RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive183

This is an archive page, last updated 28 June 2020. 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>, <162>, <163>, <164>, <165>, <166>, <167>, <168>, <169>, <170>, <171>, <172>, <173>, <174>, <175>, <176>, <177>, <178>, <179>, <180>, <181>, <182>, <184>, <185>, <186>, <187>, <188>, <189>, <190>, <191>, <192>, <193>, <194>, <195>, <196>, <197>, <198>, <199>, <200>, <201>, <202>, <203>, <204>, <205>, <206>, <207>, <208>, <209>, <210>, <211>, <212>, <213>, <214>, <215>, <216>, <217>, <218>, <219>, <220>, <221>, <222>, <223>, <224>, <224½>, <225>, <226>, <227>, <228>, <229>, <230>, <231>, <232>, <233>, <234>, <235>, <236>, <237>, <238>, <239>, <240>, <241>, <242>, <243>, <244>, <245>, <246>, <247>, <248>, <249>, <250>, <251>, <252>, <253>, <254>, <255>, <256>, <257>, <258>, <259>, <260>, <261>, <262>, <263>, <264>, <265>, <266>, <267>, <268>, <269>, <270>, <271>, <272>, <273>, <274>, <275>, <276>, <277>, <278>, <279>, <280>, <281>, <282>, <283>, <284>, <285>, <286>, <287>, <288>, <289>, <290>, <291>, <292>, <293>, <294>, <295>, <296>, <297>, <298>, <299>, <300>, <301>, <302>, <303>, <304>, <305>, <306>, <307>, <308>, <309>, <310>, <311>, <312>, <313>, <314>, <315>, <316>, <317>, <318>, <319>, <320>, <321>, <322>, <323>, <324>, <325>, <326>, <327>, <328>, <329>, <330>, <331>, <332>, <333>, <334>, <335>, <336>, <337>, <338>, <339>, <340>, <341>, <342>, <343>, <344>, <345>, <346>, <347>, <348>, <349>, <350>, <351>, <352>, <353>, <354>, <355>, <356>, <357>, <358>, <359>, <360>, <361>, <362>, <363>, <364>, <365>, <366>, <367>, <368>, <369>, <370>, <371>, <372>, <373>, <374>, <375>, <376>, <377>, <378>, <379>, <380>, <381>, <382>, <383>, <384>, <385>, <386>, <387>, <388>, <389>, <390>, <391>, <392>, <393>, <394>, <395>, <396>, <397>, <398>, <399>, <400>, <401>, <402>, <403>, <404>, <405>, <406>, <407>, <408>, <409>, <410>, <411>, <412>, <413>, <414>, <415>, <416>, <417>, <418>, <419>, <420>, <421>, <422>, <423>, <424>, <425>, <426>, <427>, <428>, <429>, <430>, <431>, <432>, <433>, <434>, <435>, <436>, <437>, <438>, <439>, <440>, <441>, <442>, <443>, <444>, <445>, <446>, <447>, <448>, <449>, <450>, <451>, <452>, <453>, <454>, <455>, <456>, <457>, <458>, <459>, <460>, <461>, <462>, <463>, <464>, <465>, <466>

, (new)(back)

Global Warming

I'm just going to leave this right here:

I decided my neighbor wouldn't appreciate it if I took a picture of him mowing his lawn, even if it would have been a better demonstration of my point. It was 50F here. In December.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 03:05, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Meh. n=1. You need a trend, really. I mean, yes, there is global warming; but this is just as bad as OMG it's a snow storm no global warming. sterile^{sporadic heavy hitter} 03:12, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I think we're about to break a record.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 03:17, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

PRATT isn't even funny this time around. Drops link. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 16:51, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

What Hamilton has forgotten to mention was three days prior it was only about 25ish for the high.a;sp i can't remember many times off the top of my head where east nebraska was very snowy until January. Now if it turns out like last year...we'll have something to really talk about.. --Mikal ^{Harass Follow} 04:47, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it was something like 30, 25, 30. I just thought it was funny as a counterpoint to the numerous "blizzard dumps fifty feet on Detroit, disproving global warming" bullshit. --Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 04:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Much worse in the shadows, stupid ASh, casting a shadow over the entire approach to you but not blocking the wind whatsoever. And hey, honestly im not complaining (atm) about the lack of cold and snow; i will come spring and summer again but... thats a problem for future me. --Mikal ^{Harass Follow} 05:34, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

The lack of snowfall is kinda bad, actually. It's part of how we re-moisturize the soil, which kind of a big deal with how many farms are in the area. And that's in addition to lack of snow fall being an indicator that the atmosphere is too warm for precip, again bad with the amount of farming areas.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 17:01, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

It's funny, but not all that useful or accurate. Global warming isn't just about snow cover, you know. Now, show me a force two hurricane in Nebraska... that'll probably happen eventually. EVDebs (talk) 07:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I remember last year, when we hardly got any snow until late January/early February. Up on a mountain in New York State, that's sort of a big deal. Not doing a post hoc ergo propter hoc, but I also am now getting an annual hurricane/tropical storm (Irene last year, Sandy this year). Eh, good thing I've got a generator at my house :-P The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 13:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

New to Rational Wiki Part 2

As my original entry is near the top and approaching archiving presumably, I'm starting a new section seeking more feedback on the article I have in my user space at present here. I've just added some references, mostly from his Hating Autism blog but also some others. It was suggested that I avoid Wikipedia, but in one case I couldn't (showing the diff between thiomersal and thimerosal). I've only shifted one other away from WP (that's the Leo Kanner reference). I'm still waiting for someone to clear my personal website as a source - unless you want to look at it first before making a judgement (and like I said before, those of you outside the Asia Pacific won't be able to see that until I sort out the security issues). Also, there has been no comment on my writing style - so I hope that means there are no issues with that. BankBox (talk) 09:50, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a link to your blog we could look at? Also, regarding your writing style, it might be better to refer to John Best, Jr as "Best" throughout the article rather than "John." Sam ^Tally-ho! 21:56, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

It's actually my website, but I lay part of it out like a blog. Here's the current index for the "blog" on Best. Thanks for the correction. I was being polite using his first name so I'll gleefully change that! I've already collected the remaining cites except for the Mark Geier details, and I'll add those at the same time I make the changes to the surname - in the next few minutes. When I've found the Geier links I hope it'll be set to go! BankBox (talk) 12:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Time to recruit (Atheism Plus and fake geek girl articles need outside attention)

I think we need to get some more opinions on the talk pages, especially female opinions so it they don't wind up being an endless argument between mansplainers. Now would be a good time to recruit some new editors, if you know anyone who might be willing to contribute and is capable of being reasonably objective about the matter. EVDebs (talk) 07:42, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm halfway through drafting a rewrite of the fake geek girl article, & will post it at the weekend. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I would much rather you post it "on the weekend," "during the weekend," or even "this weekend." And you talk like that 24/7, huh? Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 17:25, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I come from England. Sorry if my dialect causes you distress. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you could post it at the end of the week. Генгис^pillaging 20:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I think that what we need is people, male or female, who have actually followed the, ahem, controversy, instead of writing on assumptions and incomplete information.--ZooGuard (talk) 17:47, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

This much is true, I agree. But we do need specifically female voices among them, because the root of the problem is based in gender issues. EVDebs (talk) 18:01, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I asked my geek girl mates on facebook to comment, and all I got was one "like." So don't expect 'em to come rushing. Sophie^Wilder 18:50, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

How to get away with criminal fraud (UK only)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/dec/14/margaret-moran-supervision-fiddling-expenses Nice one. Dirk Steele (talk) 13:02, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah, does dying in the crash also allow drivers to "get away with" drink driving? She's wrecked her life, we could have done far less to her in an open jail (since she's not violent she wouldn't be sent somewhere actually unpleasant even if convicted). I actually don't live far from her (apparently). Never seen her in my life, and I spend plenty of time walking around talking to people in the area. I've seen our local MP (who unlike Moran actually lives in the city he represents) on the train, but I've never seen Moran at all. Even if Moran has "conned" everyone she's certainly got a strange way of going about it. Unless you believe her house is empty and she's sunning herself on a beach far away while three different psychiatrists file false reports about a woman they've never met? 82.69.171.94 (talk) 20:32, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

AR5 leak

IPCC AR5 is leaked and promptly quote mined by denialists. In other news, bears shit in the woods. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:05, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

That is taking quote-mining to a new low. ^sshole 20:52, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

When the evidence is stacked against you, you've got to work with what you have. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh is that so?

I know it's Foxnews but the final comment in this article made me do a double-take "We as Christians never harass, intimidate or insult atheists." Yeah of course. Christians would never do that. Nope, Christian's would never insult or discriminate against atheists. Aceⁱ⁹ 20:51, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

It's just the same ol' whining that atheists are now in a position to publicly express their views. Nothing interesting to see here. Nihilist 22:18, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

These are the same people that take "your book is fiction" as an outrageous offensive act, and which can earn you jail or death according to the laws of a great many countries. These are the same people who say "I'm being oppressed!" when the rest of us merely take away their tools of oppression of others. I try to not take what they say too seriously. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 01:29, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I must be missing something here. The full fox quote is:

"This year it's different," he said. "This is vile. When you depict Jesus on the cross with a crown of thorns, this is exploitative. We as Christians never harass, intimidate or insult atheists. But they can't seem to say, 'We simply disagree with you.' They have to insult us."

So showing Jesus on a cross is exploitative? Could be. Just surprised that they'd say it.--Bob^{"I thought this was supposed to be "Rational" Wiki?."} 16:53, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

So Fox has decided to stop courting Catholics? The Crucifix (the image of Christ dying) is very prevalent in Catholicism. Protestants prefer their crosses without the dying god on them. --TheLateGatsby (talk) 18:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Gun control

There's a debate raging at Liberapedia over gun control. As I'm from the UK I'd appreciate links so I can understand what Americans are saying. Proxima Centauri (talk) 10:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

As we're from RW we'd appreciate a link to the debate you mention. Sophie^Wilder 10:30, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, Proxima, you and your precious phrasing. "Links so I can understand what they're are saying" — you make it sound like we're speaking Esperanto. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 10:46, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Different ways the Gun control article has been modified.

Gun control

There are 31 comments. Proxima Centauri (talk) 10:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

James Holmes is the epitome of USA foreign policy. What's wrong with that? Dirk Steele (talk) 11:12, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

So, Liberapedia is undergoing a short-term resurrection? At first glance, my thoughts were Aw, it tries so hard to be like RationalWiki! Yes, it does! Yes, it does!. Including a reference to Avatar: The Last Airbender on the science article was unexpected, but they managed to fit it in there so it actually made a non-zero amount of sense there. Flatworms are fun! ^{Talk to me} 04:19, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't try to be like RationalWiki, I aim at younger users and less educated users who are taking time off from gaming wikis. Also many, perhaps most of the Liberapedia articles would be off mission at RationalWiki. If some Liberapedia users later move on to RationalWiki as SuperJosh did that's a good thing. Proxima Centauri (talk) 08:37, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I aim at... less educated users... Oh, so you're writing for yourself, then? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 10:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Blogs

I'm just curious as to how many users of RationalWiki have blogs or anything similar, without wishing to self- advertise mine is www.ephemeralvelocity.wordpress.com/ Man of Perspective (talk) 03:32, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Psygremlin (I think?) has a blog that discusses right-wing nonsense, although the url escapes me. PalMD, discussed above, has whitecoatunderground. I have my own, too. Lotta blogs around here.--^talk 04:36, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

And I'm sorry that this one is above the IPCC atuff, but I can't flip it around. Man of Perspective (talk) 03:47, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

This is Psy's blog.--Mikal ^{Harass Follow} 06:00, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Here's mine. I know of at least a few others, eg Sam, Ace, and LArron. Don't we have a list of these somewhere? Peter ^{Subsisting on honey} 07:55, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Here you go. Scream!! (talk) 09:27, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I sometimes log the failed literary attempts of my insane uncle.--Brendiggg (talk) 18:47, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

http://blahg.chapmancentral.co.uk finds me. JzG (talk) 00:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Dyscalculia

This discussion was moved to Forum:Dirk Steele said something. 04:46, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Whole bunch of Dirk Steele stuff

This discussion was moved to Forum:Dirk Steele is whining again. 08:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

You can't even spell 'winning' correctly. Dirk Steele (talk) 22:49, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Rice is out

So Rice has withdrawn as a possible Secretary of State (in what appears to be the latest manufactured controversy). I say give it to Kerry then. Brown's not going to run for that seat. DickTurpis (talk) 12:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I must have missed something. Last I heard, Brown was absolutely going to run for that seat. What changed? Apokalyps2547 (talk) 15:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Brown probably will run if Kerry leaves. I doubt he'll do well though; his harping on Warren's ancestry really didn't go over well with most of the state. EVDebs (talk) 16:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

But who would run against Brown? I much prefer Kerry as a Senator. Surely there has to be another option. --Seth Peck (talk) 16:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm just glad Chuck Hagel is looking good for SecDef.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 17:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Brown picked up over 46% of the vote last month. I hate to admit it, but he's got a real shot if he runs for the seat. Apokalyps2547 (talk) 02:32, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think Brown will run, because I don't think he's enough of a masochist. Senate campaigns are a huge trial and expense, especially in a high profile state with an expensive media market, and a bad climate for Republicans. He ran in 2010 and 2012. Now he'll have to run in 2013 and 2014 (when Kerry's seat will be up again). That's 4 intense Senate campaigns in the amount of time someone like Mitch McConnell will have run once, in a cakewalk. I can't see anyone wanting that, but maybe he does. DickTurpis (talk) 17:45, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

But he's the ideal man for Massachusetts! He's got a pickup truck! Sophie^Wilder 19:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Heh. Wrentham, where Scott Brown lives, isn't exactly honkytonk (that would be the rural areas in Plymouth and Bristol counties) but its biggest attraction is a ginormous outlet mall. It's not the sort of place that Bostonians readily identify with (or, if the jokes are correct, really realize exist :-) ). If anything, it's more of an outer-outer suburb of Providence, but so outer that it doesn't have much in common with PVD either. Your average city dweller doesn't have much use for a pickup truck to begin with, unless they're a landscaper or odd-jobber. Out in exurbia on the other hand... well, you sort of get the sense that Scott Brown didn't really get Boston, any more than Boston gets Wrentham. (Not to mention most of his base is Boston Herald readers anyway. It's the paper of record for eastern MA's urban redneck population.) EVDebs (talk) 08:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

A New Order

This discussion was moved to Forum:Drama dump. 21:41, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

A note to the morphing shit-for-brains: it's not hypocritical to refuse to tolerate intolerance. EVDebs (talk) 21:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Drugs or Guns

This discussion was moved to Forum:Dirk Steele said something. 22:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

sorry for any confusion - we are not the same personhelloSailor 23:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oh good, a game of whack-a-mole. (gets popcorn). JzG (talk) 23:54, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

i live with Dirk Steele but have nothing to do with that lunatic

see title abovehelloSailor 00:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

You could've put this on your user page. Not really needs a saloon bar post. Flatworms are fun! ^{Talk to me} 01:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

she is new to this site so forgive a little. Mind you she is gonna have to pay for her own broadband from now on... Dirk Steele (talk) 01:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Just when you thought there might be hope for the human race

Shooting at an elementary school. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 17:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Who the fuck thought there was any hope? Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 17:22, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Things like this give me vague ideas we're not completely worthless as a species. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 17:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure my cousin and her lives in that town. Her kids are a little too old to be in elementary school, thankfully. DickTurpis (talk) 17:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Just checked out the Facebook page of the kid the police named as the shooter

Yup. Liked video games. Let the misplaced hand-wringing begin. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 19:41, 14 December 2012 (UTC) See: Here. My apologies. Glad I did not post the link. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 20:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Fox already did that one according to the Clogosphere. As soon as this shit happens it seems like it's a competition for who can guess as many motives and pre-empt fact as possible. It's cheap and disgusting at best. ^gnostic 20:27, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Did I mention the part where I'm really sorry and feel like an ass? Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 20:45, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure we've all done it. ^theist 20:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll take some of the asshole heat off you: If only the teachers were allowed to carry guns... It's too bad the kids didn't have bibles to shield themselves... Occasionaluse (talk) 21:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

So far reaction at CP, at least, has been tasteful. Let's hope it stays that way (not terribly optimistic, but we'll see). They do describe the killer as "masked". Did anyone else hear that? I'm pretty sure I didn't see that mentioned on any news report. DickTurpis (talk) 21:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Shooting in Colorado? No big deal. Shooting less than 100 miles from Andy's basement and Ken's ALC? Nervous lip-biting. --Seth Peck (talk) 21:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Sweet Fucking Holy Jesus Christ

The Foxhole Atheist posted this on Facebook. Unbelievable. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 21:24, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I think we have a winner. I cannot imagine this being topped. Occasionaluse (talk) 21:38, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what is more repugnant: this guy or his concept of god. --Tweenk (talk) 23:22, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Best Quote I've Seen

"The shooter killed himself? Good. Why didn't he do that first?" MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 19:43, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

PalMD sez

Gun owners are sociopaths Scream!! (talk) 23:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Little bit of a generalization. But the Redneck Association is hiding in bunkers today. Osaka Sun (talk) 23:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it's perfectly fair to generalize. There is no defense here. -- -PalMD ^{--4 out of 5 doctors recommend RW for gas pain} 23:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

So, what exactly have you got against goat-fucking? Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 00:33, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Can someone care to explain to me what I ever did to deserve being accused of being a sociopath?--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 01:56, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

^ What he said. Humorless fascist^sociopath 02:10, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, good to know I am now a sociopath; glad to get that memo.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 04:20, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

If you own a hunting rifle/shotgun for bird hunting -- as the esteemed Doctor points out clearly -- that seems pretty reasonable, especially if you live in the sticks. If you own something that's easily concealable or that can spit out plural number of rounds in a minute, you need to justify that to me, and I doubt you can. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 02:22, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

You can fire a plural number of rounds per minute with a freaking musket. Humorless fascist^sociopath 03:00, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

A firearm that's easily concealable is basically anything short of a full machine gun if you're wearing a trench coat. But what is meant is clearly a handgun. Which is what the vast majority of times is recommended for home defense, defense for (for example) cab drivers and convenient store workers, and others who are in a position to be robbed frequently. And it's what is the most easy to fire, if you just want to go to the range and fire rounds. Like for fun. As for the comment "spit out plural number of rounds in a minute" this tells me you have no idea what you're talking about. With a single round bolt action rifle you can "spit out plural number of rounds in a minute". Fuck, isn't half the goddamn point of this website to cut through the bullshit?--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 02:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

What's required for home defense is a decent alarm system and a well-funded police department. I don't care if you think firing off rounds at the range is fun. Find another hobby. Maybe stamps. As for my ignorance of how guns work, I wear it proudly. I'll never touch one. They're horrible things. Unless you're hunting or engaged in wildlife control and are using a gun that holds a single bullet/shell at a time, or maybe 2, it's too much gun. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 02:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

You open your comment with pretending that home and personal defense is a non-issue, and then making an appeal to emotion. Brilliant.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 02:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I see no appeal to emotion. I didn't say that home and personal defence aren't an issue; they are issues adequately addressed by alarms, a well-funded public police force, and, ultimately, building a kind of society where people do not feel a need to defend themselves from attacks from their fellow citizens, and where the underlying social and economic issues that lead to crime are addressed by a means other than weaponizing the citizenry. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 02:57, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Which is a good point. Humorless fascist^sociopath 03:05, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I hate doing this:

• "What's required for home defense is a decent alarm system and a well-funded police department": Average police response time is 8 minutes
• "I don't care if you think firing off rounds at the range is fun. Find another hobby. Maybe stamps." You have never experienced the zen of firing a rifle/handgun. It's like golf, but takes up much less space and requires less of a drive
• "As for my ignorance of how guns work, I wear it proudly. I'll never touch one. They're horrible things." This is pretty much the definition of an appeal to emotion.
• "Unless you're hunting or engaged in wildlife control..." In order to be in the police (atleast in Nebraska) you have to already have a concealed carry permit, which requires you to already have a handgun. A concealed carry permit is also required for numerous security positions, government and otherwise. Firing on civilian ranges is also how numerous people in the military practice before mandatory qualifications.
  • "...and are using a gun that holds a single bullet/shell at a time, or maybe 2, it's too much gun." There are no handguns which hold only round, and the rifles which fire only one round are generally carrybacks to the 19th century. And literally any time a person will be in a position to fire one round, they'll either need, or want to be able to fire another round. Like a bear is attacking you.
• "building a kind of society where people do not feel a need to defend themselves from attacks from their fellow citizens, and where the underlying social and economic issues that lead to crime are addressed by a means other than weaponizing the citizenry" And this is called a silver bullet.

Now, I'm not against firearm controls, and we should change aspects of our society to prevent crime, but getting rid of firearms is not going to help--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 03:10, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

"Average police response time is 8 minutes." Make it better.

"You have never experienced the zen of firing a rifle/handgun." So what. Don't care. Your hobbies and your joy at firing off your compensation for your other shortcomings is no good reason to allow deadly weapons into the hands of citizens.

"In order to be in the police (atleast in Nebraska) you have to already have a concealed carry permit, which requires you to already have a handgun. A concealed carry permit is also required for numerous security positions, government and otherwise. Firing on civilian ranges is also how numerous people in the military practice before mandatory qualifications." Great. let the police and the necessary government agencies have guns. I have no problem with that. People in the military can practice firing on a military base.

"There are no handguns which hold only round, and the rifles which fire only one round are generally carrybacks to the 19th century. And literally any time a person will be in a position to fire one round, they'll either need, or want to be able to fire another round. Like a bear is attacking you." don't go where the bears go. They got there first. Handguns are lousy against bears from what I understand, so no use in having one. Daniel Boone did okay with whatever he had. Suck it up. Be a man and learn to shoot straight the first time. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 03:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Does that make Switzerland a nation of sociopaths? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe the difference is that they're fucking grown-ups who can be trusted with these sorts of things, as opposed to the people here, who can't go more than a couple of months without discharging their substitute penises all over their neighbours? Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 03:36, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I have owned guns, shot guns, made explosives and hunted. I am not a sociopath. I like guns and I can own guns. In NZ we have almost no gun violence because while I can own such weapons the laws are extremly stringent. I could get an assualt rifle but only after going through a wide variety of background checks, character checks and vetting. "No guns" is not the answer because on the same day as this a chinese dude stabbed 22 at a school. Guns are not the problem, gun laws are the problem. Sort your shit out USA, no one needs an AR-15 unless your a collector. Sure as shit ain't using one to hunt quail. Aceⁱ⁹ 03:37, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Ace -- How many of those Chinese kids assumed room temperature today? Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 03:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, less than you'd expect. IIRC, you're more likely to die from a knife attack wound than a handgun wound. I'm an idiot. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 05:10, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Zero of these children died. It is very hard to kill a bunch of people with a knife, although it does happen on rare occasions.--^talk 05:14, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. As I recall, the stats are different for single victim crimes. Weird. Let me go do some googling...LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 05:16, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind. I'm sorry. Corrected. Not sure where I got that. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 05:20, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Hey ToP, what is the fucking difference? "Don't worry everyone, just a mere mass stabbing". If the problem is the gun then taking it away will solve the problem. Why did this 20 yr old do this in the first place? Why does the USA suffer this over and over again. You cn see from my previous statement I am all for gun controls but the root cause isn't 'because gun'. Aceⁱ⁹ 03:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

"I am all for gun controls but the root cause isn't 'because gun'." This. And go listen to Dan Carlin. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:56, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

"Crazy person" in itself is harmless. "Gun" in itself is harmless. The problem is how do we prevent the intersection of "crazy person" with "gun." The vetting, etc. that Ace mentions seems like the obvious solution, but the organized gun lobby here would never allow it. Doctor Dark (talk) 03:58, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Wow. You'd think that it would be an obvious point to make that the kids in China survived, and the ones in America didn't. Clearly that fact alone doesn't end the argument, but it should go without saying that if we're going to have homicidal maniacs running around, it's preferable for society if they to try to do it with a knife rather than with a gun. Q0 (talk) 04:22, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I actually agree that the root cause isn't gun. There's mental health. And a lack of public support for mental health care. Alienation. Male rage is probably the biggest issue at play. But we're about 20-30 mass shootings away from putting any of that on the table. So gun control -- still in the top 5 reasons -- is where the focus will be for now. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 04:00, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

"Average police response time is 8 minutes." Make it better. Aside from putting a cop on every block, how?

"You have never experienced the zen of firing a rifle/handgun." So what. Don't care. Your hobbies and your joy at firing off your compensation for your other shortcomings is no good reason to allow deadly weapons into the hands of citizens. Appeal to emotion and a red herring.

"In order to be in the police (atleast in Nebraska) you have to already have a concealed carry permit, which requires you to already have a handgun. A concealed carry permit is also required for numerous security positions, government and otherwise. Firing on civilian ranges is also how numerous people in the military practice before mandatory qualifications." Great. let the police and the necessary government agencies have guns. I have no problem with that. People in the military can practice firing on a military base. You missed the part where to be a cop you have to already have a handgun. You also ignored the impact on civilian security. And you cannot actually just 'go to the range' on base.

"There are no handguns which hold only round, and the rifles which fire only one round are generally carrybacks to the 19th century. And literally any time a person will be in a position to fire one round, they'll either need, or want to be able to fire another round. Like a bear is attacking you." don't go where the bears go. They got there first. Handguns are lousy against bears from what I understand, so no use in having one. Daniel Boone did okay with whatever he had. So, no more camping, hiking, or going to basically any state/federal park. And I'll move out of one the largest cities in the country because a mountain lion has been spotted in town. Also, the line "Suck it up. Be a man and learn to shoot straight the first time." is a fallacy only possible because you clearly don't understand the first thing we're talking about.

"Maybe the difference is that they're fucking grown-ups who can be trusted with these sorts of things, as opposed to the people here, who can't go more than a couple of months without discharging their substitute penises all over their neighbours?" We're back at that whole "red herring" thing.

Now for something I really hate doing, but I wont be back for awhile. You're an idiot. There isn't a much nicer way to put that. If you were a creationist, everyone here would immediately start laughing at you for your use of fallacies and silver bullets, your lack of understanding of how extremely difficult it is to fire a handgun the first time, and basically anything else in this discussion. You're like one of the idiots we point to and go "this guy doesn't understand the first thing about physics, and wears it proudly on his sleeve while condemning physics. God, can you imagine how dumb he must be!?!" I wish I could phrase this more politely, but you want to do something that is simply not reasonable, would infuriate the vast majority of the population, put people in danger, and your reason is a silver bullet fueled with no idea of how to improve the situation.

Now, here's the real problem I have with your position. There are about 8 million firearm owners in the US and about 48 thousand people killed by firearm a year [same source], and between 2007 and 2009 there were only 56 murders committed by a person who legally owned a firearm in the US, and about 2.5 million defensive incidents a year. What this means is that by getting rid of every firearm in the US you wont be doing shit to curb violence in the US. You'll probably only make it worse. Want to do something about gun violence in the US? Fine, I agree with you. But targeting legal owners wont do anything because, as you may have noticed, the overwhelming majority of firearm related murders, are done by people who don't legally own a firearm. If you want to deal with firearm violence, you need to do something about the ILLEGAL OWNERS not the legal ones.

But there's a broader issue. I want to change some firearm laws to make it easier to get rid of the illegal firearms (you may remember that they're the ones that are the problem). But I cannot. Why? Because the fucking moment any firearm violence happens there are automatically going to be right wing radical retards like assfly immediately start screaming about the evil liberals coming and taking away our guns. And who are they citing as their fucking source? You. You and PalMD, and anyone else with access to the internet who decides they're going to shoot their mouths off and blame the millions of firearms owners in the US for the handful of idiots who decide to commit these atrocities. And you know what that does? It makes it so when people talk about reasonable firearm legislation, its immediately overwhelmed by blow hards who are still citing you as fucking evidence of the liberal plan to take away legal firearms. You, you are just as responsible as Assfly for why its fucking impossible in this country for any fucking discussion on firearm legislation to take place.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 04:05, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Your statistics are from a random blog and don't hold up under scrutiny. 48,000 people were killed by firearms last year and only 56 were by people who owned guns legally? No. And what does "2.5 million defensive incidents" mean, exactly? The blog makes tons of unsupported claims and logical fallacies. That said, I don't entirely disagree with you. The problem is, gun control has never worked in the US because laws vary by state, and lax gun laws in one state mean the restrictions in all nearby states are rendered ineffective. If gun restrictions are counterproductive, as that blog says, then why are murder rates so much lower in Europe, where gun laws are usually quite strict? I keep hearing "culture" from the pro-gun right, which seems to me to be an admission that American culture is just highly flawed. I don't think that's the point they're trying to make. DickTurpis (talk) 05:00, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

...and then the Rotary Club revoked my licence and I haven't been surfing since. But at least I walked away with the turnips. Aceⁱ⁹ 04:10, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

The police are great and they should be well funded, but my local department is and that still doesn't really reduce the response time. Unless you have cops and cameras literally everywhere (and the money to pay for all of that, and even if you did, you really want to live in that kind of society?), I don't see how one can have a police response time under five minutes even in the best of circumstances. This is why I carry a firearm. I don't hunt and have no interest, but I am not stupid enough to leave my home and myself completely defenseless in my city. My hope is that I will never have to use it in my life except for shooting practice and I dislike the idea that I ever would have to, but I am not naive enough to think there could never be a situation where I have to protect my life.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 04:32, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

So, no more camping, hiking, or going to basically any state/federal park. And I'll move out of one the largest cities in the country because a mountain lion has been spotted in town.

If you feel unsafe while hiking, carry pepper spray. It is extremely effective.

If you feel unsafe in your town, call a police officer or animal control. That's their job.

But targeting legal owners wont do anything because, as you may have noticed, the overwhelming majority of firearm related murders, are done by people who don't legally own a firearm. If you want to deal with firearm violence, you need to do something about the ILLEGAL OWNERS not the legal ones.

You are conflating "legal ownership" with "legal purchase." 40% of guns are bought at gun shows, where they can be legally bought without a background check. Like Harris and Klebold, for example. The vast majority of all spree deaths have been caused by these sorts of guns, not the "backstreet illegal purchase" myth.

But there's a broader issue. I want to change some firearm laws to make it easier to get rid of the illegal firearms (you may remember that they're the ones that are the problem). But I cannot. Why? Because the fucking moment any firearm violence happens there are automatically going to be right wing radical retards like assfly immediately start screaming about the evil liberals coming and taking away our guns. And who are they citing as their fucking source? You. You and PalMD, and anyone else with access to the internet who decides they're going to shoot their mouths off and blame the millions of firearms owners in the US for the handful of idiots who decide to commit these atrocities. And you know what that does? It makes it so when people talk about reasonable firearm legislation, its immediately overwhelmed by blow hards who are still citing you as fucking evidence of the liberal plan to take away legal firearms. You, you are just as responsible as Assfly for why its fucking impossible in this country for any fucking discussion on firearm legislation to take place.

This comment is so absurd it actually makes me cringe. Banning guns is a reasonable position to take, even if you don't agree with it. It is a position based in reality and logic, even if you find that support wanting. There has been a spree shooting every month for more than a decade. It is also true that right-wing people overreact about any discussion of gun control, declaring that it is the first step to a dictatorship and FEMA death camps. This latter point of view is not epistemologically rational, and is ridiculous in almost every way. The two positions are in no way equivalent, and the far right is responsible for their own behavior.

Consider your logic when applied to any other situation, for example. Is it the fault of atheists who want to remove "In God We Trust" from American money that Christianists start screaming about a future purge of Christians and the way atheist countries lack machismo? Certainly not, even though the viewpoints are "opposed" in the same way, and the Christianists use the atheists' wishes as "evidence."

I have owned a handgun (m1911a1) and loved it. I really do appreciate and enjoy guns as a hobby, and I have personally experience the Zen feeling that comes from them. So you cannot attack me personally, like ToP, and say that I am arguing from ignorance when I tell you that I would immediately, if possible, outlaw handguns and semi-automatics. Because as fun as they are, I recognize that the cost in blood is too high, and there is no practical purpose.that would not be better served by a different gun.--^talk 04:58, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Discussion moved to Forum:LUV_and_AD_on_guns

And of course my internet goes down right as I write an uncharacteristically impassioned and profanity-laden plea...

Look, maybe you want to say that guns aren't a problem - but they are. They are because they make murder an impersonal event. They make it easy as fuck to do. It takes a much different level of crazy to go around knifing people dozens of times until they finally bleed out, or strangling people with your bare hands. That's the type of shit you have to think through. It's the type of insanity you might stop and reconsider halfway. But meanwhile, anyone can just pick up a gun and pull the trigger once - and a life is over. Then again, and again, and again. It's amazing - given how fucked up the collective American psyche is - that it doesn't happen more often. But it still happens way too often: there have been at least 16 mass shootings this year alone.

"Beyond just that, there's the fucking dehumanizing atmosphere of paranoia and fear that gun culture breeds. It's absolutely sickening, this effect of driving society apart from the seams under the guise of rugged individualism and 'defense of family and property'. And the rhetoric about 'criminals'. We have the most people imprisoned per capita in the world, and we perpetuate this idea that people just happen to be broken up into either criminals or law abiding citizens, and there's most definitely no grey area. We tell each other we need to worry about the criminals, and make sure they're not the only ones with guns, and oh my god I can't imagine what would happen if one of them broke into my house and I couldn't shoot them dead like the scum they are. And then there are the accidents, but I hesitate to even mention those because holy shit let's please not have the seatbelt argument.

And, again, no one is saying if you get rid of guns all violence will stop. That's an absolutely ridiculous strawman: don't even try it. We all understand that the roots of violence go far deeper. We understand that the sheer amount of it in American society brings to light some serious cultural issues that need to be addressed. But for once, it would be nice if we didn't take the entire debate out of context and make it into this parody of itself where we're trying to ban muskets and hunting knives, and you're worried about how far-right lunatics are going to frame the debate against us. Fuck. Q0 (talk) 05:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

If you feel unsafe in your town, call a police officer or animal control. That's their job. When people say this, they are really overestimating the ability of the police department. Even the best police departments take several minutes to respond, espeically in more urban areas, so unless you are willing (and more importantly, somehow able) to saturate your locale with law enforcement, it just isn't smart or feasible to solely depend on the cops stopping a perpetrator from putting you or your family's life is in immanent danger.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 05:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I was speaking of the bear or mountain lion that made him feel threatened.

If you are worried about an intruder, you can (again) get pepper spray. You might also try a taser, although I have no information on their effectiveness.

If you absolutely must get a gun, despite the evidence that a household accident, hasty suicide, or homicide is far more likely than successful defense, then a shotgun is a much better choice than a handgun.

Despite my love of guns, I would never have one in the house. Sufficient precautions to render it safe would also make it useless in a defense situation.--^talk 06:11, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

A hand gun has a far larger effective range then pepper spray. It is possible that the criminal is armed, and having merely pepper spray would put me at a distinct disadvantage where I would want to have the maximum advantage over any criminal who intended harm. I don't see it as immoral to use terminal force in self-defense on someone who may use terminal force on you while invading your home or person.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I certainly agree that a handgun is, in virtually every way, better at hurting an attacker. We agree on the facts. To me, though, I cannot consider home invasion to be a death-penalty crime. There is almost nothing for which I am willing to kill. But that's a question of personal ethics, I think.--^talk 21:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Cranky pedant

There are handguns that hold only one or two rounds. There are handguns that will fuck a bear up. Bears live in a lot of places you wouldn't expect. Firing guns is exciting the first couple times but then becomes boring. Ta. Humorless fascist^sociopath 03:24, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Another pedant

If you own something that's easily concealable or that can spit out plural number of rounds in a minute, you need to justify that to me, and I doubt you can. - ToP

See, this gets me. There basically has never been a mass produced firearm in the history of humankind that fires less than 1 round per minute. Thus, the only options I see are: 1- You are grossly ignorant, and furthermore from your other statements you have a flat refusal to be educated on an issue that is apparently important to you. Willful ignorance while loudly proclaiming an opinion on a matter is not a good thing. Or 2- willfull dishonesty. Instead of stating that you're against all guns, you invent a completely ridiculous fantasy standard in order to appear willing to compromise, but instead the compromise is hollow. Which you are, I am not sure. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 05:15, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Or 3 - I pulled an imaginary figure out of my ass as shorthand for "semiautomatic or automatic weapons or guns that hold more bullets than a decent shot would need to bring a deer down in hunting season," which is somewhere around 1. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 05:26, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

See, this is this nasty problem I have with you. I really wish you would say what you mean. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 05:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Apologies. I am rather strongly medicated this evening. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 05:45, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

US prison population

We have the most people imprisoned per capita in the world - Q0

I have to bring this up. IIRC, half of all inmates in US federal prison are there for drug offenses. I wouldn't be so quick to use your "gun culture et al" argument for all of our problems. I think this useless moralizing war on drugs is a huge factor. And yes, sorry, I might have just brought up "the seatbelt argument". Don't forget possible economic causes either before attributing everything to cultural reasons. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 05:56, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

The effect is the same. I was describing the way we see people who are charged with crimes as 'others' who need to be removed from society in order to keep the rest of us safe. Gun culture is based entirely on that type of notion, as is evident from the staggeringly tangential conversation you and AD were having above about how best to protect yourself in your home. I'm not blaming the population of our prison system on gun culture; I'm blaming gun culture on the mindset that leads us to imprison that many people (as punishment and separation from society, not rehabilitation) in the first place. Q0 (talk) 14:22, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

^Good post. -Pongo^{Orangutans are sceptical} 15:03, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

@Q0, I'm just trying to correct misinformation. This is supposed to be rationalwiki after all. Unfortunately that's difficult when you're arguing with someone who's already reached their conclusion and is willing to use any debate tactic to argue it, including dishonest ones. 10 inch spread at 10 ft and rock salt my ass. He's been watching too much Kill Bill. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 20:52, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Jesus fucking Christ, fine, I'll keep arguing with you! I'll resume above, so you can stop bringing it up in every other conversation here.--^talk 21:30, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I haven't made it clear. This is not about whether guns for self defense is a good idea. This is because of your dishonest bait and switch, where you say that you cannot imagine a practical situation where a handgun would outperform a shotgun, thereby implying that we're talking about conventional shotguns shooting people. Later, you proceed to weasel yourself to your original position that all guns for self defense are a bad idea. That is how the conversation went, and yes I am mad. Mad mostly because you still don't see your own dishonesty and you still think this is a pro-gun vs anti-gun conversation when it never has been. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 21:56, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that you're oh-so-upset and that I am an evil villain. Go to the forum page and stop whining in every other conversation here.--^talk 22:00, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Legality of the weapons

Wingnuts claim the handheld devices that shoot deadly metal pellets at high speed were unable to be purchased in Conneticut (Aurora's were). The .223 wasn't used, so it's just two handguns. Osaka Sun (talk) 23:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Info

Here is some compiled information by Mother Jones on mass shootings in America over the years.--^talk 05:08, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the numbers of incidents, rather than the incidents themselves, shows the real shocker. When one says "the incident in Norway", it's obvious what they're referring to. In America, you have to make it clear what state or locality. I don't believe the issue is guns / gun laws themselves, or even gun culture entirely, more "murder culture". Hell, even if you look past the larger incidents (I'd put that down to stigmatisation and unwillingness to talk about mental health issues - albeit that's a worldwide problem, not specific to Murrica), as of 2002 the US's murder rate was more than eight times higher than the UK's. Don't ban weaponry - just teach people to A: stop treating people as targets and B: stop treating their deadlier posessions like toys. In all the developed world, the US seems to be the only nation in which "buying your son / daughter's first gun" is actually a thing. Polite Timesplitter ^{talk to me sugar, but best keep it on the}_down-low 09:15, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Not entirely true. In some rural parts of Europe where hunting is a serious past-time or tradition, then giving a son or daughter their first gun is quite common, a right of passage, if you like. Ajkgordon (talk) 12:36, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

It's a rite of passage, as in ritual. --Tweenk (talk) 17:14, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah, bite me! Ajkgordon (talk) 19:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm Canadian. Nobody bought me my first gun & I do not own any, but when I was about 12 my dad, who was a Mountie ex-soldier and crack shot, taught me to shoot botth rifle & pistol. This was not unusual; I grew up partly in a small Western town where lots of people hunted. Pashley (talk) 22:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

MOAR guns is not the solution

Because maybe smart gun owners won't use them when they're "needed." Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 17:14, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Stuff

All the arguments for owning weapons seems to be largely about protecting your stuff, even the self-defense argument seems largely about defense of stuff. The American dream seems to be largely about accumulating stuff, and having stuff=happiness which is implicitly a constitutional right. So those that don't have it, and have no chance of getting it - often resort to crime. Which is just fine and dandy because once you have incarcerated someone (usually a black man) for a minor drug offense or petty theft, then you can use them as slave labour to make more stuff for American companies in privately run plantations prisons. The US imprisons a higher percentage of their population than any other country and the runners up seem to be the island nations in America's back yard. Why doesn't Switzerland have as much crime as the US despite their widespread gun ownership? Largely because they don't obsess about stuff to the same degree. If you look at the league table of prison incarceration rates, "lock 'em up” Britain (England & Wales) comes in at 93rd with a fifth of the rate in the US, while other Western European countries with a more equitable social structure have even lower rates of both crime and incarceration. I find it paradoxical that the developed country with the highest rates of belief in God and heaven are more concerned with material things. I think the US is going to have a gun problem for very a long time untill they start treating their citizens with respect, providing decent education and healthcare for all, and instigate a progressive tax regime that does not permit a small sector of society to amass huge wealth at the expense of the wider society. Pongo^{Orangutans are sceptical} 14:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

All the arguments for owning weapons seems to be largely about protecting your stuff, even the self-defense argument seems largely about defense of stuff. -- In terms of what has been posted here, completely wrong. I have eloquently made this clear. It's actually AD who took this asinine position with this lol rock salt. I made it clear that that's not how the law works. I explained in great detail that if you shoot at someone to scare them off with rock salt, you can possibly face attempted murder charges, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon charges, etc. I carefully explained that the only time you're allowed to shoot someone is if you feel your life or someone else's is in immediate danger. (And by that point rock salt is the last thing you want loaded - you should be shooting to incapacitate, aka kill. It's unfortunate that we don't have reliable Star Trek phasers set on stun. Would be a much easier argument if we did. But we don't.) (Unless of course if you're in Texas or other "castle" states where they amazingly lower the standard quite a bit.) In the real world, in a lot / most(?) states, that's not how you are taught to use a gun. I am going to try to give you a lot of berth, and a lot of wiggle room, and bend over backwards with this: You very well may be right that that is the overwhelmingly common rhetoric, and the culture, and how they think. However, no self respecting gun nut in any US state is going to tell you that it's legal to shoot someone if they're running away with your tv (to play off a stupid stereotype). LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 21:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Could you help me here? I fail completely to see the link between "defend my stuff / get more stuff" and "drug possession charges". Unless you really think that the drug laws are on the book to get a slave work force for more stuff. In which case, let me go find my tinfoil hat. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 21:13, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

If "shooting to incapacitate" is the goal, it's really not working. Osaka Sun (talk) 06:36, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

When you shoot a human to "incapacitate" them you will most often kill them. Outside of the movies you can't shoot the gun out of someone's hand or anything like that. Merely injured humans are often quite effective combatants, and if you felt life was at risk before it probably still is with a now very angry and wounded human. Until you are overwhelmed and decompensate (whereupon you will probably die soon) you can fight on through tremendous damage if you remain conscious. The reason to specify "incapacitate" is that it is unlawful to attack someone who no longer poses a threat. That is, under some circumstances it's OK to shoot someone in the chest, even though that will probably kill them, but if, having now shot them, they are too injured to pose a threat but not actually dead you are not permitted to reload and execute them, pretty much anywhere in the world. In some parts of the US the law is more crazy, but we'll ignore that. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 17:37, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and? I wrote shooting to incapacitate, aka kill. You make it sound as though you're adding something new, when I've already written all of what you just said. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 22:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I was intending to clarify for Osaka. I don't know if I achieved that, but that's all I intended to do here. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 00:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Understood, and my apologies for my tone. I'm on edge now. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 01:38, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

This place is really becoming Mirror Universe Conservapedia.

"He who fights monsters should see to it that he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." Friedrich Nietzsche--Revolverman (talk) 00:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

This is what, the fifth mass shooting in how many months in the States? All weapons were purchased legally, in Connecticut. Mother was a gun nut, in a nation that thrives on gun culture and not only tops the rest of the First World in firearms availability, but gun crime. And state laws are so splintered that nothing can be effective in the first place.

When you have an amendment in the Constitution that restricts any "meaningful action" (as Obama put it), and all the conditions that this will happen again and again, that people on this site are horrified as fuck isn't unexpected. If any discussion on this matter doesn't include both gun control (and mental health) at this point, it borders on straight-up denial. If you don't like it, that's life. Osaka Sun (talk) 07:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Same as with the Troubles, you cannot direct this change from above. No-one in authority was able to stop the Irish from murdering one another (occasionally someone else, but mostly each other). The solution has to begin at the grass roots. When the American people want gun control, they'll get gun control. Right now the vast majority of Americans went "Oh well, a bunch more kids died. But it's important that we have guns". When the average person is saying "Why the hell do so many people have guns? How is this permitted to happen?" then you'll get change. Obama can shake his fists if he likes, but no-one, from any political party, can fix this without millions of Americans changing their cultural values.

If you're on the ground (living in America) and want this to change, you need to go change people's minds. Don't waste time trying to write legislation no-one will vote for or blaming political parties, obviously no major political party can support a position that is opposed by the vast majority of the electorate. The constitution was amended once, it can be amended again, but don't start with the document, start with the people. The headline will be "Guns outlawed at last" because by the time it actually happens virtually every newspaper reader, let alone editor, will be crying out for it. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 17:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Here's a concrete example. Look at Doug Ritter's web site, "Equipped to Survive". Doug is a nerd, nobody spends years on a technical committee arguing about life raft standards without being a nerd. But right now Doug probably believes that the right to own a gun is more important than the fact that every so often a bunch of people die in an avoidable incident like this. For the specific thing Doug is nerdy about, knives are more relevant than guns, the gun is very much a "blunt instrument" in this context. Leg trapped under a boulder? Gun won't help. Trying to build a shelter? Gun won't help. Can't open the emergency flares? Gun won't help. On the route to a place where the US has sensible gun legislation, people like Doug have to be moved to a position where they agree, perhaps reluctantly, that most people shouldn't have guns. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 19:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I Wasn't talking about gun control, I was talking about massive, blanket charges some of us are making on people who we disagree with. Mirroring Conservapedia. --Revolverman (talk) 20:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, yes, Doug Ritter does exemplify a core fallacy of the gun fetishists. When was the lats time the security of the United States, or any individual citizen thereof, depended on the "well regulated militia" they are so keen on arming, and what is the ratio of homicides to lives protected by said militia in the last five decades? JzG (talk) 23:25, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, we haven't had a citizen army since the draft went away. In the days when I ran a rifle range (and coached junior marksmen wearing Boy Scout uniforms) the Director of Civilian Marksmanship (DCM) provided mass quantities of rimfire ammunition for kids to practise with. That office now has a different acronym, but they might still be in the business of selling M1 Garand rifles and 1903 Springfields to those who want to hone their skills. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 23:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I think the problem is with gun culture, not with gun ownership. A bit like pr0n: harmless when used occasionally, but when it becomes an obsessive focus, there is something badly wrong. JzG (talk) 00:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Not interested in an argument, but let me use the words "ownership" and "culture" as an opportunity to bounce into the following:

"Gun ownership" in itself means nothing. "Basketball ownership" would not confer (certainly not on moi) the sudden ability to sink ten out of ten from mid-court. That's what target shooters would call a "possible," and getting to where that can happen takes cognizant training, careful attention, some serenity, and lots of patient practice. The culture I grew up in tried to foster those qualities, since that's what gets consistent results. I bet there are other lines of culture going on nowadays, who focus on machismo and hardware collecting. Those guys are not the ones I care to hang around with, and would probably not do well in a biathlon. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 00:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Tweet

(not mine, although I share the sentiment) "I just cannot understand a society where gun ownership is a universal right and healthcare is a privilege." Scream!! (talk) 13:38, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

All the "now they're angels" BS

<vent>It isn't a positive thing to say that that dead kids are angels. It's trying to put a positive spin on something that is just not positive. It's creepy and disgusting. Arrgh.</vent> sterile^{sporadic heavy hitter} 20:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

That's the sort of schmaltz that makes my toe-nails drop out. I guess people are trying to comfort the bereaved, but the sad fact is some nutter killed them and there's no bringing them back. What makes it worse is that because the guy shot himself there's not even any sense of seeing justice done. Breivik believed that he was making some point, gave himself up, and was then brought to justice, this Lanza guy killed himself so you are forced to ask what was the fucking point of it?  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 22:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, let people say they are angels. If it helps some of the bereaved deal with it, then it's good. Wider society will have to deal with the politics and questions in a more rational way. Ajkgordon (talk) 13:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Not wanting to be outdone

According to news sites; Westboro members announce that they are going to go picket the funeral/when obama is there. Also, some part of anonymous hacked contact and other info on group members in retaliation. --Mikal ^{Harass Follow} 23:12, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

In case anyone is still reading

This ad campaign says a lot about the insanity of gun culture. Q0 (talk) 22:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Déjà moo

Déjà moo: the uncanny feeling you've heard this bull before. JzG (talk) 07:28, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I've seen that saying in button form years ago. Next! Flatworms are fun! ^{Talk to me} 01:36, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Do Not Do

Ben Goldacre pointed at this a while back but I missed it: http://www.nice.org.uk/usingguidance/donotdorecommendations/index.jsp

This is a list of recommendations by NICE (who are the closest thing in the real world to Sarah Palin's "death panels") about clinical practices which have been observed or reported but which are either ineffective or lack any evidence. In the vast majority of cases these practices cost money, so eliminating them saves money yet there is no reduction (and may be an improvement) in the overall population's health because they don't work‡. This ought to be political gold - but instead we'll get another round of worthless promises to reduce "bureaucracy".

‡ Technically we're talking about clinical effectiveness, so they might "work" in some technical sense without there being any clinical reason to use them. e,g. some of the diagnostic tests do "work" in the sense that the results are most often true, but if the outcome of the test won't change the treatment decision then it's clinically ineffective. "The test came back, you have a PXV ratio of 14.6, that's as high as I feared. Well, the advice still stands, eat plenty of vegetables and don't watch Fox News". 82.69.171.94 (talk) 11:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Wrinkles

What is wrong with having wrinkles? Just watching the Pharma adverts on the media that suggest having wrinkles is a physical disability. Surely in a society that venerates old age we would all be trying to develop our creases. In a society that worships youth then you know what occurs. I presume that evolutionart biology rules here.. young is productive and good.. age is decrepid, closer to death and frowned upon... apart from when botox is the answer. Dirk Steele (talk) 20:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with having wrinkles, but neither is there with not wanting to have them (although i would say that our society's obsession with personal appearance and whatnot is unhealthy). Nihilist 23:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Its harder to score with the under 25 womens when you are old and wrinly, with graying hair and to be blunt, erectile issues. Luckily in the USA those can all be fixed with a pill, ointment or injection. Mist of the junk mail I get is how to increase the size of a penis, curing Low-T (whatever that is) or dying my hair. I just want to know who is saying these things about me. Hamster (talk) 23:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

We all are. Ajkgordon (talk) 23:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

"Atheist Census"

Have any of you participated in this? Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 22:21, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes. It was down for a few days, glad to see it back up. Humorless fascist^sociopath 22:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I've submitted my details. Looks like us girls are in the minority. According to the site they had DOS attack. Oh, those wicked religious types.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 22:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

1 in 4, I think that's an improvement. Blue (is useful) 22:55, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I've mixed opinions on leaving out a "race/ethnicity" option. I'm glad they left it out because there are no sub-species of Homo sapiens (at least since the Neanderthals and Denisovans were interbred into our ranks). On the other hand, it would've helped to provide some perspective on the stereotypical white male atheist. Anyway, I've took it. Why so high the concentration in the U.S.? Flatworms are fun! ^{Talk to me} 23:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Uh, probably because most of the respondents were in the U.S. Blue (is useful) 00:00, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Up until the site went down Brazil was in the lead. Humorless fascist^sociopath 00:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm curious as to what useful information you'll get from it. Being something that can only be completed virally, it's really only looking at the demographics of atheists who spent their time on atheist forums on the internet - and so will only result in you replicating the statistics of people who waste time online. It's the easiest way to give a false impression of all atheists mostly being highly educated white men under 35. ^{d hominem} 00:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

So why even have this at all? We already know from actual, government censuses the approximate number of atheists. Just wondering what useful information comes from this. Flatworms are fun! ^{Talk to me} 03:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Slacktivism will never lose its appeal among the internet generation. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 04:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Shrug. I guess it helps promote the Atheist Alliance International. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 08:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I suppose the "religious background" question is useful and, in theory, shouldn't be too subject to selection bias. But it doesn't really break it down far enough to reflect actual realities. Is my background CofE or "none"? Someone who had vaguely religious parents but didn't care, and someone who was forced to Church every Sunday would tick the same box - but that's not the same upbringing by any measure. ^pathetic 13:34, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

"Someone who had vaguely religious parents but didn't care, and someone who was forced to Church every Sunday would tick the same box - but that's not the same upbringing by any measure." Welcome to social science surveys. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 14:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

"Okay, so what questions do we need to ask in order to get the result we want?" ^{d hominem} 11:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

22nd of December

What do you think will happen in the aftermath? The usual? Or maybe something different... this might have been asked before as well. Man of Perspective (talk) 11:06, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

It will be a Saturday. I expect to wake up bright and early, and maybe play some SC2. Unlike the day before I will not wake to a barrage of text messages congratulating me on having remained alive for another year. So that's something. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 11:34, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The apocalypse will happen, catching everyone off guard.

as long as Teh Great Turtle (bbhn) does not get frightened and swim off all will be well. Hamster (talk) 23:28, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

sleep in, rub one out, go over Christmas cooking stock (again), try and get some writing done. In terms of actual results, I think the only thing to fear is, as NASA said, suicides. It'll be interesting to see religious moderates experience life as an atheist for a day all over again. I think it's picked a great time to happen if it does, I finish The Witcher 2 today and I'm probably just going to dick around on Skyrim until I get my capture card for Christmas before I actually start another game. Polite Timesplitter ^{talk to me sugar, but best keep it on the}_down-low 10:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Is this why the NRA still isn't saying anything yet about the school shooting?

Dammit, it was before the shooting. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 18:44, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Chilling paranoid thought about the shooting

What if Adam Lanza was an antigun liberal who was insanely trying to prove a point, and destroyed his hard drives to hide posts made in favor of gun control? The debate would be set back for decades if that's what they recover from his hard drives. It's completely paranoid and unfounded, but damn would that suck ass if it were true.--"Shut up, Brx." 19:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

What if Batman fought superman! And if batman was a robot, and superman was 20 feet tall! --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

that is fucking retarded, Brx. Aceⁱ⁹ 19:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

What if a randomly selected edit button on a randomly selected MediaWiki site hooked up to NORAD and the Russian Dead Hand system and caused an apocalypse? What if someone pushed it on the 21st?! ^{d hominem} 19:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

"Shut up, Brx." --Seth Peck (talk) 19:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

What if Deckard only dreamt about the unicorn because he'd been a blade runner too long and it was playing on his mind? Sophie^Wilder 20:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

More to the point, what if he dreamt about the unicorn because he saw Gaff's "How To Origami" book lying open to that page earlier in the day? Dreams are funny things. --Kels (talk) 01:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

DECKARD WAS A REPLICANT. Fan theory go! Osaka Sun (talk) 05:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

What if I had another drink? Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 20:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

What if you had TWO more drinks? You ever consider that? --Kels (talk) 01:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Christ you people are stiff--"Shut up, Brx." 20:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

No, it's just your ridiculous statement is not worth concerned consideration. Aceⁱ⁹ 21:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm actually stiff right now. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 21:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, that argument will be used by some truly dumb people out there. When the Deepwater Horizon blew up El Rushbo claimed it was environmentalists that conspired to do it. So don't propagate it. Osaka Sun (talk) 01:07, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

So in other words it takes a self-absorbed shit-for-brains to come up with and idea that stupid and defend it. 03:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

That's Brx. Osaka Sun (talk) 05:24, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

RWW

Does anyone know where the data dump for it is?Percival^Weasley 01:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Humorless fascist^sociopath 01:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

In my pants. Also, your signature probably shouldn't look like that in the edit bix. Use a template, maybe? Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 01:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Favourite non-avian dinosaur?

Read the title. Personally, I'm a really big fan of the Euparkeria. The first is always the best ;-) What about you? Flatworms are fun! ^{Talk to me} 03:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I like the one that Fred used as a slide in the opening credits of the Flintstones - brontesaurus perhaps? Its good to see you again Kid, asking the tough questions again as always. --Damo^Hi 06:03, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Isn't Euparkeria too early to be a true dinosaur? Peter ^{Subsisting on honey} 07:58, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Whichever one Adam and Eve had as a pet. Sam ^Tally-ho! 08:18, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Pink Floyd. Sophie^Wilder 08:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I feel sympathy for Brontosaurus because it's been airbrushed out of history.--Bob^{"I thought this was supposed to be "Rational" Wiki?."} 09:25, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

It's a shame "Brontosaurus" is now taken — "Thunder lizard" is a great name a dinosaur. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 10:38, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Not if it's given as a tribute to the amount of vegetable matter it had to digest…I'll leave you with that thought.-- ^{Jabba de Chops} 11:21, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

In point of fact "Brontosaurus" is not taken. There is no dinosaur which officially carries that name. That was my point above.--Bob^{"I thought this was supposed to be "Rational" Wiki?."} 12:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

That was your point above, and what it was too. Ahem. Sophie^Wilder 13:21, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, I glad that's clear then.--Bob^{"I thought this was supposed to be "Rational" Wiki?."} 13:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Tragic, because I used to have a theory about Brontosauruses. Ann Elk^{I like the thick bits} 14:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Albertosaurus Humorless fascist^sociopath 14:33, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Eh, I suppose it depends on how you define "dinosaur". It's either a basal ruling reptile (i.e, archosaur) or it's along the dinosaur/avian lineage. It's of the right time and morphology, and I've seen some texts use the informal taxon "thecodont" to describe it. Flatworms are fun! ^{Talk to me} 13:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

In the 1960s there was a full sized fiberglass model of a Triceratops on the national mall. the green patch between the US Capitol and the Washington Monument. We lived in northern Virginia at the time, and I enjoyed day-trips into DC. These days it seems Triceratops is another dinosaur of uncertain nomenclature, but we called that one Uncle Beasley. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 16:11, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh! Oh! Gastonia! Gastonia Is my favorite! Allosaurus is a close second, though... but that's a theropod, which might be too close to birds for this discussion? Although Allosauridae are not the ancestors of birds, Allosauridae are not even coelursaurids... Sorry, I like dinosaurs. :D ±KnightOfTL;DR^{critical thinking is the key to success!} 20:02, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

See title. Non-avian dinosaur. All birds are dinosaurs, but not all dinosaurs are birds. Theropods, provided they aren't true birds, are OK. Phylogenetics FTW. Flatworms are fun! ^{Talk to me} 23:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

That's an arbitrary distinction, created by the dinofascists. Anyway, the correct answer is a tossup between diplodicus and microraptor. Peter ^{Subsisting on honey} 00:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The distinction is so nobody says their favourite dinosaur is a penguin or something like that. Nested hierarchy != arbitrary distinction. Birds are dinosaurs. Dinosaurs are not necessarily birds. The distinction between synapsid and mammal is equally "arbitrary", Peter. A helpful diagram. (Also, it's spelled "Diplodocus.") To end on a positive note, yes, Microraptor is awesome. Flatworms are fun! ^{Talk to me} 02:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

My daughter's favourite is Parasaurolophus. She has three parasaurolophus cuddly toys. And she likes that they went HOOOOOOOOOONK - David Gerard (talk) 21:45, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I used to love Pachycephalosaurus as a little kid. Got a rainbow-coloured one at the Field Museum when I went there aged 4. May still have it around in the recesses of my study.... Dammit, you've added to my real-life list of shit to do! Flatworms are fun! ^{Talk to me} 23:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

My childhood favourite was ankylosaurus, with the mace-like tail. Not really sure why, but it appealed to me quite a lot. --Kels (talk) 04:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Yay Ankylosaurus! I made one in school pottery class in 1976 but it broke in the kiln :( Sophie^Wilder 11:16, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

It's not a dinosaur in either sense of the word, but I made a woolly mammoth out of clay once. It's a bit cracked, but I still have it today. Flatworms are fun! ^{Talk to me} 14:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Mammoths are cool because they are the only remaining source of legal ivory world-wide. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 15:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• Triceratops Andrewski, named after Roy Chapman Andrews. Since Chapman is my surname and André my middle name, it would be wrong to favour any other. JzG (talk) 23:55, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Does that mean your first name is Triceratops? Sophie^Wilder 08:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

If I ever met someone named Triceratops André Chapman, I'd ask them if their parents ever loved them. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 11:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I know a bloke whose nickname is tripod, does that count? JzG (talk) 16:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I've always had a weakness for the plesiosaurus. --"Shut up, Brx." 23:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The pleisosaurs were not dinosaurs. The two belong to different infraclasses. Flatworms are fun! ^{Talk to me} 01:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Break my heart, why don't you. Fine, then my favorite is either the velociraptor or the deinonychus --"Shut up, Brx." 03:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

But they weren't non-avian :) Sophie^Wilder 10:22, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

It depends on how you define "bird", I suppose. It's really frustrating for me when I have to deal with definitions of groups that have "that have characteristic X, or are descended from those with characteristic X". For class Aves, X would be flight. It always leaves the taste in my mouth of "this is the best we have? Nothing that they all have in common?" It's really frustrating when you have to deal with parasites or deformities. The joys of phylogeny! Flatworms are fun! ^{Talk to me} 01:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

UPDATE: I think I've an idea of how birds can be set apart from raptors (an evolutionary grade due to birds); birds (inc. Archaeopteryx) have bird-like (duh) hips, while the raptors and other non-Aves Aviales had lizard hips. I think this is valid, could someone correct me if I'm wrong? (I.e., are there any dromaeosaurs with bird hips?) Flatworms are fun! ^{Talk to me} 17:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Hips? You mean the bird-hipped and lizard-hipped dinosaurs? Well, um, the lizard-hipped dinosaurs were more closely related to birds than the bird-hipped dinosaurs were. You may find the cladistic point at Paraves. Sophie^Wilder 18:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Interesting...

Always liked Brian May, and mostly liked Patrick Moore (he doesn't get the full like as he did have some fairly palaeolithic views about women), so this story was good to read, even though it's the DM.-- ^{Jabba de Chops} 16:00, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Is that guy seriously wearing a monocle? Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 16:04, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Hey, he was famous for them. He was one of the last true eccentrics that makes Britain, Britain.-- ^{Jabba de Chops} 16:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

He came to present at my school back in 1975 or thereabouts. Amazing character. And GOY Mr May. Ajkgordon (talk) 19:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Careful, Patrick Moore was a legend. He presented The Sky At Night on TV for over 50 years, only missing, as far as I can tell, one show, due to illness. That is a record, and a hell of a record. He also played the xylophone rather well. And he was at one time the finance minister of the Official Monster Raving Loony Party. In short, he was a British institution, as beloved as Auntie Beeb herself. And on the subject of British institutions, I would like to take this opportunity to say ALLEZ WIGGO! as loudly as possible without causing an unseemly exhibition. JzG (talk) 22:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

If you want to talk about chauvinistic British eccentrics, there is another. ^{d hominem} 00:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

For a third, there's wp:Philip Mountbatten, although he was originally a furriner. CS Miller (talk) 01:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, he's just fucknut crazy hilarious. ^postate 12:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Chauvinistic? Well, perhaps. But he was a product of his time. Though he was instrumental in inspiring many a female scientist, including this one. Ajkgordon (talk) 14:00, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, it would be a historical fallacy to pass judgement on him for those attitudes. I'm sure in 2155 when we're all vegetarian, all of us who have shoved a burger in our mouths on occasion will look equally pathetic. Still, it's a fair assessment to describe him as such when his opinion essentially was "men and women should have separate TV channels so the women don't dumb us down". ^{d hominem} 14:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Dear Adobe Flash Player Plug In installer,

Why do you need to update every week? I mean, Flash is installed, right? If that's done, why do you, as an installer, still have a job? Moreover, what the hell is going on with you that you seem need to update more often than I get a haircut? Hugs and kisses, ToP Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 13:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

That guy? Shit. He kept popping up saying useless stuff so I blocked him as a troll. He can't reply. Sorry. Ajkgordon (talk) 14:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Is this the Adobe AIR installer that I've only ever seen work to update Abobe AIR and nothing else? ^sshole 14:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

As a tip for anyone reading, you can stop updaters and other useless shit from auto-starting on Windows by using the Services viewer. Nihilist 15:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

That seems like an extraordinarily bad idea. I bet a lot of those updates are security updates, so if you use flash, and don't want viruses, you probably want to leave that on. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 22:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Not using Widows. Ubuntu. And it's not Flash, it's the installer for Flash. (?) Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 22:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind. I stand corrected. (Still, just because you're not windows doesn't make you immune to viruses.) LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 22:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

That much I know. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 22:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

You can still update manually, and Firefox tells me if my plugins are in need of an update. Nihilist 22:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

If you mean the flashplugin-installer package, this is just a naming quirk. Installing each new version of flashplugin-installer actually installs a new version of Flash, not just a new version of the installer. It's called that way because the package itself doesn't contain the Flash runtime due to legal reasons; it's downloaded directly from Adobe when the package's post-installation script is executed. --Tweenk (talk) 02:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that! Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 04:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Far too old for WIGO, so I'll just slap it here.

Hoo boy, I'm glad I looked up to see that '2011' at the top of the page. So, I'm just after starting the day by clicking on Zinnia Jones' new vlog (Zinnia, y u no anything about Sandy Hook and Fischer / Huckabee yet?), and have yet to actually watch - as usual, I open the description box to look at sources et al, and the first thing on the list is what she's discussing.

It's part of a 2011 series in The Stranger called "You're Doing it Wrong" in which various writers have a go at LGBTQAyougettheidea subgroups for being counter-productive (bizarrely, it doesn't seem to have a piece on the pride parade crowd or "fems", which would probably be the first to come to the minds of many people). There were some particularly great reads, two caught my eye as (over-)ripe WIGO clogosphere material.

Seeing the word "bisexuals" in such close proximity to the words "Dan Savage" will always set alarm bells ringing, and the whole column is essentially "I'm not biphobic, but...". It rings of the usual Savage condescension and distrust of bi people, "but it's okay, because I just think it instead of saying it to their face, then go tell kinsey sixes to avoid them entirely". Ugh. It's not "Check your privilege, bro" it's just "stop being a prick".

The other, which Zinnia linked to, is about trans activists regarding children. Though obviously you can lend some wiggle room because, alongside trans disclosure, it's something that takes a little time to get one's head around (I've been thinking about trans disclosure and money-free economies for about three weeks solid now). The main problem is the opening. "How are trans people different to people who think they're an animal / a different race / an inanimate object?" And right after that's done, she says she isn't making that comparison. Then why is the fucking paragraph there in the first place if that's not what you mean, a paragraph that's going to instantly turn a great many people off your article? It's beyond "I'm not racist, but...", it's more like "I hate darkies. Oh, and I'm not racist."

</wall> Polite Timesplitter ^{talk to me sugar, but best keep it on the}_down-low 11:16, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's distrust of bi people, but more distrust of teenagers that's going on there in Savage's column. Nothing new there, we have plenty of users who are now bleeding liberal but were Ayn Rand fans growing up. Sexual identity as you mature is malleable. Perhaps it's a terminology problem because if he used "bi-curious" people would accept that malleability, and indeed, that's what that term is there for - for some bizarre reason, it'd be easier for me to count the number of people I knew aged 16-24 that were definitely straight than it would be to count the number that professed to being bi-curious (none of whom, now we're rocketing towards our late twenties, have ended up in anything other than heterosexual long-term relationships). Maybe he over-extends this by drawing unnecessary dividing lines, though. It's disingenuous at best to draw up an Us & Them mentality when your entire point rests upon fluidity. ^narchist 11:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it follows from the fact that most people end up in heterosexual long-term relationships that their sexual identity has changed. One of the things that apparently happens when people get older is that "Woohoo! Sex feels awesome" fades a little bit compared to "Yay, my partner made pie". The person you would like to be with when you're feeling tip-top and both looking gorgeous is probably not the same person you want spooning soup into your mouth when you have flu or helping you clean baby pee off things after a friend's newborn has an "accident". And I have heard the same thing from guys and girls, "Oh, I liked the sex with (people of my own gender) but they were so annoying the rest of the time". Unless - as with the various Republicans who've ranted against a "gay agenda" while also having secret extra-marital homosexual affairs - you're involved in public hypocrisy I see no problem with a contrast between your professed sexual identity and your day-to-day behaviour. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 12:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

What percentage of people who profess bisexuality or bicuriosity aged 16 would you expect to end up in same-sex long-term relationships if their preferences didn't change? Putting a reasonable guesstimate on that and contrasting with the statistics would make it follow quite well. Promiscuity (usually) gives way to stable relationships with age, but it doesn't follow that bisexual promiscuity gives way to predominantly heterosexual long-term relationships unless the nature of the bisexual identity lies far from a 50:50 attraction (which is a slightly straw man, but let's presume an average position on a Kinsey-like scale). This is perfectly plausible, and inline with fluidity and the general sense of these terms being poorly defined - but what use is declaring a bisexual identity when the attraction is only 95:5? ^narchist 20:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Which is why I find the link between sexual orientation/sexual preference and identity a weird thing. I get the idea that people need to create identities around their sexualities because they are discriminated against/victimized/targeted because of those sexualities, and so there becomes the need to stake out identity as a base from which to contest that oppression. On the other hand, by turning sexuality into identity, it reifies the very thing that is being used to classify people and make them into targets. Maybe it would be a better move to undo the classification-by-sexuality thing altogether and just accept the fact that people's sexual choices are 1. complicated and hard to fit into clear and distinct catefories and 2. completely fucking irrelevant to what rights they should or should not enjoy. As Haili Selassie said, "until the colour of a man's skin is of no more significance than the colour of his eyes..." Until who you like to fuck is of no more significance than what you lie to eat.... Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 20:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, I'm not a fan of "identity" for much the same reason. But then again, I don't think we're part of those re/oppressed demographics (unless you count persecution for being an atheist, but I think that's something else entirely) so won't see the need for these unifying identities occurring in the same way that others would. In that respect, making it irrelevant is nice, but is unlikely to actually happen because there's no way to get there from here (see how they treat homosexuality in Caprica, you'd love it). ^sshole 23:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The reason to call out bisexuality at all, whereas we don't have a label (I think?) for people who won't eat cooked cheese is that it turned out, just as in some places a kid with one black parent and one white parent gets picked on far worse than kids who are black or those who are white, that people who sleep with both sexes are often distrusted by both straight and gay people. There is a suspicion that they must really be one or the other and so you're being played for a fool. Which is a pretty screwed up way to think about sex, but it's not as though screwed up thinking about sex is novel.

To answer Armondikov's point, I suspect there's no way you could get any confidence about this without doing something incredibly unethical or inventing some science fiction device or other. But I will point out that your statistics seem flawed. Relationships, especially ones that last beyond breakfast the next morning, are a two-way thing. This means that if Gemma is equally attracted to Susan and Mark, statistically she is more likely to get somewhere with Mark, because, again statisticaly, he's more likely to be attracted to her than Susan is. Over a population you could easily see an effect like that pushing the number of bisexual people who end up in a long-term heterosexual relationship past the threshold where it seems intuitively anomalous, without anything going on except the effect I just described. See ? 82.69.171.94 (talk) 22:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

If you statistical push was a deciding factor, then how come same-sex relationships among those who identify as exclusively homosexual actually occur? ^theist 23:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Huh? Pretend it's not sexuality if that makes it easier. Two people, Beth and Lisa are both given bags full of hundreds of balls which are roughly an even mixture of red balls and green balls. Each ball can be opened to reveal a number between 1 and 10, the red balls are heavily biased towards higher numbers, the green balls biased towards lower numbers, but every possible number is present in at least one ball of each colour. Each person may reach into their bag and draw out balls one at a time, either discarding or opening them, and once they open a ball with a nine or ten, they win a mediocre prize. Lisa insists on opening only green balls. She ignores the red balls in her bag entirely, and it takes quite a few tries but she eventually opens a green ball with a nine in it. Hooray for Lisa. Chance Lisa's "winning" ball was green? 100%. Beth opens balls without preference, after only a few tries she too opens a ball with a high number in it and gets a prize. Chance Beth's winning ball was green? Far lower than 50% because of the bias mentioned earlier, even though Beth herself didn't care which colour the balls were.

Does it make sense now? The balls represent possible partners for our two people. Red balls are men, green balls are women, the bag is a social group surrounding our young single people. The numbers represent a crude probability that they'd find either Lisa or Beth attractive. Lisa is a lesbian, she's not interested in the men. So even though most women aren't interested in Lisa, she keeps trying until she finds a woman who is and they have a perfectly adequate but ordinary relationship (the "prize"). Beth is bisexual, she is trying both men and women. It is therefore more likely that she'll end up with a man as her "prize" even though in some sense it makes no difference to her. Did that help at all? No? 82.69.171.94 (talk) 01:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Obviously, and you don't need over-contrived ball-based thought experiments that demonstrate it - but it only comes out that way because you've introduced an intentional bias into the system at the beginning. We accept that bisexuality has this skewed preference, and people identifying as bisexual probably only have a 90:10 attraction or something like that. The point is what is the need to identify as "bisexual" and imply that it's closer to 50:50 when your actual preference is so highly skewed in the first instance? Identity politics over it just denies the fluidity of real-world preferences. All Savage points out above is that you're going to be more sure about what that skew is and be more aware of its qualitative nature aged 26 than 16. ^sshole 12:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

In this case, isn't identifying as bisexual be an attempt to avoid identity politics and recognize the fluidity of real-world preferences? Or is there something in your post I'm missing? — Unsigned, by: ORavenhurst / talk^{Do You Believe That?} 13:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Good point, though some might argue that the "bi" in "bisexual" reinforces the idea of two and only two discrete genders. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 13:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

It's a poorly defined catch-all, which is the problem. If you wanted "bisexual" to imply fluidity, then everyone would be bisexual. Would the "man crush" I apparently have on Brian Cox count as bisexuality, for instance? That's certainly on the spectrum, granted at the very fringes. It certainly doesn't mean the same thing as someone willing to have sex and have a relationship with either men or women with near equality - nor is it the same thing as people who are attracted to those who identify as male but are not necessarily DMAB (continuum fallacy, of course). It doesn't necessarily mean the same thing to one half the conversation as it means to the other, which is the cause of the problem. ^narchist 14:38, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Obviously not. Try reading the example again. Pay attention this time. Beth does not have a 90:10 attraction, she is equally interested in men and women. What makes the difference is that men and women are not equally interested in her. If Bisexuals were an alien species who lived on a planet populated only by other bisexuals that wouldn't matter. But they aren't, they are humans just like us, inhabiting this world where most people are more or less straight. Since this is about getting people to understand statistics rather than sex (about which I frankly don't care that much) I am willing to keep explaining this until you understand. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 21:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Pardon my language, but...

What the fuck kind of world are we living in when there's even a market for bulletproof gear for children?

Professor Farnsworth really sums up how I feel. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 17:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

If I was a kid, and you gave me something you said was bullet-proof, well the first thing I'd do is find some fucking bullets. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Eh, people brought personal escape parachutes so they could base jump from their office towers after 9/11. I wonder how many of those people still take them to work today? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:22, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

That's mostly retarded because unless you're a seriously experienced skydiver (they recommend something like a minimum of 1000 jumps before you even consider BASE), jumping from an office block is more likely to kill you than fighting your way through burning floors to get to the ground the normal way.

As for jackets, there's no such thing as "bulletproof". At best these things would stop shrapnel getting at your internal organs. Someone opens fire with even a fairly low powered handgun at the range you expect from a shooting like this and it will tear through anything but the heaviest military-grade armour with ceramic sniper plates in place (I've had the pleasure of wearing that stuff before, there's no way they've loaded stuff that good into a kids backpack). The movies where you see people taking machine gun hits because they're wearing kevlar? Bullshit. At best, you get struck by a stray bullet at a low enough velocity not to pierce it and you break all your ribs. Selling them for kids (and indeed the other example of parachutes) is selling such a false sense of security I'd consider it all a scam. ^narchist 23:25, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

you need to hook the static line from the chute to something solid, throw a chair through a window and then jump out. The line will open your chute and you drift gently to earth. What could possibly go wrong ? Hamster (talk) 00:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, for a start the fact that high-rise buildings have toughened safety glass that I've seen someone drop a car onto to make a point. So you need more than the chair. ^{d hominem} 00:07, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Easy-peasy, just arm office workers with shaped charges to blow out the windows. There's no way this plan can go wrong! Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 01:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Let it snow!

RationalWiki nativity.
Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:49, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

It's getting on that time of year again. When is it going to snow on the RW logo? Javasca₧ do do da de do da de 22:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Do we have to? Nihilist 23:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Because the people who would object to it are the sort of people I would love to piss off. Let's add a tree and a nativity scene while we're at it. ^{d hominem} 23:16, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I was going to say that it still snows on the masturbation article, but apparently that isn't the case either. Prudes... Vulpius (talk) 23:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, in fairness, that gif was horrifically tasteless. ^sshole 00:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Why were you licking your monitor in the first place? --Kels (talk) 01:23, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Ba-dum tish! ^bomination 12:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Hat NOW

Hat! Hat! Hat! Hat! Hat! Hat! Hat! Hat! Hat! Hat! Hat! Hat! Hat! Hat! Hat! Hat! Hat! Hat! Hat! Hat! Hat! Hat! Hat! Hat! Hat! Hat! Hat! Hat! Hat! Hat! Hat! Hat! Hat! Hat! Hat! Hat! Hat! Hat! Hat! Hat! Hat! Hat! Hat! Hat! Hat! Hat! Hat! Hat! Hat! (three hours later) Hat! Hat! Hat! Hat! Hat! Hat! Hat! Hat! Hat! Hat! Hat! Hat! Hat! Hat! Hat! Hat! Hat! Hat! Hat! Hat! Hat! Hat! Hat! Hat! Hat! Hat! Hat! Hat! Hat! Hat! Hat! Hat! Hat! Hat! Hat! Hat! Hat! Hat! Hat! Hat! Hat! Hat! Hat! Hat!

Sophie^Wilder 10:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

HAT. Osaka Sun (talk) 11:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

hat. - David Gerard (talk) 12:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Obligatory. DickTurpis (talk) 16:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

And so this is Saturnalia. And what have you done?

The next question is when the hat comes down. January 6th is a bit long. December 27th? Later? KEEP IT UP ALL YEAR? - David Gerard (talk) 21:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

it's got to come down by twelfth night or it's bad luck. Sophie^Wilder 22:28, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Therefore, never take it down. Or take it down on Day 13. Flatworms are fun! ^{Talk to me} 01:13, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

About the Mayans...

There is a very real chance that Gangnam Style could reach 1 billion views by December 21. Osaka Sun (talk) 07:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I have yet to watch it. I shall continue to endeavor to do so. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 14:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Forget the Mayans, this could be relevant to the book of Revelation. YouTube view counters are the new Mark of the Beast! Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 08:12, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

It gets even sicker

(Just read this on Jerry Coyne's WEIT blog.) Ken Demyer's favourite apologist William Lane Craig, argues that the Sandy Hook shooting is comparable with Herod's Massacre of the Innocents and is God's way of reminding us of the "Miracle of Christmas". Video here. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 16:24, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

It's really hard to mask the contempt I have for William Lane Craig. ^{d hominem} 16:44, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

As the saying goes, nothing says "Merry Christmas" like a pile of corpses. DickTurpis (talk) 16:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

WLC needs a box of decorated sugar cookies. Hamster (talk) 23:08, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

You misspelled "defecated." Doctor Dark (talk) 03:11, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

De mortuis nil nisi bonum

Robert Bork is dead. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 16:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Here's the most enlightening commentary I've found on the subject today. Q0 (talk) 19:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Faith in Video Games

James Portnow and Daniel Floyd of Extra Credits wonders why faith isn't talked about very much in video games, and makes all the standard "science is a religion" fallacies in the process: starting off with claiming "all science comes from faith", wondering why they can't reconcile their differences in video games, and ending with an Einstein quote mine.

As for the topic itself, I'm not sure why video games need to give any more legitimacy to faith given all the literature, television and movies that already do so. The VG industry and community have problems coming out of the woodwork, but not having enough proselytizing games is not one of them. If anything, I could just as easily argue they have the opposite problem: not enough games willing to really call out religion and faith on their bullshit. --CoyoteSans (talk) 18:43, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

There's as much faith in video games as you'll find in Hollywood films: as much as the public expects. So there's no lack of it whatsoever, nor is there too much--"Shut up, Brx." 19:38, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Depends on the set of video games are you are looking at. In any case I doubt it has anything to do with what the public expects and more what they are prepared to buy. The classic gamer probably didn't expect time travel in Cannon Fodder 2 but they still purchased the thing.Geni (talk) 20:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

proselytizing games exist (they tend towards sucking or being clones with religion tacked on that still aren't very good) but you rather miss the point of what is being covered. The argument is that we don't see faith being used as a narrative concept beyond the must superficial level. Which is pretty much true. In fairness I suspect its because in most cases it would make for a pretty boring game. Most game players aren't going to be too concerned if generic Muslim No.240293 they just shot was wrestling with his deen. For must the same reason we get a pretty superficial treatment of science in games. The player wants the scientist to give them the widget not 3 years worth of papers on the subject of the widget.Geni (talk) 20:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

People talk about Faith all the time in Mirror's Edge. X Stickman (talk) 21:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

To be pedantic, science is an axiomatic belief system. That is, it is based on axioms, assertions made by fiat, no justification given nor offered. "Faith" seems like a good a word as any to describe that. Of course, our "faith" is right, their faith is bullshit, and that's all there really is to the conversation. Frequently, they will try to imply that any particular fact known by science is a faith position, as opposed to merely inductive reasoning, the scientific method, etc., and that's when they go into full bullshit territory. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 22:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

True, but literally anything other than 100 per cent pure agnosticism about anything and everything other than maths and logic can be counted as an "axiomatic belief system". Brain in a vat, anyone? Flatworms are fun! ^{Talk to me} 22:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Two words: Assassin's Creed. --Seth Peck (talk) 22:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

One word: Doom. With a storyline of - 'tinkering with science has opened a portal to Hell!!! Bwahaahaahaa!!!!' Doom managed to tick both boxes.-- ^{Jabba de Chops} 00:43, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I see Religion (Or better, organized religion) being called out in a lot of the games (Japanese RPG's), i play; so it must just be a problem of not looking in the right place. Also, doom is pro-Satan, didn't you know that? --Mikal ^{Harass Follow} 01:09, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Post-Newtown shooting school cancellations; is this a thing?

From the Michigan Public Radio Facebook page: "Genesee County schools and Lapeer Community Schools have announced they will close for the rest of the week. From the Genesee Co. ISD website: "Our communities are anxious, parents are concerned about the safety of their children, there are rumors that have multiplied as a result of social media, and there are threats within local districts that bring pause as to whether conducting classes would be appropriate.... Our conclusion is that canceling school is the appropriate thing to do."" Is this kind of thing happening near you? EOdit: To be clear, this is in Michigan, nowhere near the shootings. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 03:46, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I live ~30 miles from Newtown and my younger siblings go to the public high school. Police presence around campus was apparently increased, but no cancellations of anything. Blue (pester) 03:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

We've received a non credible gun threat for Friday. The school plans to increase police presence and a bunch of kids are freaked out, but I'm not staying home. This is all madness, I tell you.--P3A58NT86 04:09, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

If A shooting in one of the highschools in my school district wasn't enough to close school, a shooting across the country won't be. --Mikal ^{Harass Follow} 04:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

It gets weirder: "UPDATE: Our latest information is that ALL public schools in Genesee and Lapeer Counties are closed for the remainder of the week due to social media rumors of a "student revolt" combined with the Mayan calendar ending on Friday. Authorities believe the rumors are completely without merit, but many students and parents are anxious and concerned about safety. School officials say "canceling school is the appropriate thing to do."" Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 04:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I live in wisconsin and we are preparing for blizzrd conditions thursday and friday so a lot of schools , businesses and government offices are closing. Nothing related to the shootings though. Its probably better to take a few days off , have christmas and tehn get back to work, than lose the time anyway with freaked out kids. Hamster (talk) 04:45, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Just because you're paranoid...

Richard Stallman seems to have gone off the deep end. I'm sure he has some good points about companies installing malware (Apple bundling in all its crap whenever you even think about using Quicktime codecs, for instance) but he's going well into paranoid lunatic territory (there's even a picture of him on a street corner in a sandwich board, furfuxsake) when the interview says "well, tell me about this malware" and he gives zero in the way of specifics. Don't use Facebook? What, exactly, can Facebook do to you? All you do is stick random shite you think is funny on there, it's not like you're forced to sign up with bank details, identity numbers and to paste your address everywhere. It's more like saying "IT'S NOT OPEN SOURCE! FEAR IT! FEAR IT! FEAR IT!!!". ^narchist 12:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

"One of the greatest hackers of all time"? I think they mean "hack." He regularly assumes sole credit for "creating" emacs, when it was worked on as a team project. His pet foundation desperately staples his pet causes onto the most successful FOSS project there is (Linux). His magnum opus (the HURD kernel) is a miserable failure with no relevance. He vainly tries to police language to an Orwellian degree. And for a man so concerned about principles and freedom, it's abundantly clear he has no idea how people actually work. He is a hack, marginalized by the greater FOSS movement for damn good reasons, but inexplicably still worshipped by a devoted contingent of fanatics. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 13:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

He's to be commended for his stance on software liberty; it's an important issue for a number of reasons (see: Cisco Cloud Connect fiasco and the inability to run dd-wrt on the affected routers). But Stallman seems incapable of understanding that people can make informed decisions to use this or that technology. I'm typing this on an Android tablet right now, but my main computer and server are both Macs and I also use an iPod. I know what I'm doing, and although I'm a big open source fan, and choose a FOSS app whenever it suits my purposes, excessive dogmatism in Stallman's vein ultimately benefits no one. Not that Eric Raymond is any better; he's just as batshit as Stallman, but in more socially acceptable ways. (Raymond is of course some mix of neocon, anarcho-capitalist, and white Supremacist; Stallman is hardcore socialist; all that really proves is that extremists have more in common with each other than they do their political allies. I prefer the pragmatic Linus Torvalds approach.) EVDebs (talk) 22:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I've recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX.

Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is often called "Linux", and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project. There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine's resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so-called "Linux" distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux. ^{— Unsigned, by: Richard Stallman / talk / contribs 2012-12-17T23:26:09}

I thought that language post had some decent points in it until I saw the sheer scale of the list... wow. ^theist 13:28, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

But Stallman seems incapable of understanding that people can make informed decisions to use this or that technology. - I haven't read much of anything he's written or said, but it is true that a vast majority of people who regularly use facebook, who use the internet, etc., I would call computer illiterate. I could and have made the same argument that it's a good thing that the FDA decides which foodstuffs, medicines, etc., are safe to eat vs not. Most people are simply not competent to make that judgment - myself included - and we benefit when someone qualified makes that judgment for us. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 04:09, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

You will all regret when the illuminati grabs power. --Henk (talk) 21:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Stallman is a radical. It would be extraordinary if you looked at Stallman and said "There's a perfectly reasonable middle-of-the-road guy" because that would suggest that his radical policies have become so ordinary that they don't stand out at all. He's also a bunch of other things, a smelly, inconsiderate old man, a thoughtless guest, and so on. But then doubtless there's a laundry list of things people didn't like about Franklin and I know for sure that people vehemently hate Thatcher. People can be radicals and yet successfully lead more moderate people to do important, world changing things. The claim by EVDebs that his dogmatism "ultimately benefits no one" is false. Stallman's dogmatism got us where we are now with software copyleft and indirectly also inspiring copyleft movements outside programming too (that's what CC-BY-SA is). Without Stallman the extent of Free Software would have been a weak BSD-style movement that most likely gets swallowed up entirely in the mid-1990s as big vendors (both the old UNIX vendors and Microsoft) sucked up all the free stuff and gave nothing back. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 01:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I feel about the guy. I keep hearing how he's this crazy guy, but from what little I read, he seems like a pretty cool guy. His essay on copyright seems especially cogent (minus the part where "it's obvious" that the music industry could survive in any appreciable way with Napster in full force). LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 04:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Stallman is annoying, strident and socially inept and keeps being right about things. This is of course unforgivable - David Gerard (talk) 08:04, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Gaysdidit

In line with goddidit and flooddidit - do we need gaysdidit? ^moral 14:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, I just created the page. It's a stub at best, but I wanted to make sure we could say that, for our "gaysdidit" page, a gay did it. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 15:08, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Interesting...guess we should start by brainstorming things that hot sweaty man-love has "caused".

• 9 / 11 (Falwell, D'Souza)
• all secularism
• Sandy
• the Holocaust (Lively)
• Connecticut shooting (Huckabee)
• AIDS
• degeneration of culture
• Greece and Rome (funnily enough, Rome fell after adopting Christianity as a state religion..)
• being worse than murderers (can't remember the guy's name, he's on the American Taliban page)
• ...pretty much every natural disaster EVER, if you're Pat Robertson or Freddy.

Polite Timesplitter ^{talk to me sugar, but best keep it on the}_down-low 15:16, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't Gaysdidit just be a subset of Goddidit, considering that the people who support the "gaysdidit" viewpoint tend to use "god doesn't like gays so he's done (bad thing) to punish us for letting them exist"? It's not the gays that are doing the thing, it's god doing the thing because of the gays. X Stickman (talk) 21:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

^This. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 08:19, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Not necessarily (unashamedly backpedalling on some of my list ahoy!). I think it'd be best to decide what actually constitutes gaysdidit.

1. Gays actually did it: more a general conspiracy theory than in the context of Gaysdidit. E.g. holocaust, Lesbian gang epidemic, non-existent "decline of morality" (schools teaching "how to be a homo" comment), Greece, Rome.

2. Goddidit because gays / Satandidit: explaining entirely unrelated things by means of saying it's God's punishment for teh ghey a la Sodom and Gomorrah. Boils down to being mainly natural disasters.

3. Gaysprovokedit: This is what I guess Gaysdidit should be directed at. "X happened (not from a godly source) because gay rights are a thing". Examples: all cases of AIDS in the northern hemisphere, 11 Sept terror attacks because the terrorists hate us for not killing gays.

...List seems kinda short when you try to define 'gaysdidit', huh? ._. Polite Timesplitter ^{talk to me sugar, but best keep it on the}_down-low 14:40, 20 December 2012 (UTC)