, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I like how the VHEMT blasts us for using "subjective" terms, but also uses terms like "adverse" and "beneficial." ListenerX^TalkerX 04:14, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Recall the relevant talk page: we're coming to it from a human perspective. Though by that measure, coming to it from "the antelope perspective" the world is better off it cheetahs went extinct. ^theist 12:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

From my limited knowledge of it, it seems to be another advocation for birth control and consciously having less/no children, but with a more extreme stated endgoal. Nihilist 04:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

All human activity (as a whole) should be for the benefit of humans. At first one might think this statement is a justification of environmental destruction, but it is not. For example, we should not endanger species because they create points of scientific research and often animals and plants play a large role in shaping ecosystems, which has benefits to humans. If we all go extinct, who will enjoy the supposedly restored Earth? What utilitarian benefit is there? Why is the "natural" always the best way to work? Naturism has been used to justify homophobia and many other bad practices of humans. Global warming is not a problem because it is inconvenient for Polar Bears, it is a problem because it is inconvenient for us. Mr. Anon (talk) 04:45, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Naturism has been used to justify homophobia... A truer statement than you could ever guess. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:53, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Naked men disgust me because they make me feel insecure. Nihilist 05:20, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, genitals are scary. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 07:08, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

And for UK listeners, BBC Radio 4 has a series of programmes about Extinctions, starting this morning, at 11:00. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 07:42, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

P.S. We already have Lazarus taxon but we need Elvis taxon. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 07:46, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Anyone with internet access (and speakers) can listen to Extinctions on Radio 4. You don't have to be in the UK to listen to BBC radio anymore. Via the magic of the interweb, you can listen live on the BBC iplayer and you can listen to any programme transmitted in the past seven days from anywhere in the world. I'm listening to BBC Radio 5 Live right now and I'm eight time zones away in Asia. You can't see the TV programmes on the BBC website outside of the UK though. --Spud (talk) 13:49, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I know that, and have persuaded at least one American RWian to listen to In Our Time (interesting programme on Game Theory last week), but I just thought that phrasing more appropriate. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 18:31, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Where does the "T" come from? ħuman 02:22, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

All i can think is: Voluntary Human Extinction Movement, The. ^{ONE / TALK} 11:52, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

lol ħuman 03:17, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Good without god, even with god

This is probably the definitive refutation of the idea that morality requires religion. It's not only philosophically flawed, but historically false. (Link in the post is borked, but the full paper can be read here.) Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 07:54, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I never bought for a minute that religion enforced moral behaviour. ^gnostic 10:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The idea of enforcing moral behaviour calls into question whether it remains moral behaviour at all. ^{ONE / TALK} 10:56, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

There are more ways than just fear of punishment to "enforce" behaviour, though. ^bomination 11:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Of course religion enforces moral behavior. It's one of the single most specific things religion does. Via fear or "wish fulfilment" it says "here is a list of things that you shall and shall not do. Here are your rewards and punishments if you do not do these things. Get a scary enough religion, one that for example, will cut out your heart while you are still alive to feed it to the gods, and slide your body down a pyramid - and odds are, you will be quite willing to 'sacrifice' yourself at war, where you really have a chance to survive. We know, from studies of cultures and their religions, that this is one of the single shared halmarks of religion. To force moral behavioral conformity upon a people. --Godot 15:26, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

This article is a bit BS, though, nebby, in that he's looking for a particular set of morals. All religions, universally, force moral coding. It is one measure we use when defining a religion. What that moral coding is, varies from culture to culture and time to time, but it is present. I would ask of this author to name a single religion that does not sculpt moral behaviors via the religion. Pre modern societies, as he calls them, have religions that define the morality; it's just that it's not a moral code he is used to seeing. I'm not saying the religions create the morality, i'm saying that as a people become a people, their religion, language, culture, art, family structure all co-evolve (if you will forgive the misuse) and reinforce eachother. The religion in, say, Lakota society (a 'pre modern culture by his terms) necessarily defines that humans must be independent thinkers. Each man has a right (and each woman, actually) to make their own mind up about hwo they will live and who they will listen to; this is equally part of the religion. The healer heals because he or she is called to do so - each person comes to him or her of their own choice; each person is healed because they find the correct path with the seers/med man/medwoman's help. The religion of spiritual beings guiding hunters is the exact same thing; you search in your first adult steps, for guides in nature to provide you insight about who you are and what kind of a man (no women did this) you will be. To suggest the religion plays no role in sculpting morality and moral beliefs is to misunderstand what the religion is doing in the culture. Again this is true in every single religion - or it's not by definition, a religion. "Stark dismantles the idea that religion functions primarily to sustain the moral order. While this may be true of the Abrahamic faiths (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) and also Hinduism, it is not true of all other spiritual traditions or religions." Again here, he is looking for particular sense of what morality is, I think he misses the point. Buddhism defines what is moral and right by defining what it is to be human. Shintoism defines what is morally right, by addressing the nature of Nature, and how humans should express it, enjoy it, interact with it. It doesn't say "don't be gay", or "don't kill", but it's no less an issue of morality. Aboritinal Walkabouts are at teh core of understanding your place in society, deeply, highly religious - but at the same time, a driver of your moral being within that society. --Godot 15:37, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

(EC) I think the difference is that religions enforce a lot of things, some of which may be considered moral (or related to morality at all) by some people. The rest of it, and the means to those ends, are what cause problems.

Also, I always thought Euthyphro was the definitive refutation...though not exactly the same topic, and kind of confusing when I was younger. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 15:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Of course some things which are 'moral' or 'immoral' are defined solely by the religion (usually organised religion). I guess what we are really referring to is an ethical framework where the rights of others are respected, rather than whether two guys can engage in anal intercourse in the privacy of their own home. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 18:39, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Euthyphro tackles the topic from a philosophical perspective, while this is from a more anthropological one. (That wiki article is actually pretty solid from what I can tell, though)

The author seems to be defining morality as what a substantial majority of a society considers to be wrong; the result being that if people who are actively religious (taking part in rituals and rites) don't show even more positively than the rest of the society, then religion does not advance that moral cause. His conclusion is that the correlation between morality and religion only exists where there is the idea that gods are powerful beings that are concerned with morality, and has nothing to do with whether or not someone practices religion or not.

The vast majority of the paper seems dedicated simply to refuting the notion that the moral order of society is based on structured religious behavior. It really doesn't say all that much about religion teaching morality as a whole, other than to note that apparently it is not the case in many premodern societies. If I had access to the Atlas of World Cultures he references, I'd do a little digging on that point myself. Q0 (talk) 18:56, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Mind you, at no time do i suggest religion CREATES morality. I think religion co-evolves, as i said, with the rest of the culture, and what is moral to that culture is codifed into the religion at the same time what the religion describes is part of the moral code. Only recently is "religion" something so removed from the rest of the culture as to say "this peice is religious - this other peice is secular". As I said, in Lakota society, every single bit of every day is religious - or none of it is, and there is no religion (I've seen this argued successfully as well). I just don't like the author's take (or rather, how i read the author) that suggests there is some moral outside of human culture (including religion). I don't think any one thing is "moral" or "not" outside of culure, including killing, sex with babies, or putting lemon instead of milk into your hot tea).19:12, 15 May 2012 (UTC)Godot

"I think religion co-evolves..." But that's the point. Stark is saying the existing moral codes are independent of religion, but then get absorbed into the religion, generally where the gods are conscious, anthropomorphic, and morally concerned. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:38, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Very simple refutation:

1. If God creates morality, God must have a set of moral rules.
2. If God creates moral rules, he/she must either have a reason or not
3. If God does not have a reason, he/she must choose rules arbitrarily.
4. If God chooses rules arbitrarily, then this God is imperfect and unworthy of worship.
5. If God does have a reason, then it is these reasons that the moral rules are valid.
6. If that is the case, then moral rules are derived from logical reasons, not God.

Mr. Anon (talk) 01:25, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

In other words, if God outlaws murder, it is because he/she sees that murder is bad for whatever reasons. It is then these reasons that murder is wrong, not because God outlaws them. At most God can only be an enforcer of morality.

Of course, morality wasn't the only reason why religion was created; supernatural enforcements of moral rules can be invented without the need of a God. The main purpose of God is to explain phenomena beyond human knowledge (such as how the Earth and universe were created, why it rains, why lighting strikes, etc). Mr. Anon (talk) 01:28, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Religion rationalizes morality, but there's no correlation to suggest religious people are more moral.--WickerGuy (talk) 03:55, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The Princess Alice experiments suggest a mechanism by which societies can benefit from superstition. In one experiment subjects (children) were told the invisible princess named Alice watches them, but the experimenters left them to do a task apparently unsupervised. Children identified separately as more superstitious were inclined not to cheat (presumably because Alice would see) while the less superstitious ones cheated. Being able to let your people work alone, "supervised" only by God and still have them not cheat (lie, steal, kill) is an advantage particularly in a pre-modern society. Of course in a modern society thanks to CCTV, anti-tamper design and other tricks you really are watched, so no need for superstition. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 09:09, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Though that raises the issue of the difference between "obedience" and "moral". If someone is acting morally because they want to, they don't need the superstitions. Meanwhile, you just need one person to test the system, find out that it's bollocks ("JESUS IS GAY!!!! MUHAMMAND SUCKS DICK!!!! ...look, no lightning bolts!") and then the system can't stop them. CCTV, on the other hand, is very much observant and real. We can test that system and find that it works. ^postate 15:32, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

@BON: If I remember correctly, the Princess Alice experiments didn't use an equivalent non-supernatural prime. Dan Ariely talks about similar experiments in Predictably Irrational where they get the same effect for religious and non-religious honor systems, e.g. the Ten Commandments vs. a generic "I will not cheat on this test" statement. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

This is crazy even for the likes of Hannity

Hannity organizes a "tribunal" that includes a birther and a convicted felon. It almost feels like the last ten years never happened. Maybe he'll bring back Judith Miller next! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:03, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

It's really not out of place for him. Those are all popular figures in his target demographic. Oliver North is actually really popular with conservatives.--"Shut up, Brx." 18:08, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget your Ollie North for prez shirt! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:39, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Hannity's rare moments of lucidity are rather like when the sun strikes the bottom of a deep well. It occurs at most once a day, and on many days of the year it doesn't happen at all. He's partly effective because of his good looks, which isn't per se a bad thing to leverage (I don't mind George Clooney doing it), but at some point American audiences need to look past them. Hannity is also willing to accept anyone as an ally.

The conservative press has never been willing to distance itself from Oliver North the way the mainstream and liberal presses have been willing to distance itself from Oliver Stone (although I enjoy his films), notwithstanding the Stone's liberal views. This speaks volumes about the greater integrity of the mainstream and liberal news agencies.--WickerGuy (talk) 19:00, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

European Economic Crisis

Does anyone think this is article worthy? Was reading Huffpo, and their entire headlines today are about the "crisis", including problems in italy, Greece and france, the "rise in Right Wing parties" because of the Austerity measures. NPR had an interesting point that the crisis has not happened and is largely made up, or rather the "crisis about what might become a crisis". Certainly, if teh last point is true, it's RW worthy, but I'm really shoddy on my economics, so I'm not sure if it is or isn't.--Godot 18:41, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I think TOW has this covered. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:48, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!! Ajkgordon (talk) 18:58, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Hasn't that been clear since we elected a gay muslim atheist black person to be president?--Godot 19:03, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Obviously. I believe someone suggested an article of the PIIGS in the to-do list. Anyways, there's a lot of news today, see the WIGO. 99.235.89.240 (talk) 19:16, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother until the chips have fallen. We are not a news feed. ħuman 03:10, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Coat hanger abortions for the masses!

Would it be cynical of me to say that Bubba Carpenter's approval ratings have just shot up? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The women who'll die doing that probably don't vote Republican, so no big loss. <- for the record, that is cynical. ^bomination 00:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Wait. That wasn't a joke; the guy's name actually is "Bubba Carpenter"? Jesus. H. Christ. Time for a link to Ochs [2]. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 00:26, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, 'Lester', but when it comes to your name in politics, that might sound a bit too dweeby, so 'Bubba' might be the lesser of two absurdities. ^{d hominem} 01:02, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The irrationality of inequality

Speaking of Ariely, Radio Open Source just did a good interview with him. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:54, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah, yes, Americans dream of living in Sweden and enjoying all the equality. But, unfortunately, that would involve being Swedish, a lifestyle that is rather out of fashion in the U.S. these days. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:43, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

DSM may be redefining addiction

From the NYT. The DSM V may include an expanded definition of addiction that could include millions more individuals. Maybe it's just neat for me because I study health policy, but it will be interesting to watch how (if at all) these changes are implemented over the next few years. The paragraphs on conflicts of interest among members of the DSM working groups are a bit saddening as well. How is working for a company that stands to profit from an expanded definition of addiction and being a member of the DSM working group that is expanding addiction not a conflict of interest? άλφα^Ταλκ 03:59, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I've been intermittently following it -- seems like a major clusterfuck. Check DX Revision Watch for all the dirt. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 13:05, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm generally against widening the definitions of "illnesses" like this. In many cases, the "new" addictions like shopping, the internet and even gambling, just go away when you take them away. They're not like drug addiction where the addicts go fucking crazy in a mental and biological way when you make them go cold-turkey. ^pathetic 15:25, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

The problem is those things are, buy definition, compulsions. Addictions, or drug dependencies, result in the brain being 'rewired' and the things you listed don't do that. They are not the same and to treat them the same does not seem like a good idea. Yes, sometimes people spend to much on those things, but people need to be taught how to control their compulsions lest they fall into the same hole. ...your faithful student, Twilight Sparkle. (talk) 18:07, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

@Neb - and some of the characters they put in charge of the working groups have blatant conflict of interests. To be oblique about it, it's as if they'd put the leader of a practice specializing in treating newfangled addictions like internet/shopping in charge of the addictive disorders group. Blue (is useful) 19:03, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

@Blue - That section of the article surprised me the most. One of the people running the working group on addiction represented/respresents the part of a pharmaceutical company that markets drugs to treat addiction. I don't know of a more blatant example of a conflict of interest. άλφα^Ταλκ 17:28, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

The lack of science in the DSM V is the wider underlying issue. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 18:01, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

@Blue: I know. Check out who's in charge of the paraphilias working group. I can't wait to see if they still think I'm fit for the padded cell. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:18, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Reading Moser's comment and clarification at the bottom makes me feel someone inclined to agree with him. If you're going to classify disorders, you don't just classify them by the harmful ones, but by the harmful aspects of it. So, someone stealing shoes to sniff has far more in common with any other kleptomaniac than most other foot-fetishists who sit around watching YouTube videos of people in socks. Rapists who beat their victims have more in common with all other rapists than any other sexual sadist of the SSC kind. Far from Moser's position denying the possibly for "responsible paedophiles" to exist, it clarifies it dramatically - by making a clear separation between those who cause harm by acting on their impulses, and those who don't. ^{d hominem} 13:46, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Ray Blanchard is one of those guys who is just horrifically misguided, and it's highly unfortunate that the likes of him and Zucker are in positions of influence. Luckily, it seems as though the DSM's relevance is declining since the 80s and 90s. Blue (is useful) 03:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Diablo 3

Awesome. Released today. Awesome. Ace^Moderator 21:49, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Figures it comes out the same week that I start 10 hour work days. I am getting no sleep for the rest of the summer... TheCheat^{I run on alcohol} 14:23, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

CSI Miami cancelled

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 99.235.89.240 (talk) 22:12, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Good. Now thye just need to cancel all the other crappy crime dramas, and my evil plans to take over the world will be completed! The Symphony of Noise ^{The official spikey-haired skeptical punk} 09:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Well they also cancelled "Prime Suspect" and "Alcatraz" and yet "Once upon a time" gets renewed? WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU AMERICANS? --PsyGremlinSpeak! 09:03, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Again, it all goes according to my evil scheme. Now, all I need is to find where I put my death note, and I can take over the world! The Symphony of Noise ^{The official spikey-haired skeptical punk} 09:05, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

My userspace is getting way out of handLiquefy this page?

Any suggestions for getting it off of RW and onto somewhere else without breaking links? Like have a "bootmii:" soft wikilink to bootmii.wikia.com, the way "cp:" soft wikilinks to CP.Should we use LQT in the Saloon Bar? Bootmii^{wanna play nomic?} 00:04, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

God no. --Revolverman (talk) 00:24, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Despite LQT's much-ballyhooed introduction a couple years back as an addition to MW, note that WP has not implemented it. And there's a reason. It's awful. ħuman 02:13, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

It's not that it's inherently awful, just that it's unfinished and buggy. Nx personally hammered it into shape for use on RW, but now that he's gone... Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 02:21, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Nx personally hammered it into shape for use on RW, but now that he's gone And this is a bad thing? Nx is a horrible person with a face for an anus and an anus for a face. FACT. Ace^Moderator 02:39, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Fuck off Ace, I got edit conflicted so you can spread hate. LQT is inherently flawed as it is trying to do something that wasn't, but perhaps should have been, built in at the start. Pi 3:14 (talk) 02:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

No you fuck off. I wasn't spreading hate, I was amusing myself with the vision of a man with an anus for a face coding RW's LQT and dribbling shit on the keyboard whenever he gets upset. Ace^Moderator 02:47, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Alright that is it, I am going to come over to New Zealand and punch you in your sheep-rooting face. Pi 3:14 (talk) 02:50, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

You and what anus-faced army? Ace^Moderator 02:54, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

What is New Zealand going to do about it, call up the reserve? I am pretty sure Wednesday is his day off.Pi 3:14 (talk) 02:59, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

No, not Wednesday. Thursday is my day off. Ace^Moderator 03:00, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, I will be seeing you tomorrow then - if I have enough ff points. What is a flight on Air New Zealand, $50? Pi 3:14 (talk) 03:10, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

You mean this Air New Zealand? Ace^Moderator 03:16, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations. New Zealand might be able to eck out an economic niche as a stop over for Australians on the way to somewhere more interesting. Pi 3:14 (talk) 03:47, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

as a stop over for Australians on the way to somewhere more interesting Errr like, back home again? Ace^Moderator 03:54, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking about third world shitholes in the Americas such as New Mexico. Pi 3:14 (talk) 04:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

You are starting to sound like Rob. Ace^Moderator 04:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Lumenous, don't you have another place where you make a dickhead of yourself you can troll? Pi 3:14 (talk) 02:24, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

LQT would be great if it worked better with recent changes and if browsers could save the text you put into them. I mean, no edit conflicts, and uninterrupted uncluttered conversation! No edit conflicts, and uninterrupted uncluttered conversation! --"Shut up, Brx." 02:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

But you interrupt and clutter a conversation by default. Pi 3:14 (talk) 02:28, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

To quote Monster Ball, "I always loved you"--"Shut up, Brx." 02:29, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I love you too, Brx. You need to learn to stay away from the people that want to disembowel you. Pi 3:14 (talk) 02:33, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Last I heard I thought there was a suggestion that we going to remove Liquid threads from the wiki. It would simplify things for new users who are not used to the interface. In any event it's unsupported and not being developed.--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 13:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

On the grand list of things that are off-putting for new users, conversations like the one above are several orders of magnitude more off-putting than LQT. ^narchist 15:28, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I doubt it. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:58, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't. Frankly they put me off.--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 19:00, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

But us aspie fascists don't count. ^bomination 21:20, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

LQT is a disaster. It breaks every rule wiki users learn to follow, just to make talk pages look like a badly-run forum? ħuman 03:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

How is it a disaster? Has the server crashed because of it? Are users fighting over it, trying to forcibly remove LQT from other people's talk pages? Are users forgetting wiki rules they've already learned because of it? From what I've seen it's a solid "no" on all of those questions. So again: how is it a disaster, beyond your repeated assertions that it is? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 03:39, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

because Human fucking said so, you jack-booted thug. Ace^Moderator 03:40, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The advantages & disadvantages of LQT have been rehashed & debated several times without anything changing, and there still seems to be a lot of pointless & bitter-looking factionalism invested in this issue which resurfaces every time it's mentioned (see comments above). I just don't see the point in revisiting the issue at all; why not just leave things as they have been for the last year or so, with LQT as an option for user talk pages & forum threads started by users who like it & absent from the rest of the site? Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 06:30, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The more widely we adopt LQT, the more trouble it will be to extricate ourselves from it when it falls to bit rot, as now seems very likely; this is the reason why I have opposed LQT from the outset. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:41, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

We're hardly permanently stranded with it. LiquidThreads 3.0 is in the works. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 06:57, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I get the impression that nobody is working on that anymore. Lx has a point. Peter ^{with added ‼Science‼} 07:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh Goddamn it, you're right. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 07:17, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

We need to work out how to extract thread data for archival purposes, should we remove it here entirely. But there's no rush - I'm in no hurry to switch back myself. Peter ^{with added ‼Science‼} 07:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Leaders and 'trains, planes and automobiles'

'Somewhere' there should be a list of politicians who have been killed in 'incidents involving transport.'

• Trains - Huskisson back in 1830s
• Planes - Sikorsky, Dag Hammarskjold, General Zia, the Polish leadership.
• Automobiles - the Austrian ####

Any additions - ships, balloons, hang-gliders... Francois Hollande is a near-miss. 212.85.6.26 (talk) 14:30, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

We should also look at a list of politicians killed by natural diseases; I'm sure we'd find a pattern somewhere. Nihilist 14:49, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget Yamamoto in the planes category. Does getting shot down count? Turpis 3:16 (talk) 14:51, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

If it does, there's also Larry McDonald who was on KAL 007. Vulpius (talk) 17:28, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Couldn't think of a suitable title.

There is no continuity between the various people - though Huskisson is an early example of the necessity of Health and Safety. Jorg Haider (the other right wing Austrian ####) was the victim of a H&S/Don't Drink and Drive conspiracy.

There are also Jose Sanjurjo (see Wikipedia) and the fifth columnist [3] - whose deaths 'may or may not be suspicious.' 212.85.6.26 (talk) 15:10, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget the Pres of Burundi, which started the whole Rwanda massacre. And Samora Machel who died in a "plane accident." --PsyGremlinTala! 15:24, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

And Lady Di. --PsyGremlinSpeak! 15:25, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

There seem to be enough entries for a list/article - deaths to be divided into H&S/accident and similar, assassination, war-related and 'other': with conspiracy theories being noted. 212.85.6.26 (talk) 15:55, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Why?

What the hell for? -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:34, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

It does seem off-mission. Is this a suggestion for an RW article or just a discussion for the hell of it? Turpis 3:16 (talk) 17:47, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I suspect people were just adding names. What would the point of such a list be, as far as RW? Are we refuting some "every 4th president has been shot" Urban legend? Are we starting our own "it's scary to be a leader" conspiracy?Godot 17:48, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

BoN 212etc. seems to be suggesting a list at RW; not sure about everyone else. I don't see what purpose or agenda such a list would serve. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:49, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I just panicked and named names. It's what I do. --PsyGremlinTal! 17:57, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Heh. are you by any chance, currently in school?--Godot 18:31, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Diana and Paul McCartney both have conspiracy theories involving car crashes, though that's all I can think of. ^narchist 23:10, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

We could perhaps mention these as individual conspiracy theory articles. But the article suggestion at the beginning of this thread seems pretty weird.--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 05:34, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I think we already do (on both)...and Wikipedia has already well-documented the interesting ones, including the multitude of musicians who've died in small aircraft (SRV, John Denver, Aaliyah, Buddy Holly/Big Bopper/Richie Valens, etc) that had nothing to do with conspiracies. -- Seth Peck (talk) 15:16, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Romney is unquestionably the nominee

Fact remains that no matter what Teh Doctor tries to do with his infiltration tactics, Romney now has over 950 pledged delegates. Regardless of whether state conventions choose Paultards to be these delegates, they must vote Romney at the national convention. Now, with Paul stopping his campaign and the winner take all states of California and New Jersey coming up, with over 240 combined delegates, Romney will inevitably be the Republican nominee unless he dies.

Romney is a weak candidate. He is effectively a "compromise", a "mean", a "mashup of moderate and extreme views" candidate. In order words, few enthusiastically support him. Ron Paul, Rick Santorum, and Newt Gingrich all had very enthusiastic fans who proudly advocated for them, but Romney has no such people. Romney's campaign is bent on negative ads. This tactic failed with Mondale and Dukakis, and it will fail this time as well. The most Romney will be able to do is drive down turnout. Unofortuantely, a large amount of that will be from his side. With Obama endorsing gay marriage, Romney is forced to cower from the issues that will haunt him: social policy. This year saw some of the most nasty views come up seriously in the primary; creationism with Perry, global warming denialism with Santorum, "war on Christmas" from Gingrich, Islamophobia from Cain, hyperpatriotism from Bachman, and of course outright racism from Paul.

A main thing that will also hurt Romney's campaign is foreign policy. Every Republican since Goldwater has accused their Democratic opponents of being soft on foreign policy. Generally, the Democrats have simply battled on the Republicans grounds, in some cases with success (see Johnson) and in other cases miserable failure (Mondale and Dukakis). But this time, Romney cannot resort to warmongering. Most Americans actually see Obama's war proposals as being too far to the right by not withdrawing from Afghanistan immediately, and foreign policy in general is where the President has popular approval. Nor can he call the President "soft on terror" like Bush did to Kerry. Even Republican Buddy Roemer once said "I'll give you this: The President is really good at killing terrorists."

With Romney being unable to say anything of meaning on health care, all he can resort to is the economy. The thought of unemployment going below 8% must keep him up at night; he will not win this battle. Mr. Anon (talk) 03:05, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Hilariously, Romney is the best candidate the GOP have had in ages. Trouble is, the base distrust him and the spin machine don't like him. ħuman 03:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Once he may have been a good candidate, but you cannot call him a moderate after the shit he's said during this campaign. Mr. Anon (talk) 03:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Really, Human? I think McCain would have made a better candidate were it not for that (a) he already lost once, and (b) he would never be able to get a running mate that could be anything more than a hilarious self-parody. -- Seth Peck (talk) 15:20, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

McCain losing once is irrelevant tbh; Romney was second place in 2008, Bush (Sr) in 1980, Reagan in '76. And McCain's running mate was ultimately irrelevant to his final showings; Quayle was just as hilarious but he won. What really cost McCain was the economy and Iraq war. Those two issues alone guaranteed Obama the election. Mr. Anon (talk) 22:17, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

ok, Aspie scum...

...time to take the test. Let's find out who the true Aspies are on here. --PsyGremlinSpeak! 06:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I've already been accused of having it before, i still say i dont--il'Dictator Mikal 06:03, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

That test can't be right—it says I'm even more 'normal' than I thought I was. Peter ^{with added ‼Science‼} 07:44, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Pfft, I'm taking an actual psychological assessment in a couple weeks. I'm hoping I get schizophrenia, and maybe a bit of bipolar disorder; only the really lucky ones get Asperger's. Nihilist 07:48, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

By the way, I took that test before and I think I got around 80-100. Nihilist 07:49, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Your Aspie score: 53 of 200; Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 156 of 200; You are very likely neurotypical

That's good, right? --PsyGremlinParla! 09:05, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Meh, I guess MC was wrong about me. Your Aspie score: 31 of 200, Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 176 of 200, You are very likely neurotypical. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 09:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Your Aspie score: 107 of 200 / Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 100 of 200 / You seem to have both Aspie and neurotypical traits. Well, that hasn't really told me anything I don't already know - though it's higher than I thought after filling that in, I was impressed that it wasn't just a bunch of Barum-style questions like "do you sometimes feel uncomfortable in social situations" that you usually get from these online aspie-quiz things. I pretty much have all the social gimpishness you'd expect from the autism spectrum, but I'm far to laid-back and don't give enough of a shit for it to ever affect me. ^postate 10:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

After 4 questions I lost interest. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 10:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I frequently feel an urge to peel flakes off myself and others. 10:33, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

That gives you an Aspie Score of 4 of 200, then. ^narchist 10:36, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh boy. User:Godspeed and I were having some beers on Tuesday when he told me that many cases of self-diagnosed Internet aspergers are actually just highly insecure people for whom the identity makes them feel better. Are tests like this where it starts? 11:48, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Almost certainly. The same can probably be said for online IQ tests that give everyone 130-140 scores. ^pathetic 11:50, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Aspie: 103/200, Neurtypical: 111/200. Well, that explains why I find ADK's writing so boring. --84.158.81.95 (talk) 12:25, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I lost interest before finishing the test, which, if I understand correctly, is definitive proof that I don't have Aspergers. Occasionaluse (talk) 12:57, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Aspie: 61/200, Neurotypical 147/200 Very likely neurotypical. These types of test are always fun, they either say I'm normal or batshit insane. Тyrannis^{An iron, but caring, fist} 13:56, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I think I'd wager on the latter. Nihilist 14:21, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I opened the test, looked at the list of questions, and closed the page thinking "That looks like a lot of work." Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 16:17, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

32 aspie, 173 normal;--il'Dictator Mikal 15:34, 17 May 2012 (UTC)--il'Dictator Mikal 15:34, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

"Your Aspie score: 111 of 200; Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 103 of 200" - So, what, I'm in a position to relate to both sides? Q0 (talk) 16:56, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

117/72 very likely an Aspie. Thats complete arse - I get too much sex to be Aspie AMassiveGay (talk) 17:42, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Lot's of psychological tests that are often accurate produce occasional false positives, and many people fit the profile of one disorder or another (including Assburgers) during a limited period of their life and/or when in certain kinds of social environments but not others. Put some people with mild Asparagus tendencies in a tech environment and their social skills blossom.--WickerGuy (talk) 19:32, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

"Your Aspie score: 115 of 200; Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 80 of 200; You are very likely an Aspie." Well that's nice. I mean I do have several autistic traits but my psychiatrist told me I didn't have Asperger's proper... </tmi> Blue (is useful) 20:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Justice Department ignores child trafficking? (A.K.A. Not surprising, but thoroughly disgusting)

Public Advocate has reminded me that, while it may be fun to laugh at these morons, we have to take their stupidity seriously because a large number of people still believe this kind of bullshit.

Nihilist 14:44, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Their own party has added language to the "violence against women act" which will remove protections for women who are here illegally (but generally not by their own choice) to get assistance. They will either be charged with teh crime of being here illegally, or simply deported. That isn't child trafficking, but it's still human trafficking, adn their own party says "too bad, so sad, you are here illegally, it's your problem."Godot 15:33, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it's hard to take the letter seriously when it's addressed to Urist. Is Eugene's blog Public Advocate actually popular? I haven't heard of it before. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 15:39, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Possibly. Nihilist 15:53, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, hard to tell from there. Fox News and the Washington Post know him, and he's on some kind of committee, but "known for its street theater" doesn't seem like the most flattering description of his company. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 16:03, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman discourse is about to rev up and get ugly.

Shorter version: The kid was high, Zimmerman had a cut head and a bloody nose. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 00:47, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the discourse had revved up and gotten ugly already. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:15, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Isn't science wonderful

When I think about it this actually brings a tear to my eye. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 19:33, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

ZOMG LÖL!!1½--2.34.89.79 (talk) 20:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

True cybernetics are not too far behind then. -- Seth Peck (talk) 20:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Awesome. Ajkgordon (talk) 21:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I saw a special on wheel chairs operated by the mind. It takes lots of work, and only some people's brains seem to be able to do it (they can tell this by rMRI's taken while the patient is concentrating on particular things). but it's some amazing stuff. --Godot 21:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I think I can speak for all those who have problems controlling their positivs reactions when I say "FUCKK YEEAAAAAAHHHHHH!!!" --Raga Man (talk) 23:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

BCIs are starting to suck less and less these days. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:16, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you, or anyone have an EASY TO UNDERSTAND article about how this works? It's truly fasinating, but i'm either finding very technical specs, or articles that say "magic". ;-) Godot 15:34, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

In similar news, paralyzed woman finishes London marathon thanks to robotic legs. Ok, it took her 16 days, but yay! --PsyGremlinFale! 07:51, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Facebook is Watching. Always.

Got a Facebook account? Think you got a good handle on the privacy settings and are careful not to post anything too incriminating? Think again. Not only do those settings count for squat to the people who matter, but Facebook's data harvesting isn't limited to your account: they've got eyes in your computer all the time.

Of course, that's just some MSNBC commenter right? Just stirring up conspiracy theory nonsense? Well, we all believe in the scientific method, so why don't some RationalWikian (obviously, not myself) perform that same experiment and see if you get similar results? As for me, I'll continue to be smug in my steadfast rejection of this "social media" nonsense the kids today are into, guldurnrockandrollgetoffmylawn. --CoyoteSans (talk) 06:17, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

MY solution is to abuse the ever living crap out of privacy add ons and my own self made or friend made stuff. --il'Dictator Mikal 06:39, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

That fellow does not seem to know the meaning of the word "cookie." For my part, I apply the same standard to secrets in both online and offline communications:

“”It is safe to tell a secret to one, Risky to tell it to two, To tell it to three is thoughtless folly, Everyone else will know.

ListenerX^TalkerX 06:56, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, more likely Facebook is using an out-and-out keylogger program and maybe an Evercookie implementation. --CoyoteSans (talk) 07:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

as far as I;'ve been able to tell, not it isnt, --il'Dictator Mikal 07:23, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

If I wear a tin foil hat, can the cookies still track my movements? Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 07:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Probably even better than if you didn't. -- Seth Peck (talk) 15:23, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Cookies use radio frequencies? Far out. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:42, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it's because I don't really use social media at all, but I always find it pretty funny how these people make out sites/companies like Facebook to huge, Orwellian nightmares of epic proportions. "Oh no, they're storing cookies in your browser!" "They're using your likes for advertisements! The horror!" "Here, read my book on how you can be a complete and utter privacy nut and alienate everyone you ever knew while taking hugely time-consuming and ultimately pointless measures!"

I mean, yeah, there are concerns, but if you're that troubled, just don't post anything that private. Nihilist 07:42, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, I frequently use Facebook to post my bank details, my masturbation schedule, the industrially sensitive chemical data I work with, as well as the names and addresses of former boy/girlfriends whom I wish dead. Damn, will Facebook stop invading my privacy! ^sshole 10:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Re you masturbation schedule, do you also post the web-cam links or do I need to sign up for your newsletter? Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 10:33, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Facebook automatically installs a webcam for you, just type his username into their stalking page.

Anyway, I'm with Listener on this one. Cookies do not work that way; neither do browsers, or the scientific method for that matter. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 10:44, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, signing up to Facebook automatically causes men wearing suits and blue gloves to be sent to your house so they can install cameras. Everyone on your friend list gets access to the link immediately and begins to watch it. ^narchist 11:03, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

You really ought to change that awful wallpaper in the bedroom. Ajkgordon (talk) 12:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Coyote, the only way to protect yourself from the facebook keylogger that is on your computer is to wrap your motherboard with tin foil, Weasel is mistaken to think putting it on your head will do anything. Since facebook lives in the interweb ocean it can't interact physically with non metaphoricalizationized matter or teh brain ionization station butter scotch pie. As listener already pointed out... Cant oust obligated kindness in eery sight. And right eyes. Stop training on right angled goose eyes [4]. Personally I just speak in hidden messages to confuse the computer overlords :) TheCheat^{I run on alcohol} 13:36, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Just download a copy of facebook to your computer, then unplug it from the internet. That way their key loggers can't send back your logs. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:03, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I had a Stalkbook for a while, but I got rid of it. This thread reminds me why I did. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:58, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah, but all those cookies are going to still be on your computer. You have to find the file called "System32" and delete it to stop Facebook sending people round to torture your friends and family for information about you. ^sshole 16:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Offtopic: I remember back in the days of MS-DOS based operating systems, where the entire registry was stored in two files (system.dat and user.dat) and deleting them would permanently hose an installation unless you had backups. It was way too easy to trick people into ruining their computer back then... Cow...Hammer^time! 19:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

But thanks to the internet, you can at least trick them remotely. ^gnostic 19:41, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Sherlock Holmes

So, with us Brits fretting over the ending to season 2 of Sherlock, a trailer for Elementary to set the Americans on the trail and a world bloody record to add to his alarming list of things he's got, I think now's an appropriate time; Who here likes Sherlock Holmes? -- 17:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I like Sherlock well enough, particularly Benedict Cumberbatch as him, but some people really go batshit over it. I know someone who turned it into a full-on obsession for months after the series 2 finale aired, doing this bullshit 'sherlocking' thing all over the place. Cow...Hammer^time! 17:25, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

O....K....that's disturbing. -- 17:37, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I've said it before, but Sherlock Holmes in a modern setting is entirely redundant AMassiveGay (talk) 17:47, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I like Sherlock Holmes. I remember sitting around summer camp with a giant anthology of all of the stories, reading one after another... boy, without technology I got a lot of reading done. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{longissimus non legeri} 19:11, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I have adored Sherlock Holmes since the 1960s, and am especially pleased with the Cumberpatch series which I like as much as the Jeremy Brett one. I particularly liked that way that Ep3 of season one gave Sherlock his comeuppance for never studying astronomy on the grounds it was completely irrelevant to his work. That's what SH says in Conan Doyle, but here it turns out astronomy is useful in determining a painting is a forgery, and Watson thus gets in the last word on why Holmes should expand his general knowledge.

The series has all the great hallmarks of the deliciously devious writing of Steven Moffatt. (I'm sure a lot of folk here saw Moffatt's work on Doctor Who, but who caught his fabulous 2007 mini-series Jekyll which brought Jekyll and Hyde into the 21st century?). Before this series, I saw Cumberpatch only as rather non-descript conventional characters, but I understand he's been Van Gogh and Stephen Hawking and is going to by Khan in an upcoming Star Trek. (What a horrid person he played in Small Island!)

I haven't seen last week's Baskerville episode yet. My five part-time jobs have be a bit busy these days.--WickerGuy (talk) 19:47, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Five jobs? O__O Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 22:24, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm looking at the Sherlock page on Netflix now and it seems season one is 3 episodes? Jesus, I know you Brits do shorter seasons than we do, preferring quality to quantity, but 3 fucking episodes? Are you guys really that lazy over there? Turpis 3:16 (talk) 22:48, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Well each episode is like an hour and a half long (plus there's a second series not yet on Netflix), so it's more like 3 movies, but yeah it's pretty short. Cow...Hammer^time! 23:11, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Not just ninety minutes but ninety minutes with no ad breaks, as it's on the BBC. That equates to at least two hours if shown on US TV, right? Probably more. Most UK drama seasons comprise around six to ten one hour episodes. Certainly don't compare to the epic US seasons like House at around twenty episodes. Even if they do need the stamina of a British actor. Ajkgordon (talk) 08:45, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

As ususal, Americans confuse quantity with quality. Hey, there's only one Mona Lisa and it's quite small so it must be crap, eh? Bad Faith (talk) 08:49, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

It's not a confusion of quantity and quality, it's that there's more money in the US industry than in its European counterparts. The US studios simply have more money to invest in a product than the British have. A side effect of not having a fucktone of episodes is that you have more time to make the few you have really good. Think of it as trying to get lunch with either a lot of money or not so much. If you don't have a lot of money, you're going to think hard what exactly you're going to get, while if you have a lot of money with you you're going to just get something. With Sherlock this has been taken to it's extreme, But we're already seeing the US adjust. --84.158.90.110 (talk) 11:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

We're getting offtopic here. I want to know what WickerGuy's five jobs are. ^{ONE / TALK} 11:41, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

The fact that the producer of Sherlock also has his hands full with Doctor Who is surely a factor in the decision to produce only three episodes. And yes, I'm definitely behind the Brit emphasis on quality over quantity. Of course, here in America we mainly get the good British TV. I lived for a year in England in '66-'67 so I know there actually is some bad TV over there. (I suppose the highlight was viewing the original broadcast of over half of the now-erased episodes of Doctor Who).

User One, I substitute teach in two school districts and work for three different private tutoring agencies, the latter of which involves quite a bit of off-hours prep. I was a software engineer for many years.--WickerGuy (talk) 14:01, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

@BoN - it's not particularly a money thing either. Famously John Cleese was offered mega bucks for more Faulty Towers but refused saying that he wanted to go out on a high and Ricky Gervaise followed suit with The Office and Extras - twelve episodes all (Well, RG added a Christmas special). Bad Faith (talk) 14:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Worth pointing out that the US version of Life On Mars managed to get more episodes than both series of the original UK version combined - yet it was pretty damn crap. And when you have to fill a 20+ episode season you do tend to get an awful lot of filler. Especially with BGS you could tell where the budget and writing was concentrated, and you could tell where they were "let's just get this fucker over with already", and Lost was pretty bad for having massive chunks that did sweet fuck all to the story. They're slowly learning, though. Alcatraz and Breaking Bad were both 13 episodes and Game of Thrones is 10 and it pays off in a lack of filler. ^theist 15:54, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Likewise the US remake of Being Human is pretty awful. The Brit version is being shown on BBCAmerica, though I've only had time to watch a couple of episodes.--WickerGuy (talk) 17:35, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll try to address everything here, I hope I don't fail trying.

@WickerGuy: A producer credit doesn't necessarily mean a heavy involvement in a show's making, it's kind of a shell-like credit, expecially if there are several producers attached to a project. Especially in Britain it can mean anything from "showrunner" to "looked over the script once". How much Master Moffat is envolved in both projects is a question that only he and the people that work with him can answer. Shonda Rhimes would be a good counter-example as she has as of several week ago three shows running with a episode count of 73 alone. I'm just going to mention execs like Bruckheimer, Wolff, Bellisario and MacFarlane.

@Bad Faith: The question isn't that of people taking money but people offering money, as that is our only way to guess how much money the studios and networks/broadcasters have. So if you offer somebody money and they don't take it, that doesn't mean there's less money in the system.

@Armondikov: Apples and oranges. In the US you have to make a difference between the networks, expecially the big five four and a half (ABC, NBC, FOX, CBS, TheCW) who have a lot of money from advertising, the smaller cable networks (AMC, USA Network, TNT, Fx, ABC Family, TBS, Comedy Central, etc, etc, etc,) and premium cable channels (HBO, Showtime and Starz). Networks have usually no big problems spending large amounts of money on a show, but immediatly kill it if doesn't work ratingswise. Cable networks don't have a lot of money, so they can't produce as much (usually that is, if they know it's a sure thing, they will put some money behind it). Premium cable channels have a set amount of people ordering their programming for a certain amount of time. That means set revenue streams and no advertising, and with that comes a lot of flexibility when producing something. Projects can cost alot and be good, or cost almost nothing and be good. As long as people don't cancel it's all alright (and only here was American quality television able to evolve, because you could have 11 shows being ok and well received and you could one, ahem, "The Wire", that redefines what television is). Alcatraz only has 13 episodes because it was brought in as a so called "midseason replacement" (a show that fills in for another show while the first show is on hiatus) and is now cancelled. If it would have survived the season, it would have been up for 22 (13 first order, +9 second order (back-nine-order)). The same thing goes for "The River", which has 8 episodes and was so bad it hurt.

The same thing you see in Britain, were most of what you call bloody brilliant television is made by the BBC, as it is in America, because they have a secured stream of revenue. Only later private stations and half-private (e4 what are you?) joined in on the fun. But still if you look at the episode counts you see that the usual pattern is that an US TV show on a cbale network of premium cable channel has around 10-13 episodes (except the first season) and British shows have around 6-10 (except Doctor Who which is a cash cow and a "sure thing"). That might no look as much, but depending on the show even three episode can be several million dollars. If you don't have that money, well you order less.

I think I talk to much. --84.158.67.195 (talk) 19:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

To answer your parenthetical question, E4 is a channel and brand for Channel 4. Channel 4 is a company owned by the taxpayer, like the British Broadcasting Corporation. But unlike the BBC it is largely funded by advertisements and sponsorships. Its public service remit is intentionally very different from the BBC's, focusing on diversity and pushing boundaries. Channel 4 is more or less obliged to be controversial, to have Daily Mail readers writing letters of complaint about shows they've never watched (or more amusingly, shows they watched and enjoyed but feel they shouldn't have). 82.69.171.94 (talk) 06:09, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Donna Summer

Dead. --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 17:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

What about Elvis? --2.34.89.79 (talk) 19:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Who the fuck is Elvis? --82.145.210.149 (talk) 20:54, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Who the fuck is Alice? Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 11:35, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

You weren't a DJ/producer unless you had either slipped I Feel Love into a mix or remixed it yourself. Ace^Moderator 20:58, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Elvis is the alien from Perfect Dark, duh. Cow...Hammer^time! 21:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I can forgive Giordio Moroder's awful attempt to add colour to Metropolis because of what he managed to do with Donna Summer. "I Feel Love" is one of surprisingly few genre-defining moments. rpeh •T•C•E• 21:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

She did a twenty five minute version of McArthur Park which is hard to find but, if you can, it's one of disco's greatest moments, and no, heavy metal fans, disco's greatest moments is not an oxymoron. Bad Faith (talk) 08:47, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Let's play "find the similarities"

One: http://facepunch.com/threads/1181159

Two: Otherkin

Nope, RW didn't get any credit. :/ — Haamer 05:07, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, this raises the marginally more interesting question of why our otherkin article is about 50% verbatim quotes from other websites (including random tumblrs for goat's sake). Could use a hefty cleanup and trimming. Blue (pester) 06:20, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

That would probably be because the article was originally written, not to inform the public or because the authors had any interest in the subject, but to take digs at CUR. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:27, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah, sorry. I added most of that stuff, I was actually planning on reducing the quotes. But never got around to it since I started procrastinating on other sites besides RW. — Haamer 07:01, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

On evolution and the like

Does anybody have recommended books; media, ect on the topic that are good enough to be useful but not complicated enough that i'd be better off changing my degree first? I have a vested interest in understanding what i say i believe in, but don't really know where to start and go to--il'Dictator Mikal 06:26, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

The Panda's Thumb by Stephen Jay Gould was fascinating, although I understand Gould is not in as high of repute as he once was.--^talk 07:07, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Gould and Dawkins would be a good place to start.--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 07:08, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

The Ancestor's Tale is my recommendation. It's really more intuitive than you'd think - to look at evolution in a Canterbury Tales way, going back in time to meet what the most recent common ancestor would be, at specific branches. You get a more clear sense of how evolution is an ongoing process, and of how strange our labeling of species is compared with the scale of time. The writing style is also really engaging, and manages to cover just about every important aspect of evolution without really straying too far from the main dialogue. Q0 (talk) 07:42, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

(EC) The Ancestor's Tale will give an idea of how we got to where we are today. But you shouldn't forget Darwin because if you want to debate creationists you need to know where he was wrong, and why Darwinism isn't exactly the same as modern Evolution. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 07:46, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Darwin? Wrong? What nonsense! Nebuchadnezzar (talk)

If you are debating creationists I would also recommend Dawkins' "Climbing Mount Improbable".--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 10:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Surely, Dawkins recent book The Greatest Show on Earth and Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution is True should be noted. Prior to these being published Dawkins himself stated that one of the best single summaries of the evidence for evolution was the first half of Ken Miller's Finding Darwin's God- the second half largely tries to reconcile science and religion. Robert Pennock's The Tower of Babel should be noted. (Has a great opening sentence "Creationism is evolving".) Also subscribe to the newsletter of the Center for Science Education in Oakland or look over their website http://ncse.com/ --WickerGuy (talk) 14:08, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Talk Origins is always a good place to start. As for books, Coyne or Dawkins works, or Pigliucci's Denying Evolution. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:19, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

People could add their selections (and look up selections) here. sterile^{evolutionist story telling} 05:09, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

And don't forget Evowiki sterile^{evolutionist story telling} 05:10, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Probably Poe

but good for a laugh! Bad Faith (talk) 09:35, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

The bottom bit on Tebow gives away it is a parody (and a good one)--WickerGuy (talk) 14:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Ugh...

Just finished my C2 Maths exam. Didn't even attempt question 9, so there's 5 marks nuked there. Goat knows how I did on the rest of the paper.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 10:59, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

RationalWiki Foundation

Aren't you guys well overdue for a meeting - or are the minutes late? Or have I missed them?--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 17:47, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Huh?

I came across a blog post by Edwin Kagin, where he refused to provide a shop with his zip when he was making a cash purchase.

Now I know you Yanks are living in a police-state-muslim-caliphate-dictatorship, but why would a store want your zip code? I can understand phone number or something if you're paying by credit card, but cash? And for that matter, what good is a zip code? --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 13:12, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Stores use zip codes to track where their customers are coming from so that marketing dollars can be spent in the communities where they will have the most impact. Omar (gibber) 13:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

(EC)They're doing it where i live too (democracy-loving Sweden Switzerland). I think it is so they can think about, where to put their next store. Basically market research--Th. Bernhard (talk) 13:22, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I've encountered it at a few places. I've always given it, because it's hardly very personal information (unlike a phone number, which I never give), but I think most places train their employees to type in something like 00000 when someone refuses, rather than calling the manager and such. Seems to be a question of poor training in that particular store. Turpis 3:16 (talk) 13:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it's marketing stuff. Happens in both Spain and the UK. In Spain I speak with a (stronger) foreign accent and tell them I can't remember.--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 13:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

In the UK simply say "SA6 7JL" (DVLA) Bad Faith (talk) 14:03, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Some gas stations if you pay by credit card want a zip code for security reasons.--WickerGuy (talk) 14:12, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I was doing a masters in GIS (Geographical Information Systems) about 10 years ago and one of the first things they told us was that store loyalty card are a tremendous source of marketing information. OK they can target you individually with special offers, but knowing where people have come from to visit a particular store also helps in locating new stores and what lines they stock. The amount of information that is held on us and used for data-mining is quite staggering. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 14:25, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

But it's not necessarily tied to you, when you're giving over a post-code. It's just a list of numbers that are completely faceless. Even with Facebook's marketing, all it ends up as is a range of demographics fitting certain properties. It would be impossible to track your specific name to a post/zip code even if they tried because it's just an extra notch on a bar chart. It's emphatically not the case that these hulking great conglomerates have Orwellian profiles on you with personal details that you would like to keep as your own dirty little secret - and even if it was, who the hell would have the time to look at them and what end would it achieve? ^sshole 15:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

@Armandikov: You're right the zip code is not important. It kinda starts getting scary, when the stores can use statistics magic to figure out when you're pregnant even before yo know it (see HERE). The scary part I think will come, when those informations are sold to potential employers (which to my knowledge does not happen yet). My chances of employment would certainly drop, if a potential employer would see how much booze, tobacco, junk food and video games I buy ;-)--Th. Bernhard (talk) 16:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

@Mondy. For just reporting your postal code then it's not about you as an individual but store loyalty cards are a different matter. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 16:58, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

But that's very much an opt-in thing, and that I count very differently when it comes to privacy. How "private" are my buying preferences anyway? People see me buy them, they're written on a receipt, I have to physically touch them in some way, you buy it from a shop and hell, you might even risk eye-contact with the cashier while getting your 16-pack of extra-smalllarge condoms. I sometimes think that some (over) reactions to privacy seem to be suggesting we should live in some isolated bubble and not one iota of this information should leak out but... what is the actual harm from a lot of that? That they notice that I buy Cadbury chocolate more than Nestle chocolate, and so my online advertising then prioritises showing me offers for Dairy Milk rather than Kit Kats? All I hasten to point out is that the reality is far from the Orwellian nightmare people seem to make this out to be. ^moral 17:10, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Look I agree with you. The present reality is not an Orwellian nightmare. I am though concerned about the future. As you said, the stores can't make much out of the information they have on their customers, apart from tailored advertisements and such. But I would not be surprised if the gathered information would be sold at some point in the future. Sold to insurance companies, to potential employers etc. and that would almost certainly become very problematic. Imagine having to pay extra on your health insurance because you buy a certain amount of junk food, or explaining a potential employer why you buy a carton of wine every week. What you buy tells little about who you are, but it might be interpreted as the ultimate door into your soul... But if the most emberassing thing for you is that you buy Cadbury chocolate, then you would not suffer, should the Orwellian nightmare come to reality in the future ;-)--Th. Bernhard (talk) 18:13, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

That's not going to happen, because the countries in which these loyalty card schemes operate tend to have very strict laws on handling of personal information. Supermarkets are obliged to work within these, and can be heavily fined by regulating bodies if they fail to, or prosecuted if they were do something as stupid as making data on all their customers publicly available, as your examples would imply. When you sign up for a loyalty card scheme, as with signing up with an online retailer like Amazon, you can consult its terms and conditions, and there's usually a box to tick about whether you want your information shared with selected other retailers or not. The retailer can't just share customer data without your consent. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:35, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm aware that there are privacy laws in the developed countries. But laws can be changed and loopholes can be found. Plus there is always the possiblity of a hacking attack etc. Anyhow: I'm not saying that it is going to happen. All I'm saying is that the gathered information has the potential to be used in a harmful way to the customer and that the corporations could make quite some money by selling said information. This worries me and makes me uncomfortable. This is why I don't have loyalty cards. But as I said, in my very cynical mind, I could see it happen in the not so near future.--Th. Bernhard (talk) 19:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Well the likes of Tesco are expanding well beyond groceries, so they don't need to sell the info to outside agencies. And while in theory you can opt out of a lot of this stuff, the majority of punters never bother. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 19:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Bulk commercial advertising is about the only thing keeping the post office going. A companies ad dollars can be better targeted with zip codes. Pep Boys Auto Parts & Office Max seem to be the big offenders asking for the info in my area. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 02:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

It's not for advertising. I asked once, the dude said it was to find out if a new store could be opened in your area, or if the location should be moved. That actually makes a lot more sense, I think. Like, if you have a store in area XXXXXXXX, but half your customers are from YYYYYYYY, you might elect opening a new store there or something.--"Shut up, Brx." 01:13, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Cat Scratch Fever

I just finished reading this Daily Mail amusement by Samantha Brick, about the new First Mistress (?) Trierweile. If you are bored, and want to see what a jealous over hyped Britt thinks of a fairly irrelevant women in the political world of France, do read. "I have now lived in France for four years and there are few who have a better insight into the sinister machinations of a French woman’s mind than I do." muwhahahahahah --Godot 20:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Damn, thought this post was gonna be about another person. -- Seth Peck (talk) 20:20, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

No Samantha Brick article is complete without her posting pictures of herself and her weirdo husband and making it all about herself. Her ego is absolutely massive. Cow...Hammer^time! 20:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

She's unbearable. Of course to her it's unthinkable that anybody could possibly dislike her because she's an ignorant narcissistic bore; it must because she's English, and soo beautiful. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I was just wondering where all the poor little men were, in this "women stealing french machiniation" world? I mean, i kinda figured it takes two to tango, but clearly those men were tied down and forced into the affair!--Godot 20:45, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

It's nothing new, though. Just flick through the archives and she's been like this for a while. But, with the "women hate me because I'm beautiful" article going viral the DM has clearly found itself a winner. So long as people link to it, their advertisers get noticed, and the DM gets paid for it. I doubt she'd stop writing this whether she truly believed it or otherwise. ^gnostic 23:26, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

What an embarrassment for us fellow ex-pats. Thankfully nobody I know know here has ever heard of her. Ajkgordon (talk) 06:34, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Looks like simple self-parody to me. The more outrageous she is the better for her and the paper.--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 13:05, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Sightings: A goldmine of classic crankery

For those of you who don't know, Sightings was a "news" show dedicated to the Paranormal that aired in the 90s, and it is a treasure trove of hilariously outdated "paranormal news reports." http://www.youtube.com/user/ParanormalXFiles/videos Dig through the content and enjoy.Ryantherebel (talk) 22:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh wow, this takes me back a while. I remember watching this show as a kid and thinking that it was true. Looking back, I was stupid when I was young. The Symphony of Noise ^{The official spikey-haired skeptical punk} 13:14, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Falcon 9 launch

T-9 minutes. Peter ^{with added ‼Science‼} 08:47, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Damn! Peter ^{with added ‼Science‼} 08:57, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Recommend me a book

I'm looking for a nice, accessible book that covers the history of banking (and perhaps more broadly, capitalism) - a book that would be about the introduction of various ideas like the banknote, fractional reserve banking, keynesian economics etc. Basically a history of money, but one that doesn't spend too long on the ancients and instead puts more focus on, say, the last 300 years. Any recommendations? ^{ONE / TALK} 14:47, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Not sure about banking, but "Against the Gods" is a great history of probability theory and the rise of insurance. --PsyGremlinZungumza! 15:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

The Ascent of Money by Niall Ferguson will do the trick. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 15:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

The relevant chapters of Capital are worth reading. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 17:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Das Kapital. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 19:46, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, don't let the whole communism thing scare you from reading some Marx. Shit's still relevant, yo. Q0 (talk) 20:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

David Graeber's Debt: The First 5,000 Years. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:31, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

One of Bill Clinton's early mentors, Carroll Quigley's Tragedy and Hope Chapter 5, (you can get chap. 5 in its entirety here). Frederick Hayek's short Choice in Currency also may be helpful. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 03:27, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks all, it looks like Ascent Of Money was the kind of thing I was looking for - though I certainly won't ignore the other suggestions :) ^{ONE / TALK} 08:30, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Wait...

So I'm guessing that Trump is just another RINO? Seeing as he allowed a transgender contestant into Miss Universe. Sadly, she didn't win. --PsyGremlinRunāt! 12:13, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Trump tries to come off as a moderate Republican, but I will never let go that booleschitt about Obama's birth certificate. I'm not sure he really believed it.--WickerGuy (talk) 15:07, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Psy, here's a clue: any Republican from New York City is by definition a RINO. Time was they were called Rockefeller Republicans, later Reform Democrats, now RINO. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 17:48, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Got a source for this?--il'Dictator Mikal 17:58, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Rob has something of a point. Relatively few Real American Republicans are tied to the coasts, it seems. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 18:02, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I always thought Trump was only doing a troll bid for president, just to boost his popularity. Mr. Anon (talk) 18:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Given the field, Trump was a true contender. But he walked into the birther trap showing his political naivete. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 18:25, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I think Trump being a true contender was more of Poe's law in action than him being serious. Remember Herman "Gotta Catch 'em all" Cain was a frontrunner for a while. Mr. Anon (talk) 18:38, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Really disappointed Cain didn't survive longer. The "Pizza dude's got 30 seconds" references alone were worth it. -- 18:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I forgot it was our animalversary or I would have thrown a party

Complete with Hoji's awesome Goat pilaf! And some Scotch, of course. Feel free to add your own decorations.

ħuman 03:06, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Ju8st so you know, the war on CP is also being expressed in removing recognition of this holiday. --il'Dictator Mikal 03:11, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Huh? You just made that up. 10:34, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I cannot help but be reminded of Maximillean Robespierre's Reign of Terror when reading the descriptions of TK. I briefly got the chance to debate him on Wikipedia before he slipped to the nethorworld. He probably singlehandidly killed Conservapedia. Mr. Anon (talk) 03:16, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't know any happy anniversary songs. "drink up", sounds good enough, though.--Godot 03:26, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not seeing nearly enough goat for an anniversary party. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 03:33, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

If we hold a party, I'll pay for the strippers. The Symphony of Noise ^{The official spikey-haired skeptical punk} 10:36, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

You do realize that a shaved goat doesn't count as a stripper, right? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 16:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Except in New Zealand. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:38, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

That does explain all the sex Ace's been having. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 18:40, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Not entirely. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 21:39, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Happy Anniversary, all. And in recognition I made the effort to remove the malicious vandalism reference from the WP entry. With the FBI dragging its feet all these years, the statue of limitations has must have run out. nobs^{Corporations are people, too.} 02:18, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

What is that horrible bloated box to the right? Make it go away! ħuman 02:52, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

By the way, that incompetent box'o'bloat is overriding the images in this section. Incompetence, please delete. ħuman 02:56, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I circumcised it. All clean now. ħuman 03:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)