RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive162

This is an archive page, last updated 18 June 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>, <159>, <160>, <161>, <163>, <164>, <165>, <166>, <167>, <168>, <169>, <170>, <171>, <172>, <173>, <174>, <175>, <176>, <177>, <178>, <179>, <180>, <181>, <182>, <183>, <184>, <185>, <186>, <187>, <188>, <189>, <190>, <191>, <192>, <193>, <194>, <195>, <196>, <197>, <198>, <199>, <200>, <201>, <202>, <203>, <204>, <205>, <206>, <207>, <208>, <209>, <210>, <211>, <212>, <213>, <214>, <215>, <216>, <217>, <218>, <219>, <220>, <221>, <222>, <223>, <224>, <224½>, <225>, <226>, <227>, <228>, <229>, <230>, <231>, <232>, <233>, <234>, <235>, <236>, <237>, <238>, <239>, <240>, <241>, <242>, <243>, <244>, <245>, <246>, <247>, <248>, <249>, <250>, <251>, <252>, <253>, <254>, <255>, <256>, <257>, <258>, <259>, <260>, <261>, <262>, <263>, <264>, <265>, <266>, <267>, <268>, <269>, <270>, <271>, <272>, <273>, <274>, <275>, <276>, <277>, <278>, <279>, <280>, <281>, <282>, <283>, <284>, <285>, <286>, <287>, <288>, <289>, <290>, <291>, <292>, <293>, <294>, <295>, <296>, <297>, <298>, <299>, <300>, <301>, <302>, <303>, <304>, <305>, <306>, <307>, <308>, <309>, <310>, <311>, <312>, <313>, <314>, <315>, <316>, <317>, <318>, <319>, <320>, <321>, <322>, <323>, <324>, <325>, <326>, <327>, <328>, <329>, <330>, <331>, <332>, <333>, <334>, <335>, <336>, <337>, <338>, <339>, <340>, <341>, <342>, <343>, <344>, <345>, <346>, <347>, <348>, <349>, <350>, <351>, <352>, <353>, <354>, <355>, <356>, <357>, <358>, <359>, <360>, <361>, <362>, <363>, <364>, <365>, <366>, <367>, <368>, <369>, <370>, <371>, <372>, <373>, <374>, <375>, <376>, <377>, <378>, <379>, <380>, <381>, <382>, <383>, <384>, <385>, <386>, <387>, <388>, <389>, <390>, <391>, <392>, <393>, <394>, <395>, <396>, <397>, <398>, <399>, <400>, <401>, <402>, <403>, <404>, <405>, <406>, <407>, <408>, <409>, <410>, <411>, <412>, <413>, <414>, <415>, <416>, <417>, <418>, <419>, <420>, <421>, <422>, <423>, <424>, <425>, <426>, <427>, <428>, <429>, <430>, <431>, <432>, <433>, <434>, <435>, <436>, <437>, <438>, <439>, <440>, <441>, <442>, <443>, <444>, <445>, <446>, <447>, <448>, <449>, <450>, <451>, <452>, <453>, <454>, <455>, <456>, <457>, <458>, <459>, <460>, <461>, <462>, <463>, <464>, <465>, <466>, <467>, <468>

, (new)(back)

What website is this?

Memes or GTFO!

I was just wondering because I saw a bunch of meme pictures in WIGO and I thought I was on Reddit. RachelW (talk) 20:52, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

What's a nice girl like you doing on WIGO:BLOGS? Occasionaluse (talk) 21:10, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

The Roberts Court

So now that the 9th Circuit has cleared the way for Perry v. Brown to move to the Supreme Court, a commentator on a HuffPost article has put it very nicely: expect the worst from the Roberts Court, and if we don't get the worst, expect some serious "legal tap-dancing" to avoid deciding anything worthwhile. Blue (pester) 18:16, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Depends on what you mean by the robert's court. Like everything else in the last 2 (?) years (can't remember when the last woman was added) all will come down to one man - Kennedy. And one very good thing to remember is he was the author of the Opinion for Romer V. Evans, 1996. And he makes it quite clear in his Opinion his view that gays are a discriminated minority who deserve to be a protect class. --GodotWhen I graduated, Cognative Science of Religion didn't even exist! now it's everywhere 18:20, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Not sure... because the Chief Justice gets to assign the opinions and decide the scope of the questions to be decided - i.e. very narrow or very broad - Roberts is probably more influential on this one.--^talk 20:26, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

OH, i agree with that, sorry. I meant to suggest that when the case comes, it is likely to go "our" way. But as you say, how much that has to do with anything in the country at large, is to be seen. Roberts has consistently avoided anything that is not narrow in scope, even when a more broad reading would be the more appropriate way to go.--GodotWhen I graduated, Cognative Science of Religion didn't even exist! now it's everywhere 20:40, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, if it goes to the Supreme Court (and I think it will), I'll be looking at it with cautious optimism. It's hard to do so after the recent nonsense in Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders and Golan v. Holder, but I don't see the same kind of elements at play here. Q0 (talk) 21:04, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

What is cautious optimism? Is that like lending someone a dollar and only expecting fifty cents back? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 19:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Right. Or maybe that I think I'll probably get the dollar back, but I'm going to bet against it just in case. ..great, I've made this into an analogy for the debt crisis. Q0 (talk) 20:08, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Goddamn fucking clouds obscuring my fucking enjoyment of rare astronomical event. Fuck

That is all. Ace^Moderator 23:27, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Chemtrails. It's all about the chem. Try putting on a tin foil hat & boiling some vinegar over a camp-stove in your garden. That might help. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:39, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

(EC) If you didn't live in a third world country, you'd know that that big thing in the sky is the sun, and it's there every day. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 23:39, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Of course we in NZ know of the sun. It is, after all, our god. Ace^Moderator 23:42, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, all I have is goddamn fucking clouds right now as well. If only I didn't live in smoggy Pittsburgh with their steel mills and, oh, wait. It is only clouds. Aboriginal Noise ^{Theist, barely hanging by a nail} 23:44, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

FFS, I had no clouds and just bloody forgot about the rare astronomical event. damnit. --GodotWhen I graduated, Cognative Science of Religion didn't even exist! now it's everywhere 00:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

What "rare astronomical event" are you people going on about? Doctor Dark (talk) 01:11, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The Transit of Venus, son. Ace^Moderator 01:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd planned to go to the nearby lake where a bunch of astronomy people were gathering, but ultimately didn't feel like getting ready and driving.--il'Dictator Mikal 01:23, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

My physics teacher is gonna be pissed. Peter ^{Blessed are the cheesemakers} 01:55, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Hosed by clouds as well. Was clear enough until ~2 hours beforehand, then rained until sunset. Q0 (talk) 02:28, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

There were some thin clouds but not enough to block anythingil'Dictator Mikal 02:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Weather was iffy here so I watched it live through the web; hooray for modern video streaming! --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 13:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Selected highlights

For those that didn't see it - some pretty pictures and movies available from NASA. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 16:45, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Tao of Woo

Interesting article about Deepak Chopra in the latest Skeptic magazine. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 09:26, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Chopra fails to live up the first syllable of his last name.--WickerGuy (talk) 23:37, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

But he has frequently debated the editor of Skeptic, Michael Shermer.--WickerGuy (talk) 23:38, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Depends on how you define "debate." Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:52, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

LOL!! Only in the most formal sense of the word [1]--WickerGuy (talk) 00:42, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

That settles it...

Science^TM has determined Britain's most beautiful face. Clearly no subjectivity here. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I love Science^TM, far more than actual science!--GodotWhen I graduated, Cognative Science of Religion didn't even exist! now it's everywhere 18:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I went out with someone even more beautiful last night; unfortunately it wasn't my wife, and my wife was with me. :( Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 18:37, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Rising terminals really get on my tits. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 18:39, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh yes, I believe that study was published in the journal Science??. Blue (pester) 18:41, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully, it was your mother, your daughter, or your sister. otherwise if your wife reads this, you are in a world of hurt. heheh. By teh way, since "Science" has a way to detect beauty, does that mean we can ***finally*** get ride of beauty pagents?--GodotWhen I graduated, Cognative Science of Religion didn't even exist! now it's everywhere 18:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC) (Hate edit conflicts)

Heh, my wife knows nothing of this site. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 19:36, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Science^TM has declared that Britain's most beautiful woman isn't Samantha Brick? I am shocked. Shocked. El Taj^{Don't make me do stuff} 18:54, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

[2][3][4][5] - David Gerard (talk) 20:17, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Hasn't this sort of thing been around for ages? There's an "ideal" face made of golden ratios that's often used as a template for facial reconstruction surgery. ^theist 10:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Ray Bradbury dead

Science fiction author dead at 91. Posted here and not on a WIGO because voting on people's deaths is tacky. And also because I want to read you all arguing about classic sci-fi. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 20:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I liked Ray Bradbury. Fahrenheit would be my favorite of his. His longer stuff never really caught on with me, though. I love science-fiction and I am glad he wrote science fiction. A shame he passed, I'll always have fond memories of his work--User:Brxbrx/sig 22:03, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Well fuck me. ^gnostic 10:52, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Damn fine author. It's always sad to see someone as brilliant as that go. The Punk Symphony of Noise ^{Your mental puke relief} 14:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Funnily enough, my fave RB book isn't sci-fi: Something Wicked This Way Comes. --PsyGremlin話しなさい 14:51, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Serious question about Syria - opinions matter!

Another slaughter in Syria. I'm curious what people's views are, on the role of world powers stepping in. My own view is that if you are going to claim to be a "world leader", and you are going to every claim some kind of moral superiority "USA is the Best, cause we are Democracy" or some crap, you must act to in intervention when innocents are being slaughtered by governments or other "parties". We failed to act in rowanda. I think not moving in is "fail" too. But i'm curious what others of you think.--GodotWhen I graduated, Cognative Science of Religion didn't even exist! now it's everywhere 22:55, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I think that countries have to look to their own affairs. In real life, most foreign interventions are not carried out for humanitarian reasons, but for strategic ones, and "humanitarian" interventions often do more harm than good; I seem to recall that the reason we did not intervene in Rwanda was because we were still catching guff for our failed intervention in Somalia. ListenerX^TalkerX 23:58, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I mostly agree with LX, but if the Arab League were to want to put their foot down on Syria, or if, say, the AU put forth a plan to intervene to stop genocide/mass abuses in a country in their backyard, that might be another question. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 00:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

"In real life, most foreign interventions are not carried out for humanitarian reasons, but for strategic ones, and "humanitarian" interventions often do more harm than good..." Ditto. The currently fashionable brand of Samantha Power-style liberal internationalism also serves as a handy way to direct attention away from the all the tinpot dictators on our dole. There's something in the Bible about splinters, beams, and eyes that applies here. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 00:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Yep, LX is correct. When states move to intervene, and you want to know why, the first thought should always be to follow the money. In the US, the powers that be don't view American society as actually so prosperous and utopian that it can just save the rest of the world on a regular basis, even if they wanted to do so. Remember, this is a country that regularly lets citizens die due to poverty, lack of shelter, no escape from national disasters (Katrina), etc. This is also a country that is deeply in debt. So, the idea is not 'how can we help these poor people?' (a question not even asked domestically), it's 'what can we gain from this political opportunity?'.

What makes this even more obvious with Syria is looking at how fucking easy it would be to sell. I mean, they sold Kosovo on less than this, and they sold it to nearly every political affiliation in America at that. So why don't they do it this time? Perhaps they still think Assad can regain control. The West really had no serious quarrel with him when it came down to it. He allowed foreign investment, moved toward liberalizing the economy, and regularly spoke to religious moderation. As is shown time and time again, the question of democracy doesn't even come into play until it's politically relevant.

Another big factor is that Iraq and Afghanistan have politically handcuffed US direct intervention to some degree. Just look at the rhetoric over Libya: how not only did they stress that there would be no ground troops, but that the US wouldn't even play a big part. Look over there, even Sweden is involved - you can't complain! But Syria is more complicated. You can't just arm a rebellion and support it from the air right now. If you want regime change (and that is not the issue, the real issue is that the turmoil itself is bad for business and trade), you probably have to go all in... and that's a big investment. Q0 (talk) 02:12, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Can you imagine the clusterfuck that would ensue if the US invaded--humanitarian pretenses or not--another Arab country, one that borders Lebanon, Israel, and Iraq? God, the mind boggles at how bad the blowback could be. Theory of Practice "I never set out to hit anybody. It's just that a lot of people got hit." -- Andy Roberts 03:51, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The cynic might claim it's always about the money. I'm not so sure. As ever, it's much more complicated than that. It's as much to do with domestic support, foreign objection (in this case Russia and China), risk of failure, cost, effectiveness of other options such as sanctions or supporting an uprising, risk of loss of regional prestige, etc. It's a complex cost-benefit analysis of everything from genuine altruism to financial and political advantage. Ajkgordon (talk) 08:07, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Generally opposed to foreign intervention myself, and unless there is a direct threat to our safety or well-being (us being whatever nation you happen to be a citizen of), I cannot see any reason to get involved in some other country's civil war.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 10:31, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Of course it is not always about money, but it is almost always about some strategic concern. ListenerX^TalkerX 01:56, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Toronto and plastic bags

On a vote to scrap the 5c tax on plastic bags, city council says to hell with them entirely.

It's a huge shock here (our dumbfuck mayor is red-baiting while the idea actually came from his inner circle), but is it a good or bad idea? Osaka Sun (talk) 04:17, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

It's a good idea. In France they've been done away with. Now my grandparents shop with sturdier and very permanent cloth bags.--User:Brxbrx/sig 04:19, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

(Well, to be factual, they are not really "done away with" in France or Europe. They are just a very expensive cost the shopper pays directly. I think we paid .50 E (so .80 usd) for each bag we needed at LeClerc, and they were just as cheep and flimsy as any Safeway bag here.) Cloth or sturdy plastic bags are easy enough to buy. Most of the shoppers here in Colorado use cloth for grocery shopping, though things like Target or Walmart and all clothing stores still have plastic. I'd love to see it all go. Bring your own bag or pay! GodotWhen I graduated, Cognative Science of Religion didn't even exist! now it's everywhere 04:33, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Don't know when you were last there but the big supermarkets like Leclerc, Carrefour, etc. no longer have the flimsy "disposable" plastic bags - the government was talking about banning them from the large stores but I can't remember if it passed or not. But they do sell the larger more robust ones for around twenty cents which you can then exchange for free when they're worn out. Ajkgordon (talk) 08:18, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

We were in Fosse last in 2010, setting Mom's apt up for the summer, and LeClerc had nice thick bags, and flimsy "disposable" bags still. All the local grocers and corner stores still used plastic, though they would not give you one unless you asked. LIDL didn't have any of the disposable, just the thick reusable or the cloth. By the way, the plastic bags you buy are HUGE. What's up with that? --GodotWhen I graduated, Cognative Science of Religion didn't even exist! now it's everywhere 13:08, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

They're for all the vin, of course. Ajkgordon (talk) 13:42, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah the vin, so much vin, so damn cheep! You can buy wine, scotch, or beer in grocery stores, but not asprin. France is weird. ;-)GodotWhen I graduated, Cognative Science of Religion didn't even exist! now it's everywhere 14:08, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Even weirder, you can buy alcohol and drink it in petrol stations. Ajkgordon (talk) 14:23, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

ohhkay. That's taking their issue with Drinking and Driving seriously. ;-) but as long as they only give out paper bags! GodotWhen I graduated, Cognative Science of Religion didn't even exist! now it's everywhere 14:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Here in the wilds of Minnesota, we still use that antiquated relic, the paper bag. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:37, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

They still offer them here but 99% of the time, people use plastic.il'Dictator Mikal 06:14, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

They certainly shouldn't be banned entirely: with all the attention given to 'recycle' especially, reuse shouldn't be ignored. They have their uses, especially when you need disposability. Though if they were biodegradable... Peter ^{Blessed are the cheesemakers} 07:52, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Biodegradability isn't particularly an issue. Once it's in a landfill it's there and it's no particular concern whether the organic plastic takes 10 years or 10,000 years to break down to CO2 and H2O. The harm comes from the additives that leech out of it while it does break down; dyes to colour the bags, plasticisers to make them flexible and so on. These smaller molecules come out pretty quick and get into the water table from landfills. Also, considering extremely efficient polyethylene used to make these things (just think about the strength-to-weight ratio of them next time you handle a plastic bag) and that the degradable ones have poorer strength and performance, it's possibly a false economy where you'll consume more resources to make them all degradable and you still have the plasticisers and dyes leeching out in a landfill anyway. ^narchist 10:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Bad. Outside the fact that Toronto has much more important problems than the danger of bags made of thin plastic, I just hate the idea of limiting people's choices in such a manner when it likely won't change much of anything. I have several of those reusable grocery bags myself but occasionally go for the plastic ones as they get reused as small garbage bags (saving me money but not having to buy said small garbage bags), and carry bags for lunches, with their final fate ending up in the large recycle bin that sits in my complex (along with all the other plastic, metal, paper, and glass I get rid of).--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 10:28, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Fuck the environmental reasons, I avoid or obsessively reused them just because I don't want to end up tits deep in pastic bags at home. ^sshole 10:43, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

A couple of years ago when we helped out the local Round Table with their Christmas lunch delivery, we visited an old biddy who had great piles of plastic bags and empty cereal packets stacked all over her house. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 11:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

My husband's mom (the one in Fosse) is from Vietnam and has a "child of poverty" mentality where she saves EVERYTHING. When we got to her office, we found bags filled with bags. Hundreds of them from how many years? And what is the point of having disposable if they aren't able to be recycled? Here, none of the plastic recyclers will take them. So you just have to throw them away. GodotWhen I graduated, Cognative Science of Religion didn't even exist! now it's everywhere 13:11, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Plastic bags kill leatherback turtles. When floating in the ocean they look exactly like jellyfish but they're not quite as easy to digest. This is particularly a problem in the Irish Sea. Silver Sloth (talk) 13:24, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Because they're mass produced from the minimum amount of plastic possible. This makes it incredibly efficient to make them, but they're more or less useless to recycle them. Collecting them and transporting them, cleaning them, then shredding them back into the composite materials, then reprocessing them back to something else... I'd be highly impressed if it took less than 10x the energy and resources to recycle one bag as it takes to produce a new one. ^sshole 13:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh. That's really just sad. (the non recycleable part, but also the turtles). I saw a docu about the "floating island", which is made of junk that hits our oceans. most of it is plastic bags, but there are balloons and plastic 6-pack, and fishing line, and styrophome cups and and and... it's horrible. In millions of years, will future critters find a stratum of plastic - not unlike the K/T event, showing humans short love affair with the stuff? GodotWhen I graduated, Cognative Science of Religion didn't even exist! now it's everywhere 14:17, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The "floating island of junk" thing is mostly bad journalism and, ahem, environmental alarmism, which probably means that we need an article on it. :) Junk in the seas is still a problem, though.--ZooGuard (talk) 17:21, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh please do! I thought it was 100% real, and some big ol' thing out there floating around.... GodotWhen I graduated, Cognative Science of Religion didn't even exist! now it's everywhere 17:35, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

It's not entirely impossible that there'd be a mark in the geological column due to us, though it's more likely to be noticed as a marked increase in certain isotopes due to nuclear testing. ^gnostic 14:20, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

There is already a "mark in the gelogical column due to us", it's usually called "archaeological sites". :) Archaeologists have a love/hate relationship with ancient junk. Look up wp:midden, for example.--ZooGuard (talk) 17:21, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Romania travel suggestions?

Hey folks, I've fallen into an opportunity to travel to Romania for a week this summer, specifically to Sibiu and Târgu Mureș in Transylvania. Some of you bastards seem worldly; has anybody been there? Suggestions/advice? I've already got travel insurance and a voltage converter.--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 06:06, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

If one of my Ex's is to be believed; you should avoid Romania and spend all your time in Bulgaria; this is the limit to my advice beyond "look at what interests you" and other generic statements.--il'Dictator Mikal 06:12, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Avoid spending the night in creepy old castles in the Carpathian mountains.--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 09:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Garlic, enjoy it as much as you can. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 11:01, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Transylvania is great if you like picturesque scenery & medieval buildings, but don't waste any time in Bucharest, even en route, as it's a dreary dump. I recommend a visit to Sighișoara as well as Sibiu. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Ouch...

Nice article - violence and videogaming, and the crap that the Daily Heil all-too-eagerly likes to latch itself to, in a way that is frighteningly Andy-isitic.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 15:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Half-way down the article citing another article mentions "It's not until halfway through the article that the writer bothers to mention that the source of this survey, BAAM, makes money selling anger management therapy and providing one-to-one sessions for children."--WickerGuy (talk) 23:42, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Because evolution!

Slightly old, but this is quite a wonderfully quarter-baked article, even for Daily Caller. Secularists should join Gawd's Own Party because evolution! Also, your puny primate brains are too primitive to understand von Hayek! Give it up...? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:33, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Haha, always love this kind of stuff. And here I thought it was God's invisible hand, not the "God of Government". Q0 (talk) 00:45, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

It's the old trope that lefties advocate "big government". Some lefties just want good government that enforces policies that protect the public from predatory business practices and other forms of malfeasance.

She claims that anyone who believes in evolution should advocate untrammeled capitalism. It's an old form of Social Darwinism in spite of her disclaimer to the contrayr. Note how she first propagates a total misunderstanding of Dawkin's "Selfish Gene" and then switches to a slightly more accurate understanding, but without clarifying the switch in this paragraph:

"Not only are these men and women of politics unable to “design” our lives, their selfish genes often put them at odds with the needs of those they represent [promoting common misunderstanding of Dawkins - WG]. People who understand human evolution see that we are evolved to propagate our genes. And many times altruism helps do that.[Better understanding, but after sowing seeds of misdirection-WG] But politicians and bureaucrats are unlikely to display altruism when our modern regulatory state allows them the ability to rent-seek and regulate on behalf of themselves, their kin, and their allies with impunity."

Later "In contrast to the liberal perspective that humans can be molded into ideal self-sacrificing beings, evolutionists understand that people are born with an evolved mental architecture — an architecture which can be altruistic, but needs incentives to do so. [Oh, really? What evolutionary psychologist said it just that way?-WG]"

Then "This doesn’t mean accepting Social Darwinism (which is a collectivist [Huh?????-WG] philosophy tangentially related to evolutionary theory) but rather to apply what they know about the emergence of spontaneous order and the possible selfishness of human nature to political theory."

Now, she keeps saying "if secularists believe..., why don't they....?"

My question is if Christians believe in universal sinfulness, why do they distrust big government, but NOT big business?? In theological terms, the Republican party believes in an Immaculate Conception of the private sector.

George Lakoff, we need you.--WickerGuy (talk) 01:09, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Nobody needs post-1995 Lakoff. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

(There is post 1995 Lakoff? God I'm old)GodotWhen I graduated, Cognative Science of Religion didn't even exist! now it's everywhere 02:43, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

There is, but don't worry, you're not missing anything. Though it's not as bad as post-2009 Fodor. (shudder) Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Women fire and dangerous things was probably the first real contemporary modern philo of language i'd read. It was both intersting and boring as all fuck at the same time. I hated it, cause he writes sooooo densly (?), but the ideas were ripe. I'm not sure the year of Lakoff and Johnson's metaphors we live by, but that, too was an intersting book. neither even touched on politics, so i'm curious what he's writing now, if it's semi political.--GodotWhen I graduated, Cognative Science of Religion didn't even exist! now it's everywhere 02:55, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

It's god-awful. See Mixing Memory again to watch Lakoff get torn about 50 new assholes. I even like embodied cognition stuff, but Lakoff's version of it is sheer crankery -- at least the form of it he's been peddling in recent years. Stick with Edelman or Damasio if you want embodiment. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:11, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The bit that gets me there is the assertion that if you don't have the legislation to enforce something, these nice capitalists will be altruistic out of the goodness of their hearts ("But politicians and bureaucrats are unlikely to display altruism when our modern regulatory state allows them the ability to rent-seek and regulate on behalf of themselves"... but surely even without legislation they'd do it out of the goodness of their hearts anyway and they'd just so happen to conform to those rules and not mind them being their (much in the same way I don't mind laws against murder because I don't have any intention of murdering someone). Clearly, those nice capitalists are doing a bang up job of all that altruism and compassion while the government's back is turned. This also seemed to be the central thesis of Penn & Teller's disability episode. I wasn't 100% sold when P&T argued it, I'm definitely 0% sold the way Kennedy argues it. ^bomination 01:21, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

It's not an argument, it's just a bunch of glibertarian tropes and bumper sticker slogans thrown in a blender. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:43, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

It's amazing to me that someone can simultaneously believe in nature over nurture (to the point of misappropriating science to that cause - evolution, race and intelligence, etc), and in the market's ability to solve the very serious problems that result from that kind of worldview. For all it's worthlessness, social darwinism is at least coherent as a self-fulfilling prophecy. Meanwhile, here you're starting with the same false premises, inserting even more of them, and expecting utopia.

Reminds me of a great line from The Education of David Stockman: "The whole thing is premised on faith," Stockman explained. "On a belief about how the world works." Q0 (talk) 02:51, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ My only real familiarity with post-1995 Lakoff was interviews on the podcast "Point of Inquiry". Thanks much for the link, Neb.--WickerGuy (talk) 04:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Sanal Edamaruku

Indian skeptic Sanal Edamaruku was arrested at the behest of the Catholic Church for exposing a "miraculous" statue. If anyone wants to support him they can do so here. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 21:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Arrested? for being right? sighs...GodotWhen I graduated, Cognative Science of Religion didn't even exist! now it's everywhere 22:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

There are a couple segments about this that were on Indian TV you can find. [6] [7] Q0 (talk) 02:18, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Don't think he's actually been physically arrested yet, the police are still considering it and it looks as if he might have to leave the country to avoid incarceration. [8] Mick McT (talk) 15:24, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I've read all the articles and i still don't get "on what authority". India is not a theocratic state.--GodotWhen I graduated, Cognative Science of Religion didn't even exist! now it's everywhere 21:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The relevant law is this. It's like a draconian version of hate speech laws, not a blasphemy law as such since it covers "offences" against any religion, not one specific one. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:32, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

There are times when you just wipe your hand down your face in disbelief…

Greece is suddenly looking like it's falling over more than just a financial cliff.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 19:34, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

And now he's claiming that the footage is manipulated and she hit first. Vulpius (talk) 20:38, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

He is? But didn't it originally go out live? Manipulating a live TV feed implies some scary technology!--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 10:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Authoritarianism is scary stuff... if they do this kind of thing on live TV, what happens in their normal lives? Q0 (talk) 01:08, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Debbie Schlussel

We have her mentioned as an Ann Coulter wannabe. She could use an article. Normally she spends most of her time on paranoid Muslim-baiting, but her recent ignorant anti-Polish rant provoked a massive outrage after being reported by a Polish daily. Angry Poles now appear to make up the vast majority of her audience. --Tweenk (talk) 00:41, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Can't even get to her site right now -- is it getting that hammered by angry Poles?

I'd take "Ann Coulter wannabe" one step further (though I think I may be the first person to term her that on this site.) I'd call her "Ann Coulter, sans the dignity and class." MDB (talk) 11:58, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Starter article written MDB (talk) 12:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

So does she run with the rapture ready crowd? They only seem to have one article by her, though. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Considering she's Jewish, probably not. MDB (talk) 17:19, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it links back to her site anyway. It's pretty bad when you're trying to use names like Chuck Baldwin and Debbie Schlussel to lend credibility to your end times conspiracy site. At least spring for the top-shelf stuff like Alex Jones. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:27, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

@MDB: Yes, the site is down due to the angry mob. The gist of what she wrote (link) is that Poles were eager participants in the Holocaust and helped murder millions of Jews in Nazi death camps. This is basically the most offensive thing you can say about Polish history, and it was picked up by the Internet edition of a major Polish daily. On her FB page, she wrote an even more inflammatory response screenshot here at the bottom. This was deleted by Facebook along with the link to her rant, which she also apparently removed from the front page of her blog. --Tweenk (talk) 18:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Mr. Rogers remixed

Today in unnecessary auto-tuning... Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 12:01, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

WordPress users

If anyone here uses WordPress for their blog and wants to make linking to RationalWiki easier, I have adapted the Wikipedia autolink plugin to link to RationalWiki content using [R: ] as an analogue to the WP plugin's [W: ] syntax. It's justa quick hack and not really worth making a huge fuss about, but if you want a copy feel free to email me and I will send you a copy. JzG (talk) 12:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Psy 'n' Pi will probably be interested. ^gnostic 14:39, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Too bad they won't let me install plugins. Тyrannis^Plead 18:38, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Article Title suggestion

I think there might be some value in an article exploring Christianity's desire to prevent portrayals of their Big Man in a way they don't like. I'd like to write an article that focuses on this, with sub headings of Jesus Christ Superstar, Last Temptation of Christ and Life of Brian (among any others people add) to show that Xianity is not all that different from Islam in trying to protect images. But I have no idea what you might call such an article. --GodotWhen I graduated, Cognative Science of Religion didn't even exist! now it's everywhere 15:39, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Christian blasphemies? Nihilist 15:59, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I think there's a fundamental difference though. While some Christians might be offended by some depictions of Christ (disrespectful, inaccurate, etc.), Islam actually discourages or forbids (depending on sect) depictions of sentient beings altogether. I think it's only some fundamentalist Calvinists who object to images of Christ and God. Ajkgordon (talk) 16:05, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Reading this makes me think of how history of the catholic church is (if not covered up) de-emphasized and obscured until the first time many learn anything about it is a classical/medieval political history course in college or something. In the same way people are sometimes not taught about the bad things their country has done (Trail of Tears was the only mention of injustice against indigenous peoples in my 4 years of high school US history and that was given about a week and then native americans were never spoken of again) to a certain extent people avoid educating others on all of the bad things that religions have done. Many times mentioning the ridiculous corrupt popes of the renaissance gets the answer 'but we're not like that NOW, that's the past and we don't do that anymore!' But that's not an excuse for having a free pass to be too-awkward-to-teach-people-about, and while I'm pretty sure popes don't hire prostitutes for mass orgies anymore, awareness of history often is the key to understanding the present. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{yeah, well you fight like a cow!} 16:17, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

OTOH, there's still some bogus nuggets of anti-Catholicism that are "conventional wisdom." Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:10, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

AJK - I think you need to understand that there are two things happening in Islam. There is the fact that you should not depict Mo, and there is the fact that outsiders should not criticize mo. Within Islam, those are looked at very differently. When the BBC did a production about Mohommudh's childhood, they talked with experts on how offensive it would be to recreate Mo as a child, show Mo on horseback in battle, show Kadisha and Aiesha, etc. And the answer came back "we'd prefer if you didn't, but if you do it historically, in context of studying the faith, 'eh'". However, if Mo were depicted as a child abuser, or shown in any bad light, it would have been a very big deal. The prohibition against depicting Mo is more or less an internal prohibition. But showing Mo in a light that is disfavorable is what brings out the zelots.

As for this article, it was not going to be any form of comparison, but more just something that is a way to show how often some in the Christian community have come out in strength against any message in the media that is not their own. I think it could be an article, but it might end up more an essay - though around here the difference between those is often blurred. :-)GodotWhen I graduated, Cognative Science of Religion didn't even exist! now it's everywhere 17:20, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ The article could be called Heretical Fiction about Jesus. You should include novels like D.H. Lawrence's The Man Who Died, George Moore's The Brook Kerith (Jesus converts to Buddhism at the end), and Robert "I,Claudius" Graves' King Jesus (J's biological father turns out to be King Herod!)
Totally agree that the Islamic issue is entirely different.--WickerGuy (talk) 17:30, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like an interesting idea for an article. For the fiction, you can add Saramago's "wp:The Gospel According to Jesus Christ" and Pullman's "wp:The Good Man Jesus and the Scoundrel Christ". wp:Piss Christ might be included under if it's in the article too. --Benod (talk) 18:07, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I think it would be better to incorporate WfG's examples into an article on films about the life &/or death of Jesus, which would include background info on the films as well as controversy in response to them, and could also include straightforward Christian fodder like The Greatest Story Ever Told and The Passion of the Christ. Novels could maybe be dealt with in a separate article. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:13, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

"Censorship of blasphemy" for a title, maybe? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:31, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Forgot to mention Gore Vidal's Live from Golgotha.--WickerGuy (talk) 20:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The Catholic Church is apparently trying to get some guy tried for blasphemy in India.--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 21:09, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

See Sanal Edamaruku above. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 21:36, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

In case anyone has missed me...

... you'd best practice your aim! #rimshot#

I've not been posting here in a while since I've got a great new job that keeps me rather busy.

But things are going quite well with me. I have an amazing new boyfriend, and I am finally quitting smoking. I've been smoke-free since Friday morning. (Okay, I'm on the patch, but it's working great.)

What'd I miss? MDB (talk) 11:48, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Congrats, congrats & congrats!! Outside of that, not much. CP's been pretty dead, so we're looking at Hurlbut for our fundie entertainment. Trent wants your money and Ace is bitching. Again. Oh yes, and Human was complaining about all the right-wing authoritarians on the site, responsible for driving off MC. --PsyGremlinSprich! 11:56, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say they were "right wing". Get your facts straight before you make them up, child. ħuman 04:28, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

MC was "banned" by the authoritarian right wing of this site. They were wrong. They were nasty and hateful. --User:Brxbrx/sig 06:03, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!

As an aside, the new job and the new boyfriend both tie in with quitting smoking. My new job is as a contractor at the National Cancer Institute, and, as I remarked, "I realize the innate hypocrisy of taking smoke breaks while working at the National Cancer Institute". And the new boyfriend is a former smoker himself, and is encouraging me to give it up myself. MDB (talk) 12:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Remind me, who are you? Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 12:26, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Resident semi-theist and big ol' homo. MDB (talk) 12:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

You mean there's only one? Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 12:41, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I tried the patch MDB and kept falling off the wagon... Two weeks ago I got one of the electronic cigarettes and have not smoked tobacco since. Frankly I don't mind my addiction to nicotine, I just don't want to fill my lungs with tar/other chemicals. If the patch fails you I would suggest giving it a go. 64.28.252.223 (talk) 14:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but the patch has been working great for me. Well, so far. I'm six days in without a cigarette. MDB (talk) 17:13, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

A relative of mine was hilarious on patches. Just wrapped up in a blanket in the corner shivering, muttering, moaning and swearing at people 18 hours a day for a couple of weeks. Is that actually normal? ^pathetic 17:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I haven't had any problems at all with the patches. Well, except for figuring out how to light them. #rimshot# MDB (talk) 18:37, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Heart attack followed by two days in hosp = stopped smoking on 22nd March. Also saves £70+ per week. Scream!! (talk) 00:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Wow, that's like $109 at current rates. How much did you smoke/how much do smokes cost over there? I paid around $7/pack in Maryland, and Maryland has some of the highest cigarette taxes in the country. MDB (talk) 15:06, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Minimum £5.20 /pack 20 ($8 ish) average £7.40 pack ($11.40 ish). @ 1.5 packs /day soon mounts up. Automatic tax increase every year see here. Scream!! (talk) 16:55, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Look at how shit this top section looks with those fucking polls there. Ace^Moderator 09:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with this and with Human's recent efforts to simplify.--^talk 09:44, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I made a photos, part deux

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Nihilist 17:48, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll try to say it nice: RationalWiki is not a social network. It serves partially as one, but its main focus is elsewhere. It relies on charitable donations for server space and bandwidth (points the banner above). Please, please don't waste both by treating RW as a photo forum.--ZooGuard (talk) 17:59, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

A bit harsh. Isn't it nice to occasionally have some interesting photos in the off-topic board? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 21:56, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

No kidding... people post whatever they want here, that's the whole point of this page. Maybe twelve photos is a bit much, of course; the Forum might be better for that sort of thing.--^talk 00:23, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, because the extensive goat recipe collection is "in mission." sterile^{evolutionist story telling} 01:38, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

'Tis too. We can stare at them. JzG (talk) 12:36, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Love 'em! :-D The little boy is so cute! Refugee^{talk page} 08:08, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

First-Generation Atheists

I'm fairly sure that most atheists in America are first-generation atheists (that is, atheists whose parents were not atheists), but I do not have a good source to back that up. Does anyone know where I can find some reliable statistics to this effect? Has a study ever been done on the subject? Apokalyps2547 (talk) 02:59, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

As far as i can tell from those who i've met; yes, most are first or, depending on how young your parents are, second generation atheists. as for reliable sources; got none. --il'Dictator Mikal 04:38, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I haven't read all these papers, but you might find something here or here. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 12:09, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Looking at this recent poll It looks like the number of athiests is growing faster than the population. I would conclude that the implication is that they are "converts" to atheism. Others could interpret the data differently though.--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 12:14, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The small but growing popularity of summer camps for children of humanists, agnostics, and atheists suggests the second-generation may be growing although first-gen is likely still a majority. (I'm on the staff and board of such a camp.)--WickerGuy (talk) 17:27, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Why would there need to be such a camp? --User:Brxbrx/sig 17:31, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The same reason theres camps for everything else under the sun. Why does one of the local museums here offer a curator 2 week long camp? (which was actually pretty fun)--il'Dictator Mikal 17:36, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Cause kids have 3 months of free time, and their parents still work. (Who came up with this system should be shot!). So anyone who doesn't have a stay-at-home parent has do now find daycare and programs for kids. And that means "camps". Many many many of these camps are run by religious groups, and having one focusing on secular issues is probably a welcome site for atheists. Course as soon as your kid gets his or her own intersts, you can start sending them off to band camp, chess camp, science camp, cheerleading camp, or whatever floats your kid's boat. (Oh, boat camp!)GodotWhen I graduated, Cognative Science of Religion didn't even exist! now it's everywhere 17:44, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey; the three month break is nice. IT helps the method I use for paying for college won't cover summer classes either. --il'Dictator Mikal 17:45, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

(EC) I think it's more like the concept of a secular camp, not so much "atheist camp" in the same way that there are "Jesus Camps". Not everyone wants to be in Boy Scouts, for example, because of their Christian-hate spewing, so there has to be a more secular versions to give to (such as 4-H). Plus, the vast majority of Americans who don't proselytize, regardless of their religious views, so they send the kids where they won't be proselytized to (that way the parents can control the message).-- Seth Peck (talk) 17:53, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

on the original topic, it would seem to me that the real issue isn't 2nd generation atheists, but 2nd generation Atheists. (out and proud, if you will). I think quite a few of the adults in Boulder, who were hippies in the 70's have no real concept of god and did not teach it to their kids, but there was no movement to identify as Atheist, so the kids I met probably didn't even know what their parents believed, cause it just wasn't an issue in the early 90s. Now, people who self identify as atheists on a political (?) spectrum are not only raising non-believing kids, but ones who are standing up and challenging things they find questionable. GodotWhen I graduated, Cognative Science of Religion didn't even exist! now it's everywhere 17:52, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

My wife is a third generation atheist.--^talk 03:41, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Where'd you find such a catch? Nihilist 03:52, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Was someone in the family tree a Red diaper baby, perhaps? ListenerX^TalkerX 03:54, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Her grandfather was a scientist and a member of a national skeptics society.--^talk 04:56, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

First Gen atheist here. I don't intend for my generations to necessarily continue though; I intend to show my children various beliefs, as well as the rationalist point of view, and let them decide for themselves. Mr. Anon (talk) 04:49, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. I guess it depends on the type of atheist you are, but I don't think it really should be a generational thing. Hopefully one's children will believe certain things because they have found them to be true, rather than because they mindlessly religiously echo their parents' views.--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 05:32, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Your upbringing is still going to be a factor even in a "disinterested" reading of the evidence. I'm a first gen. as well, but considering my family's background, it's not really all that surprising. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:19, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Film

I just saw a trailer for "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter". Am I having a stroke or is this actually a thing? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 22:21, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Not only does it seem to be a thing, it seems to be a thing that I want to see. If they pull it off I'll be officially impressed.

On the plus side, it seems to be calling all Confederates vampires. -- 22:32, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

It's from a book by the author of Pride and Prejudice and Zombies and is part of the same craze of kitsch tongue-in-cheek exploitation movies/novels that seem to be all the rage since Deathproof & Planet Terror (Zombieland, Hobo with a Shotgun, Cowboys & Aliens, etc.) ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:13, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The author of the novel also wrote the screenplay for Tim Burton's Dark Shadows movie.--WickerGuy (talk) 23:36, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Last night while rushing to get my father a last minute birthday gift, I saw a DVD for a film called "Ozombie: Axis of the Evil Dead", in which a zombified Osama Bin Laden leads zombie taliban in... zombie...stuff, I guess. What surprised me the most was that this was in ASDA, and the film had apparently made it into whatever chart ASDA uses for its DVD section. X Stickman (talk) 02:19, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

ZMD is pretty awesome. Тyrannis^Plead 12:04, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Nude Nuns with Big Guns is a thing. ^{d hominem} 16:21, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

There's a genre named nunsploitation and Wikipedia has an article on it? I don't have the words... Vulpius (talk) 00:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

There should be a WP category called "Wait, Wikipedia actually has an article on this??" ^{d hominem} 10:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

So going to see this movie. The one thing that I don't like about it so far is that it shows Abe Lincoln doing a bunch of badass stuff, like break trees with a single ax swipe, and then says that it is all part of vampire hunting. In reality, Abe was just that badass for the sake of being badass. Mr. Anon (talk) 04:51, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I saw the trailer in a theater a while ago before some movie. The axe choreography is honestly impressive enough that I was convinced it was all CGI or camera trickery before I looked closer. Of course, with a terrible eye for that sort of thing, it still might be, but it's enjoyable either way. AntiDeathPill (talk) 08:28, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

And don't forget Abraham Lincoln vs. Zombies. (WARNING! ASYLUM ALERT!) --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 09:11, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Fucking Asylum... ^moral 12:02, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I generally have the following rule with movies: if it has the word "vs" in it, it's probably not very good. Mr. Anon (talk) 16:11, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

My general rule for that is if it's main advertising hook is "from the writer(s)/producer(s)/director(s) of..." ^postate 20:15, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Asylum's Sherlock Holmes rip-off has a T-Rex. I have to see it. Woodgod (talk) 21:54, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

@Anon, there's always "Vampires Vs. Zombies"--il'Dictator Mikal 04:32, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Sounds lame compared to Mega Shark vs. Giant Octopus. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

More

I just got home from Prometheus and IT'S LIKE THEY TOOK ALIEN AND CRANKED EVERYTHING UP TO 11 MY GOD WHAT HAVE YOU DONE Blue (pester) 03:47, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

So should I go see it tomorrow or... Тyrannis^Plead 03:57, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Do you like morally unsettling sci-fi? Do you like sci-fi thrillers? Do you like Alien? Do you like Michael Fassbender, Noomi Rapace and Charlize Theron? If so then yes. Blue (pester) 04:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Yes. Yes. Who? Тyrannis^Plead 04:02, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The unicorn templeton is now alive

Hooray! ☺ Bootmii^{wanna play nomic?} 19:43, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

the what?--il'Dictator Mikal 20:15, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

tl;dr. ^theist 20:23, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

sigh. Тyrannis^Plead 21:31, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Room Color

So for some reason watching 80's action movies inspired me to clean my room and start rearranging it/preparing it for when we have to put the new carpet in; and I have to ask for more opinions/ones that actually make sense, what is a good color for a bedroom that isn't white or yellow? --il'Dictator Mikal 07:35, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Magnolia. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 07:58, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

What color is the carpet? You could paint a complementary color, like if it's a combo pink/white, then pale pink, or if it's gold/green, maybe gold. The most calming and relaxing bedroom I ever stayed in was a pale green color, really relaxing. Refugee^{talk page} 08:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Same color as i have now, just new; kinda goldish. --il'Dictator Mikal 08:04, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

This sounds a bit counter-intuitive, but bedrooms can be nice for a darker color if the hangings and furniture matches. Darker colors can be more private and intimate than lighter or vivid colors, so if you have cosy furnishings and a good window (to keep the room from feeling all tiny and cave-like) it can work. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{lavishly loquacious} 14:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I did mine in a nice sage. Neutral but color. most anything we bring in matches. I sponged it, with a lighter sage, so it's really fluid.--GodotWhen I graduated, Cognative Science of Religion didn't even exist! now it's everywhere 19:11, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

On walls, darker colours may seem an exciting idea, but they can end up being oppressive, depending on lighting. Magnolia or peach is a good safe option. You could still offset it with a darker carpet or rugs if you wanted to experiment with darker colours. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:23, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

My bedroom originally belonged to my father, who is a night worker, so it was painted and has dark green carpet. The neat thing is a old rag was used to do the painting, so the wall has this neat "jungle foliage"-like texture to it. Hung up a few appropriate souvenirs (a piece of driftwood from a lake, a gift shop gunpowder horn, some assorted polished rocks on hardwood selves) and matching furniture, and it feels like I'm sleeping in a jungle expedition camp. Neat little theme. --CoyoteSans (talk) 04:07, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Should this be taken out?

This discussion was moved to Talk:Rick Santorum. 15:33, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Margaret Wente.

It's time. Read any "article" from her, and an Angry Dome will be provided for your intellectual sanity. Osaka Sun (talk) 01:58, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Who is this? Why is she so terrible? Could you link to some examples?--^talk 06:05, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Let me google that for you--User:Brxbrx/sig 06:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

It is silly to start a topic of conversation about someone and provide no information or context for them.--^talk 06:17, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Seems to want to be the Canadian Ann Coulter. Already in the to-do list. 174.118.208.93 (talk) 06:19, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

What's in a name

Split from the above

So a Globe and Mail columnist who's a climate truther? Btw, is there a better term for that? I've grown to dislike "climate denier."--^talk 06:21, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Added a link of her comparing Toronna's bag ban to the temperance movement. An all-round crank that's probably worthy of mention - the fact that she's won journalism awards is indeed frightening. 174.118.208.93 (talk) 06:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

An alternative is "climate change septic" :) Or "delayer". Or "skeptic" in scare quotes. Or the suitable for every kind of pundit "clueless blowhard".--ZooGuard (talk) 07:01, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't really like "skeptic" because it misuses the word. Presumably we are all skeptics. But I'm not keen on "denier" either. The problem with "truther" is that I don't think that would make much sense outside of the US.--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 10:08, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Is there anything particularly wrong with "denialist"? ^gnostic 10:42, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Mmmm. Now you ask me specifically I'm not sure.... In the end, they are denying the science in the same way as AIDS denialists. So I take that back.--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 16:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

No, but "anthropogenic climate change denialist" is rather unwieldy. There ought to be some one- or two-word phrase to cover this. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 11:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

ACCD (yipes, unwieldy indeed!) have the pithy pejorative "warmists" for us. We need something similar.--^talk 11:40, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

And "coldists" just doesn't work. ^sshole 12:29, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

How about "nevergreens". It's pretty cheesy, but could sortof work as a catch-all term for anti-environmentalists. According to our environmentalism article, greens are opposed by "grays" but I've never heard this usage elsewhere. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 15:40, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I've read suggestions to use "contrarian." By comparison "skeptic" implies principled scientific skepticism, which is not the case, and the denialists have gotten some mileage out of "denialist" by shrieking about how unfair it is to be lumped in with "holocaust deniers." "Contrarian" implies knee-jerk opposition without the baggage of "denialist." Doctor Dark (talk) 17:17, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Climate contrarian or climate crank does have the bonus of alliteration. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I could happily throw myself behind "nevergreen". "Crank" is often someone who puts ill-thought ideas out there. It's not always the case with denialists because they don't really put out their own crank theories in the same way that our normal cranks do - although the alliteration is good. ^sshole 18:10, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Done template

{{User:Bootmii/done}} First option: default is "Done", set to "n", "no" or "notdone" for "Not done."

Usually occurs after a request, to show that what has been requested has been _✓done.

For "Not done," you would use it to show that it was not done. I will supe it up soon, so keep an eye on any changes! Bootmii(Nomic) 10:12, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

If someone has requested a condition for "not done and will not be done", _✗Not done and will not be done. Just kidding, _✓Done.

Bootmii(Nomic) 10:21, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Hahaha, I'm totally going to use this where totally unnecessary. ^{ONE / TALK} 11:21, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

going to use this where totally unnecessary _✓done.

FFS NO ONE CARES. Тyrannis^Plead 12:36, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh god more wikicruft. Thanks for your enthusiasm but please put it to effective use, Bootmii. Blue (pester) 00:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it is more like he is desperate for someone to play nomic with him. Тyrannis^Plead 01:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I've played nomic before, so i COULD play nomic with Bootmii, but i like doing it with people i actually know, atleast more then the people here. --il'Dictator Mikal 04:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

New "liberal code words"...

...include "climate change" and "sea level rise." On the bright side, these people will no doubt increase enthusiasm for funding space exploration. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:49, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Read the comments. Some guy is writing global warming denial poetry. MDB (talk) 17:03, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

(EC) A very charitable reading would be that these words are considered "liberal codewords" by the target audience, and that the proposed measures would be the same stuff with the different label. Kind of like the way some polls find out that people say they don't "believe in evolution", but if the question is broken down to more specific claims, they have no problem with almost everything that evolution is (common descent, etc.)--ZooGuard (talk) 17:08, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Don't make me read the bottom of the internet! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:09, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

That's a very apt way to put it. Comments sections are on the bottom of articles, and they are nearly the worst the internet has to offer. I don't know if it was intentional, but I must say it's brilliant.--User:Brxbrx/sig 17:22, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I can't take credit for it, but I don't know where it came from. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:27, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Like most memes, XKCD. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:48, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I thought most memes came from 4chan. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:57, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

You'd think they'd shape up seeing as how sea levels are actually rising.--User:Brxbrx/sig 17:22, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Wait, I get it now -- if liberals are "coastal elites," then rising sea levels will really piss off the liberals! Genius! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:17, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Help

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273117705014341 is returning a 404 error and I simply cannot understand why. Blue (is useful) 02:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Works for me. Are you on your home ISP? Have you tried rerouting it through a proxy, like by directing translate.google.com to translate it from Korean to English?--^talk 03:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, the link works fine! It's just that it is returning a 404 even though it appears to work. Blue (pester) 03:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Giving blood

Dear god in heaven, i just came back from probably the worst experience on a blood draw. The woman couldn't find my vein. Instead of calling someone who could, or trying the other arm, she pushed the needle in and out and scooted it around till i felt this sharp pain up my arm and she said casually "oh, i blew your vein". The other nurse (hearing that) came over, took over moved to my other arm and found blood in one gentle "poke". i have a bruise the size of rhode island on my arm!--GodotWhen I graduated, Cognative Science of Religion didn't even exist! now it's everywhere 20:39, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

That happened to a friend of mine the first (and only) time she tried to give blood. Luckily the veins on the inside of my elbow pop right out when they put that band thingy on, so I've never had a problem. Cow...Hammer^time! 20:43, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

My father faints every time he sees his own blood. Quite funny to watch. I'm still waiting out the "visit to Latin America" waiting time before I can give again. Тyrannis^Plead 11:57, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Lifetime deferral here. Don't get me started... MDB (talk) 11:38, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

@ MDB: "Your" lifetime deferral is one of the few reasons I'm hesitant to donate more regularly--Th. Bernhard (talk) 09:40, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Why we need different medical coverage in the US

this is a whiny "why", but a why none the less. I just got back a test for Vitamin D levels. The normal level per this office is 20-100ng/ml. My levels are 21. Because it's all standardized per the insurance co, the doctor cannot advise me on taking supplements unless I pay full price for the consult, cause the pre-pay would not apply since the test shows I'm "within" the correct levels. Jesus jumping frogs on a popsicle stick. All this so the heads and owners of insurance can make sure they don't lose 20 bucks on my exam by having to pay for it. (And if this is just for a stupid f'ing consult about over the counter D, no wonder people have such problems trying to get coverage for their real medical issues).--GodotWhen I graduated, Cognative Science of Religion didn't even exist! now it's everywhere 18:37, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

You don't need supplements, you just need to get out more. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 19:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

No surprise there, the US insurance industry is just one massive scam. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:55, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

"get out more" yeah... that's what started this whole conversation with my doc. We are in colorado, where the UV rays are nasty or something. You are always supposed to wear sun screen or get skin cancer. there is, apparently, no inbetween. WE put our newborns into sunscreen. As the same time, obese women are always at risk for lower vitamin d, so should "go out more". The Colo Dept of Health has issued suggestions that obese women and children (women, cause we tend to wear more sunscreen, actually) should get their levels checked. Not going out into the sun. I am a sterotypical libraryrat who thinks the sun is somehow the enemy!--GodotWhen I graduated, Cognative Science of Religion didn't even exist! now it's everywhere 22:38, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

So, your Vitamin D is normal, but you want to take supplements? Single payer wouldn't help you get what you want, because the single payer system is even more interested in outcomes and the outcome for giving people supplements they don't need is emptier pockets, not healthier patients. Every dollar spent making you feel all happy because you got your pills is another dollar not available to heal people who are actually sick. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 12:52, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Forced birthers

Michigan's latest anti-abortion bill is not too different from all the other ones, except for this part: "The legislation does not allow late-term abortions in cases of rape, incest or fetal defect, such as a missing brain or spine." Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:06, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Jesus Christ, you'd think even the pro-life crowd could figure that missing a brain excludes you from "life." That there is some blunt stupidity.--User:Brxbrx/sig 22:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I think that bill is all the proof you'd need that you can live without a brain. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:22, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

I just.... I truly do not get when women became walking wombs... and i don't get the "sanctity of life" when at best that life will be a few days of truly horrifying suffering - for parents and child.--GodotWhen I graduated, Cognative Science of Religion didn't even exist! now it's everywhere 22:35, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Words fail me. Тyrannis^Plead 23:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

They probably mean ancephalic children. Such children are alive by most reasonable standards, at least at birth, and sometimes for a considerable time afterwards if the breathing reflex functions. They aren't people but neither (by my reasoning) are normal healthy newborn babies. Ancephalic babies have a neural tube defect which means most of the brain didn't form. They can exhibit certain reflexes in response to damage, but the neural logic needed for what we understand by "feeling" pain isn't present, in fact without a functioning brain they are mindless, the closest thing our species has to a movie zombie, capable only of simple reflexes and with no consciousness or will.

If they survive birth they will usually be allowed to die peacefully in the hours or days following. Our instincts (it looks like a baby, albeit a horribly damaged one) tell us to feed it and keep it warm, so usually people do that much but it dies eventually. It's extremely distressing for the mother anyway. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 13:38, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

So you're saying conservatives want to raise an army of zombies? Occasionaluse (talk) 13:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I thought that was why they had Fox News!

Thank you thank you, I'll be here all week. Try the roast goat, it's delicious! And don't forget to tip your servers! MDB (talk) 14:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Once again it's a sign of their screwed up thinking - the child MUST be born at all costs. What happens to it afterwards is not our problem. --PsyGremlinFale! 14:41, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

And it is so horrendous. If ancephalic condition can be identified early, I as a mother and as a walking pregnant woman would like to just end the pregnancy for me, for my body, though not really "for the child" as it won't have any awareness. But there are other conditions, specifically Downs Syndrom, that my husband and I have talked at length about, "in case" of an unplanned pregnancy. a mother, a family should have the right to decide if they believe it's right to bring those conditions into the world. I am so tired of religious people in power thinking they know more than I do about my life, my values, my wants and desires. GodotWhy is being ignorant something to be proud of? 16:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand the religious aspect of this issue at all. OK, so if the child is aborted, then it never goes to heaven and it's murder. But if it's going to die as soon as it comes out, it's somehow OK because it died on its own and it's not murder? And then you argue it's about saving the souls of children... yet don't realize that 1) not every child is going to be 'saved' even if it is healthy; there are people out there that aren't religious and don't baptize/otherwise initiate children, 2) if a child is going to die during or shortly after childbirth, it's not going to be 'saved' anyway? The religious aspects of the argument are totally nonsensical and apply only to a narrow, NARROW demand of their community, which is the fact that Abrahamic religions in particular are quite often permanently stuck in amass-more-followers, convert-everybody mode as laid down in their bronze and iron age holy books when they were breaking out of being a cult and absorbing as many other practices and their followers as possible. So it's not 'THINK OF THE BABIES' that a lot of these laws call to my mind, but 'THINK OF THE PEOPLE NOW ALLOWED TO NOT ACT IN THE WAY I MANDATE.' When a law is made based on ONE group's social consciousness that binds ALL groups, it immediately makes the resulting society more like that one group. On the part of the religious endorsing the law, they likely see it as a good thing; a society more like their vision is less full of supposed sinners. But it's inherently wrong to bind people who aren't part of that group and make them live their lives in the image of another. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{garrulous en guerre} 16:57, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I could understand the logic if this was a ban on all abortions (which is probably what the bill's supporters really want) but regulating against all late-term abortions without reasonable exceptions doesn't make a whole lot of sense, unless we accept that foetuses are endowed with human rights at exactly 20 weeks, even the ones without a brain. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't know of any denomination that teaches that the fetus would be denied heaven if it perished before birth versus after birth (as it would make any miscarriage most troubling theologically); although several do indeed teach that any level of abortion for any reason is murder.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Not birth specifically, but some denominations (especially old school Catholicism) hold that babies must be baptised in order to get to heaven. Some Catholics believe that unbaptised babies (which would also include aborted foetuses) go to Limbo. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

As repugnant as the bill is, this is a political strategy. When bills this horrible pass houses of the state's congress, it will spark backlash from the other side. Such immense backlash will appear to moderates as two polar opposites yelling at each other, which will drive down voter turnout. Low voter turnout always favors the right wing. Mr. Anon (talk) 19:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I was just going to say that. You said it better, and without the cussing that is on my tongue every time i talk about this. It's call moving the frame as well. You push the "extreme' anti-abortoin, as "nomral" anti abortion, than what was "normal" anti abortion becomes "comprimise and we are with women, see, we accept rape as an exception" type stuff. GodotWhy is being ignorant something to be proud of? 22:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

RW vs CP Alexa rankings

This discussion was moved to Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?. 07:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

"Generation is failing at face to face"

So i saw this in yesterdays paper; and every time i see this statement its annoying as hell to me; because i know my generation, and it is not failing at face to face talking because of the internet; will the generations coming now/next be worse off because of it, maybe, but it isnt a problem now like they want to say.--il'Dictator Mikal 00:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

It's a bunch of nonsense. The idea is supposed to be that technology is causing us all to become distant from each other, to the point where we lack an emotional connection to society. I'll be the first to speak to the opposite idea: that the only reason I ended up with that connection was because of the internet itself. For years and years when I was younger, I separated myself from the world and didn't want to be a part of it whatsoever. And as a kid in many parts of the world, if you've developed some sort of ethics at all, and yet you constantly have to deal with things like religious hypocrisy, sexism, racism, and other dehumanizing acts, why would you want to be part of society in the first place? It was mostly through the internet that I was able to realize that humanity was not all like that, actually had much to offer, and made me want to actually change things for the better.

The most distressing part of these arguments is that they always gloss over the things that do actually cause us to become distant, paranoid, and isolated individuals. You know, like gun culture (stand your ground and castle laws being the natural course of it), rabid consumerism, gated communities and de facto segregation, wars, divisive politicians, etc. Q0 (talk) 04:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

So do you two think that the increasing level of technology involved in social interactions is having no effect, or only no deleterious effect?--^talk 04:40, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Not to the level they say; atleast, not yet. And i can't say for sure on the younger ones who've had even more years with tech then mine and part of the gen after mine. --il'Dictator Mikal 05:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Maybe there's some grain of truth to it, but this narrative seems to largely be red meat for the technophobes and hypochondriacs. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 06:16, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

It's another way to live an "isolated" social life, and it's probably more of a enabler than books/mail/telephones/television/etc because it basically combines all those into one convenient blob of interaction, but that's all it is (socially speaking). Besides, I was bad at "face to face" way before I got AOL. 99.50.98.145 (talk) 06:21, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

P.S. - Those articles always seem to ignore webcams, VoIP, and those fancy PDA-phones youngsters use nowadays. 99.50.98.145 (talk) 06:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

You are disputing the fundamental right of every generation to opine about what's wrong with the next generation, more commonly known as the "These damn kids today" phenomenon. Voxhumana (talk) 06:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

It's called "O tempora, O mores" ("Oh the times, oh the customs!" - from Cicero)... which also gives you a clue how old this complaint is.--^talk 08:19, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh there's definitely an effect. I see a lot more positive than negative, though. What irks me is that this is incredibly low on the list of crises of modernity, and even on just problems caused by technology, and so it diverts focus from the real issues. Q0 (talk) 08:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Why did Red warheads sell info about our Chinese Clinton to the thermonuclears?

Read the book called:

Year of the Rat: How Bill Clinton Compromised U.S. Security for Chinese Cash Moonshot926 (talk) 05:59, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh joy, your back again. Go away. --il'Dictator Mikal 06:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Since this has nothing to do with anything, here is my counterpoint:

Why did the Wolf Goddess of the Harvest smite us with occasional droughts and poor harvests? Read the book called Wolf & Spice, Volume 1. 99.50.98.145 (talk) 06:15, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Really can't be arsed. Are you selling something? Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 06:50, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

If you mean me, no, I just like the book. Figured it was just as valid as whatever Moonshot is preaching. 99.50.98.145 (talk) 07:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I was really addressing Moonshine. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 10:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Filthy, rapist penguins

Who knew that penguins are a bunch of terrifying rapists? At least the infamous homosexual necrophiliac duck is in good company. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 07:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Please try to be accurate. They're actually gay, pedophile, necrophiliac rapists, and are thus clearly atheist liberals. Voxhumana (talk) 07:47, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Those deviants were dead set on giving a bad name to the rich monogamous culture of penguinkind!

Next thing I know, someone's going to pull out that liberal nonsense about them having different mates each year, and mention that March of the Penguins was actually a French film. Blasphemy! Q0 (talk) 08:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Give us your gold

Cats4Gold, get 'em while they're hot. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 10:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

OMIGOD THAT IS SO CUTE!--User:Brxbrx/sig 13:21, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Remember the anthrax attacks?

Thanks to Cracked we learn it had nothing to do with al-Qaeda. Oh yes, and all those Toyotas were fine too. --PsyGremlin講話 15:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Does RW have something about that phenomenon? The "I'm sure I was pressing the brake" thing I mean, not people sending Anthrax in the post. I know it had happened before Toyota. I think it's sometimes called Unintended Acceleration. It should probably link onto an article about people being lousy witnesses (that stuff is really scary, you think your memory works and then you see a video and it's not how you remembered at all) as well because that's related to all sorts of woo from UFO abduction to Autism. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 17:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Already done. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if the Toyota brake fault was to blame but my brother-in-law's brother went over a cliff on California Highway 1 in his Prius. His wife died and he was in traction for weeks. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 20:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

That's a horrible story, GK. Ace^Moderator 20:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

What a shame. Could have had a really cool Thelma and Louise-themed funeral... Occasionaluse (talk) 20:52, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

That sucks, man. Wait, isn't your brother-in-law's brother also your brother-in-law?--^talk 01:26, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

To be explicit it was my wife's sister's husband's brother. And to pile on the injury his new partner died of heart failure in May, 5 years to the day after his first wife. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 07:16, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

100 reasons why evolution is SO stupid

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ga33t0NI6Fk 24.189.254.24 (talk) 21:36, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Amazing, I'm convinced. Ace^Moderator 22:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Poe, maybe?RandonGeneration (talk) 23:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Who, Kent Hovind? Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 06:07, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Totally. He was obviously being ironic when he evaded taxes while running a creationist theme park. 99.50.98.145 (talk) 09:38, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Another burst of bilge from Creation.com

Quite revolting this time. Stalin read Darwin, made him a mass murderer. Ace^Moderator 03:35, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure Gandhi believed in evolution, he did great things. Mr. Anon (talk) 03:52, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't really get the argument as these cretins think people should read the Bible but Stalin read the Bible and was somehow swayed by TOoS? They came up with similar bile about Anders Breivik, in his manifesto there were six mentions of Darwin but around a hundred to "our Lord Jesus". Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 07:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I think the main point is to leave readers with the association of evolution = gawdless cawmunizm! You don't need an argument, you just need people to remember, "Hey, didn't that Stalin fellow kill people because EVILution?!" Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 08:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Gandhi was a massive racist and slept with young girls, so... ^narchist 08:36, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

And Hitler was endorsed by the Catholic Church. About as relevant. Voxhumana (talk) 10:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Let's not give them any ideas! ^bomination 12:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I often think this sort of stuff doesn't really matter, but someone seriously said to me today, "Have you ever seen the film 180?"--^talk 10:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that this affects anybody but the already converted. I doubt anybody with half a mind has said evolution doesn't exist and the world is 6,000 years old, purely based on the fact that somebody bad also believed in it. Hitler loved dogs - does that make me a Nazi? --PsyGremlinPrata! 13:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Attention Cox suckers

New series of The Infinite Monkey Cage starts next Monday. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 08:42, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks for that.--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 13:52, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Scientist: "going to mars costs about as much as a banking crisis". comedian:"is it possible the banking crisis was just a ruse, and they have an escape ship ready?" heh. Thanks for the link, GK. I love this show. :-) --GodotWhy is being ignorant something to be proud of? 14:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Illustrated Guide to Criminal Law- a very interesting webcomic

I recommend to anybody curious about the matter. It's certainly clearing things up on my end.--User:Brxbrx/sig 20:08, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Austrian School

You guys never discussed r/skeptic's take on the article. It might be relevant. 174.118.208.93 (talk) 00:39, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Better to take it up in the talk page, this place scrolls by too fast. ħuman 03:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

A friend posted this

on facebook, and one must wonder what several of them would be thinking about obama being with them, let alone jackson must be thinking--il'Dictator Mikal 03:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Awful. Is he the demonkrat equivalent of that loon Norton? --MtD^{Prematurely Indeterminate} 04:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Jackson was a man from a time when the issues were completely different from today, and parties were different from today. Today he would be a racist and a kook who is afraid of central banking. Back then he was an advocate for the individual's rights and a champion of the middle class.

More surprising is Wilson being with Obama. Wilson was the last openly racist President, and every commander in chief called for civil rights, at least in lip service. Mr. Anon (talk) 04:06, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

That's not realistic. In Jackson's time there were plenty of abolitionists, and people who were, you know, against the whole idea of Indian extermination. Both were significant stances, even among the privileged politicians of the day. Half of the states had abolished slavery at the time of his presidency, for goodness sake.

Oh, and the 'kooks' who are afraid of central banking are called Republicans these days. The only thing that prevents them from still flipping out over it is that they've had 'their' guys in control of it for quite some time now. Imagine the shitstorm if Obama decided to nominate a guy who wanted to do some serious regulating (not to say he's actually for such a thing...). Q0 (talk) 11:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Most abolitionists would still be called racist by todays standard. il'Dictator Mikal 12:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

While there were abolitionists, slavery at the time was not an issue. The few abolitionists that existed at the time were radical. When slavery did become an issue in the 1850s, it was only on the matter of the expansion of slavery. Yes, there were free states, but it was widely understood at the time that slavery was a state's issue.

But in any case, I was not defending him. I was saying how he was viewed at the time. Mr. Anon (talk) 15:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

"When slavery did become an issue in the 1850s" what history did you look at?--il'Dictator Mikal 16:29, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Slavery is one of the biggest "revisionist" topics I've seen in modern history classes. The civil war had very very very little to do with slavery, yet it is presented as if the north wanted to end slavery and they were willing to go to war over it. And making lincon into this massive anti-slavery guy and "best friend to black people" (or whatever) ignores most of his entire political history and positions. he emancipated the slaves, but let's not think it was a humanitarian act, it was very much a calculated politcial one. GodotWhy is being ignorant something to be proud of? 16:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

It seems as if the statement "The Civil War was not about slavery" has been taken to mean "The Civil War was not fought to abolish slavery," which is basically true. The institution of slavery is at the core of the underlying causes of the North/South conflict, though, regardless of how the war began. Blue (pester) 16:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

(ec)You been reading too much Thomas DiLorenzo lately? Might want to go back and hit the books. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:00, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

See, that's what I disagree with. The civil war was largely an issue about self governance, states rights v. Federalism, economic powers and self regulation of those powers. Slavery was actually working itself out - it was not at the time, a large issue for Presidents or National Politics, and it was not a large issue for the north and the south individuals on a general scheme. It BECAME an issue as a response to the threats to secede, but it was not a large force at all, nor an "underlying conflict". This idea that the North cared much at all about slavery is factually wrong. They were as racist as the south, less the "owning people" part. There is ample evidence in political discussions, state meetings, and the records of Congress and their battles that slavery was quite easily ignored by most people. Some, sure, wanted to end slavery. But it was not the issue of the day, the way we revision it to have been. The North and South were culturally so different, the war was bound to happen. largely urban, industrial and a more spread out wealth vs. aggrarian, with extremely small pockets of wealth, and substantially more poverty among the white citizens who could not own land, or hold businesses. I think modern society does not like that we were so apathetic about slavery, cause it's quite embarrassing, so they make it a major part of the Civil war, when it was more than anything, simply a demarcation line of who went on which side.GodotWhy is being ignorant something to be proud of? 17:07, 13 June 2012 (UTC) EC with Neb

Blue has already pointed out the conflation you've made. Put down the shovel and read this. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't gel, since the emphesis in congress was never on slavery, but you are better read than I, so i'll slink away and hide in my shame. :-) (Well, Anon at least states things more to how I see them. I place lots of emphesis on what was being debated in politics, but I guess that's not nearly an open enough mind).GodotWhy is being ignorant something to be proud of? 17:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Alright, let's address a few things.

1. The slavery debate heated up in the 1840s, but before then the issue was not heavily debated in Congress. The main issues were southern and western expansion before that.
2. The Civil War to the South was largely about slavery; the South feared that Lincoln would threaten their slavery laws, and seceded as a result.
3. The North, on the other hand, mainly united against the South because they believed in a strong federal government that could not be superseded by state's rights.
4. Lincoln, the political genius that he was, managed to twist the war into being about slavery in 1863 with the issuing of the Emancipation Proclamation, where he managed to make the North believe that slavery being abolished would help the South.
5. Lincoln, before he came into office, was not even an abolitionist. His main platform was to prevent slavery from expanding into the colonies. No abolitionist would even dare run for the Republican nomination for President.
6. Lincoln was able to become an abolitionist after the 1864 election because, conveniently, there were hardly any slave states left in the Union to oppose him.

Hopefully that clears up a few misunderstandings here. Mr. Anon (talk) 17:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

1. Your statements on slavery are silly. It was a big deal from day one of the republic, and the only things that kept it from blowing up immediately were: a) that preserving the union stayed a higher priority until the Civil War; and b) that the privileged class could focus on other worries that weren't so 'far away' from their own lives. Early American leaders like John Adams, John Quincey Adams, Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Paine all spoke out against it. Even Benjamin Franklin, who kept slaves, eventually freed them and wrote strongly against the institution. That was in in the 1780s, when Massachusetts went as far as interpreting 'all men' as including black men. Laws that abolished slavery went back all the way to the 1650s in places like Rhode Island. Obviously the sentiment increased over time, but defending American presidents who supported slavery - given there was opposition to it from the start - is a bad practice. The fact that latent racism was a part of even the abolitionist movements only makes it a stronger statement.
2. This is correct. The South feared both the economic and social effects that abolishing slavery would have on them, and resented federal taxes and tariffs they thought were benefiting the North at their expense.
3. Not so sure about that one. State's rights, even at that time, were usually just a convenient arguing point for whatever you happened to support. These were serious arguments, but they weren't so much based on the principle of federalist vs anti-federalist as they were on the actual matter at hand. For example, when Andrew Jackson could use the federal government for Indian removal, he did, but when he couldn't he'd immediately claim state's rights (see Worcester v. Georgia). Meanwhile, he was busy enforcing the federal government's power over South Carolina while rallying against the central bank.
4. Northern war elements considered slavery as a key rallying point long before the Emancipation Proclamation, though. War generals had already - for over a year - freed slaves as they went along. Lincoln was playing to popular sentiment.
5. True about Lincoln, but you've got the abolitionist thing backwards. The first Republican presidential nominee's slogan was "Free soil, free silver, free men" for goodness sake. Lincoln played the middle ground.
6. Pretty much, though it's not like he couldn't have done it beforehand, if he really wanted to.

Having said all that, I definitely agree with the sentiment expressed by Godot in that there is revisionism to make it look like the Civil War was more about the moral aspect of slavery than it actually was. On the ground, in the militias and armies of the North, slavery was something to rally against, to make the miserable war seem like it had meaning. To most of the politicians, though, it was about economics and power. Most of the Northern poor and immigrants didn't really care one way or the other; they weren't in a position to, struggling just to stay alive and make something for themselves.

To be clear though, my claim in this discussion is that it is right to criticize early American leaders for their support of slavery, not that any particular politicians were heroes (in fact, that's what disgusts me so much about the original image posted here). Sorry for the wall of text. Q0 (talk) 23:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Most of our dispute centers around the slavery thing.

Yes, many Presidents at that point had paid lip service to bashing slavery. None of them had made any serious proposals to abolish it. Please remember that there was a big difference between a politician disliking slavery and a politician being an abolitionist. The Republican party's platform was really only about stopping the expansion of slavery, and even then the party only was created in the 1850s. Any disputes about slavery prior to that were about the spread of slavery into colonies. No politician until Lincoln even suggested a national abolishing of slavery.

The reason for this was control over Congress. Southern states controlled the Senate and much of the House, and even in the North many people believed slavery was a state's rights issue. Before 1860, you could probably count the number of people in congress who advocated for racial equality in one hand. Look at Douglas's debates with Lincoln. When he claimed that Lincoln was advocating for racial equality, he was trying to portray Lincoln as an extremist. To even seem like a moderate, Lincoln had make racist rhetoric and say clearly "I have no intent to end slavery". And remember, this was in Illinois.

Furthermore, about the North not caring about slavery as much in the context of the civil war, 4 slave states stuck with the North. They did not do so because they had a sudden change of heart about slavery. They did so because they did not believe they had constitutional authority to secede. Even then though, Lincoln admitted in his private letters that if he made the war outright about slavery too soon, those states would instantly secede. Mr. Anon (talk) 00:56, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

My argument isn't that it was politically expedient to call for racial equality, but that the sentiment existed and was popular enough that every American leader had (privately at the very least) considered and debated it. It only follows that they should be open to criticism. Lincoln, as I said before, continually took the moderate approach and was ever the politician. Just as it's silly to brand him a racist, it is to paint him as a champion abolitionist. Either way, there's no doubt he'd be a hell of a lot more open to the idea of a black president than freaking Andrew Jackson. Again, we're talking about the guy who fought to keep slave power, and murdered Native Americans by the thousands. He should be remembered for these things. There's just no sense in glorifying it. Q0 (talk) 14:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Conservapedia spoof articles

Have they been deleted? If so, why? And has anyone got copies of them? Sphincter (talk) 00:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

If the people who did it had any brains, which they probably did, there should be a category for something like "talk pages for deleted ... articles". The content will all still be in the history. ħuman 03:51, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Some of them have been deleted, as an attempt to remove the endless list of such things. There was a project by some very dedicated users here to cut away a lot of the less-funny crap. If there is an article you thought was particularly worth keeping, of course, we can still do that.--^talk 07:43, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Personally I was gutted to see the Hebden Bridge and Blaenau Ffestiniog articles go. Both were priceless gems and I felt that it was part of RW to preserve them for posterity. However, that's the way it goes nowadays. Bad Faith (talk) 14:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

What? They've been deleted? Are the lunatics taking over the asylum here as well?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 15:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Melchester also? What a bunch of humourless twits.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 15:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I keep hearing how "fun" this place was "back then". And how "funny" all these amazing CP articles were. I was here "then", and while it was fun, it was the people - not any particular cp articles - that made it fun. And "funny" articles? I read everything that was dumped. I saw none of these amazing, comedy masterpieces that everyone seems to be tragically missing. I do love things like the CP musical - but to the best of my wikiging "goggle" skills, that still exists. What doesn't exist are endless rehashes of Andy bashing. At some point, making fun of an idiot who refuses to change, ceases to be all that "fun", "interesting" or "informative". I know, I know, I'm just a stick in the mud who hates fun. --GodotWhy is being ignorant something to be proud of? 15:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Hebden Bridge, Blaenau Ffestiniog and Melchester were three high quality spoof articles that existed on CP for quite a while. They were, to my mind, as well crafted as the Arboreal Octopus. What they weren't were "endless rehashes of Andy bashing". I'd love to show you why but my wiki-foo isn't up to it. Whilst the vast majority of what was thrown out was trash, in this case, three babies were thrown out with the bath water. Bad Faith (talk) 15:40, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Babies & bath water too, as far as I'm concerned.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 15:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

(EC) Apparently there are forces in full effect here. -- Seth Peck (talk) 15:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Not by me, kiddo.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 16:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

@Seth: Close but no cigar. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:16, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

If anyone is interested I've put personal copies

• Melchester
• Blaenau
• Hebden Bridge

You may have to be British to appreciate many of the jokes. Bad Faith (talk) 16:01, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Should we make an article about The Gesundheit Institute?

They seem to be ripe for deconstructing since: 1. They promote pseudosciences like homeopathy, and acupuncture. 2. They're founder had crappy movie based him. What do you think?Ryantherebel (talk) 19:46, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Fine, as long as you include the obligatory joke about sneezing. :) --ZooGuard (talk) 19:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Acupuncture isn't a pseudoscience. Acupressure, sort of. Acutonics, definitely. -- Seth Peck (talk) 20:19, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Seeing as how they promote complimentary alternative medicine in addition to regular treatment, I'd say go for it. The Punk Symphony of Noise ^{Your mental puke relief} 21:35, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I think the jury is still very much out as to whether acupuncture is medically useful. "The efficacy of acupuncture is controversial. Its use for certain conditions has been tentatively endorsed by the United States National Institutes of Health, the National Health Service of the United Kingdom, the World Health Organization, and the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine. Some scientists have criticized these endorsements as being unduly credulous and not including objections to or criticisms of the research used to support acupuncture's effectiveness... There is general agreement that acupuncture is safe when administered by well-trained practitioners using sterile needles and carries a very low risk of serious adverse effects." (full article and cited refs are here). The bottom line is there is no certain benefit, but no definite risk either (assuming sterile practice). The same can be said for reiki (although that has the added benefit of posing zero adverse risks apart from possibly falling off the massage table). Voxhumana (talk) 01:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Whether it "works" or not, it's a pseudoscience, in that it's not science. By all means follow the red link and start typing! ħuman 03:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I'm not sure that the term pseudoscience is really appropriate for acupuncture in all cases, since legitimate research is being done on the topic. Most of the arguments made about acupuncture may be pseudoscientific, but that doesn't mean the practice as a whole has to be. — Unsigned, by: ORavenhurst / talk^{Do You Believe That?} 14:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

RE: "what's the harm?": http://whatstheharm.net/acupuncture.html

As for the scientific research, there are all kinds of studies on all kinds of CAM "treatments". That doesn't make them any less woo. "Pseudoscience" may be the wrong term, if one is using a strict definition.--ZooGuard (talk) 14:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Whether or not it fits the technical definition of pseudoscience, acupuncture is bullshit. The idea that the modulation of meridians can cure disease has no foothold in biology, chemistry, or physics - the only controversy is whether or not NCCAM should be defunded.

Also, please splain how acupuncture is not pseudoscience and acupressure is. This makes no sense. Corry (talk) 03:29, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Check out some of the links above, also this. Yes, the whole "meridians" thing is BS, especially given that studies repeatedly show that where needles are placed makes no difference, but for some conditions treatment has been (generally tentatively) shown to be effective. Acupressure, on the other hand, lacks even tentative support. — Unsigned, by: ORavenhurst / talk^{Do You Believe That?} 14:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Quadratic equations and the Polynomial theorem

I'm confused by the quadratic equation. According to wp, the polynomial theorem, ensures 2 solutions for it, but I don't quite get it. If you can explain it in a simpler fashion, well, thanks, in advance.RandonGeneration (talk) 05:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

X= (-b + OR - sqrt(b²-4ac))/2a One solution is for the positive square root, the other for the negative. Тyrannis^Plead 05:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Or, to put it in legible form, $ax^{2}+bx+c=0\Rightarrow x={\frac {-b\pm {\sqrt {b^{2}-4ac}}}{2a}}$. For example, if $a=1,b=0,c=0$, your equation is $x^{2}$; this is equal to 0 only when $x=0$, which is the value the formula gives. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:23, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Show off :P Тyrannis^Plead 05:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that makes sense now :DRandonGeneration (talk) 05:28, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Late to the party, but whatever. To make it even simpler, the quadratic formula solves the value for $x$, given an equation involving $x^{2}$ as a dominant term. Let's start by throwing away everything except $x^{2}$.

The first thing to know is that $x^{2}$ (by itself) must be positive, as whenever you multiply a real number by itself the result is positive.

Secondly the root of $x^{2}$ can be resolved in only two ways. Either $x=0$ (in which case $x^{2}$ also equals zero) or x MUST be both the positive or negative version of some real number. Hence if $x^{2}$ = 4, the x can be 2 or -2, and so on.

Now that we know this much about x, the rest of the quadratic eqaution you started with serves to alter the value of x, and so the end result is not necessarily going to be both positive and negative. (Eg if the final result was $5+{\sqrt {2}}$ and $5-{\sqrt {2}}$, then both those results are positive). However the end result MUST still involve two values because of the $x$ to $x^{2}$ relationship (unless the whole thing equates to zero). Voxhumana (talk) 05:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

One piece of pedantry: it is possible for there to be only one value in cases such as y=x². My old maths teacher used to say that there were still two values but they were both the same, which always struck me as a bit silly. rpeh •T•C•E• 07:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

What is silly about it? $x^{2}-2x+1=(x-1)\cdot (x-1)$; the quadratic still has two factors. ListenerX^TalkerX 07:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Don't you start. rpeh •T•C•E• 08:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Quadratic Curves

Just to throw in my tuppence: All quadratic equations can be expressed as a curve on a graph (if you've got a program or online tool to do that you can just plug in the equation to see the curve). The value of x is determined by where the curve crosses the x-axis (in other words, the value of x when y=0). Either the curve of the quadratic equation crosses the x-axis at two seperate points, so the quadratic has two real and distinct answers/roots, or it just touches the x-axis, in which case the quadratic equation has one distinct, real root that is both values of x, or the curve doesn't cross the x-axis, in which case the equation has no real roots, so x has no real answer for when y=0. Of course, in the last situation, x still has two answers, it's just that the answers involve imaginary/complex numbers. Will stick in pretty pictures in a moment. Of course, that only works for equations where the highest value power/index is 2. For x³, x has three solutions, x⁴ has four solutions, so on and so forth.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 13:36, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Did not get that - Can someone explain the polynomial theorem pls?RandonGeneration (talk) 19:50, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'll take everything right back to basics, that way we should go from the bit you're getting to the bit you're not sure about, and hopefully find an answer:

• Term: A term is something discrete, separated by a mathematical operator, within an expression or equation. So, for the expression x²+x+1, the terms are x², x, and 1.
• Constant: A constant is any term which is fixed and cannot change. In x²+x+1, the only constant present is 1.
• Variable: A variable is any term which can take more than one value, and so can vary. In x²+x+1 both the x² term and x term are variable. x could, in theory, be any number. Just plug the number you choose into an expression and it'll become an equation that spits out a number. (i.e if x=2 then for the expression x²+x+1 → x=2²+2+1 → x=7).
• Expression and Equation: An expression is just a statement. Unless you can simplify it, there's not a lot you can do to it. x²+x+1 is an expression. Once you stick an = sign on the end of an expression you create an equation. So x²+x+1=y is an equation. The value of y is variable, and is determined by whatever value x is. The most common way to change an expression into an equation is to use a function. Sounds scary, is very simple.
• Function: A function is just a shorthand way of describing the outcome of an equation, without needing to determine the value of any variable in that equation. Most functions take the form f(x), so the expression x²+x+1 can be turned into an equation by saying x²+x+1=f(x). You can say that y=f(x), so x²+x+1=y.
• Polynomial: A polynomial is an expression that is finite in length. In other words, if the expression that you're looking at only has numeric values as a power or index (i.e x²) then the expression is finite in length. However, expressions that contain things like xⁿ are considered to be infinite in length, because n is a variable, and so can be any number. Infinite expressions cannot be polynomial, so now you know what they are, you can forget about them, at least for the rest of this.
• Polynomial: A polynomial can only contain the mathematical symbols +, - or multiply between each term. It can only contain positive integer powers/indices. It cannot contain a term where a constant is being divided by a variable, but can contain a term where the variable is being divided by a constant. So x²+^x/₂+1 is a polynomial, x²+²/_x+1 isn't.
• When solving a polynomial equation that has a given value (i.e. x²+x+1=-1) you are attempting to calculate the all the possible values of x that can be plugged into the equation (x²+x+1=) and give the answer (-1). A quadratic equation is very similar, except that it determines all the possible values of x when the equation equals 0. So, to make the polynomial equation a quadratic equation in this example we take the -1 across the other side of the equation, flip the sign, and then resimplify the equation: x²+x+1+1=0 → x²+x+2=0
• When solving a quadratic, or polynomial, equation, we need to determine the values of x, but the equation, in this case, contains the terms of x and x². That means that at some point x² has to be calculated as x
• To make x²=x is very simple. Say x²=4, then we remove the power/index by moving it to the other side of the equation and flipping it. The opposite of an index is a root so: $x^{2}=4\Rightarrow x={\sqrt {4}}$. Now, whenever you square root something you'll get two answers, a positive and a negative, because two negative numbers multiplied together give a positive. This is often written as ±. So x=±2 or expressed another way, x=2 or x=-2. So, just in this example, you can see an equation as simple as x²=4 gives two answers.
• So, 3 quick examples which highlight something discussed above: For x²=4 then x=2 or x=-2. For x²=0 then x still has two answers, x=+0 or x=-0, but for practicable reasons, this just gets written as x=0. For x²=-4 there are no real answers. There is no real number that can be multiplied by itself to give a negative number.
• Now we make things a little more complicate. x²-x=0. This is still solvable, and very easy to do so. First simply the equation by finding the common factor. In this case that is x. So the equation can be rewritten as x.(x-1)=0, where . means multiply by. So here we have two terms, x and (x-1), both of which equal 0. The first value of x is easy to find. The first term is x, it's equal to 0, so x=0. But you also have to calculate the second term, (x-1). (x-1)=0 → x-1=0 → x=1. So for x²-x=0, x=0 or x=1.
• Now a full on quadratic equation. We'll use the polynomial, x²+2x+1=4. Make it a quadratic equation by making the equation equal to 0, x²+2x-3=0. Plug the numbers into the formula $x={\frac {-b\pm {\sqrt {b^{2}-4ac}}}{2a}}$ to give $x={\frac {-2\pm {\sqrt {2^{2}-(4\cdot 1\cdot -3)}}}{2\cdot 1}}$. This gives $x={\frac {-2\pm {\sqrt {4+12}}}{2}}\Rightarrow x={\frac {-2\pm {\sqrt {16}}}{2}}\Rightarrow x={\frac {-2\pm 4}{2}}\Rightarrow x={\frac {-2+4}{2}}$ or $x={\frac {-2-4}{2}}$. So x=1 or x=-3.

So, a quick recap. It doesn't matter which path you use to get there, when x² is calculated as x, it will always give two answers.

Now, let's look at a simple cubic: x³+4x²+3x=0. We factorise it, using the common factor of x, which gives x.(x²+4x+3)=0. Hello, two terms; x, and a quadratic expression, x²+4x+3. We'll deal with the first term, x. x is equal to 0, so x=0. Simples. Now the second term. I won't bother with the formula for this one, because it's easy enough to factorise it. x²+4x+3=0 is the same as saying (x+3).(x+1)=0. Now we have two terms, (x+3) and (x+1), both of which are equal to 0. So, for (x+3)=0 then x=-3 and for (x+1)=0 then x=-1. So, we have an equation where the highest power is 3, and x gives three answers: x=0, x=-3 or x=-1.

Essentially, that's polynomials, at least in regards to solving them. There is a thing called the polynomial remainder theorem, but given what you've said above, I don't think that was what you were having trouble with.-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 22:25, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Just finished my test, thanks so much :D:D:DRandonGeneration (talk) 20:23, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Hope it went well!-- ^{Spirit of the Cherry Blossom} 23:38, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Making Good Arguments

I swear I'm not trying to shove off research on you guys, it's just I would assume that a site housing so much information on counter-apologetics would know how to argue. Anyone know what it takes to make a good argument? I have explored logic and other things on the internet and understand logical fallacies, using evidence effectively and all that, but my arguments still always come out...wrong? I have taken criticisms from my profs, but I still can't figure out what I am doing wrong. Any resources anyone can mention would be appreciated. DavidVilla (talk) 06:46, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Depends what you mean by argument. A kritik? A plan? If you just want to prove a point, make a syllogism. Real simple. --User:Brxbrx/sig 06:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

(EC) My first guess is that you are failing to kiss your professors' hind-quarters and/or play to their prejudices. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:50, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

That works too. Once I found out one of my professors was a liberal caricature, all I had to do was make the occasional pejorative reference to Rupert Murdoch (Rupert Murdoch is Charles Foster Kane! And William Randolph Hearst! *spoiler* he's not. Not at all) or whatever and I was missing all kinds of classes and still on his good side. Probably not the most ethical way to carry yourself, though.--User:Brxbrx/sig 06:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Colleges that admit high-school dropouts do not generally attract the cream of the crop for professors. ListenerX^TalkerX 07:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey, now! I was top 1% of the nation on my GED. And yeah, it was a community college--User:Brxbrx/sig 07:04, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, my professor agreed with my premise from what I could tell...I was afraid I might have stumbled upon one of his pet interests, but that didn't seem to be the case. I was trying to prove a fairly simple point of a government belonging to a model. I thought I gave a convincing argument, but my prof offered things like "lacks conviction" (he's really not big on elaboration). DavidVilla (talk) 06:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Evidence helps. Lots and lots of citations of things that actually happened. That's probably what he means by "lacks conviction." That or your thesis statement was "Maybe I'm right about this but I'm not totally sure"--User:Brxbrx/sig 06:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Be aware that a busy professor might just not have felt convinced - that's the sort of vague feedback you see from someone not really engaged in helpful criticism.

The components of an effective argument are that it is (a) based on solid premises, (b) suitable for the audience, (c) interesting, (d) centered around a clear logical link, and (e) properly structured. I'm probably forgetting some other stuff, but that's about the size of it.

Should I elaborate?--^talk 07:39, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Whenever I'm marking I'm constantly having to tell people to be specific (it's the second-most thing I write after "citation needed"). Making vague gestures and ideas isn't really going to get you anywhere, even in the most wishy-washy of essay subjects. You need to make very clear and precise statements about how you're saying relates to reality, and then show reality agreeing with that. Then, importantly, you need to show what other ideas would suggest, and show reality not agreeing with you. And then figure out what your own idea would not suggest you see, and go look for it. "Hypothesis A suggests we shall never see B, so I'm going to try my hardest to find B, and when I can't find it, I can be more sure." but you can only do that if you make each logical step between your idea and your evidence crystal clear and unarguable. And that means exploring every alternative. Because the road between your evidence and your hypothesis is long, twisted and littered with a lot of junctions, and you need to show that every left or right turn away from that road doesn't lead anywhere meaningful. Hence why/how I've just hammered out 5 pages justifying assigning one single NMR resonance to a particular chemical structure. Also, stay away from ever using words like "clearly" and "obviously" when making logical leaps because there is no such thing. ^bomination 07:50, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

From the sound of it, DavidVilla's is a soft-science class; that sort of rigorous testing and prediction might not be possible. In the hard sciences — or, at least, on the papers I graded and was graded on — they do not mark you off for "lacking conviction," but for being wrong or not making yourself understood. ListenerX^TalkerX 08:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

This place is rotting my brain...when you wrote "lacking conviction", I substituted the word "machismo" in my mind...-- Seth Peck (talk) 15:45, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

If it's anything like my English classes, they may just want you to act like you have a really strong opinion about whatever you're discussing. I usually framed essays as "a viable interpretation" of whatever literature and discussed alternatives, which drew similar criticism from the professors. 99.50.98.145 (talk) 10:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

In my English classes, one was not allowed to be too sure of oneself, because that meant they had a thesis that was not "debatable" enough. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:18, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Must be dependent on who's doing the grading. That was basically the feedback I got from the music and gender essay I helped out on - but then again, she was one of those rare academics that didn't use the "softer" attribute as an excuse to just make shit up. The feedback was very specific about "you have not made your case here" and "this is a very definitive statement without evidence". ^theist 10:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Gish Gallop -- works every time. What's this nonsense about "lacking conviction"? I never got feedback like that even on history papers. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 15:45, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Do professors actually grade anything, any more? When I was a Grad student, we did all the grading. I did grade as a prof, but it was a community college, so there was no one to push my work onto. I never found "taking my side" to be of any value in an argument. I rather wanted you to show that what you were saying had internal merrit, but more importantly, fit the evidence presented in class. In that sense, my issue was far less what you thought (sadly) and far more that you were articulating facts I was supposed to be pounding into your head. GodotWhy is being ignorant something to be proud of? 16:17, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I had several who graded exams themselves, leaving HW to TAs, but for PL there was no TA so the prof had to grade everything. We got our midterms back a few weeks before the final. One course was almost all peer graded as well.Тyrannis^Plead 16:22, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Depends on the size of the class. Profs usually grade all or most of the stuff for smaller seminar-style courses in my experience. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:56, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, there's a trend to pawn it all off on dedicated teaching staff. Because you puh-huh-duh's need to be paid extra for teaching (usually) it works out cheaper to pay some salaried staff to do it and tell them it's their primary job so they have to do it all. ^sshole 17:39, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

My graduate advisor was tenured and he still graded most of the exams for his classes, even the larger undergraduate ones. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:16, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify...the "lacks conviction" was on a history paper about South African history. Part of the problem with that paper was that I got about half-way through the paper before realizing that part of my thesis would revolve around a literature review that I was beginning to think didn't exist and I wasn't about to do a grad paper in support of an undergrad paper just so I could site myself. However, that doesn't change the fact that he said lacks conviction on other parts of the paper as well...I am not sure if he just hates Jan Christaan Smuts or I suck at paper writing (it might be the former, as my other profs like my papers). DavidVilla (talk) 06:28, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Good advice on arguments here.--Bob^{"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."} 15:51, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Water has memory

Discuss. --PsyGremlin말하십시오 15:46, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

"This is interesting work, but Rey's experiments were not blinded and although he says the work is reproducible, he doesn't say how many experiments he did"

That kinda sums it up, but apparently the study isn't even published yet, so it's hard to say. 99.50.98.145 (talk) 16:06, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's hardly the first time this claim has been made. I reckon that once published, this won't stand up to scrutiny. And this also begs the question that if water had memory, wouldn't tap water be a panacea? Of course, I don't know much about this thermo stuff. Maybe water does have memory. Still doesn't mean homeopathy works (there are plenty of studies to that effect)--User:Brxbrx/sig 16:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

*tosses an answer to the question-beggar* The "memory of water" is only one of the necessary prerequisites of homeopathy. The other, and much unlikelier one is the "like cures like" principle, which is pure magical thinking.--ZooGuard (talk) 16:28, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Come to think of it, their conclusion is basically "putting salt in water and then mixing it will alter its molecular structure." I thought we already knew that... 99.50.98.145 (talk) 16:25, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

We need a template, Oh jeez, not this bullshit again.

. Doctor Dark (talk) 16:36, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Obligatory: "In homeopathy, medicine properties remain in the liquid because water has memory!" Vulpius (talk) 17:06, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

There's also a massive difference between it altering the intermolecular interactions, remembering that structure for a long period of time, being able to encode multiple structures (aka, information) within it, for those structures to have a biological effect once ingested and diluted into the stomach, for that structure to transfer to a sugar pill when they do it in tablet form (and for all of the aforementioned properties to apply to the sugar pill too). In short, I don't think Tim Minchin will be carving "fancy that!" into the side of his cock any time soon. ^sshole 17:36, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Some notes: the original New scientist article was published in 2003. The paper "Can low-temperature thermoluminescence cast light on the nature of ultra-high dilutions?" was eventually published in 2007, in the Homeopathy journal. Um, that's all. Voxhumana (talk) 22:22, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Waha! Holy cow you're right, can't believe nobody's noticed until now. Wow. So I guess we can ignore this--User:Brxbrx/sig 22:25, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Studies like this sneak into New Scientist all the time. ^{d hominem} 22:32, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Given the amount of 'stuff' in tapwater (being recycled several times) would water's memory improve (as 'more comples') or decrease (in the same way hard water is less capable of dissolving lead out of old pipes than soft water, and so is 'better' for you) over time? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 15:57, 15 June 2012 (UTC)