RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive186

This is an archive page, last updated 16 January 2013. 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>, <183>, <184>, <185>, <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)

"Real first name and last initial."

Anyone here from Arizona? Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 03:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

There is actually a pretty funny parody account on Twitter of Rep. Ugenti, created just because of this bill she is trying to pass. I found out about this account by following another parody account. Aboriginal Noise ^{What the ...} 03:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't like these laws anyhow, cause people lie. I've been told by dates they are doctors, or french or whatever they think will impress. and if you are stupid, you believe them. (someone impersinating a doctor to give advice or drugs, is of course criminal - but it already is!). but i really don't like them when they are vague, and don't allow parody, sillyness, or whatever. --Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 03:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Florida and some states in New England already have stupid laws like this; what they're doing is really dumbing down what a felony is. I don't care if the one's pushing this are Republicans or Democrats, this is big government trying to dictate to us how to live and paint people as "felons" if they don't comply. They don't want any humor or culture in the world, they just want everyone to be bland and follow the government. In ten years, employers will probably stop even doing background checks. DMorris, on the EIP Network ^{1 855 282 2882} 15:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

A genuine tragedy at a Detroit airport

As a musician, I cried after I read about this. The airport personnel responsible should be hanged! Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 15:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Flying through the Michigan skies

with a song in my innocent heart

I placed myself in professional hands

Masters of the traveler's art

... It was about 1990 when I heard Tom Paxton at an outdoor folkie thing in Rhode Island, and he sang his song, "Thank You, Republic Airlines (For Breaking the Neck of My Guitar)" with the following tag lyric at the end:

There could no satisfaction greater than if

you should be the next to go the way of Braniff

Ouch. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 16:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. One: Gigging with your $10 000 1960's 335? Unless your name is Larry Carlton, you have no need to take that axe on the road. Buy an Epiphone or an Eastman to play at the bar for less than 1/10 the price and leave the vintage stuff at home. Two: Those Gibson cases will protect your guitar in the trunk of the car or if it falls down a short flight of stairs, but they aren't heavy duty at all. Taking your 1965 335 into the airport in anything else but a flight case/Anvil is begging for something this to happen. I don't care how many times they've let you check it plane-side/take it on the plane with you/whatever. If you fly often enough, you're gonna have to put it in the system eventually. Serves him right. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 19:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Wait wait wait wait. Detroit has an airport? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 19:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

It has several, if you count the big one (Detroit Metro) in Romulus, another one (Willow Run) in Ypsilanti, a repurposed naval field in Grosse Ile, and Detroit City Airport itself. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 21:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

who puts any instrument through the system without putting into some kind of "terminator" esqu armored case? that looked like the brown cardboard case which comes with my yamaha.Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 20:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree with comments above; it looks like the guy's been kindof careless. Plus this is a complete non-story: some repairable damage done to a guy's property & an ongoing dispute with airline re compensation/repair costs. Genuine tragedy indeed. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:38, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to disagree. Carrying string instruments (including irreplaceable golden era Italian violins) on airlines continues to be a problem. The powers that be have issued written pronouncements which musicians are advised to carry with them to wave under the noses of gate agents, but a few airline personnel continue to be dicks about it.

Repairs to vintage instruments are not guaranteed to restore the status quo ante, even when covered by insurance. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 21:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I've run into the same problem (though obviously not with anything nearly as valuable). I carry my guitar around in a soft padded case and take it onto the plane as carry-on. I have usually never had a problem, even when dealing with small airlines, but I was forced to check it flying home from Alaska and it was damaged. SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 21:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Some classical musicians buy their instrument a seat so that it doesn't get stowed. Генгис^{Gum disease} 22:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

He thought he was safe because he wasn't flying United. JzG (talk) 22:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Twenty kids get murdered in Connecticut, a woman is raped to death in India, a hurricane ravages the East Coast, and yet another stampede kills dozens in Cote D'Ivoire: you might want to take a second to understand why framing the demise of a moldy guitar as a "genuine tragedy" might ruffle some feathers--"Shut up, Brx." 01:01, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Brxbrx, my old friend.... It's called "hyperbole." Look it up! Conservative Punk (talk) 17:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Why not drag in the Armenian genocide as well, or maybe the Foxconn suicides? Think of all the other lamentable news flashes in between, which share the remarkable property of having nothing to do with the present topic. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 02:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't forget the massacre of the Jews in Cordoba in 1391. Sophie^Wilder 17:07, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Is the approved LRT system for my local area a good idea?

Waterloo Region, which is where I live in, is building a light rapid transit system but I think it is terrible idea. The north half of tri-cities (Kitchener, Waterloo) will get a rail line and the south half (Kitchener, Cambridge) will get rapid busses with rail line extension in the future.

Of course, cost is the main reason people opposing it as the region as well as the provincial and federal governments have budget restraints.

Another problem is the running of the rail line down a main street. I believe that the road will not be wide enough despite expropriating land and will cause more commuter headaches.

Currently, the region has bus service which includes a rapid bus line for this route and the LRT will be a separate entity from the existing transit system.--Cms13ca (talk) 15:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

What is the estimated rider volume? That is probably the most important number to know before you can decide if the line is a good idea.--^talk 19:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Waterloo Region Rapid Transit web site claims that daily passenger boardings on opening day in 2017 are expected to be around 27,000 and increase to about 56,000 by the year 2031. Grand River Transit which is the region's bus service has ridership of 40,000. Population of the three cities is about 500,000 and they claim it will 729,000 by 2031.--Cms13ca (talk) 20:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Semi-related, they're finally moving ahead with a LRT line here in Ottawa, at long last. At least here it makes a lot of sense, given it'll run along what's now a heavily travelled route to begin with. Next 5-6 years or so are gonna totally suck for commuting while they build it, though. --Kels (talk) 01:00, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

If the train takes over many of the commuters, there will be less cars on the road, so it can be narrower. --Tweenk (talk) 02:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Confederation Line is a better name than what they looking to call Waterloo's (Ion, Arc & Trio). I just do not like the idea of running a rail line down the center of a street. Do other LRTs have this?--Cms13ca (talk) 14:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Forking RW

Proxima, what are you doing? Osaka Sun (talk) 15:29, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

You'd think Liberapedia would be enough. Immortality's fun, except when you become a two-headed monster ^{Talk to me} 16:26, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there is too much to worry about there. Генгис^unbelieving 16:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not worried; I'm just wondering why she's setting up this fork when she's already got a similar wiki that's practically hers. Immortality's fun, except when you become a two-headed monster ^{Talk to me} 16:33, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

For the record, Proxima is a female. Also, for the record, it's because they are very vain. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 16:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

A new parlor game: "Ed-Stub or Proxie?". Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made."

Sorry; I didn't know.... This...is awkward. Immortality's fun, except when you become a two-headed monster ^{Talk to me} 17:00, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Second parlour game: betting on how long it takes her to distinguish secular and atheist. Sophie^Wilder 16:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

As long as it means she doesn't leave her droppings all over here, let her do it. Sophie^Wilder 16:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

EC: "I copied this from Rationalwiki". Um, no you didn't, cause 1. We don't have that article, and 2. If we did, it wouldn't look like it was written by an imbecile. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 16:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, she did ([1] although it's really copying a quote from Pharyngula. sterile^{sporadic heavy hitter} 17:01, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah. She can't tell a primary source from a quote of that source, right. I was talking about this part:

“”Ken Sham is a pseudoscience promoter, propagandist, and bullshitist. He runs the organisation, "Answers" in Genesis, despite the name, there is no answers. He always talkes about "kinds", there is no definition of "kind" so it doesn't exist. In his responce to Bill Nye's Creationism is Not appropriate for Children video, he said alot of bullshit like there is two types of science, actually there is the natural sciences, applied sciences, formal sciences, forensic sciences, medical sciences, and interdisciplinary sciences. He also did an ad hominem towards Bill Nye, saying he was a humanist, even though humanists praise human values, aparently not knowin' what a humanist is.

who writes like that? Who edits an article with that in it and doesn't try to fix it? Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 17:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

This may be relevant. Sophie^Wilder 17:16, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

So, self-fulfilling prophecy? I bet you she still doesn't know what it means. Osaka Sun (talk) 19:15, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Obviously too many people told her to fork off. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 19:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The above quote made my kitten cry. Blue (pester) 19:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

(EC)To be clear: this wasn't quite what I had in mind, and I have nothing to do with it. Peter ^{Subsisting on honey} 19:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Give it a week or two and it'll rot away. (BTW, first post with new sig!) -- 20:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Ha! Some hope. Sophie^Wilder 20:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Food vs Herb/Drug

What's the difference? I realize that all plants contain toxic substances, and that some food containing carcinogens don't cause cancer because the carcinogens are present only in very small quantities. But I was wondering, what with all the toxic plants used in traditional medicine: why is it that most of the food we eat (which we discovered by anecdotal evidence) doesn't have serious side effects, when the herbal medicines (also discovered by anecdotal evidence) can be so dangerous? I imagine food contains less biologically active compounds, but for most of human history we had no knowledge of chemistry.--KreJ (talk) 20:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Obviously you've never tried cassava. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 21:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Or the heart-attack-inducing Ulster Fry. Sophie^Wilder 21:08, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Potatoes can also be poisonous. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 21:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Most plants are toxic (or at least implantable) to discourage foragers (and humanity) from eating them. Fruits are 'intended' by the plant to be eaten. The seeds survive digestion, and are dropped, with fertilizer, a good distance away from the parent planet. Mankind has selectively breed some hard-to-digest plants, such as most grains, to be easier to eat. BTW, you might be better asking this on Wikipedia's science reference desk. --- CS Miller (talk) 21:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

"Food" is eaten by Man for its nutritional value or taste; herbs and drugs are eaten for a perceived health benefit or other effect on the body. Pulled this def out of my arse in twenty seconds. -- 21:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

"[C]hocolate poisoning is an overdose reaction to the alkaloid theobromine, found in chocolate, tea, cola beverages,[1] açaí berries ..." (WP) nothing;s really safe. You can overdose on oxygen. Scream!! (talk) 21:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I almost overdosed on dihydrogen monoxide once. -- 21:59, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The best advice is to ignore most food panics & just keep a balanced diet including a moderate amount of meat & fish (if you're not vegetarian) + fruit & veg, including some veg which are high in vitamins & iron (eg. peas, cabbage, broccoli). Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry, I don't seem to have been clear, I wasn't trying to say that food isn't poisonous; I'm well aware that everything can harm you, that "the does makes the poison", and that the toxicity of a plant species can differ from individual from individual.

HeidelbergKid, I also pulled that same definition OOMA myself (without the taste part), but at the time I didn't know if I was right, and if it was, I didn't get how it explained why nutritious things are generally safer and less carcinogenic than medicine, (or are they?) nor how primitive hunter-gatherers could tell the difference between nutritional things and drugs. About the former: off the top of my head, I only know two examples of carcinogenic food: red meat, and some green leafy plant eaten somewhere in Japan (a village?). That's rather small compared to the number of cancer-causing things in herbal medicine -- it seemed quite strange to me that anecdotes could get it so wrong about medicine, but so right for food. About the latter: I didn't think about the possibilty that taste could have been a heuristic for the nutritional value of something, but in retrospect it seems kind of obvious. :P

Thank you for your replies.

P.S. Sorry for the typo. It should be "Food vs Herbs/drugs"--KreJ (talk) 01:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

One possible positive outcome of the whole thunderf00t/rebecca watson/FTB/whogivesafuck slapfight

While inter-factional hairpulling and fingerpointing accusations of being a bigot/sexist/censor/hypocrite/generally unsavory-person-of-ill-repute in the general skeptic community is one of the few things guaranteed to both bore me to tears and also wedge my palm into my cerebral-cortex, I do ponder whether this might lead to a relative "renaissance" in the creationist/fundie vlogger community, now that the satanic atheist scumnuggets are bickering and distracted.

Imagine a new saga of sociopathic little shits dressing like batman villains and screaming down a mike over how atheists are going to hell, imagine a fresh crop of creepy old men with disturbingly big glasses mouthbreathing at a camera over how angels are personally giving him back rubs when he spreads creationism, imagine an army of new obese men obsessed with leather, motors, and beating up faggets proving their machismo by vlogging themselves driving.

And more importantly imagine how much fresh blood will be motivated by this tsunami of utter idiocy to take to youtube to combat this dickery, and finally provide some honest to god entertainment. Seriously its been years since the creationist/skeptic war was even slightly fun to watch. I know this hope is both stupidly optimistic, and just plain stupid, and maybe its just me but I am seriously bored of this current "Feminist war" that seems to be going on.

Ok rant overJudge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 02:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The whole spat has more or less died down, so if creationists change their dynamics as a result, just check up on it.--"Shut up, Brx." 03:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I suspect that the people engaging in the spat in question have delusions of grandeur if they think any of their activities have any kind of broader effect. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I am well aware of the big swinging egos at play, and that this is hardly some great schism or civil war, and I am well aware that the youtube creationist community returning to their old "glory" and going on the warpath again is about as likely as shockofgod spontaneously embracing Hinduism, but I honestly am starting to miss the heydays of the old fundie vloggers both because I think they were one of the best and most entertaining recruitment tools for skeptics in recent memory, and because without a common and highly obvious enemy it seems that skeptics are more likely to turn on eachother for petty reasons. Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 03:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Nah, it was pretty well-established before this that creationists on YouTube were on the losing side of the ratings war. They were something like 10 to 1 user-for-user, if not at least view-for-view - and most of their views came from skeptics wanting to call bullshit anyway. It's unlikely that this sort of "infighting" can dent that - mostly because the infighting is just a few pig-headed egotists infighting for the sake of it. The majority of the workhorses of the skepitcal movement (if you want to call it that) are likely just thinking "shut the fuck up already".

Also, as a point of fact, I wouldn't dismiss the vloggers as having no influence. Many of the top ones do get invited to speak at conferences and actually are, objectively speaking, very good at what they do. Most of them outdo major religious figures when it comes to subscriber counts - okay, so that's not the only measure of "influence", but when it comes to just online media, comparing like-with-like, they win. ^postate 09:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Very British Problems

Pip pip, wot wot? ^narchist 11:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I experienced many of these. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:03, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

"I Am Not Your Servant"

There's a letter from a former Marine to Dianne Feinstein making the rounds of the right-wing blogosphere.

The tl;dr version is "you can't have my guns", albeit pretty well-spoken for a 26 year old.

He's got a right to his opinion. But... he says he spent eight years in the Corps, and his signature indicates his rank was Corporal.

According to about.com, average time to make Corporal (E-4) is 26 months, average time to make Sergeant (E-5) is 4.8 years, and average time to make Staff Sergeant (E-6) is 10.4 years.

So, it seems like he should have easily made Sergeant. Was the guy a screw-up? Was he discharged with a rank reduction? MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 14:58, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Seriously, not everybody is in the military to climb the ranks. Some people are more than satisfied as grunts, or in this case, a jarhead.--"Shut up, Brx." 15:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

You are reading the data wrong - the average NCO was promoted in 5 years, but that doesn't mean that the average Corporal hasn't spent 10 years on the job before their discharge. The difference between a fire-team leader (Corp) and a squad leader is substantial, and requires a change in mentality. Also, in 2001, people were kept on for much shorter periods of time vs. today. Hipocrite (talk) 15:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

That clears it up, thanks. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 15:10, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

See also [2] Hipocrite (talk) 15:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

While it quite possible to, as a Marine, make Staff Sergeant in 8 years, it is incredibly uncommon. On average, a Marine will pick up Corporal at about their four year mark, and sergeant at about their 6 or 8 year mark, depending on their job. I'm aware of the thingy posted, but assuming he was an infantrymen, him being a Lance Corporal (non-NCO) at his 8 year mark wouldn't surprise me too much, because those guys do not fuck around when it comes to promotions. If they think you haven't demonstrated leadership and calm under fire, you are not getting promoted.

Also, a grunt is just a member of the infantry, and can be Army or Marine. While we are jarheads, its becoming a somewhat uncommon thing to say (being replaced by 'Devil' as in 'Devildog')--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 20:51, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't really see the point of quibbling over this. The guy's letter seems to suggest that his career as a soldier (or marine, grunt, whatever) gives him special authority in the gun control debate. It doesn't. Speculating about whether or not he had a successful career as a soldier doesn't change this; either way it's just an authority gambit/ad hominem approach. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:42, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The point is, if he was "unsuccessful" in his career I could call him a shitbag and dismiss him without a second thought, and the majority of the Marine Corps would agree with me. The rest would be officers. Also, referring to Marines as 'soldiers' is generally taken offensively, even when it is not intended as it. But yes, his letter is little more then an appeal to authority, while implying that Sen. Feinstein is some evil nazi who is using firearm registration as a first step to complete weapon confiscation.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 23:58, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

"if he was 'unsuccessful' in his career I could call him a shitbag and dismiss him without a second thought". Why is that? Lots of people are unsuccessful in their career aims or fail to rise beyond a mundane level. It doesn't make them bad people or devalue their opinions. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

It is perfectly understandable for someone to be an 8 year corporal, but an 8 year lance is perfectly unacceptable. For that to even be possible he'd have had to have spent long stretches of his career in the Marines in brig, or getting various non-judicial punishments. He would have pretty much had to have been a complete fuckhead, or what we call a "shitbag". And this is especially true since he was enlisted during some of our most active time. --Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 00:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Well what does any of that have to do with the price of fish? It just seems like unnecessary (& highly speculative) dirt-digging on this guy & has no bearing re his opinions on gun control. Whether he was a military fuck-up, a retired colonel, or a grunt on day one of basic training, would make no difference: an armed forces career does not give him special expertise on the issue of civilian gun ownership & registration. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:45, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not saying otherwise, and I've said so. I'm just saying that if he was "unsuccessful" I'd have dismissed him without reading the comment and would encourage others too as well. It goes to credibility. A fuck up in the military (kicked out for non-medical reasons, 8 year lance, etc) has no credibility. It would be rather like asking a felon their opinion of firearm registration laws. Although this may say more about cultural indoctrination then anything else.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 00:49, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

One Million Moms need to find a better hobby

I knew what to expect going in, but the people who follow this site are supposed to 'take action' and boycott things for the stupidest shit. The site reads like a parody. Seriously, read this:

We are not sure of Skittles' thought process behind their new ad, but if they are attempting to offend customers, they have succeeded. Skittles' newest "Walrus" commercial includes a teen girl making out with a walrus. The two are on a sofa in an apartment kissing on the mouth when her shocked roommate walks in on them. Parents find this type of advertising inappropriate and unnecessary. Does Skittles' have our children's best interest in mind? Skittles candies are for all ages, but their target market is children. Skittles Marketing Team may have thought this was humorous, but not only is it disgusting, it is taking lightly the act of bestiality. Let Skittles know their new ad is irresponsible.

Skittles is corrupting our youth through their promotion of bestiality! Before you know it, everyone will be fucking walruses. The only solution is to email the Skittles corporation and make a difference! Also, Ragu is "harmful to children" because it has a commercial where a boy is implied to have walked in on his parents having sex. If a kid already knows the implication being made, then they already know about sex — how will it harm them? Nihilist 15:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The sad thing is, as a dad, I am "fed up with the filth many segments of our society, especially the entertainment media, are throwing at our children? Are you tired of all the negative influences our children are forced to contend with?" The only problem is that my fedupedness resolved itself by not showing my daughter violence on TV and living in a city that has basically criminalized gun ownership. Hipocrite (talk) 15:54, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I thought it funny how one of their boycotts is because a show "took the lord's name in vain." You may as well just throw away your television if that's a problem. Also, they are claiming credit for the demise of 666 Park Avenue. Bullshit--"Shut up, Brx." 18:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Nihilist, that's just sexist bullshit and part of the war on women. Obviously you've no clue about issues important to woman. Burnum (talk) 18:42, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure you're making a joke, but i'm not comprehending — what's "sexist bullshit"? Nihilist 18:46, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, i get it — you're making fun of feminists by saying that my insulting of a group of women is sexist.

I'm sorry for ruining your joke. Nihilist 18:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

No. I'm saying in a male dominated society, you've no clue about issues important to women, so you mock them. What next? Did the woman raped and murdered on the bus in Dehli have it coming, too? Burnum (talk) 20:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

My god, Hipocrite. a dad who actually says "I can choose to raise my kid teh way i want, and not tell others how they should do it". you're my new hero. ;-) i have zero problem with sites that rank tv or movies for christian families, or gives parents guides on what shows cuss, or take the lord's name in vain. i have issues with thsoe who try to set up boycotts to have it changed, when they could actually just turn off the tv.Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 20:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's just silly then. Nihilist 21:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

@Burnum. Seriously? What Nihilist wrote is part of the war on women? Nihilist's comments apply equally well to if it was One Million Fathers or One Million Mothers or One Million Parents. It was entirely gender neutral. Attempting to draw any parallel to the problem of downplaying rape in our culture is absurd. Seriously, get a grip. And yes, whenever someone invokes "man-splaining" as a way to silence discussion, especially in cases as asinine as this (the walrus beastiality thing), I get upset. This has nothing to do with ignoring women and women's problem. They're welcome to voice them. However, attempting to hide some particularly noxious and bullshit Christian reactionism behind the label of feminism, and silence all dissent, is bullshit. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 00:16, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you not know obvious trolling when you see it? The sign not to feed them is clearly marked. DickTurpis (talk) 00:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Poe's Law. Sorry, I did not. My apologies. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 02:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Burnum, I'm assuming you know who OMM is, and if you don't, look it up. Doofus. EVDebs (talk) 00:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I hate adware.

I recently tried to get one of those "Internet TV" things so I could watch a station that got taken down a week ago. When I saw it was installing the first of four irrelevant things, I deleted. The first still got on, though, so I managed to get a "GameFlakeSACB.exe" on my computer. Every couple of hours it would pop up and try to sell me something. I needed to go to my Task Manager to hunt down and dig up the file to throw it away. NORTON, YOU HATH FAILED ME!

In other news, my weird RPG on DeviantArt is going well. Immortality's fun, except when you become a two-headed monster ^{Talk to me} 04:15, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

No adware. Hell, these torrents aren't even tracked by DRM enforcement companies. They're too new, and are uploaded too quickly. Anti-P2P sticks to DVDrips. Most shows should be up on the site, at least English language shows.--"Shut up, Brx." 04:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Best malware I ever got was "Fakeantivirus.exe". Past the filename it was boring normal scareware though, . Also, norton is a terrible, terrible software and you should never use it. --^Mikal 05:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

What antivirus do you use? Immortality's fun, except when you become a two-headed monster ^{Talk to me} 05:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Mcafee, because i get a full version of it with my isp. I also used Ad-aware until about a month ago, when the realities of just why i got it no longer applied and i got tired of my computer freaking out about there being two antivirus. Also i couldnt really update ad-aware with mcafee on my computer, and i was getting much more protection then a free version of ad-aware can provide. --^Mikal 05:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)--^Mikal 05:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

You sillies and your bloated, software-running. Nihilist 06:11, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I run Microsoft Security Essentials and Windows' default firewall (on Windows 7). That's it. If you're using a contemporary consumer-class PC for typical consumer-class purposes, third-party security software is largely unnecessary. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 07:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd agree with that. The best anti-virus defence is to understand and trust what you're downloading, clicking on, opening and installing. But even so some can get through the net. I used to use MSE but now use ESET. It's light, cheap(ish), fully featured and very very good. Norton is one of the worst programmes ever produced in the history of computing. McAfee isn't much better. Ajkgordon (talk) 12:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

-Shrug- I don't really like Mcafee that much, but i'm getting it for free, so I may as well. I would love if the thing didn't draw as much resource as it does. --^Mikal 16:18, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

That's like saying "I hate cheeseburgers, but i'm getting some for free, so i might as well stuff my face with them.". Nihilist 23:00, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

You certainly don't need Norton - unless you're happy running a quad-core i7 with 1 core dedicated to doing what you want and 3 of them dedicated to Norton doing... whatever it is that Norton does all the time. I've only suffered two major PC related issues in the last 8 years. One of them was solved by nuking Norton. ^postate 09:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure most malware is easier to get rid of than Norton. My last computer came with a preinstalled trial version of Norton that prompted me to activate it whenever I turned the computer on. Since I couldn't uninstall it I eventually went "Fuck it. Let's activate the stupid trial if that makes it happy.", only to find out that its license had expired but it still kept bugging me to activate the damn thing until I finally managed to wipe it from my hard drive using some third party software. What I really need is a resident shield that protects my computer from that kind of bullshit. Vulpius (talk) 21:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

To be fair to Norton, they do offer the very good Norton Removal Tool. Ajkgordon (talk) 16:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

When you need a separate program to remove a first program, you know something is wrong. Nihilist 16:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. Ajkgordon (talk) 17:19, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

"27 Science Fictions That Became Science Facts In 2012"

Some pretty amazing things were accomplished last year. Even though many on the list were more like stepping stones to things that will eventually be useful inventions, you have to hand it to humanity for accomplishing some incredible things. Sam ^Tally-ho! 06:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I will never trust self driving cars--^Mikal 07:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm allowing myself to be hopeful about self-driving cars. Think about it: no need to own a car, when you can call a car to your house, and it can drive you to your destination. If a service like that could get response times down to 10 minutes or less, then self-driving cars could become a pseudo-public transit — not as efficient as, say, a light rail system or subway in a big city, but far preferable to the wasteful chaos that is suburban private car ownership. Of course, change on that scale is all a big "if." Most likely, there'll be a moderate resurgence in taxi services once a major chunk of labor costs (the driver) can be reliably eliminated. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 08:14, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Silly Stabby; thinking that car ownership is about getting from A to B, rather than publicly projecting one's ego. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 13:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Self driving cars is a cool concept, but the name, "self driving", bothers me when it's the mass of metal i'm inside of. --^Mikal 16:22, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

3D printers are a great concept... now if only scientists could develop 2D ones that didn't make you want to kick them down the stairs in frustration. Sophie^Wilder 17:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I would trust a competent driving AI much more than any human on the road. (Theoretically) They'd have much faster reaction times, be able to multitask, wouldn't get distracted, perfectly follow the laws, etc.. Sure, the programming wo'nt'be perfect, but i'm willing to bet that the rate of incident wo'be much, much lower. Nihilist 23:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, the worst part of the transition would be the beginning, when the cars have to be programmed to assume human drivers are the majority and we're still figuring out all the variables that need to be accounted for in any given situation. The ultimate goal would be to get to a point where self-driving cars are norm and can all just network together to determine optimal driving patterns. --CoyoteSans (talk)

I suspect the actual goal is self driving lorries which would allow us to get rid of a significant chunk of lorry drivers.Geni (talk) 02:33, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The unions are not going to like that. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 02:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Back when I worked in CEP we brainstormed about automating a cargo ship. Problem was docking. Also automating a drive-thru. Nobody^{don't bother} 02:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The initial target is probably supermarkets and big box stores where they can design their warehouse distribution areas and supermarket receiving areas around automated lorries.Geni (talk) 03:18, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Top of the list: real spaceman tweeting fake spaceman. FROM SPACE!!111eleventy JzG (talk) 22:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Feminism and science

On the latest episode of Rationally Speaking. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Careful, Nebby, Pigliucci believes in free will. You wouldn't want your environment make you cease to believe in determinism, would you?--"Shut up, Brx." 05:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

What does that have to do with what ey posted? Nihilist 19:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Wow is that comment page, a page full of a-rational, self stroking men who don't want to look at anything but what they "think" is the truth. sheesh. The more academics I read, the more I reinfoce why for years, I signed all my listserv writings as T.S. Godot, rather than Tanya.--Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 20:08, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

"...Pigliucci believes in free will." Actually, he doesn't. But he's not a determinist either. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:05, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Evolution-pushing classes

So, after three semesters of college, i've finally found one of those fabled "Liberal, Atheism/Evolution pushing classes" you hear all the horror stories about. Honestly, I feel jipped by how long it took. --^Mikal 06:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Was it a bio 101 class, or equivalent introductory biology class? What was it? Details! LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 13:03, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Was this before or after you took your mandatory "America-Hatred and Obama-Worship 101"? MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 14:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Anthropology, actually. And America-hate and Obama love are drugs in the air system now, more efficient!. --^Mikal 14:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Huh, all I have this semester is an instructor that thinks I'm going to show up to class drunk enough to sing. Lucky bastard.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 16:29, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The only notable professor I have is Anthro, Man looks like mark twain with slicked back hair--^Mikal 19:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Anthro profs are pretty awesome. Nobody^{don't bother} 19:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm taking a class on global warming, a class I'd say is toward the forefront of unholy liberal classes. I believe our first lab involves creating and distributing some sort of anti-conservative-Christian Obama/environmentalist propaganda. Sam ^Tally-ho! 02:50, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Even more disappointing, much of the "liberal" propaganda is of the tepid, DNC-approved variety. More Karl Marx plox. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:18, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

A Challenger Approaches

Being a bit of an opinionated fellow, I've decided to start a blog. I've already written my first little feature, a small article on the cons of America's two party system and our tendency to demonize political enemies. If anyone here could check it out, or even give me a few pointers/critiques, that would be lovely. I'm a bit of newbie at this and I sort of need the criticism. I hope you all get some enjoyment from this. --Bdor24 (talk) 02:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Climate manufactroversy Part #1304549655

UK's Met Office using an experimental program to revise its climate models, suggesting that the next few years of warming won't be as severe as the past few.

tl;dr Scientists: Keep a skeptical eye. Denialists: GLOBAL WARMING WAS A LIE ALL ALONG! BEGIN MASTURBATORY SESSION! Osaka Sun (talk) 21:14, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

My opinion on the whole global warming thing is and pretty much always has been that, regardless of whether global warming is real or not, the things being done/suggested to combat it are all good and ultimately necessary anyway, especially if you look at the long run. Kinda bugs me that there's so much fierce opposition to the idea. X Stickman (talk) 23:02, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean? Dirk Steele (talk) 23:22, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Presumably he means that conserving limiting resources is a good idea, regardless of whether using them is also destroying the planet.--^talk 23:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Exactly what I think too. Shits going to run out, and even if you don't believe CO2 is bad, Acidification, CFCs, Sulfurs... are undisputed bad, and clean air will always be better then smog. Ask anyone who lived in London in the 50s. --Revolverman (talk) 23:34, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

But what about cold fusion or perpetual motion? Your shit will never run out that's for sure... verbal diarrhea is your speciality ain't it? We could run the planet on just one sentence from you. Dirk Steele (talk) 23:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I better get on that then! See you in Oslo! --Revolverman (talk) 23:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

If that's what Revolverman's capable of doing, we'd be able to power interstellar travel if humanity could figure out how to harness Abd's verbosity in an efficient way. Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 23:51, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Thats a massive underestimation of the power potential of Abd. If we could find even a 25% power conversion ratio, we could have those World engines from War Planets. --Revolverman (talk) 23:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

(US perspective:) Even ignoring all environmental concerns, from a purely self interested standpoint, we don't want to depend on foreign oil, whether that's in the middle east or Canada. Also we may want to leave our children with a world not in the shitter, which requires other sources of energy. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 00:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Oooh. Have you ever considered clean nuclear energy like France has done? Or are your Texas oil barons still in control? Dirk Steele (talk) 00:20, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Both. The Texas oil barons continue to push their shit at the cost of everyone else, aided by the environmental dipshits who think "all things nuclear must be evil!!!1". LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 00:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to ye olde US of A! Maybe one day you will all wake up to what is happening. Dirk Steele (talk) 00:27, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Sums it up rather well, I think. Doctor Dark (talk) 02:09, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

"...even if you don't believe CO2 is bad..." But CO2 is plant food, fool! Why do you hate plants so much? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Dictators and Guns

In the wake Alex Jones's appearance with Piers Morgan, just how much water does the "famous dictators took away the guns" argument hold?Ryantherebel (talk) 15:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The fact that no one is taking away their guns and no one is proposing to completely strip away the right to bear arms means the argument doesn't hold any water even if "famous dictators" did ban all weaponry and enforce it. ^sshole 16:44, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

It's my understanding that the "HItler took everyone's guns" line the NRA has been feeding us for years is bogus. Hitler actually relaxed some gun laws, though admittedly the previous ones were very strict, per the Treaty of Versailles. It's also a red herring, as whether there were no guns or guns in every household, it wouldn't have made a difference, as Hitler was widely popular and there was little organized opposition to him. Sure, if Jews had been allowed to own guns, maybe thy could have resisted and taken a couple hundred of the SS with them when they were systematically killed, but that is far from a game changer. Had gun ownership in Germany been universal the Allies would probably have had to fight a significant guerrilla war against the local populations as well as the one against the Wehrmacht, so it's just as well that wasn't the case. DickTurpis (A bot surprised) (talk) 16:59, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Hitler banned smoking, as well. Even a stopped heil can be right... once. Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 23:40, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

As a gun rights guy, I HATE that argument. Anyone who even briefly studied Nazi Germany (or Stalin USSR and Mao's China) would know that if everyone had a gun, it would just mean disenters would have been shot that much quicker. "We thought we were free" speaks volumes. --Revolverman (talk) 23:44, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The Straight Dope answers. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of whether Nazi Germany had tight gun control, and regardless of whether tight gun control is proposed in modern USA, the argument wouldn't hold any water anyway as the two things remain entirely unconnected -- unless we buy into a ridiculous "if you support gun control you must love dictators" association fallacy, which is clearly what's being presented. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:30, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Anti US, Anti Religion, Anti-christian

Say all you want about church and state, but the national cathedral is part of the American government in practice if not offically. So today's news is goign to piss off every single red-blooded Christian American! The National Cathedral announced it will officiate same sex marriage. Ohhhgaaa boogga. (ah, i love it when right wingers of all shapes and sizes are about to go on a collective tear).Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 16:16, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Definitely not officially part of the government as no politician or government worker is ever required to use it for anything and no government funds are used to run or maintain it. Really it is the legacy of Anglicanism being the unofficial religion of the American governing elite.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Immortality's fun, except when you become a two-headed monster ^{Talk to me or view my art} 00:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

What's the national cathedral?--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 23:34, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Its the unofficial popular name for the Cathedral Church of Saint Peter and Saint Paul in Washington D.C. It's a huge Episcopal cathedral that is sometimes used for the funerals of presidents and other important political and military people. Some presidents also used it as their house of worship while in office. For these reasons it has become a sort of a de facto representative house of worship for America.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 01:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

It's a beautiful building. It's noted for having an amazing assortment of gargoyles and grotesques, including Darth Vader.

Years ago, some friends and I explored the grounds around midnight Saturday night/Sunday morning. (No, we had not been drinking.) Very spooky experience, especially when we could hear the organist rehearsing. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 11:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The grounds are nice. Years ago there was quite an herb garden there, and probably still is. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 15:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Must...not...read...comments...Polite Timesplitter ^{come shout at me for being thick} 20:48, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Nutter

Sandy Hook: "As documents relating to the Sandy Hook shooting continue to be assessed and interpreted by independent researchers, there is a growing awareness that the media coverage of the massacre of 26 children and adults was intended primarily for public consumption to further larger political ends," writes Tracy, a tenured associate professor of media history at FAU and a former union leader. (also referred to here Scream!! (talk) 01:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Sounds a sensible assessment to me. Every disaster brings out the nutters attempting to further their own political ends. Dirk Steele (talk) 01:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

This cream sherry goes nicely with walnuts. When the sky is not grey, it's blue. I am thankful that in this era, as in others, there exist various channels for gaining news and other information. When differing modes converge, confidence may be warranted that the conclusion is closer to valid than most. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 01:37, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Can you be just a little, slightly less, even more circumspect in your utter ironic pretentiousness? Maybe not. ;-) Dirk Steele (talk) 01:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Irony my ass. If you want pretentiousness, I suppose I could do that too: Fuck you. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 01:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

If that was too harsh, how about this instead: last time I visited Brighton, some nutters had just blown up a seaside hotel. The seagulls were adept and coordinated whilst nipping chips in mid-air. Even bird brains are capable of tight focus. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 02:29, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Scream, am I missing something here? The article you linked to is about someone denying that the shooting took place. Read out of context, not many people would have a problem with the assertion that you quote in your posting, that media coverage was shaped by politics. That's pretty obvious to most people. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 03:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

This "crisis actors" thing is making the rounds everywhere. It's being flagged up on Conspiracy Theorists Say The Darndest Things near constantly. ^sshole 12:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

How to make conservatives' heads explode

I think I've found the best idea ever for a way to make the American Right's collective head explode:

propose a law that would ban Muslims and illegal immigrants from owning guns. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 15:44, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Even legal immigrants are subject to firearms restrictions, and in some states are forbidden from owning them, until they become citizens, AFAIK. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 15:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

How down you ruin my snark with your "facts". MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 15:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think too many heads would explode anyway. Conservatives don't want THEIR guns taken. They don't give a hoot about the freedoms of Muslims, illegal immigrants, or anyone else outside the white-Christian bubble. Apokalyps2547 (talk) 16:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

You know, I was sure he was going to say nitroglycerin. DickTurpis (A bot surprised) (talk) 16:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

A better head-exploding one would have been the pinnacle of the "Nick Griffin on Question Time" drinking game: "what do you think about granting citizenship to members of the Gurkha regiments who have served their country?" Shame it was never actually asked of Griffin, I would have loved to see his face complete the full somersault it's clearly trying to do. ^pathetic 16:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Owning a gun and possessing a gun are two different things. But it appears illegals have no 2nd amendment rights. [3] Burnum (talk) 22:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Honestly I think they would, for the most part, realize you were being facetious because how could a law banning members of any particular religious groups from owning guns possibly pass constitutional muster?--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:45, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

My head remains un-exploded. Also, why was I just called a racist?--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 20:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

It is already illegal for illegal immigrants to own guns. FlamingModerate (talk) 00:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Wait a minute...

... I was being interviewed by liberals? -- Dick Armey MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 17:24, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

James Portnow sticks his foot in it again

Remember the guy who conflated faith with science about a month back? He hasn't learned his lesson, or the the point of the backlash.

"Science doesn't need defending"; apparently Mr. Portnow hasn't been paying attention to American politics lately. He also backpedals on the Einstein quote mine, claiming his writer did that to "stir up a discussion" and "see if any viewers caught it."

I like Extra Credits (even if I feel it's far too naively optimistic about the VG industry, and are apparently big believers in the Singularity), but their unwillingness to do proper research, or just know when to back off from a hopeless battle is really testing my patience, and if they continue to pursue this argument I think it's going to really damage their credibility in the long term. --CoyoteSans (talk) 00:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Plucked from the comments section, and refusing to go further at the risk of my sanity: "So there you are, dinosaurs existed, the earth is billions of years old, humans evolved from monkeys, and God made it happen. These are my beliefs, they deny no scientific principles, good sir, so if you say my faith relies on willful ignorance it will be YOU who ignores scientific fact!". Sigh. The problem with theistic evolution rears its head again, because someone doesn't know of a particular, very important scientific principle. Polite Timesplitter ^{come shout at me for being thick} 01:33, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Alex Jones and Piers Morgan

I'm not usually a fan of Piers Morgan but I thought this dialogue (or perhaps that should be monologue) was hilarious. I thought rationalwiki would appreciate Jones's antics. Ydam (talk) 03:08, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Alex sure made a dick of himself didn't he. I haven't watched much of Alex Jones and I was surprised at just how batshit crazy he was. He didn't even seem to be trying to present himself well. --Damo^Hi 03:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

That is because Jones plays to the "true believer" crowd that already share his views that everything is a NWO conspiracy; that is what you get when you invite the most fringe representative of a point of view.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I understand that Alex has some crazy ideas. I just figured that on a show with that much exposure he would show some media savvy and tone it down a bit to attract a larger audience. I can't imagine many people who weren't already conspiracy tuning into his show on the basis of that segment. Damo^Hi 22:29, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Jones has an incredibly difficult time responding to the question. God I feel bad for Piers, who really just has the patience of a saint.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 00:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

But Jones' schtick is being batshit crazy. I'm sure a significant portion of his audience is listening for comedic value. ETA: Wut, this was on CNN and not Jones' show? CNN must be desperate for ratings. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

"CNN" and "desperate" go together pretty well, actually. Unlike MSNBC, CNBC, or Fox, CNN is too clueless and rash to build a coherent narrative, so it occasionally produces things like this. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 23:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Debt ceiling

I've seen Republicans say again that a default would only "slow down" the government and nothing else, and raising the debt ceiling would cause hyperinflation. What are the implications - I don't know much about economics.

And what happens if there's a 95-96 US shutdown at this point and time? 31.193.134.91 (talk) 07:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

An actual default (which would not happen immediately upon hitting the "ceiling" as I understand it, but some time afterwards as the bureaucrats ran out of tricks to shuffle money around) works the same way for the US government as for an individual. Creditors are due payment on a loan, they don't get it. In principle, when creditors aren't paid, or when they believe there is a real ongoing risk of non-payment, they demand higher interest rates to compensate them for the additional risk they are incurring by lending to you.

Now, a central government does not borrow money the same way that you or I would borrow money. They issue bonds, which promise to pay the recipient (outside of Hollywood movies these bonds are not usually valuable pieces of paper that can be stolen) a large quantity of money at intervals over time, in exchange for a slightly smaller quantity of money right now. Rather than negotiate an interest rate with a bank manager the government simply asks huge investors to bid on new bonds every so often (usually, just as they need to make payments on the old bonds) and the bidding decides how much extra the government will eventually pay back compared to what it receives now. The debt "ceiling" controls the US central government's ability to issue new bonds, and without new bonds it can't pay existing debts (including old bonds) and will eventually default unless spending is drastically cut. Note that spending cuts are not triggered automatically, Congress is able (insanely) to agree to spend money without also agreeing to borrow the money needed to pay for what it's spending. No other country that I'm aware of allows this, everywhere else government debt is directly controlled by government income and spending, not by a separate "ceiling" that can be subject of useless political theatre.

In the UK you can actually invest money into central government directly through the National Savings & Investment bank, instead of owning government bonds like a regular bank the NS&I actually is the state, your savings are effectively being "lent" to the present government to buy hospitals, missiles, statues and whatever else and your interest comes from tax revenue. This also means you don't have to worry about bankruptcy, if the NS&I is bankrupt, the state is bankrupt and your Pounds Sterling were worthless anyway. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 12:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

We have already hit the ceiling. As such, the fed is unable to float new bonds. Right now, the government is operating by borrowing from internal pension funds. When the government runs out of that capacity, we will lose the ability to fund 60% of our expenditures. A 40% cut to expenditures is basically impossible in the near (and arguably intermediate) term. Given that there is a substantial chance that the debt ceiling will be raised, and the government can currently borrow at 3% for 30 years, the treasury bond market is telling you that there is no real risk of hyperinflation. There will not be a 95-96 type shutdown, as that was due to the failure to authorize spending, not the failure to authorize borrowing. Hipocrite (talk) 15:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

That's basically all sounds right, except for "the fed is unable to float new bonds". More correctly, the Treasury is unable to float new bonds, which the fed in turn purchases. The debt ceiling will be raised (in keeping with the idea of keynesian stimulus), the only question is how much, because that sets the budget and spending parameters for FY 2014. Will it be the president & Senate Democrats spending priorities? (entitlements) or House Republicans? (spending cuts, deficit reduction, and defense appropriations), or a compromise continuing resolution somewhere in the middle. Burnum (talk) 22:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

When you say "that sets the budget" would you like to specify which new constitutional amendment or piece of primary legislation specifies that? Nobody in Congress has ever treated the debt ceiling as a budget in a real sense. Nowhere in the world does that, I'm not sure it would be more crazy than what the US actually does now, but it certainly wouldn't be less crazy. Because "the buck stops here" in a crisis, central government cannot practically operate to a fixed budget. Even during a "government shutdown" it continues to spend immense amounts of money because that's the difference between inconvenience and wolves at the door. The only way that you can run things is to manage revenues to try to match projected spending, and keep your projections vaguely on target. Everything else is wishful thinking, or, in Washington, straight political theatre. "The Democrans authorised this spending, but they won't pay for it". "Oh yeah, well the Republicats made these tax cuts but can't say how we'll afford them". Tweedledee and Tweedledum, both correctly guessing fixing the actual problem will be less popular than demonising the other guy. 82.69.171.91 (talk) 11:52, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

A hit from the Houses of Parliament?

Hmm... Balaam (talk) 09:59, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Parliament directs all its traffic through two IP addresses, so it's impossible to check who it was exactly (though some Wikipedia edits lead us to make some informed guesses). I do know a few people who work there and lurk RW, though. ^{d hominem} 11:42, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

For the chemists, via Pharyngula

The penultimate paragraph really sums things up.-- ^{Jabba de Chops} 19:54, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah, so that's what my boss is made of. --2.39.39.47 (talk) 21:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

In The Pipeline's TIWWW category has been my go-to source for fun, usually guilt-free (he's not reporting hideous fatality-laden lab accidents, he's discussing insane reactions) fun explodey chemistry stories for several years now. I think he recognizes that there's a tiny little spot in almost every science nerd that loves watching shit blow up, and he's giving that spot a respectful and professional, but still direct, poke every now and then. Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 23:49, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

This is why I should never have side-stepped into DFT. Not nearly enough chances to kill yourself. ^moral 11:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Also worthy of a mention ^sshole 11:27, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah, chemistry and lion-teasing. If you ain't missing bits, you ain't doing it properly.-- ^{Jabba de Chops} 23:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I am rethinking my possibly knee-jerk position on gun control.

I'm reading this. An important part of this history is the extent to which the gun-control debate used to be about keeping guns out of the hands of a racialized and oppressed population who had to resort to arms for legitimate protection from police violence. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 03:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

That wouldn't surprize me. but i doubt the right is thinking blacks, women, and gays in their "protect ourselves" rants.Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 03:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I doubt they are thinking of occupiers standing their ground, either. (Seldom do I dip my oar into gun control discussions, since the reality is more complex than a quick perusal can cover. Couldn't help this one, though.) Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 04:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

What's grabbed my attention is how, in the early days of Panther activism, it was not just the guns themselves, but the legality of those guns, and black people execising their legal rights to guns, that put black people in a position to challenge the unjust use of force against them. I'm not becoming a gun nut or anything--I'm just starting to understand that the debate, seen in historical terms, is more nuanced and complicated than I had previously understood. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 04:27, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

ToP, did you just see my post on FtB on Ace of Clade's blog? Or just happy coincidence? LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 05:20, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Nope/ Link? Also, FtB? Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 13:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

http://freethoughtblogs.com/aronra/2013/01/09/what-to-do-about-americas-guns/#comment-13975 Coincidence I guess. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 20:46, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The use of firearms restriction laws levelled in racist ways in the past is not relevant to firearm restrictions today, just like abuses of the law under Nazi Germany/USSR are not relevant to any legal discussions today. Not that I am trying to discourage you from being more receptive of firearm ownership, I just think you're coming to a good conclusion for the wrong reasons.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 05:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not coming to any conclusions, I'm just becoming aware that the historical dimensions of the debate make it more complicated than I had realized. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 13:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

No, I'm pretty sure gun ownership is still racially charged today; if it wasn't then why are white shooters 'troubled and friendless' whereas black shooters often conflated with gang violence and delinquency even when none exists? Never mind that the prison population at the moment is predominantly people of color, far more than statistics would consider a reasonable representation of the population. And police still are far more likely to use unjust force against people of color than white people. The climate still exists; it's not gone like the USSR or Nazi Germany, the discussion's still very relevant. To see this in action, just take a look at the demographic the Right is supporting for gun ownership freedoms. Look at the advertisements, at the people they're speaking too, at the people who ARE speaking in the discussion. Do you see many, if any black people? Latin@s? It's not a coincidence that by far the more racist of the two major parties is also the supporter of harsher prison sentences, more arrests, and an ideal of white people owning guns. Ideally, I don't support ANYONE owning guns. But the idea that mostly one race is outwardly supported in this fight for 'freedoms' is disconcerting to me... ±KnightOfTL;DR^{yeah, well you fight like a cow!} 05:48, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

This. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 13:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

ToP, not only Black Panthers, but the NRA also counts among its ranks Jews who never want to see another Kristallnacht. Gun control in the US is hard sell. Burnum (talk) 22:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The NRA had absolutely no problem garnering memberships when their modus operandi was gun control...that all changed in the 1970s when the leadership changed and their message was about gun sales. --Seth Peck (talk) 00:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Eh, the idea that guns offer protection from state violence - especially today - is to me ridiculous and naive. The simple fact is that if you have a weapon you're far more likely to be killed by police, and it's much easier for them to cover up any wrongdoing. Since we're on the topic of Black Panthers, ask Fred Hampton about that. And anyway, if the state really wants you out of the picture a gun is not going to save you. They're not going to come knocking on your front door and give you a chance to shoot them. And even if they did, they would just brand you a terrorist, and flatten your house with a drone strike if you resist arrest. The second amendment was adopted in 1791, long before air warfare, satellite surveillance, and such were even a thought. The idea of protecting yourself from the state in a climate like today's would have literally been cause for revolution in the mindset of early Americans.

But most of the people who have guns in America don't even threaten power in the first place, and have very little to fear. Their paranoia creates monsters out of the people around them. These Tea Party and Minutemen types don't actually seek to overturn anything significant, they're just channeling the racism politicians have long fostered in order to keep them in line. Meanwhile, look at who the FBI and other agencies have their eye on: the peaceful, mostly unarmed Occupy movement. This is an important distinction.

In any case, the high density of gun-ownership in cities like Chicago, Oakland, and Baltimore actually makes things far worse (especially for the average black male), creating an atmosphere where the police become more and more like a military force fighting a war. They a priori assume everyone is a criminal who is possibly armed and will not hesitate to shoot them if so. This mentality grows and grows until you regularly see things like police shooting people who are handcuffed and on the ground, simply because an officer saw a gun on them. That is the reality of guns and black youth today - and it's not much at all like the story of a revolutionary struggle they've likely never even heard of, which was destroyed by the state before it went anywhere despite the fact it was armed. Q0 (talk) 16:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Again, all I can say is what about Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq. And that's just recent issues related to the US with which I'm acquainted. It's not as far-fetched as you propose. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 22:43, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The most Earth-like alien planet possibly found

Roughly the same size as the Earth, and it's also in the so-called "Goldilocks Zone." Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 14:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I wonder what the creationists/fine-tunists feel about this. Nihilist 15:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

If and when they find a hint of life on one of these planets, the lunar bukkake theory will be modified to encompass interstellar distances. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 15:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Every time somebody brings up lunar bukkake, I proceed into hours of laughter. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 15:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I cannot wait to get some spectrometers lined up on these things. ^narchist 16:27, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Well I don't think Creationists would say anything other than "well you can't show the planet has life", and they would be right. If the planet is confirmed, (which at this point it still has not) what we would know is that it has roughly 50% larger diameter than earth that is within the broad band of space around its parent star where liquid water could exist. Sadly although we can determine mass, we couldn't determine its surface features (including whether or not oceans exist), so the idea of the planet having any life is pure speculation, and the Creationist set would be happy to point that out.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, i would guess that should life be found on that or any planet creationists would just adapt the lunar bukakke theory to the "warphole bukakke" theory, and say something along the lines of "since god personally caused the flood, his presence opened a warphole to different points in space, through which the bukkaking flood waters carried life across the cosmos" which they will then gloat cannot be disproved since atheist satanists cannot disprove god. Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 00:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

"Warphole Bukkake" - This alone makes me hope for the day that Creationists attempt to claim any interstellar life found came from Earth, just so we can use this term again.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 12:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I often wonder if RW's thirst for knowledge is driven by spite rather than curiosity. Anyway I read an article recently that suggests we take a better look at gas giants since they can supply their moons with an magnetosphere to protect against the radiation. Hell I even read that it could be possible for tidal effects to generate enough heat for life to live outside the Goldilocks zone. Interesting idea, gives us something to go explore in our own backyard instead of dreaming about something hundreds of lightyears away. One thing I have not read is how this applies to the drake equation since that only accounts for about 10 planets per systems, 1 or 2 being hospitable, but it sure as hell does not take into account the 100s of moons in each system. Perhaps even the most conservative estimate of the drake equation is off by two orders of magnitude because of this. We won't know till we check! TheCheat^{I run on alcohol} 14:41, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

When it comes to astronomy I am wholly driven by curiosity, and excited about any new discovery, even more so when it comes to exo-planets. That all being said, I am also skeptical of any media release when it comes to a new discovery, or in this case, potential discovery, because they always trend towards exaggerating and sensationalism while including quotes that are pure speculation. So it is good to come out here and say what is what as far as what we do know, what is probable, and what is pure guesswork. As for your idea of moons around gas giants as possible homes for life, I would agree that is a distinct possibility. The problem as far as such moons around gas giants that orbit other stars as they are still impossible to detect. However some people have speculated that Europa may harbor such potential precisely because of heating caused by tidal stress from Jupiter.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 21:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Assorted Dirk Steele

This discussion was moved to Forum:Dirk_Steele_said_something. 20:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Goat major

Is a thing apparently. I think I have a new ambition. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 02:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

<thingsyouneverhear>If only I was Welsh.</thingsyouneverhear>--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 02:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

If I were a Welshman... MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 11:52, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

One of the few plays I enjoy. One of the far more rare musicals I enjoy. The Cthulhu themed parody of that song is pretty good too--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 20:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

United Way fundraising 3 days before Newtown shooting

There is a claim that United Way started fundraising three days from the Newtown shooting because a web search states the date retrieved as December 11, 2012. Is there an explanation for this?--Cms13ca (talk) 22:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Screenshot? Link? Without any evidence, there's no need to explain anything (my first instinct is "bad coding"). --Seth Peck (talk) 22:26, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Screenshot from the blog posting--Cms13ca (talk) 22:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah. Bad coding seems plausible. I'd want something more before I even consider this insanity. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 22:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Technical explanation: The low level protocol that's at the heart of the World Wide Web, called the HyperText Transport Protocol (HTTP) inherits ideas from older protocols where a lot of information is carried in human-readable "headers" that look like:

HTTP/1.0 200 OK
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 16:21:13 GMT
Server: Apache/2.2.14 (Ubuntu)
Last-Modified: Wed, 01 Feb 2012 21:11:41 GMT

The Last-Modified information is supposed to reflect when the requested resouce (e.g. Wiki page, picture of a cat) was last changed by a person. Obviously there is no way for the Internet, let alone Google, to enforce this but probably Google's web crawlers (software which retrieves information from all over the web to be indexed for their famous search service) apply some sanity checks, rejecting the date on items which claim to be from the future or the distant past as probably bogus. A date which is merely a few days older than a human observer would expect won't stand out to them, so it would be accepted.

HTTP doesn't specify how the server should determine the Last-Modified date. Files stored on disk often have a date-stamp supplied by the operatng system when they are modified, so for a diagram of an engine you uploaded to Wikimedia the Last-Modified may match whenever your operating system believes you last changed that file when you uploaded it. If you set your clock wrong, or deliberately tampered with the date that (bogus) date might be reflected on the Wikimedia server without any further verification. Resources which are generated from some sort of database may include their own date, or the server might just make something appropriate up. And of course the clock on the web server or database server might be wrong too. So in summary: probably human error on the part of the web site's owners, writers or operators. 82.69.171.91 (talk) 23:45, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Hurrah at the thorough explanation. I left it at "bad coding", though I suppose I should have included "the date can easily be tampered". LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 00:18, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

My understanding from just experimenting with a few web apps and a blog is that the last-modified-date for dynamically generated pages comes from the layout template. RW's front page says it hasn't been modified since 2/12 yet content cycles through it as quickly as a user can click refresh. Try curl -s http://rationalwiki.org/ from a terminal window - the modified date will show up the second time you hit the page. 02:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I am slightly concerned about my own personal sanity.

See title. For a while now I've been having a quite amusing RPG on DeviantArt with a manga artist, Thurosis. Here and here. I also have Steamboat Willie playing in the background on loop. Pensées? Immortality's fun, except when you become a two-headed monster ^{Talk to me or view my art} 00:35, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

It is too late. You have joined ranks with the lost and the damned. Nobody^{don't bother} 00:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, that was just the boost to finally get off my ass and finish assignement, which is due in about six hours.--Th. Bernhard_{Das Leben ist ein Prozeß, den man verliert, was man auch tut und wer man auch ist.} 00:59, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Me sending raptors to fight fembots motivated you to finish your schoolwork? How does that work? Immortality's fun, except when you become a two-headed monster ^{Talk to me or view my art} 01:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

What's with the rape-dummy thing? Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 01:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, how to put this.... Thurosis creates Ayaka, Miaka, and Saiaka. Thurosis tricks Miaka into having sex with him under the guise of a system maintenance. Ayaka hacks into Miaka so Miaka is now mad at Thurosis. Eventually, they decide to "do to him what he did to her", hence the rape dummies. Then largely defensive weapon of velociraptor. Immortality's fun, except when you become a two-headed monster ^{Talk to me or view my art} 01:58, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

None of that made much sense to me. Are these characters you have invented or are they from some existing work of fiction? Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 02:06, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I am myself, everyone else is Thurosis' creation, the (largely defensive weapons of) raptors were my idea. Do I get an Opabinia now? Immortality's fun, except when you become a two-headed monster ^{Talk to me or view my art} 02:11, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I propose that every fictional entity be given a common English name to avoid sounding ridiculous.

"Robert, the giant fiery dragon, is destroying the medieval land of Wisconsin!"

Nevermind — that sounds more ridiculous. Nihilist 04:26, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I don't think that'll work for Opabinia, which is too surreal for fantasy. Immortality's fun, except when you become a two-headed monster ^{Talk to me or view my art} 05:42, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm so glad to live in a country of laws, where the courts uphold the law, because that's what the courts should do.

Wait, no I'm not. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 17:27, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, no. apparently you do live in a country where they uphold the law. Disgusting, biggoted, ancient law. thank god, i guess, for courts of appeals as THAT law is going down quickly.Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 17:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I know I live in a country where they do that. I'm just not glad about the fact that I do. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 17:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Dafuq? ^postate 17:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

No, no, no. This is exactly how courts should werk! The law is antiquated and needs to be revised via the legislative process. To rule otherwise would require legislating from the bench. Is there something in the opinion that makes mention of the fact that maybe the legislature might want to revisit the applicable statutes? C®ackeЯ 17:40, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

"The law is antiquated and needs to be revised via the legislative process." And how long will a rapist go free until it does? Never mind that, the answer is "forever," because you won't be able to charge him under the new law. This is such bullshit. Also, the impersonation should have never figured into the conviction in the first place. The fact that he initiated sex with a sleeping woman who was unable to consent should be worth 15-20 years right there. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 17:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Christ, Top, you're really given to fits of histrionics, aren't ye?

The defendant is to be retried: when the judge gives the jury its instructions she is to "omit from CALCRIM No. 1003 the phrase: “or not aware of the essential characteristics of the act because the perpetrator tricked, lied to, or concealed information from her.” 18:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

Indeed, this is why "judicial activism" should be considered more carefully then just outright hatred. This should have been a case of legislating from the bench, and would have been acceptable. There are times where judges do this in a way that oversteps the bounds of their authority, but this is not one of them. We can only hope that the prosecution appeals the decision to powers that are more clear headed.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 17:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, if the decision had gone the other way no-one would have objected, (save for the defendant), by ruling thusly the court puts the ball (in this case a 140 year-old law), to the legislature, so that they can update or redraft the thing form scratch. Ruling outside the scope of the law leads to sloppy outcomes. Make the law BETTERER! C®ackeЯ 18:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

It's California. What would you expect? Burnum (talk) 18:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm actually rather surprized it wasn't a case of jury nullification (in reverse). Who cares what the law says, we find you guilty. you raped her. we are not that stupid to agree with an 1800's law. A lawyer on my page remined me that the judge tossed it out because he could not tell from the Jury's decision, if they did not find the man guilty cause they didn't think he did it, or if they didn't find him guilty due to the impersination law. so he couldn't really rule from the bench. Cause he did not know why they made their decision.Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 19:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

From what little I know, it's much harder than that, especially in California. In Cali, if the judge thinks there was jury nullification, they can throw out the juror. Also, AFAIK, juries decide questions of fact only, and judges decide the application of law, or so judges say. It's rather nuanced, and I am grossly ignorant. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 01:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Anecdotal tangent

Nigerian newspapers have some amazing stories but I remember reading about a woman who was raped from behind while bending over a water well. The judge asked the woman why she didn't protest or call for help until after event and she replied that it was because she thought it was someone she knew. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 18:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

We were talking on my facebook page about this, at length. most of us have woken up to find ourselves in the midst of sexual activity we assumed (all correctly, thank whatever you thank) that it was our chosen partner. But could you imagine what kinds of doubts, self loathing, etc, you'd feel to think you were with one person, ***enjoying*** and participating in the sex you were having, only to find out it's someone else? Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 19:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Cinematic tangent

On another tangent, rape-by-deception has been portrayed positively in a few Hollywood films. Revenge of the Nerds is the example that springs to mind, but I'm sure there've been others. I've been wondering for a while whether we ought to have a section on films either in the rape culture or rape apology article, or possibly a separate article covering Hollywood's promotion of rape. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

It was also done in Clerks, although, the line does kind of get fuzzy... --Seth Peck (talk) 21:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

If you mean the bit where a girl unwittingly humped a corpse, that's not really the same, as it was her mistake rather than a deliberate deception by the guy (who was dead at the time). So, distasteful & improbable, but not a rape scene. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Although it's still relevant as it's a woman's trauma in discovering it wasn't her partner she had sex with (as per Godot's comment above) played for comedy, which does smack a bit of rape culture. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

This was my thinking, Weaseloid. --Seth Peck (talk) 22:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Considering the movie includes destruction of property, breaking and entering, illegal monitoring, and a dozen other felonies in the first movie alone (there are four, if you didn't realize), I'm not sure if Revenge of the Nerds is actually an example of rape culture, so much as "if you're popular, you can get away with anything"--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 22:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Bullshit. From what I remember it objectified women pretty much throughout, with no regard for informed consent, the "illegal monitoring" scenes being an example. In fact most of that whole high school/campus pranks genre, from Animal House to Porky's to American Pie, had voyeuristic scenes of guys spying on or filming girls changing or showering, with no indication that this is actually not an OK way to behave. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:27, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not saying that it didn't objectify women, just that it was doing a lot of things other then just that that implies they weren't so much objectifying women as saying "cool people can get away with anything"--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 23:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Huh? You start off saying that you're not saying that it didn't objectify women, then a few words later you say that it didn't really objectify women after all. & When tricking women into unconsensual sex or otherwise treating them as sex objects is portrayed as one of the cool things that cool people can aspire to, that's rape culture, irrespective of whether this goes on alongside a bunch of other shenanigans. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

What Hamilton probably means is that the film shows these activities as a 'guilty pleasure': they're not right, but they're fun. I'm not sure whether this any better that open glorification. (I didn't see this movie, btw.) --Tweenk (talk) 00:17, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

How about the portrayal of characters like Joey from Friends or Barney from How I Met Your Mother, who use all sorts of dirty tricks to even get a glimpse at a woman? When Joey got a female roommate, he removed the shower curtains and the lock on the bathroom door, for example, but still gets portrayed as a lovable idiot rather than a sick creep--"Shut up, Brx." 01:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh yes, Revenge of the Nerds. The forefront of American culture. 72.205.215.192 (talk) 03:40, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

As opposed to more advanced English-speaking cultures which brought us Benny Hill/Dwarf Tossing/Nickelback? Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 03:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Snark from the BON aside, I hardly think you can claim an obscure 1984 comedy wherein the main characters get away with multiple crimes (some of them major felonies) without even slight investigation is representative of a culture. SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 03:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Except that it *is*. those acts of spying on women and getting the gal even if you have to lie about who you are, were cheered. and not considered "wrong" or "breaking the rules/law". It's reflective of much of what we think in our culture. ON my own page at facebook, i'm involved in discussions of "but women lie, and men must be protected", and while it's true, it's not nearly as true as men want to believe. but movies like this reinforce the idea that women want it, even when they say no. even when they are duped. they "realize" how good it was and decide all was ok. Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 04:18, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Alert the Surgeon General.... Maybe we can get a warning label on future DVD prints.</snark> Seriously... While there is a serious issue with rape in the world. Petty, quibbling shit like isn't helping the cause: How about spending more time educating people about what is and is not consent and making sure our prosecutors are going after rapists instead of pretending that movies are the problem. PS, if you think that movies are the problem, do you agree with the NRA that violent video games are causing shootings? SirChuckB^{Boom Goes the Dynamite} 05:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

When mainstream movies glamourise, trivialise or normalise rape & misogyny, that is a problem. Nobody's going to say it's "the problem" as if there's only one in the world, but it is still a problem & should be of concern to anybody who cares about achieving equality. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 14:40, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Almost nobody has ever even heard of that movie :DD the title alone is so shit --212.226.74.1 (talk) 15:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Find a movie that was made since I've been alive with the same theme and I might be able to agree with you. This is like holding up Birth of a Nation as proof of modern-day racism. SirChuckB^{A product of Affirmative Action} 15:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Hilarious Xmas activity: Pointing out that a couple's DVD collection contains not one but two copies of Triumph of the Will. "I bought one and then I found out we already owned one". "Admit it: your cover as sandal wearing, Guardian reading film nerds is blown, you are secret Nazi supporters". "Yes, it's no good, I confess, we own two copies in order that we can indoctrinate both our children simultaneously". 82.69.171.94 (talk) 17:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Sir B, it's a hugely serious problem. I don't know if it's the chicken or the egg, bout our movies show/influence how we think about women. Look at any disney cartoon before Beauty, and even several after that. Look at the stories we tell our girls. The fact that we make sex BAD, and something you should be ASHAMED of, then turn around and tell girls they should look and act sexy, offer sex to be popular (but not WANT it, girls should not want it). TV shows women having to be "convinced" to have sex, scared of having sex, and needing to be "deflowered" to appriciate it. Little girls frame their fantasies on the idea of being stolen and carted off to some wonderful castle where they will be turned into women! I don't know what stories little boys are told about dating, sex, and "getting the girl", but it suspect it is the same. Push her, if she says no, keep trying. No means yes. Our media, especially media for kids, teaches this view, reinforces this view. It is a big deal, and it is somewhere we need to be workign on. not just "teaching people how to say no" -- though that is equallyl critical. Our whole approach to sex needs to change, if we are ever to break out of this cycle. Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 22:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

"Keep trying" is because of a fundamental fact of human psychology, persuadability. Even if you went to the outrageous lengths of censoring it from all public media it would just become a great unspoken truth, whispered in secret. It's what they teach sales people too. Some of the people who say "No" when you ask if they want the extended warranty are going to keep saying "No" even if you ask a thousand times, but not all of them, perhaps not even most of them. You don't have to like it, but it's true anyway. If it was about sex then you'd only see it in that one corner of human existence, but you don't. All the way from "Will you help me with my homework?" to "Shall we get married?" the cases where both parties come to the same decision simultaneously rather than one persuading the other may make for good fiction but they're rare in reality. You might as well campaign for humans to start reproducing asexually, it will do you as much good as trying to change this basic aspect of psychology.

You were closer with the "teaching people how to say no" which is a successful strategy. You may not be able to predict what your answer will be to the question next week let alone next year, but you can make it clear what the answer is now. It's one of the usual suspects after all, when things involving humans go wrong, poor communication is right up there with drunkenness as a likely cause. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 14:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

While I'm no fan of the salesman mentality, there is quite a difference between an outlook which sees the customer as an object to be manipulated & browbeaten (in the sales context), and an outlook which sees one half of the human species as such in pretty much any context. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Where did i suggest censoring it? It's not about that. it's about providing other open models. We, all of us, get much of our identity and our social norms from the media. It used to be from churches, or where ever else you congrageted in the 1800s, but now it's tv. it's movies and song. As long as all black people are portrayed as gangsters, it's hard for kids to say "ah, there is a role model for me" (and no, it's not concious). When every story tells little girls they should be saying "no" to sex, and not "yes" to sex (on THEIR terms, of course) they don't even know there are alternatives.Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 20:33, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I apparently missed a very interesting discussion. Let me first clear up my earlier comment on Revenge of the Nerds, since I'm realizing how very poorly I worded it. I was not trying to say "objectification of women did not happen" I'm saying it was an example of a broader comment. Basically, the thesis of the movie was "if you are popular, you can get away with anything" and the supporting examples were the objectification of women, the liquid heat/jockstrap incident, the destruction of property, and the various other things that happen in the movie. So, I think you guys were arguing the supporting statements, while ignoring the thesis. With the lying man-slut trope in sitcoms (Barney in How I Met your Mother, Glen in Family Guy, Joey from Friends, apparently) I think you guys may be missing Poe's Law. Some of the things that Barney's character says and does to get laid are so over the top ridiculous that I have a feeling his character (and likely other characters like him) that he was intended as a parody of pick up artists, not serious role models.

And I'm going to agree with Godot that we as a society need to change the way we portray sex and relationships in media. I simply have no idea how.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 21:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I've long ago resolved myself that "need to" will NEVER translate into "will". I just rag a lot on here, or facebook, or blogs. and look at our world's daughters and say "someday..." It does get better, and online media MUST be helping, even if it is mostly "slactivism" (which i find a bit too dismissive, by the way. yes, we dont "do" much, but awareness is a good thing). I actually thought BRAVE presented a well designed, full bodied female lead who didn't need a man, wasn't petulant (much...), and grew even more strong, yet still independent. it might happen. Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 17:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Maybe it's too simplistic but I see the changes that have happened since Revenge of the Nerds as positive. Consider popular song (more my thing) and try the lyrics of "Keep Young And Beautiful" (It's your duty to be beautiful) or "Wives and Lovers" (if you aren't waiting at home with your legs open then it's your fault when he has an affair with his secretary - I paraphrase) and you see how we've progressed.

Back in the movies, are there any comedies as blatant as Revenge of the Nerds nowadays. Even Disney is beginning to accept that not every pretty girl is white. Sure, there is a long way to go but, in my lifetime, the revolution has happened. Innocent Bystander (talk) 17:22, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree; there's change but it's gradual. The kind of explicit endorsement of rape that appears in Revenge of the Nerds probably wouldn't appear in a mainstream movie these days - even if a writer came up with it, somebody at studio level would have the sense to say "no, we can't go with this". & That's because of public pressures, which is why it is important to speak out against misogyny (and rape culture, racism, homophobia, etc.) when it does appear in popular culture. There's still a long way to go & it's not like sexism etc. will disappear from our screens any time soon, but the more awareness there is of these issues, the better things will get. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The industry is definitely still problematic, but Revenge of the Nerds is pretty outrageous. One year we somehow received two copies as gifts, and having not seen the movie before the endorsement of rape at the end totally overshadowed both the other problematic elements (most of which would probably continue to get a pass today) and any redeeming message. The "it's not rape if the victim 'likes' it" trope is still pretty pervasive in media (see: pornography, romance novels, pretty much anything intended to be arousing, really). It's kind of like how the Wheel of Time series plays the rape-at-knifepoint of one of the male characters for laughs. Which is why the whole "you're being divisive" argument against people who speak out against those aspects is so toxic. — Unsigned, by: ORavenhurst / talk^{Do You Believe That?} 14:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

As Godot has mentioned, perhaps without clearly thinking about it, "it's not rape if the victim likes it" is actually how people work. Go back, read her description. In law that's rape, right there, there was no possibility of consent because in each case the person was unconscious. None of them reported a rape because, in hindsight they considered that they liked it and so they consented after the fact and it was "not really rape". This isn't actually anything special about rape, or sexual conduct, it's normal behaviour albeit difficult to rationalise in a legal framework. Suppose one of your kids wants to use the car, they rightly suspect that you won't let them because they haven't done their chores. So they "borrow" the keys and sneak out, then drive off planning to face the consequences when they return. That's TWOC (I don't know what the US equivalent is called). But in practice if it gets reported to the police you will probably say that the child did have your permission to use the car, since otherwise they might get a criminal conviction. Because it's how people work, you should expect to see it in films, but like everything else in a movie it will be tidier and less traumatic than it is in real life. Everyone will be more beautiful, and better lit, and their lines will be more clearly enunciated. 82.69.171.91 (talk) 12:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Films where a victim falls in love with her rapist are not realistically depicting "how people work"; they're promoting a rape fantasy in which it's OK to rape as long as you're good in bed. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:53, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Films aren't (on the whole) realistically depicting anything, I already made that point. 82.69.171.91 (talk) 15:15, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Not very well. You said a lot about "how people work" which is bullshit when you're talking movies that depict women enjoying the experience of rape. "It's just a movie" is a shit argument that can be used to justify filmmakers pushing any kind of content or message. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:30, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Is it movies that are bullshit or the real world?

All I did was explain where ORavenhurst's "trope" comes from, like many others it's just real life experience with the saturation turned up until it looks good on screen. Nobody's requiring you to like it, but there is a real phenomenon underpinning this and this is problematic from an ethical and legal point of view as we've seen previously. In fact the movies often make it easier, more black-and-white than the real world. I am reminded of someone showing me actual surgical photographs of a part of the body that I'd previously only seen in diagrams. Hey, this is much trickier to distinguish from the surrounding tissue now that it's not highlighted in a separate colour. Real organs, unlike the ones in diagrams, are often weirdly mis-shapen blobs, scarred and covered in veins, haphazardly held in place by some mebrane wherever there was space and not neatly hanging in a big cavity like the diagram. Anyway, like the diagram the law on rape is very clear cut and easy to understand, but like the real person the truth on the ground is complicated and messy. If you go into every situation expecting it to look like the diagram you are going to get very confused. 82.69.171.91 (talk) 20:43, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

None of that made a whole lot of sense. Are you saying you think it's OK for films to promote rape in a positive light or not? Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 01:31, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Which part are you having trouble with? 82.69.171.91 (talk) 02:47, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

The internal organs thing. What the hell does that have to do with anything? ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 04:15, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh right, that's just there as a simile. Editing my replies here to be brief and to the point is very time-consuming, so I don't always do it. 82.69.171.91 (talk) 21:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Biblical tangent

Does the story of Jacob and Leah qualify as rape by deception? Here the victim is a man (Jacob), but I assume he didn't want to have sex with Leah. --Tweenk (talk) 00:17, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

He wasn't averse to having sex with her, he just had the big bone for her little sister, Rachel. Burnum (talk) 00:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

& Both women were given to him by their father as "wages" for Jacob's work. If there is a rape victim in this scenario, I'd say it's the women more than the guy. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 01:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Leah must've been part of the ruse. He must've been shitfaced drunk on his wedding nite to wake up the next morning and discover he married somebody else. And she must've known it was billed as her sister's wedding. Burnum (talk) 03:30, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Fox News agrees with me on fast food :(

Yesterday, I was looking for a particular shop to get some strawberry tequila and got lost. After a couple hours ambling around town, I just headed home and decided to have a box of fuck-this-shit-I-give-up fried chicken. So I headed into Supermacs, a chain unique to Ireland, and ordered a snack box. When it came, I noticed something in the corner of the tray's paper cover which I either never saw before or is new. Fox News voted Top 10 fast food restaurants in the world.

So, I had a look, and yup, it's true. Great. Makes me feel awful now. But I can't help but giggle at the fact that in Ireland, the vast, vast majority of Supermacs' buildings have 3 chains inside them: Supermacs, Quiznos sub, and - wait for it - Papa John's. A place that Fox News viewers love shares space with a branch that hates Obamacare. A hilarious and sad coincidence in hindsight. And now I want to go get a box. Polite Timesplitter ^{come shout at me for being thick} 18:00, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Strawberry tequila? You live in the land of Teacher's/Jameson's/Paddy/Powers, not to mention the Black Stuff/Murphy's/Beamish, and you're looking for Strawberry fucking tequila? Insufferable yuppie. What the hell is wrong with you? Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 18:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Teacher's is scotch, unless there's another Teacher's I don't know about. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:00, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

You are correct. I hang my head liver in shame. Still doesn't excuse the strawberry tequila, though. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 19:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

It's for making a dessert with. Polite Timesplitter ^{come shout at me for being thick} 19:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

If Supermac's are advertising themselves as "Fox News voted Top 10 fast food restaurants in the world", that's certainly a creative interpretation. It looks more like Fox &/or the Daily Meal (whatever that is) published an arbitrary list of ten overseas fast food chains most Americans wouldn't have heard of, including Supermac. It looks more like journalistic filler than any kind of survey, review or ranking of these restaurants, and it's pretty clear they've just selected one obvious choice for each of a few major countries/regions. I don't know about Supermac's, but Wimpy is a tatty, dated, ever-declining greasy spoon outfit which I would be extremely surprised to see on anybody's world top 10 list. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

This post just happened to remind me of how I've been able to stay off of fast food completely for at least a month now. I don't even miss it. Immortality's fun, except when you become a two-headed monster ^{Talk to me or view my art} 23:48, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm right with you...ain't it great? --Seth Peck (talk) 23:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

To say that Supermac's are using a "creative interpretation" in their advertising is being very charitable. I'd say they're lying. The Fox News story is called "Ten fast food restaurants you haven't heard of", it isn't even "Top ten fast food restaurants you haven't heard of". And for my money, Freshness Burger is a better Japanese burger joint than MOS Burger. Freshness Burger sell beer for a start.--Spud (talk) 13:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

a box of fuck-this-shit-I-give-up fried chicken. Greatest line I'll have read/heard all day. Aboriginal Noise ^{What the ...} 16:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Freshness and Mos sound a bit like Works here in Ontario, especially with the gourmet burgers and not cooking anything until the order is placed. I think they sell beer too, but it's been a while since I've been in so I'm probably wrong. --Kels (talk) 16:43, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Ghosts

So, for no good reason, I decided I would watch A Haunting while doing some psychology homework. This combination naturally caused me to start thinking. I am aware that ghosts are products of our minds and nothing more, but from my experience and the experience of others that I have talked to, ghosts seem to hold a special place in our species' natural fear-trigger, so to speak. Why do you think this is? Why does the idea of the spirit of a dead human or something similar cause such a unique fear reaction in us? --P3A58NT86 05:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I remember watching the movie The Ghost Goes West as a child and our house was struck by lightning. A flash came down the chimney, the electric went off, and a small fire was started in the roof. How spooky is that? Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 09:15, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Ghosts are by-and-large different in presentation from other things that go bump in the night because of their intangible nature. Vampires, werewolves and the like are scary but they're also relatable to real-life threats like murderers or a dangerous animal, nasties that humans have a resonable track-record of neutralising, something that fiction reflects usually by giving us a band of heroes or at least a decent-sized torch-and-pitchforks mob to sort things out. Ghosts are closer to physical phenomena like violent weather or disease which strike with less predictability and can't be dealt with so directly. There's probably something about the innate fear of death and what happens beyond mixed in as well. Grumblejaws (talk) 10:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

In a lot of horror movies, ghosts appear very suddenly: you turn around & there they are, and there's no escaping from them. When you're alone in a quiet house, it's easy to imagine that happening. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:29, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I used to love watching A Haunting. Another related thing that makes ghosts and poltergeists and the like so frightening is that some of them are supposed to be able to alter people's behavior and could follow them from place to place if they become attached. They're also intangible so you can't just punch one in the face to make it go away. Sam ^Tally-ho! 22:48, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Translate troubles

I'm translating in french RationalWiki, and I have some problems at doing that :

-How would you translate Lulz?

- same for run by?

-what is a "a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt corporation"?

thanks. Jean 5 5 (talk) 22:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

"MDR" ("mort de rire") is supposed to be the French version of "LOL" so I guess you could start there for "lulz." Maybe add the ending that makes French nouns plural to the end of it. See 501(c) organization for info on that one. Sam ^Tally-ho! 22:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

(EC) 501c(3) is a U.S. law that exempts nonprofits from taxes, to put it simply. Blue (is useful) 22:55, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

C'est un organisme à but non lucratif. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 23:01, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I know i've seen french texto in "lolcat" stupid speech. must be something "for the laughs". Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 01:06, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Yet another silly creationist

I'd appreciate links to help me deal with this very well informed creationist and his PRATT's. Proxima Centauri (talk) 08:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

If you haven't already done so then I encourage you to get (and read) Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution Is True because not many people here are interested in discussions at Liberapedia. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 08:53, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

TalkOrigins has an excellent and extensive Index to Creationist Claims. Apokalyps2547 (talk) 17:01, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I posted a reply. Hope it helps. Apokalyps2547 (talk) 17:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your reply but he just stays narrow minded and the thread gets longer and longer and there are other things I'd much rather be doing. Proxima Centauri (talk) 11:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

"Now don’t spontaneously evolve into a bovine (evolution speak for “Don’t have a cow, man.”)." - OYG, a creationist with some vague wit! Beats the shit out of Chad Elliot, whom I had the displeasure of running into recently. ^gnostic 18:06, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

"this very well informed creationist" -- I hope that's sarcasm. So, he's dissing big bang cosmology, abiogenesis, and evolutionary theory. I don't know if it's effective, but I always though that focusing on big bang cosmology first would be the better bet. Refuse to talk about evolution and abiogenesis until you both agree on how old the Earth and universe are. For that, (in my gross ignorance) my favorite link on the topic is our own evidence against a recent creation. I like focusing on dendrochronology as it's quite easy to understand and explain, and accurate to the year, and it's sufficient to discount a 6,000 year old Earth. I also like distant starlight, but that requires a little more knowledge. You need to be able to talk about standard candles, such as type Ia supernova, and you need to be able to talk about SN 1987A to discount any c-decay bullshit. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 01:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Good point. For me as a geologist the evidence that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old does not rely on the theory of evolution. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 08:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to those who helped reduce my workload with this creationist. Are we making him (unlikely her) doubt? On the Internet we can't reactions so there's no way of knowing. Proxima Centauri (talk) 10:24, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Meh, he did it. He just invoked Last Thursdayism. I posted up a post trying to appeal to common sense and reason (lol). If it's unsuccessful (which is likely), then I'm done with that guy. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 11:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

It surprises me he hasn't noticed yet he's damaging his own cause,. Proxima Centauri (talk) 18:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not surprised everyone is tired of him, so am I. I'm pointing out regularly that he hasn't started to prove the Bible. I keep retyping what he hasn't answered, sometimes with coloured text and/or bold text so he can't digress. I'm waiting to see if he brings up Evidence for the historical existence of Jesus Christ and other historical subjects. If he does at least that will be different and a bit interesting. Proxima Centauri (talk) 10:59, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

He didn't come back yesterday despite promising he'd be there for weeks. I hope I've seen the end of him. Proxima Centauri (talk) 14:17, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

He didn't answer my question about having a conversation about what's demonstrably true. I wonder how he would answer. I've been trying out that tactic as of late. I hope to employ it to weed out the completely unreasonable people up front. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 14:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

More Obamacare hysteria

Wendy's is the latest fast-food chain to whine about Obamacare. To be honest, I hope places like Papa John's and Wendy's raise their prices. It might actually do something constructive to help combat obesity in the US. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 17:32, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I haven't eaten fast food in a month, and my last soft drink was consumed on 12/1/12. I was sick for awhile, so I haven't hit the gym but twice in that time, but I did go on two hikes. I've lost three pounds. I don't miss Wendy's or any of it. --Seth Peck (talk) 20:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Fast food and hospitality are examples of industries who use a lot of disposable help. It doesn't take long to train a replacement dishwasher, burger flipper, towel folder, or bed maker. Shenanigans abound, and the whole "keep their hours under 32 per week" (or 30, in this case) is not a new strategy for benefit avoidance. Obamacare is just a recently available red herring. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 20:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Under the new law employers could cut out health insurance benefits completely cause the employee is mandated to have their own coverage. An employer could pay a little more in compensation using the savings from premiums they used to pay as wages. The only question is whether the mandated premiums the worker is required to pay will be cheaper than the offsetting wage increase. Burnum (talk) 22:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Could, but won't. As a former hospitality worker (including management), I found it to be a point of pride when the restaurant could offer health insurance to its workers, especially the non-salaried ones. Many times, the employee opted out the benefit--either their spouse or parents already had health insurance, or it was just too expensive (usually the case). If everything works correctly, premiums should be going down due to the mandate. --Seth Peck (talk) 23:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

When you author a bill as stupidly as Obamacare, you can bitch and whine all you want, but the end result is at the margins companies will lower employment opportunities if the marginal cost becomes prohibitive. The issue is not that universal healthcare is a bad goal, and I'll note that Republicans never wanted or want true universal access, but for the Democrats not to realize that these types of problems would o cur by maintaining the employer based health insurance model is beyond perplexing. FlamingModerate (talk) 00:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

1) how is it beyond perplexing? You are never going to pass a bill that says "let's raise taxes 10% on all people and corporations to make a socialized health care system". no one would ever vote for that. Most companies already offer health care, this just pushes the few that do not, to do so. the corporate insurance rackets are behind it, thanks to the increase in customers. for a first step, it's quite rational, thought out, and yes, they knew some compaines would balk, but compaines balk no matter what you try to do.Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 19:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

It's funny that the wingnuts seem to think giving incentives to corporations to race to the bottom in employee protection, to preserve profits for the people at the top who of course have good health plans, is somehow a "freedom" issue. The law has never provided a right of freedom to exploit other people. Well, not since Abolition anyway. JzG (talk) 17:34, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

The Republicans under Coburn-Ryan were the ones who wanted to remove the corporate tax breaks for the corporations and health insurance, not the Democrats. Obamacare does not provide for full universal healthcare and there are many subsets of the population that, as the net result of tax laws, will still find healthcare to be unaffordable. FlamingModerate (talk) 03:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Dafuq?

So PZ trumpets that Zinnia Jones is doing a Reddit AMA about her correspondence with Bradley Manning BEFORE she testifies in his case?

I'm no lawyer, but I would have thought there's all kinds of wrong in her doing that? Comments and face palms from our legal brethren? --PsyGremlin^Tal! 08:48, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any replies from her in the AMA - she might have chickened out from the negative response. Osaka Sun (talk) 09:04, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Reading the comments on PZ's blog, it seems as if her comments were all being voted down. I would have thought with good reason too. However, in true PZ's blog style, the comments are all "haters gonna hate." PZ's blog is cool - his comments section is a cesspit of morons. PsyGremlin^Siarad! 09:16, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, Reddit is right here. The prosecution will have a field day on this. Osaka Sun (talk) 09:30, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

@PsyGremlin: PZ's blog is cool - his comments section is a cesspit of morons. - Agreed so hard. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 12:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Church admits it

Maybe not important enough for a Saloon Bar topic, but saw this on reddit and thought it was funny. At least they're honest. Sam ^Tally-ho! 04:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Gotta be fake. ... Right? right? LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 12:26, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

No, it's real. Here it is at a Christian site. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:54, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

~goes into logic bomb~ ... Cannot ... be ... real ... Must ... be ... joke ... EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 14:00, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

ZOMG an unsourced picture on the Internet!!! OUTRAGE!!!!!!!1 --2.39.39.47 (talk) 15:33, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, for a start it's just a fairly frank and honest representation of fideism (indeed, it's just a longer version of a Martin Luther quote), and it's also not unusual because Eric Hovind does endorse the line that God should not be challenged at all - i.e., we shouldn't even possess motivation to find facts. ^gnostic 17:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Maybe we should include that picture in an expanded fideism article, copyright notwithstanding? Immortality's fun, except when you become a two-headed monster ^{Talk to me or view my art} 18:38, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Ana Kasparian on Thunderf00t

Worth a watch if you're into sexism and all that. TF might almost be redeeming himself slightly (or trying), but YMMV. ^{d hominem} 16:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I found this to be quite funny.Nobody^{don't bother} 16:03, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

That reminds me, why aren't you more like Han Solo? ^{d hominem} 17:08, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

TF might redeem himself better if he didn't make a point of saying "these bitches (Rebecca Watson, Jen McCreight, etc.) should be more like Ana". Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

of if he didn't decide that "the way to be" is nice, polite and lady like. As if he should be the gate keeper of how we should react to trolls, biggots and idiots.Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 20:30, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Thunderf00t's problem has long been that he treats those who disagree with him in a way he finds impolite or demanding as being hateful censor happy fascists. He also has a highly idiotic habit of lashing out at anyone he thinks tries to defend said "censor happy fascists" even if they are merely objecting to his often exceedingly poorly thought out words used to express this annoyance, which ends up alienating more people and thus making him lash out more. When arguing with creationists and the far right this was fine, since in almost all cases they really were hateful and censor happy fascists, but now, no matter how reasonable his actual point may be, the way he presents it and argues it is just abrasive and angry, and results in him often being dismissed as a raging dick with issues against women. Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 20:42, 13 January 2013 (UTC)