RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive187

This is an archive page, last updated 23 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>, <186>, <188>, <189>, <190>, <191>, <192>, <193>, <194>, <195>, <196>, <197>, <198>, <199>, <200>, <201>, <202>, <203>, <204>, <205>, <206>, <207>, <208>, <209>, <210>, <211>, <212>, <213>, <214>, <215>, <216>, <217>, <218>, <219>, <220>, <221>, <222>, <223>, <224>, <224½>, <225>, <226>, <227>, <228>, <229>, <230>, <231>, <232>, <233>, <234>, <235>, <236>, <237>, <238>, <239>, <240>, <241>, <242>, <243>, <244>, <245>, <246>, <247>, <248>, <249>, <250>, <251>, <252>, <253>, <254>, <255>, <256>, <257>, <258>, <259>, <260>, <261>, <262>, <263>, <264>, <265>, <266>, <267>, <268>, <269>, <270>, <271>, <272>, <273>, <274>, <275>, <276>, <277>, <278>, <279>, <280>, <281>, <282>, <283>, <284>, <285>, <286>, <287>, <288>, <289>, <290>, <291>, <292>, <293>, <294>, <295>, <296>, <297>, <298>, <299>, <300>, <301>, <302>, <303>, <304>, <305>, <306>, <307>, <308>, <309>, <310>, <311>, <312>, <313>, <314>, <315>, <316>, <317>, <318>, <319>, <320>, <321>, <322>, <323>, <324>, <325>, <326>, <327>, <328>, <329>, <330>, <331>, <332>, <333>, <334>, <335>, <336>, <337>, <338>, <339>, <340>, <341>, <342>, <343>, <344>, <345>, <346>, <347>, <348>, <349>, <350>, <351>, <352>, <353>, <354>, <355>, <356>, <357>, <358>, <359>, <360>, <361>, <362>, <363>, <364>, <365>, <366>, <367>, <368>, <369>, <370>, <371>, <372>, <373>, <374>, <375>, <376>, <377>, <378>, <379>, <380>, <381>, <382>, <383>, <384>, <385>, <386>, <387>, <388>, <389>, <390>, <391>, <392>, <393>, <394>, <395>, <396>, <397>, <398>, <399>, <400>, <401>, <402>, <403>, <404>, <405>, <406>, <407>, <408>, <409>, <410>, <411>, <412>, <413>, <414>, <415>, <416>, <417>, <418>, <419>, <420>, <421>, <422>, <423>, <424>, <425>, <426>, <427>, <428>, <429>, <430>, <431>, <432>, <433>, <434>, <435>, <436>, <437>, <438>, <439>, <440>, <441>, <442>, <443>, <444>, <445>, <446>, <447>, <448>, <449>, <450>, <451>, <452>, <453>, <454>, <455>, <456>, <457>, <458>, <459>, <460>, <461>, <462>, <463>, <464>, <465>, <466>, <467>, <468>

, (new)(back)

Sorry, Star Wars geeks....

Build a Death Star? We will not. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 22:51, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Bah! Obama would rather give the money to the Muslim Brotherhood, than support sensible defense initiatives that would create thousands of jobs. And defend the earth from the bad guy with a death star... --PsyGremlin^Prata! 22:59, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Obamunism at its finest. National security demands a Death Star to act as a deterrent to any potential Death Stars North Korea and Iran might build. Blue (is useful) 23:07, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

They could afford it if they stopped funding Planned Parenthood's abortions. ^narchist 00:46, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

And all those gays getting social security! Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 01:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you guys live under a damn rock or something? We already have a Death Star. It's the gigantic gray circle thing that orbits our planet, you can see it at night! RachelW (talk) 03:12, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

That's not a space station, it's a moon. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 11:39, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any proof of that? Nihilist 17:29, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't know about the canon/EU of Star Wars, but I've always imagined that it has some kind of internal farming complex along with some way of gaining fuel from the universe (such as by absorbing the sub-atomic particles in the vacuum and charging them for power). If that was the case, you're not talking about creating thousands of jobs, you're talking about trillions of jobs and an alternative to Earth. --Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 19:26, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

It's the "Alan Parsons Project". Okay now zip it! --Seth Peck (talk) 16:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Which one of you jokers sets the questions on QI?

Goats and jerboas in the same episode. Coincidence? I think not! ^{d hominem} 00:06, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Were they long-eared? *eyebrow raise* Immortality's fun, except when you become a two-headed monster ^{Talk to me or view my art} 03:12, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Yep. The longest part of a long-eared jerboa is, in fact, its tail. And covering someone's feet in honey and having a goat lick it off was considered an effective form of torture in the 16th century. ^bomination 18:53, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I protest the BBC for not playing QI in the US. Or atleast releasing more of the seasons on DVD.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 19:27, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

The problem is all of the licensing for all the media they use. The BBC has to license pictures or video, but QI at least benefits under the BBC's blanket royalty license with the music industry. All that would have to be started over again in the US, and BBC America is of the opinion that the US just isn't interested. (Grumble grumble. Never even mind asking BBC Canada.) My favourite moment from QI was Fry banhammering anyone who believes in astrology (followed closely by "They Say of the Acropolis..."). Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 20:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I generally assume that the BBC (people in general as well) would be smart enough to go "You know, I bet a lot of people would like to see this show who are not British, or who want to watch a specific episode. Let's fix this, without having to deal with broadcasters". I really don't see why it would be so incredibly for BBC to have a website where you can stream whole episodes, just with a commercial in their to pay for costs. Funimation already does that on youtube. *grumble grumble grumble*--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 20:49, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it again comes down to copyright and licensing. The BBC has paid copyright license fees for all the clips/images for domestic broadcast; international streaming is a whole different (and probably much fatter, considering the scope) fee that the Beeb's going to have to justify when the green ink comes out (and you know it will). Just imagine the Daily Mail's take on the BBC taking your license fee and spending it on streaming QI (namby-pamby intellectual horseshit waste of license fees OR beloved British institution, depending on what day it is) to foreigners. Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 20:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

The rights issues are a fucking nightmare. There are warehouses of old BBC tapes that will decay before being digitised because there is no way they could be played again before the copyright actually expires. It's just completely fucked. Bootleg away, you'll never be able to buy the stuff - David Gerard (talk) 00:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you sure that's true? (The part about the tapes that will never be digitised). 82.69.171.91 (talk) 01:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

It's the reason why Charlie Brooker started linking people to illegally uploaded clips of Screenwipe on YouTube. Osaka Sun (talk) 10:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Old episodes of QI get rebroadcast in the UK on 'Dave' (IIRC), a commercial digital channel that buys up a lot of BBC's light entertainment shows after first broadcast. This means that the BBC probably doesn't have the rights to rebroadcast the show after they've sold it to Dave, or to host it in an alternative location like online (although they do still have rights for DVD release where applicable). Similarly old classic BBC shows like Monty Python, Fawlty Towers, Dad's Army, etc. which used to be repeat broadcast ad infinetem when I was growing up now can't be reshown on BBC at all because the Beeb has sold UK broadcast rights to UK Gold(?) or other commercial channels. BBC iPlayer lets you watch new shows for a week after they're first broadcast (if you're watching from within the UK) but after that they're gone. They might get repeated on TV once if you're lucky, but otherwise DVD or piracy is likely to be your only chance of seeing them again. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of Charlie Brooker, one episode of screenwipe does cover "clearing", which is the legal process of ensuring that each image shown on screen is cleared for use. He even wasted a few hundred pounds of the production budget just to wave a photograph of someone around, while censoring another one because they didn't pay for it, in order to demonstrate the point. With all the visuals used in the background of QI, that can quickly amass a lot of cost, all of which needs to be paid and cleared again for another country. It's not as simple as just running adverts to cover the cost overseas. It'd be nice to have it all worldwide and simple, but even if the producers really want to copyright law probably wouldn't allow it (remembering that copyright law is different country to country, which really fucks with it). So, yeah, you're unlikely to ever see it legally so you're not morally (at least) wrong to go a-hunting on the internet for it. ^postate 15:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Which is a shame, of course, because it's material people clearly don't mind spending some cash on. ^bomination 15:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Um, it's all on YouTube, at least through Series I or so. In high-def, complete episodes that autoload the next one, and no advertising. ħuman 21:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, but it would be nice if the BBC and the fine people at QI were making money on my views.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 04:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Joss Whedon

Joss Whedon has said he wishes he could direct Star Wars VII, but can't, since he's directing Avengers II.

This is a shame. We could have had Leia the Empire Slayer. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 16:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I find this is a good development. I wouldn't want to run Whedon into the ground by having him showrun two massive franchises. Besides, considering Whedon's strength is quite character-led, I wonder if he'd be the right choice for space opera. ^pathetic 16:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

*has an anger stroke that Whedon is still directing and dies*--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 20:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Is this Conspiracy REAL?

Urgent: Disable Java on Your Computer The Iranians are coming to get the USA because Innocence of Muslims hasn't been taken down or something. Proxima Centauri (talk) 18:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

yes, the US govt (and france, and germany, and UK, etc) recommended turning off Java because of a potential back door problem. No, iran has NOTHING to do with it. hence the idiotic "I suspect" in the title.Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 18:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The specific conspiracy is probably nonsense, but Java is vulnerable at the moment, even after Oracle's latest patch. rpeh •T•C•E• 18:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

How do I disable Java? i don't want my computer vulnerable. Proxima Centauri (talk) 18:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Proxima, do you know what the word "conspiracy" means? (Hint: one guy making a comment on a blog isn't evidence of one. Pay less attention to the crazies) Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 18:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Rather than talk you through five different browser's addon-management options, just Google "disable java firefox" (or whatever browser you use) and you'll get several good pages. And stay off the pr0n sites. rpeh •T•C•E• 18:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

A quicker and easier way would be to find the folder "C:\Windows\System32\" and delete that. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 18:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

If i'm on Linux, would that mean i have to delete "/bin"? Nihilist 18:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Or you could throw your compy out the window. That would work too. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 18:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I could disable Java, but i'm not a security-critical entity, so, eh. Nihilist 18:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, what does it say about internet culture when people learn about a widely-publicized computer vulnerability on some marginal blog and can't discern a real and obvious problem from some nutjob conspiracy theory. We should spend more time reading the New York Times and less time looking at the fringes. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 18:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, come now; all the best news comes from the fringes. You just have to learn to distinguish the facts from the bullshit. ListenerX^TalkerX 18:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Amusingly, i JUST heard that line, when talking about a discussion of American Thinker yesterday. I think i should just start thinking!Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 20:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Although, if you read The Register you would have heard about this days ago and by now would have secured your computer from threat by, a) blowing up the local exchange, b) digging up the street to cut the cable, and c) built a massive Faraday cage over your local community, thereby ensuring your safety, assuming that, a) you don't blow yourself up with the exchange, b) haven't fallen into the massive hole that now exists in your street, or c) haven't fallen 30m to your death as you fix the last piece of chicken wire to the top of the dome.-- ^{Jabba de Chops} 21:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

name change

How does one go about changing their name on here? I figure I'll change it to EnlightenmentLiberal. LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 12:27, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Done.--^talk 12:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you kind sir. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 13:14, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Suck me off --MarcusRulez (talk) 14:26, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't they have an app for that? EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 14:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

There certainly is an app for getting rid of petty trolls like you, it's called blocking! MarcusRulez (talk) 14:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

? EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 15:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Fair to assume your variety of Liberalism is circa the early-mid enlightenment, ie Classical Liberalism?--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 19:29, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Yep. "Classical liberal" I'm afraid is too close for many to libertarian, and I am not a libertarian, so I picked this name. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 02:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

"Classical Liberalism" in the sense of Liberalism from the late 17th to the early 19th century has really next to nothing to do with Libertarianism. Thomas Paine's "Agrarian Justice" is a moral argument in favor of death taxes, property taxes, social security, and giving everyone 1.5 times the annual average income when they turn 21. Thomas Jefferson wrote of the need for taxes, universal education and healthcare. Adam Smith is thoroughly destroyed by the VMI. Libertarians like to claim that they're the ideological heirs to Classical Liberalism, but their views have next to nothing to do with the actual views of the major figures in the movement.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 20:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure. I agree. Yet, one of the first changes I did while I was around here was to correct the libertarian page by pointing out that Locke is not a libertarian. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 06:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

VMI? The Virginia Military Institute? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 06:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't even know we had a page on Locke. VMI is the Von Mises Institute, it's a Libertarian/AnCap think tank. If you ever spend anytime talking to Libertarians/AnCaps they'll cite it sooner or later.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 15:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

My fix was here: Libertarian#Heroes. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 22:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Getting around proxy ban

There's a story here I'm sure no one cares about, but basically I want to get onto a website (possibly for RW related reasons), but I do not want to do so from my own IP address, or one anywhere near me. IP Proxy is the obvious answer, but the captcha you have to fill out to be a member does not show up if you're using an IP Proxy, or atleast the handful I tried. So, is there a way anyone knows about to get around this, short of moving to Nepal?--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 16:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

There's always Tor. Though, when I was in high school, students would stick a different (working) IP address in Internet Explorer's settings (under "proxy," I believe) so they could get around the school's filters. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 18:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

RW gets referenced

A rawstory.com article about a kindly old who helped shelter kids after the Newtown massacre and is getting harassed by conspiracy loons links to RW's JAQing Off article. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 17:23, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I've seen that sort of thing via CTSTDT... there's textbook JAQing to the point where we should start adding it to the article, but there are too many incidents to cite. ^{d hominem} 17:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

The Governator on Reddit

Burn the RINO! Osaka Sun (talk) 20:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Conspiracy people harrassing sandy hook man

So this is pretty disgusting. people are calling his house at all hours to harrass him in his "role" as a "grief actor" in the fake Sandy Hook shooting. Apparently even some families are getting a bit of push back. What the fuck has my country turned into? Believe all the damn conspiracies you want - but actually harassing those who were effected? Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 23:56, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

(see here) Scream!! (talk) 23:59, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

The war on drugs

Has been won! Who has lost? ^{— Unsigned, by: 81.101.244.221 / talk / contribs} 00:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01pzz69/Storyville_20122013_The_House_I_Live_In

Poking the Birthers

Sign! Tmtoulouse (talk) 06:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Signed. On a larger note, the degree to which Republicans are willing to waste taxpayer money in a putative battle for fiscal conservatism is impressive - I'm reminded of the millions of dollars spent for the House in the last Congress to "repeal Obamacare" dozens of times. And have any whitehouse.gov petitions actually led to meaningful action, as an aside? I seem to be signing quite a lot of them lately. Blue (pester) 06:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

The petition site is... insane. It's a good idea, but it's obvious a number of the petitions are created by people who have at least one of these traits:

• An axe to grind or some pet issue
• Absolutely zero idea what the powers of the Presidency are
• Not being right in the head

For instance, here's a few petitions I've spotted this morning:

• Rule the "NY SAFE ACT" to be UNCONSTITUTIONAL! It's a gun control bill, not even passed yet, at the NY state level. Completely out of the President's purview to declare it unconstitutional.
• grant funds to continue the animated adaptation of Isuna Hasekura's Spice and Wolf novels for the benefit of the public. The Federal government should fund someone's favorite bit of anime!
• REPEAL AB 1595 AND WIPE THE SLATE CLEAN BY REMOVING IT COMPLETELY FROM THE BOOKS. A California helmet law. Again, completely out of the President's purview.
• initiate a recall referendum (recall election) to elect a new President of the United States. Zero Constitutional basis.

Yowzers. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 12:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

ePetition - David Gerard (talk) 15:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I see Orly's already signed this one... Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 07:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I feel like this is why wiki basically says we're a vandal site.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 15:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

How so? ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 16:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Eh? Because we sign petitions? Classic vandal behavior, I know. Blue (is useful) 19:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, the guy who made the site, and by all appearances is still basically incharge, is asking the userbase to do something not because he thinks its right, but because it will piss off a segment of the population.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 00:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Not everything Trent does or says is in his capacity as Operations Manager of the RationalWiki Foundation, you know. Blue (is useful) 01:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

And? Some Congressmen cheats on his wife, and we still get pissed. It speaks to character, and in this case it speaks to the character of the website, that we only exist to piss people off.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 01:48, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I think some perspective and a sense of humour might go a long way here. Tmtoulouse (talk) 02:48, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I think some understanding of how we're viewed by outsiders might go longer.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 02:51, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of perspective, if this rather innocuous "pissing people off" is what indicates to you a poor view of us by outsiders, you might want to check elsewhere for some significantly larger problems. Blue (pester) 02:55, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The server logs and back links gives me a better opportunity than most to see exactly what "outsiders" are saying about RW. Can't make all the people happy all the time but our reputation is pretty solid where it counts. And yes we are pissing certain people off, and based on the kinds of people we piss off, it is a good thing. Tmtoulouse (talk) 03:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Things like this tell people who are not part of the community or are only tangentially a part of the community what kind of people and activity is tolerated and expected at RW. Basically, the vend diagram of RW members is people who overlap as skeptics and assholes. Everyone else looks around, see the kind of behavior that happens here, and leaves--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 03:31, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

We're supposed to be nice to racist conspiracy theorists who waste public money for their delusions? Blue (is useful) 03:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Anybody who won't read or contribute to RationalWiki because of Things like this probably aren't wanted as contributors and are a waste of bandwidth as readers.--"Shut up, Brx." 03:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Blue, I think we both know that there is a massive difference between being nice to someone and being an asshole. I don't know, maybe this could have been titled with the actual title of the petition? --Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 03:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The vend diagram of people who are not insane and who think Orly Taitz and her ilk should be treated with mockery and disdain is indistinguishable from a simple circle. Tmtoulouse (talk) 03:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

(EC)True; however, I think polemic has some use in discourse, especially in this case, where somehow I don't think many skeptics will look at this section and actually get worked up that we are making fun of these people. Again, regardless, one section title in the bar is of much less concern to us than the entire arm of the site dedicated to gossiping about the gentlemen at the other site. Blue (pester) 03:51, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, it's not like the title was "Skullfucking those inbred morons"--"Shut up, Brx." 03:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

@Hamilton: Urging others to sign a petition, and criticizing bad petitions, constitutes being an asshole? News to me. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 03:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Blue, if you'd like I could start finding articles with the special:random key and fucking with them until they don't make us look like a bunch of assholes, or I could stick with randomly realizing why people think we're all assholes after something happened in the bar.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 03:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that mainspace is far from good enough to be recommended as a resource. Can you give us some examples of people in the broader skeptic community calling us assholes? This is a concern for both the site and the RWF. Blue (pester) 04:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

First you'll have to convince certain entrenched members of the community that being seen as assholes is a bad thing...--"Shut up, Brx." 04:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Being seen as an asshole is purely subjective, young brx. Aceⁱ⁹ 04:10, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't mean us being called assholes by virtue of our members, but by virtue of our mainspace articles. Toxicity in the community is an important, but unrelated problem. Blue (pester) 04:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm calling us assholes. And I'm not involved in the broader skeptic community to know what they say. I am, however, involved in various communities of people who could join the skeptical community. But I mentioned RW and they role their eyes, sign, and make some comment about me wasting my time on a site of people with nothing better to do with their day then bitch about CP (a friend whose obnoxiously atheist calls us a bunch of losers, for that matter). So, maybe the broader community thinks we're assholes or maybe they don't, but my experience with people outside the community who are not part of what we're responding to, they think we're assholes. Our actions (by which I mean our articles, and also the kinds of things said in talk pages/forum/bar discourage people from joining us and the broader skeptical community.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 04:09, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, what I'm saying is that some people here won't want to change articles to be more civil. They'll either defend it as snark or they'll rail about how X is evil and must be stamped into the ground with no restraint--"Shut up, Brx." 04:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I am all in favour of cleaning up some of the mainspace article (For one thing I remove that awful strike through humour when I encounter it). Aceⁱ⁹ 04:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I cann't remember the term, but something that's talked about in social psychology is that the best way to change someone's opinion is to not be a massive asshole, and treat them as if their position is legitimate while presenting conflicting information and logic. So, if your goal is to destroy creationism, the best way to do that is not by screaming at the top of your lungs about how the whole thing is a bunch of silly bullshit. Maybe we should re-think the "snarky point of view" in favor of a "rationalist point of view"? I don't know. I just realized that maybe things like this are why the wikipedia section on us basically just says we're a bunch of vandals who have nothing better to do then to sit around masturbating about how evil CP is.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 04:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Hamilton, I regularly Icerocket RW and, as a guesstimate, would say that less than 1 in 50 RW refs are negative. Scream!! (talk)

Hamilton, Wikipedia doesn't make judgements about us. They cite a comment from the LA Times article about Conservapedia (2007) stating that RW editors admitted to "engaging in acts of cyber-vandalism" there, because that's virtually the only thing written about RW in a reliable source (as defined by WP policies). Snarky POV is a longstanding part of RW's ethos & is not going to be abandoned because of some anecdotal evidence of being described as assholes. Re this section, TMT suggested RW users sign this petition, as he knows pretty much everyone here opposes the birther movement (whether or not they are pro-Obama). It's a petition to stop public funds being wasted on frivolous lawsuits. Why would signing that make anyone an asshole? Why do you compare it to a Congressman cheating on his wife? Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 07:22, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Back on Subject

I like the idea behind that petition. I'm not sure of the usual costs situation in the US, but I think in general costs should follow the event (ie be paid by the loser). Generally costs only cover part of the expense of a lawsuit and are fixed at quite moderate sums, but in cases of vexatious or frivolous proceedings, a court may sometimes apply costs on a solicitor/client basis to cover the actual costs of litigation. I have no issue at all with courts imposing full indemnity costs on people who bring time-wasting birther lawsuits, and I think the Attorney Generals should be encouraged to seek them. It might encourage people to think twice about bringing ridiculous lawsuits. There is nothing that makes us even remotely assholes for encouraging people to sign the petition, if I was a US citizen I would do so myself. Damo^Hi 04:19, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The US court system almost never sanctions pro se litigants, for better or worse. The crazy ones are coddled enough to get them through the basic process and then shown the door. The "lawyers" like Orly Taitz are rarely seen as much more than crazy pro se litigants. Taitz, however, has been hit with some serious sanctions ($20k, and $4k that I am aware of), but she is married to a millionaire. There is a lot of people following the birthers who are hopefully about some serious sanctions out of Mississippi soon, there was a bit of a trap set for Taitz there. We shall see. Tmtoulouse (talk) 05:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Hitting up those idiots from New Jersey that CNAV still pumps would be funny.--"Shut up, Brx." 05:09, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

My contributions were deleted. Please explain.

Hi.

I added a page from wikipedia plus some changes to it that wikipedians didn't allow into the article for crappy reasons (like OR and other bullshit rules). Then I added some more pages to make the red links blue. Then I found out that Screem!! and Stabby_the_Misanthrope deleted my input. Why? Is this also a site where discussion is suppressed? other reason? ^{— Unsigned, by: 178.18.17.204 / talk / contribs} 18:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes. All discussion is suppressed on this site. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 18:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Then it is just an other bullshit wiki site like wikipedia. I don't belong here. bye. ^{— Unsigned, by: 46.165.221.166 / talk / contribs} 18:44, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Try not to let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 18:45, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Your articles were deleted (1 2 3 4) because almost all of the content was a direct copy-paste of the Wikipedia article, complete with a ton of red links and inclusions of templates we don't even have. It'd be easier to write more relevant articles from scratch than try to rework the existing Wikipedia ones. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 18:49, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

You are most welcomed to more easily write your own articles your self StabbytheMisanthrope. I am out of here. ^{— Unsigned, by: 109.163.233.194 / talk / contribs} 18:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

We heard you the first time. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 20:56, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

You must understand that this is a very authoritarian site and controlled by a small number of people. Any 'dissent' from their prevailing viewpoint will be censorsed. I suggest you stay away and not waste any more time here. ^{— Unsigned, by: 81.101.244.221 / talk / contribs}

No need to be so harsh to the idiot. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 22:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Well he has got to learn that the truth hurts.

I swear that was Dirk... L'homme de la Perspective ^Discusez? 22:51, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I doubt that Dirk can write a page of anything. ^{— Unsigned, by: 81.101.244.221 / talk / contribs} 22:56, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

You're supposed to say "I THOUGHT THIS WAS SUPPOSED TO BE RATIONALWIKI!" --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 02:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, dammit, I had a bottle of JD on standby! ^moral 12:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Pointless Poll - Best FF Game

Where's FFX-2? (Prepares for incoming beating.) (Just being sarcastic anyway. I voted for FFXI.) EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 22:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

One must not speak of FFX-2. Osaka Sun (talk) 23:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

No tactics? I feel no love for this poll. --^Mikal 23:06, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Which one's the first one out for gameboy? I vote for that one.--"Shut up, Brx." 23:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Poll not shallow enough for RW? ^{— Unsigned, by: 81.101.244.221 / talk / contribs} 23:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

There are 35 separate FF games, so if you want to create the largest poll we've ever had... Osaka Sun (talk) 23:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Well yes, it would be really fascinating. Just the sort of activity that RationalWiki should concentrate on. ^{— Unsigned, by: 81.101.244.221 / talk / contribs} 23:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Voted X anyway, but where da Tactics and Dissidia Duodecim at? Polite Timesplitter ^{come shout at me for being thick} 23:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

No Mystic Quest either, which forced me to vote for the greatly inferior VI. Vulpius (talk) 00:09, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

At last!. RationalWiki discussing the really important stuff. Well done.

If you're going to poll it, it only makes sense to keep the main sequence games because shitting-christ that franchise has blown up since the 90s. ^bomination 12:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Rather vocal and questionable Facebook posts

So one of my relatives on Facebook posts stuff from various political groups, like this. Things like this is the kind of thing where I find it hard to believe it's true, (as here it implies Obama just performed a flip-flop, and my own research indicates that the parenthetical "This happening" refers to no bill spending, not not raising the debt sielding), but I know too little to know for sure

I'm especially skeptical of this since a)that group, and a few others, has a fanbase that tends to use "wake up" in the same way a conspiracy theorist would, and b)Another group claimed that voting for Obama has been rescheduled to Nov 7th, a rather dishonest tactic, and c) yet another group used a meme wrong

And ignoring it seems to be a no-can-do, as the only possible means I know of to get such posts off my wall is to unfriend that relative, which might not fly well with my peers

And this s coming from an autistic whose father is pretty much a birther, and more explicitly calls Obama a traitor

Anyone else care to provide input on at least how the stuff those groups present is presented?--97.100.36.219 (talk) 23:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Politicians lie for their own personal gain. Who is surprised at that? ^{— Unsigned, by: 81.101.244.221 / talk / contribs} 23:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Facebook pages are an endless supply of electronic bumper stickers, which have as much "wisdom" as the real thing. I find the less I post on that site, the happier I am. --TheLateGatsby (talk) 06:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

You're clearly following the wrong stuff. Find Fundies Say The Darndest Things or RationalWiki. ^{d hominem} 12:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

And on a related note…

El Reg comes through again. And in response to the response to the Death Star petition. And, Kill it! Kill it with Fire!!!.-- ^{Jabba de Chops} 12:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Tech help

I'm using firefox, and some how my system gets "randomly" hijacked. I have run avast, and malwarebyets, and they found smething - but clearly not what is causing the hijacking. Any one have any ideas on what i should even be googlign to get this off my system? it's not every link, only after a google search and the first click do i see the hijacking. and then only "sometimes". is there a name like "virus" or "worm" that i should be adding to "hijacked browers" to get this thing off?Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 18:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Nevermind. apparently FX has a "reset all" button. did that. all is good. lost cookies and book marks, whooptie whoop.Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 18:22, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Or you might be drunk. Just sayin'. --2.39.39.47 (talk) 20:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Firefox has a sobriety button? Peter ^{Subsisting on honey} 20:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

http://www.bleepingcomputer.com/forums/topic288900.html < try this and see if it matches your symptoms. Dont follow any advice unless you are sure it applies to your system. Hamster (talk) 21:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Firefox automatically backups your bookmarks. If the reset hasn't deleted your profile directory, you can probably restore them.--ZooGuard (talk) 22:10, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

My suggestions, which require some technical knowledge, and are slightly irritating. Stay current on windows updates and firefox updates. Use firefox. Use noscript. Use a good antivirus and firewall - I use comodo. With noscript, allow only trusted webpages. With comodo, allow only trusted processes. Yes, it's slightly annoying, especially noscript, but it's the best way to surf the web safely. It also gives you the benefit of killing all popups and ad tracking services as a side benefit. -- As to your specific problem, I don't know. If the conventional tools for cleaning viruses don't work, then my default recourse is to save everything I need, and begin the full reformat and full re-install of windows. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 22:29, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Power 4 Patriots

Anyone seen this? Given the endorsements they've received, I think it looks ripe for an article here. --Seth Peck (talk) 21:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Report: House GOP 'seriously entertaining' debt default idea

That's right. In order to show just how "fiscally responsible" we are, we need to intentionally default on our debt! If we just don't pay the mortgage, it'll prove how serious we are about refinancing it. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 16:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey, Goonie, about that twenty bucks I owe you? Yeah, fuck you. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 17:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I hate Utopian idiots.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 20:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

"...liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate farmers, liquidate real estate… it will purge the rottenness out of the system. High costs of living and high living will come down. People will work harder, live a more moral life. Values will be adjusted, and enterprising people will pick up from less competent people." -Andrew Mellon Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

They're... they're INSANE. America, and by extension the global economy, is being held hostage by a bunch of fat old white men acting like toddlers. This... what... I can't even comprehend what the fuck has happened. When I was a child growing up in western Canada in the 80s, it was a national hobby to make fun of Americans, but it was meant in good neighbourly fun, and the more extreme voices were only somewhat off-kilter and strident in comparison to ordinary, rational discourse (bear in mind that I was a child at the time, so a lot of this is filtered through narrow perceptions of the world supplemented by reading about the period later in life). This was around the time that the GOP was just beginning its exponential lurch to the extreme right, so it didn't have that much momentum. Thirty years on, these people are insane. I don't even recognize America anymore. It seems surreal, like some sort of Twilight Zone episode where the US is a third-world military junta, but somehow regular life still goes on and we have room for first-world problems hashtags on Twitter (and remarkable levels of freedom of speech, so it's not exactly a tin pot dictatorship).

I just hope that they keep up the insanity between now and the mid-term elections so that, assuming the US is still a functioning entity similar to how we know it today, they can complete the GOP's self-destruction at the hands of its most extreme obsessions and get rightfully voted out of office. If they're intent on pretending Romney should have won and want to punish Obama and the whole planet because they didn't get their way, they might as well go all-in and destroy the GOP as a federal party once and for all. Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 12:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

You don't blame your credit card company for not increasing your credit line when you max out. That shit's on you and you have to take some personal responsibility instead of blaming others all the time. The Administration blaming the House GOP for not blindly increasing the debt limit is like me getting all pissed off at the Chase bank teller because they won't let me do a balance transfer on my maxed out Bank of America card. FlamingModerate (talk) 00:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Your understanding of the situation is exactly wrong. What's happening here is that Congress is deciding not to pay bills that Congress has already agreed to pay. We can debate whether or not the government should cut future spending, but that debate is separate from a debate about paying bills you've already contracted. What's happening here is that you've come to my restaurant, ordered up a meal, eaten it, and then refused to hand over your credit card because you're worried that a new stereo you want to buy next year will bankrupt you. Maybe you shouldn't have come to my restaurant, but that's not my problem, and not paying your bill isn't what's going to help you. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 00:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

You operate on the supposition that you already have the credit card that has enough line for you to buy your meal. If your credit card is maxed out and bounces, that's your problem, and if you call your bank for a line increase at that time, they may or may not be receptive. You're wearing the right clothes and thus have permission to eat at the restaurant , but that is only on the supposition that you're able to pay for it at the end, which we trust you to do.

I'll concede that drawing perfect comparisons from personal finance to governmental finance is rather unfair (and no one has taken the bait and gotten offended, so cool), but Congress has never granted the Treasury to borrow more than the current debt limit. They have authorized the Treasury to make specific expenditures, which the Treasury can make if they have the money in the bank to do so, say from tax revenues. How is Congress supposed to know what tax revenues are supposed to be? Again, unfair question, but technically accurate from a legislative perspective. No law codifies tax revenue projections.

Obama knew that the Republicans will balk on the debt ceiling. (If he didn't by now, he's even a bigger idiot than I realized.) Even still, he continued to sign bills that either authorized spending (budgets) or decreased revenue (extending 99% of the Bush tax cuts) without a concurrent increase in the debt ceiling. If that's not stupid, I don't know what is. Of course, the Republicans are going to play political games. Obama did the same thing in 2006. Obama says he's not going to negotiate. Republicans demand some sort of spending cuts. This is not going to end well. FlamingModerate (talk) 03:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, at least we agree this will not end well. But let me try to explain this a different way: the debt limit is not directly related to the budget. The budget affects the debt ceiling, but even if they were to cut long-term spending, the debt limit would be reached before any spending decreases are felt. This is because budgets take effect over time, while spending by the government is continuous. If we were to cut a theoretical $1 trillion from the budget over 10 years, that money would come out from future planning. Any money we had already earmarked to be spent would need to be spent. Conversely, if we cut the budget over 10 years starting today, but no deal is passed on the debt ceiling, every dollar already earmarked by Congress in for spending in the future (think Hurricane Sandy relief) would either need to be spent as earmarked, or else Congress alone (as all spending starts in the House) would have to go back and stop it. Meanwhile, every dollar already earmarked to be spent would creep us that much closer to the debt ceiling. If we are, say, $5 billion from the ceiling, Congress had previously appropriated $15 billion of spending this week alone, and the spending decreases hit next week, that is where the US government falls into default and we sink into a serious depression. Make sense? Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 09:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, I want to further that analogy you two have had. You say that "You operate on the supposition that you already have the credit card that has enough line for you to buy your meal. If your credit card is maxed out and bounces, that's your problem, and if you call your bank for a line increase at that time, they may or may not be receptive."

The world loves our debt. Interest rates are incredibly low, and probably will continue to be, because the world has used Treasury bonds as solid currency for a very long time. The bank would love to give us another increase, in your analogy. They would much much prefer that, in fact, to the prospect of the default that happened in the 90s (when even though the limit was raised, it happened so close to the deadline that some bond payments were missed - and rates spiked then!).

Congress ordered and ate the meal. The bill has come. Obama, their accountant, would love to pay it. The local bank would love to raise their line of credit so they can pay it. The restaurant absolutely requires payment, or else they won't be so happy to serve Congress in the future. But Congress won't let their accountant pay the bill. "Outrageous," they say, stifling a burp. "How can you expect us to let you spend so much more money!"--^talk 09:30, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Front page WIGO box design

Hi not sure where to put this so here it is. As a casual reader of RationalWiki, I love the WIGO pages. They give a nice little news feed into interesting areas of the net, but I have always found the WIGO box on the front page to be confusing. The problems that I see are:

1. There are two links to every page except the bar.
2. The logos and the explanations are separate from each other.
3. No explanation of what "the bar" is.
4. I find that it just looks complex and poorly designed.

I've put together a sample layout that I feel address some of these concerns below. Enjoy.

Need to know What Is Going On? We present regularly updated selections of the finest lunacy the Internet has to offer. Participate in the dialogue on the good, the bad, and the ugly!

	World Actual news from the "real world."
	Blogs Quality articles by bloggers, submitted by the RW community.
	Clogosphere Crazy articles from the clogged-up fringes of the Internet.
	Conservapedia Our famous blow-by-blow report on the wackiness at Conservapedia.
	The bar The place for general chit-chat.

86.42.167.51 (talk) 21:56, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Except for the bar, there does need to be two links for each space. This is because a lot of discussion occurs on the talk page. Particularly for WIGO:CP--"Shut up, Brx." 22:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean the talk pages. I mean, you can click on the icon, or you can click on the link above the explanation to get to WIGO: CP for example. I didn't bother with talk page links for the quick mock-up. 86.42.167.51 (talk) 22:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I think it looks really good, 86.42.167.51. It conveys most of the same information and looks cleaner, to boot. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 22:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

This makes the sense. Do it. ^gnostic 22:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Works for me. Nobody^{don't bother} 22:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Quibble: The long and short forms of WIGO:Blogs and WIGO:Clogs are being mixed. Either replace "Blogs" with "Blogosphere" or "Clogosphere" with "Clogs." ListenerX^TalkerX 22:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll try it with clogs/blogs. Unless someone swoops down to object... Nobody^{don't bother} 22:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I like it, though can we move the bar to the top since it's the most popular? I think it's a good place for newbies to get involved. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:56, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Good idea. Ty^talk 21:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Wait, Wait

Can I take this opportunity to plug my own proposed redesign of the green panel, as can be seen here? Blue (pester) 22:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Your design and 86.42.167.51's design are both improvements over the current one. Not sure which I prefer more. Apokalyps2547 (talk) 22:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Charlie's is better. Nihilist 22:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Is it just me, or are the only differences between Blue's version and the present one the removal of the description of each page and the shifting of the "Need to know what is going on?" paragraph above the icons? If so, I like the BoN's better. ListenerX^TalkerX 22:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Blue's contains a dpl list of populer pages and new pages. Nobody^{don't bother} 22:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I like BoN's also. Aceⁱ⁹ 22:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Could we combine them with the BoN's thingy on one side and the popular/recent pages on the other?--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 22:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

(EC) @LX - yes, mine has two columns underneath the WIGO section with a dynamic list of our most-viewed pages and recently created pages, both of which can be altered somewhat if so desired. Blue (is useful) 22:58, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Lose the good/bad/ugly shtick & the link to fun:real world, which is neither use nor ornament (yeah, I know they're in the existing main page too, but I never looked at it closely before). Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

But but but the real world article has a real photo of the real shithole I grew up in! Sophie^Wilder 16:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the dynamic lists could be on the left, where the current "More featured content" box is now. I'm not sure whether putting popular pages on the front page is a good idea, as they will get more hits and it will just reinforce their position, possibly to the point where they are the most popular only because they were put on the front page. --Tweenk (talk) 23:25, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure either. There's no quality control in dynamic lists. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

two of those Most Popular are tumbleweed pages. Sophie^Wilder

Maybe we should fill the main page with tumbleweed. If that's what the public wants, let's give it to them. Let them choke on it. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 16:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Or maybe we could modify the program used to generate the "most popular pages" section so that it requires a certain minimum number of characters to be listed?--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 16:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Or make a manual version with the most popular articles-that-have-content? It's not the top ten or twenty is particularly fluid. We could probably (blasphemy alert) leave out goat as well. Sophie^Wilder 21:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikivoyage

Wikivoyage has been launched today by the Wikimedia Foundation. I was surprised to see that RationalWiki does not have an article on the site considering that there is one for CZ. There was some amount of drama getting the site set up including law suits taken out against two Wikitravel admins by Internet Brands, with the Wikimedia Foundation stepping in to defend them. Is there an actual policy reason for this, or is it just that no-one wrote one yet. 87.38.8.2 (talk) 08:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Is it sufficiently within our site's missions? We briefly had an article about Wikitravel but it was deleted as being off-mission (see talk:Wikitravel). Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 09:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

There's a lot more at CZ which is related to our mission than it just being another wiki. Генгис^{Gum disease} 09:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

David Gerard has explained the issues around Wikitravel before. It's interesting, but not really an RW kind of "interesting". ^gnostic 13:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I"m dubious if it's even "intersting". the page on France takes 2 paragraphs to explain that in Paris, which is in France, people speak French, so you need to speak French, but if you cannot speak French, try finding someone reading a book in English. - wow. (actualyl the info on the airport is really good, cause they even break down where you can find outlets for your lappy, which are few and far between in CDG.)Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 14:49, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

The kerfuffle is sorta interesting, but in the "lawsuit-abusing arseholes get comeuppance" sense rather than anything very on-mission [1] - David Gerard (talk) 15:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Seems like a good place to deposit the version of Blightynet that I've been holding in my head. Sophie^Wilder 15:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

While the CZ info is very interesting, I just never understood how it is "on mission". 86.45.191.101 (talk) 21:54, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Some of it certainly is. Peter ^{Subsisting on honey} 21:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

True, but there's also a lot of other info and discussion. For example, looking at WIGO: CZ there's: blog updated, email Wikipedia articles to experts, the end for Citizendium, donations short of costs, election canceled, donations short of costs again. I don't see how any of that is on mission. 86.45.191.101 (talk) 02:34, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Bro above me has a point dudes. Dudeman (talk)

Images of smiling or laughing politicians used in an unsettling manner

I have seen a buttload of images featuring politicians like Obama or Bush or Dick Cheney either laughing or smiling, and these images are used to make them look careless, cruel, you name it. Just look at the stuff from David Dees, for example

That's why I say now, if I ever become a politician, I'll do my best to avoid even smiling on camera.

Thoughts?--97.100.36.219 (talk) 17:32, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

You can't win. Your grumpy face would be used for worse. ^pathetic 17:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

There is of course nothing that you can do about what i'm going to say, but what annoys me most is the implication that these smiles were done at the event in question. I saw an article from the UK about some new bill (? - i don't know your system, sorry) that was a poverty bill. And the headline said "Tory's laugh and ham it up as they pass a bill that will hurt the poor" and showed some politician types just guffawing. I had to ask several people if it was a spoof site, cause the bill really was a harsh harsh cut on teh poorest. Even Torys probably didn't openly laugh that they were making it harder for some people. Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 18:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

No, that one was for real. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Our tories are REAL bastards. They know they've only this session of government to totally fuck everything up so they laugh all the way to their friends' bank accounts. They'll not get back in (unless Scotland gets independance) for 20 years or more. Bastards! 18:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC) ^{— Unsigned, by: Scream!! / talk / contribs}

Waitwaitwait... Dick Cheney has smiled? Vulpius (talk) 19:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

David Dees is legitimately fucking crazy, and I recall he was being treated for schizophrenia at one point. His art is...amazing - and I don't mean that in the sense that he's really good, I mean I am literally amazed at how nuts he is. I Eat Glue (talk) 02:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Dees is so goddamn crazy it's way past amazing, and now sad. He threw away all his meds because he thought he was being poisoned. He believes in every conspiracy theory, with a heavy focus on the Zionist control of the world. Absolutely nutbar.--^talk 09:37, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I will say, it's not just Dees. Even when the image is barely altered, the context for which the image is used is similar. Like this. Or this--97.100.36.219 (talk) 00:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Your problem is that modern DSLRs can take pics at 10+ FPS and since cost of film is no longer an issue people will actualy used that for sustained periods then pick the one where the politician looks odd. controling your expression on a 10th of a second scale is tricky.Geni (talk) 20:16, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

So that means one moment of breakage from a plain face and...--97.100.36.219 (talk) 00:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Individual outsourcing

I was amused by this article on the Beeb about a software developer who outsourced his job to China so he could spend his workdays "surfing the web, watching cat videos on YouTube and browsing Reddit and eBay." Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 20:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Seems very reminiscent of this...a book I bought on discount on the off-chance that it might contain something interesting. Most of it is crap, but it does have a few good notes about reducing the amount of bullshit you deal with on a daily basis. --Seth Peck (talk) 20:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I forget which one of the snooty student housing complexes it is that offers "note taking services" to its tenets. Nobody^{don't bother} 20:51, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I also bought this "Four Hour Work Week" book - it has a Polish edition. It does contain some very good advice, especially at the beginning, but the more technical things are hardly applicable outside the U.S. --Tweenk (talk) 03:09, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I read it when I worked at a used bookstore - the more technical things are hardly applicable inside the U.S. unless you work in a fairly narrowly defined set of industries. — Unsigned, by: ORavenhurst / talk^{Do You Believe That?} 19:31, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

World Mission Society Church of God

I was just visited by some missionaries from this group, which seems to have some rather unusual beliefs. We don't seem to have an article (yet)—has anyone else run into them? Peter ^{Subsisting on honey} 00:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Go on. What do they believe?--Spud (talk) 04:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I second the go on, what do they believe ? did they wear leather catsuits and carry whips ? I find most religions have unusual beliefs. May I tell you about the Godess Eoster and her companion Bunny-boy ? The bunny chariot pulled by bounding bunnies is kinda cool. Hamster (talk) 06:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

hmm Second Jeruselem in Korea, a returned Jesus who is Korean and God the mother giving the water of life ? what are the Moonies up to ? Hamster (talk) 06:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

(wp link) Their Jesus died a few decades ago though, which is interesting. They're also anti-communion, but that's not uncommon. Peter ^{Subsisting on honey} 08:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement on my candidacy for the RationalWiki Foundation Board of Trustees

This discussion was moved to Forum:Statement candidacy for the RationalWiki Foundation Board of Trustees. 18:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Alex Jones Talks About his Unified Conspiracy Theory

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3TPeijF9Jc&feature=youtu.be Even when Jones is civil, he still sounds crazy.Ryantherebel (talk) 22:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Pro-gunners turning to anti-psychiatry

Here's an example https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=515808165106268&id=181862575167497 (this was the last post from the guy that was president of this company so of course it's spawning conspiracy theories)

I'm not sure of the specific names, but I know this is chock full of fallacies.

not that anti-gunners are any better. They're blaming video games, movies, music, and whatever else Tipper Gore was blaming back in the 80's --Alakazam (talk) 20:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

If there are fallacies why don't you point them out. It may only be a correllation that the children of the USA are the most drugged up in the world and produce the most spree shooters but it is scientifically established that psychotropic drugs can induce suicidal and homicidal thoughts. ^{— Unsigned, by: 81.101.244.221 / talk / contribs} 21:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Can playing violent sports produce homicidal thoughts? What about watching R-rated films? Playing violent video games? A culture of gun worship? Watching media coverage of these shootings? If you're going to play fast and loose with psychological causation, you might as well apply it to any number of causes besides psychotropic drugs. Blue (is useful) 21:23, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Possibly all of them. I was not playing fast and loose. I was stating scientifically established facts. ^{— Unsigned, by: 81.101.244.221 / talk / contribs} 21:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

[2] Sophie^Wilder 21:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Definitely true, but I was referring more to the homicide question than the suicide one. Blue (pester) 21:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Homicide too. Lots of info on here http://ssristories.com/ ^{— Unsigned, by: 81.101.244.221 / talk / contribs} 21:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course this information has been known about since 1978. Germany FDA did not approve the use of Prozac partly because of this issue. See more here http://1boringoldman.com/index.php/2013/01/14/ask-alice/ ^{— Unsigned, by: 81.101.244.221 / talk / contribs} 22:44, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I am against pill pushing (I was a victim of it years ago for simple panic disorder), yet I am against the implication from that list that people that take certain drugs are ticking time bombs who will mow down children.

...actually I am pro-gun too (social libertarian) so the sides advocating banning guns or banning free speech (violence, "suggestive" themes, language, basically anything they say makes children evil) aren't any friends of mine. --Alakazam (talk) 06:38, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

"Not sure about the facts here, I received this from a friend." sure sign of bullshit. Ignore everything that follows. ħuman 03:03, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

It is well known that there are loads of crazy nutters walking our streets. They should all be identified and locked away before they can commit a crime. We can tell via neurological fMRI scans who these people are and what their brain disease is. All people should be given a scan and then dealt with accordingly. It is only common sense. 81.101.244.221 (talk) 00:51, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Second Amendment and Slavery

This idea that the second amendment was ratified to preserve slavery sounds plausible, but I wonder if some of our Merkin readers could indicate how true it really is. I've certainly never heard about this before, which seems odd given that the gun control debate is so long-standing. Is there truth in this or is it just one person's interpretation of history? Or both. rpeh •T•C•E• 07:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Seems pretty dishonest. There appears to be some interesting truth in there, but the writer of that article really sacrifices his whole thesis when he notes that the second amendment was already written before someone came up and suggested a rewording to help solve another issue. To ignore the voluminous writings of the other reasons for the right to keep and bear arms is purposeful maliciousness. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 12:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Rpeh, you may want to google images for "merkin" before considering it fit for use in civil discourse. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 18:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm well aware of what it means, as is everyone else. rpeh •T•C•E• 06:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Right then. Fuck off. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 21:46, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

It's pretty well understood among the law circles that originalism (a form of appeal to tradition) and loose interpretation are generally bad arguments for anything regarding the Constitution. --Seth Peck (talk) 19:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Eh? Scalia and Thomas are very committed originalists. And even the justices who aren't strong originalists per se, often engage on the terms of original intent in some way; the Federalist Papers are frequently cited in Court decisions and used in oral arguments where appropriate. Just pointing out that the whole of originalism is not bunk, nor is it wholly unsupported among the "law circles." Blue (pester) 04:29, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The Monti Te'o Story

This is mentioned over in WIGO:World, but I thought I'd toss it out here.

Notre Dame football star Monti Te'o had a fake girlfriend, including a story she died tragically. Te'o and Notre Dame are claiming he was the victim of a cruel hoax. There's lots lots more to this, see the linked story.

Something stinks here -- Te'o claimed at one time to have met her, but are we supposed to believe the hoaxsters went so far as to introduce him to an imposter?

In the gay community, there's speculation T'eo (himself a Mormon at a Catholic school) is gay and created the "girfriend" to cover that.

Thoughts? MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 17:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

His friendship with Ronaiah Tuiasosopo is quite...interesting. Osaka Sun (talk) 17:57, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

(aside) This might be amusing Scream!! (talk) 18:02, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I love that tweet enough to marry it. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 18:33, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I read that story this morning, & "something here stinks" was my take on it too. If the girlfriend persona was just somebody Teo met online & talked to by phone without ever meeting in person (& hence not realising it was an assumed identity), it seems kindof weird for him to refer to her so often as his girlfriend & publically mourn her death. Doesn't really ring true. Then again, Mormons are odd people, so who knows? Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:58, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I did read one argument that he believed she was real, and was just doing what a lot of college men do -- exaggerate their relationship with a long distance girlfriend. He was just doing it on a national scale, not just around the dorm, though. I doubt that's the case, but it's at least somewhat reasonable. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 19:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

"Private citizen and college student involved in an extracurricular activity has a prank played on him." Why is this story showing up everywhere? Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 19:18, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The accusation is that he was using his "girlfriend's" death for sympathy to win the Heisman Trophy. And that comes with financial incentives, particularly if you're entering professional football... Osaka Sun (talk) 20:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

So what? Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 20:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The whole thing does sound rather suspicious. However, my (UK) nephew met a (USA) girl online and established a relationship. Eventually she came over to England to meet him in person (and the family). I don't know how many times they met in the real-world but he emigrated to the US and married her. It must be about six or seven years ago now but they are still quite happily married. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 21:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Hm, at first I missread the headline as "The Montessori Story"...I've been definitely hanging out with too many teachers lately.--Th. Bernhard_{Das Leben ist ein Prozeß, den man verliert, was man auch tut und wer man auch ist.} 01:27, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Move over Tebowing ...

"Te'o'ing" is becoming a thing now. --Seth Peck (talk) 23:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Some might say they're rather similar... Sam ^Tally-ho! 05:25, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

That's radical dude. Dudeman (talk) 22:40, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

WEIT

We've just got a mention in Why Evolution Is True for our Sophisticated Theology article. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 22:05, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Cool. As somebody who did quite a lot of work on beating that article into shape, this makes me feel warm & fuzzy inside. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Olé! Olé! Olé! I'll get me coat... Sophie^Wilder 22:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeh but yeh but Jerry Coyne is a crank. http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/06/25/is-medical-psychatry-a-scam/ --81.101.244.221 (talk) 02:57, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Should we discount everything he's said about everything else then? What about Richard Feynman who expressed similar views? Or Petr Beckmann for his knowledge of mathematics but his rampant libertarian wingnuttery? What about Charles Darwin for his education in theology?

The point of Coyne's article is not "Is psychiatry fake?" but rather "Are psychiatrists just prescribing drugs to take money from Big Pharma?" And he does raise a good point, especially if you consider the number of psychiatric drugs (or dosage sizes) that have been taken off the market due to side effects worse than the diseases they treat (like suicide), as well as the marketing practices employed by pharmaceutical representatives. He's just asking the questions that need to be asked, and even at the end of his blog he includes a postscript acknowledging that he's not a doctor or expert in that particular field. --Seth Peck (talk) 16:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, not only would I be more likely to trust Coyne's opinion over most other registered cranks, his point is a lot more subtle than his headline suggests (search "QTWTAIN") so of course he's not going entirely into crackpot territory there. Overmedicalisation is a common theme among a lot of doctors who blog on the subject - Ben Goldacre raises it frequently, for instance - but it's over-used as some chink to wedge the "psychiatry is bullshit" line into, when that is a completely different claim entirely. ^gnostic 20:42, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

What does the term 'medical psychiatry is a scam' mean then if not that it is bullshit? He is a mental illness denialist crank. Have you even read the article? And of course in his latest tome Goldacre has descended into conspiracy theory nuts. He even suggests that Pharma has hidden data from trials to manipulate results of drug research. Do you really think the FDA would allow fraud? Of course not. 81.101.244.221 (talk) 23:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

"Do you really think the FDA would allow fraud?" Not sure if naive or just trolling. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:54, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Explain why. Not sure if you are a conspiracist nut or a Scientologist. 81.101.244.221 (talk) 00:18, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

You don't need to be a Scientologist to see the revolving door. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 00:25, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeh. Jerry Coyne saying psychiatry is a scam, Goldacre saying Pharma hide bad trials and also that the DSM is bollocks. It is all one giant conspiracy? You sound like you support batshit Hubbard. No place here on RationalWiki for the likes of your crank theories. 81.101.244.221 (talk) 00:43, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure, whatever you say, BON, I am clearly a Tom Cruise clone. Ironically, you are talking to the person who started the page on mental illness denial here and another user here thinks I'm a shill for the psychiatric "status quo." In any case, publication bias due to conflicts of interest is an open secret in the medical and psychiatric literature. Pointing this out does not mean one worships Xenu. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:10, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Quit with the BS, Dirk, no one gives a shit about your ravings any more. ^sshole 03:40, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Dirk? Who's dat? I am Dick. Dick Stool. BOGOF mate. 81.101.244.221 (talk) 04:27, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Even if I didn't already dislike Jerry Coyne for being an arrogant jackass, I'd dislike him for having an ugly blog.--"Shut up, Brx." 03:00, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Dude, that's like, harsh man. Dudeman (talk) 22:30, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Dude, hey dude... you may have watched Le Big Lebowski twice but that is no excuse for being such a twat. Stop it pleeeese. Dude. 81.101.244.221 (talk) 04:31, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Dude, ya got it all wrong man. You're barking up the wrong tree. The movie you're looking for is far more... tubular. Peace. Dudeman (talk) 04:35, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of Gun Control

The NRA released an ad, whining about gun control at our schools, vs. obama letting trained body guards carry guns around his kids. Even the conservative world is shocked. [morning joe]. Watch it. cause they are right, it's disgusting.Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 23:44, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I find nothing unreasonable in the NRA membership paying for Secret Service protection for every school in the US - David Gerard (talk) 23:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Pathetic propaganda but not particularly surprising. The NRA behave much the same way in the gun control debate as the Pro-Life lobby do in the abortion debate or the Tea Party in tax issues: keeping the debate as visceral, aggressive & emotive as possible. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:03, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey, 250,000 more people have joined the NRA! They have even more support! Of course, they dropped membership from $1,000 to $300...

I might actually have to start donating to them, because they are really helping the gun control cause.--^talk 00:10, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Conspiracy nuts go on and on about false flag operations to usher through gun control. I am beginning to wonder if they aren't right after all - even the NRA is putting out videos designed to provoke people into disdain for gun rights. --Damo^Hi 05:31, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

They're not; they're designed to polarise opinion, obstruct healthy debate, & encourage an "I got my guns & you ain't taking them" mentality. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Rob Dirk Steele Some other fucking loser weighs in.

moved to Forum:Guns

The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun...

...is a good guy with a gun. As long as he doesn't leave it lying around in the boys' room. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 20:22, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Anti-gay activist films her 14-year-old daughter having sex with two men, then...has sex with her

Already on WIGO:World. You know what, Haggard's Law is undeserving of this. I don't want to live on this planet anymore. Osaka Sun (talk) 09:14, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Kepler's finding Earth-like planets as fast as we can. I'm partly looking forward to the day we can finally get off this forsaken moss-encrusted rock, but also fearful on what would happen if bullshit spreads to the cosmos. Immortality's fun, except when you become a two-headed monster ^{Talk to me or view my art} 15:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

This strangely sounds like a — okay, multiple — pornos i've watched. The difference was that those weren't real, and were made with (bad) actors. Nihilist 23:22, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Incest porn is so fucking disturbing. --Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 23:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Not to me — i don't have a problem with non-reproductive incest in reallife or in porn.

I can't imagine saying this will make me look good: i think twenty-five years is too long. There is the issue of consent and abuse of parental authority, but if the 14-year-old was willing (even if that's supposedly impossible) then this probably isn't that bad. You could say that she's scarred for life, but you'd have to provide convincing evidence, and not just assume it, first. Nihilist 07:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

the thing is with consent, is that it has to be consent with knowledge of the consequences, which a fourteen-year-old is generally presumed not to have. Imagine this conversation:

• Nastyperson: Can I fuck you?
• Child: What does fuck mean?
• Nastyperson: It means I do something nice to you.
• Child: OK then.

This is the difference between consent and informed consent. Sophie^Wilder 17:06, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Meh. Let's see if I can destroy my internet reputation too. Informed consent isn't some magic thing that turns on at age 18, or whatever the legal age of consent. However, using a position of authority to gain selfish pleasure at the possible expense of someone else, is always a dick move, and it's basically impossible to remove that mantle of authority you have as an adult over a minor. This argument alone seems to preclude any possible moral relations of adults with underage people. Still, I think a fourteen year old is not quite as incompetent as was suggested, especially compared to a "legal" 16 or 18 year old. And I find it implausible that a 14 year old wouldn't know what sex was in any culture with which I'm familiar. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 02:17, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to come off sounding like some sort of pedo advocate by any stretch of the imagination, for the record. However, in Canada, where the events took place, 14 is the age of consent for same-sex relations (16 if there's a pregnancy risk, basically). At least it was the last time I found myself looking at the Criminal Code of Canada, I haven't looked for a while. However, the law carves out multiple exceptions to this consent thing. If it's incest, all bets are off and any non-minors are committing crimes (minors where it's cross-generational are victims by default). If the adult is in any position of authority, all bets are off (meaning, it's rape). And I can't remember the others, but I'm not really going to need to know anytime soon. So, one bit of this episode is almost legal..but not. Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 17:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with eLiberal (which is their new nickname now). Consent isn't some binarial property that everybody is suddenly allowed to have when the law says they are. I have the same problem with prescriptions that state plainly that bestiality is wrong because it violates the consent of the animal: i doubt that some animals have no way of communicating consent, especially if they're the one performing acts on the human, and i doubt that 'children' have no way of deciding to have sex with somebody older, especially if they're teenagers. Consent is a continuum, and even if one isn't considered to be able to make informed decisions regarding sex, one can still willingly participate, which is very different from forced rape.

I understand the need for legal standards, but in cases like this one, perhaps we should should look more at whether the 'victim' was harmed or not. Nihilist 21:17, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Your argument is awful. If we allow people to have sex with children or animals in some situations (when it seems OK by whatever standards you're applying) how would we distinguish that from cases where a child or animal is raped? Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the legal consent-age should be lowered some and that not all pedophilic cases should be treated unthinkingly identical, and animal rape should be determined through regular animal abuse laws. Nihilist 22:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

". . . not all pedophilic cases should be treated unthinkingly identical . . ." Um, they're not; sentencing varies widely depending on the severity of the crime & various other factors. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

That's good then, but, unless the 14-year-old in this specific case was mentally traumatized or similar, i think the sentence was much too long. In fact, i've decided that, again, if there's no evidence that the teenager was harmed from this, the mother should maybe not serve any jail time, or if she does, only a short time like six months. Nihilist 22:44, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

You've decided, have you? What about the judge & jury who were presented with the actual evidence in this case? Aren't they better placed to make a judgement about whether the daughter was harmed & whether jail time is appropriate? Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:03, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you're pretending to misunderstand my wording. Maybe i should go back and add "IMO" (or "IMHO" if i want to be extra-redundant) to the end of every clause. Nihilist 05:55, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I think we shouldn't be having this discussion in the town square--^Mikal 22:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Because this is a 'don't go there' type of discussion? Nihilist 22:44, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and you've taken the devil's advocate side here. Osaka Sun (talk) 05:56, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Nihilist. 25 years is an awfully long time in jail for any crime. As bad as this is, I can't see that 25 years is appropriate. I must include the disclaimers that (a) I work for the Public Defence Service and (b) I am about as liberal as they come on the issue of crime and punishment. I don't agree with excessively locking people up in appalling and violent conditions is the right approach to solving the problem of crime. I guess I just have weird notions of redemption and forgiveness. --Damo^Hi 06:06, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I concur with this. I couldn't see most European countries imposing a 25-year sentence, even if she had been killed as well. The US has a record of imposing extra-long sentences. Генгис^pillaging 09:00, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that 25 years is excessive but not that we should view this case in terms of consensual sex. When a parent makes a porn film featuring their teenage child, it's unlikely the child had much real choice in the matter. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

She got off luckily - Kenneth Freeman was given 50 years for filming himself diddling his daughter. --PsyGremlin^Praat! 13:43, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Salt lamps and negative ionization

Is the science in the Salt lamp article OK? I only added what I could find by Googling.--Krej^talk 21:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

And this, ladies, gentlemen and penguins, is what is wrong with Internet skepticism and RationalWiki in particular. ;p

To answer your question - probably the only one here who is qualified to answer your question is Armondikov, go ask him. Also, I suggest mentioning electric air ionisers/ozone generators.--ZooGuard (talk) 22:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, no, there are more chemists here. I would say that "The Saga of Runolfr" isn't the best source, for one. I'm not sure what the negative ions-chlorine gas sentence could possible mean. sterile^{sporadic heavy hitter} 23:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, sterile. It would seem I have made a complete fool of myself, but at least the gibberish is gone now. That's What Matters. (tm)--Krej^talk 01:17, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Via the website linked in the article:

If the lamp is next to a television or computer monitor, its effect, through its electromagnetic field, of the device is in approximately the 100-160 Hz zone. Our brain waves however, produce only 8 Hz according to the Schuman resonance frequency. Therefore, the body is exposed to up to 20 times higher frequency patterns than it is generally used to.

This is full of fuck. ^pathetic 01:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

A more pressing question to me is do anions in the air really improve your health? I mean, come on.--"Shut up, Brx." 01:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Wait, wait, wait. My monitor has a refresh rate of 60Hz. Its' backlight hours are so high (this does include screensaver time) the counter rolled over into negative numbers. According to this guy, I've been exposing myself to 7.5x the frequency it's "used to" for years. Hell, who here has a microwave? Those fuckers are in the GHz range. I wonder if this guy has a cordless phone in his house. I'm not even a science expert by any means and I call woo bullshit. Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 01:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't forget radio waves.--Krej^talk 02:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The whole concept of anions flying in the air is bogus. The concept of electromagnetic waves affecting your thought patterns via brain waves is like thinking that defacing someone's photo with by drawing a mustache will cause that person to really grow a mustache - a mix-up of cause and effect. --Tweenk (talk) 02:45, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

It would be very difficult for a negative ion to be separated from a positive ion because electrostatic force is so large. (That's why they are locally balanced in nature. Well, most of the time. Think static electricity and lightening.) It ain't my subdiscipline, but when ions are formed in the gas phase, it's in a vacuum for a reason. They just wouldn't get very far. sterile^{sporadic heavy hitter} 02:54, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

And even better is that it requires a 25 W, um, bulb. [3]

This might be relevant.--Krej^talk 03:18, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Put that in the article, but remember not to make a blanket statement on ions. Electrolytes are ions that are vital for us.--"Shut up, Brx." 03:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

True, but water has a very high dielectric constant - this is why aqueous ions are generally stable. The dielectric constant of air is very small and free ions in air will be very rare. If you put sodium chloride in a gas burner flame, it will evaporate as ion pairs rather than free ions. Furthermore the concept of anions spontaneously separating from cations is absurd - in almost all cases, any extremely small quantity of ions in the air will be on average electrically neutral. Finally, shining a 25W light bulb on a bunch of salt is not enough to cause the evaporation of NaCl.

That said, it is entirely possible for dust particles to have a static charge, though this has very little to do with 'ions' from NaCl floating in the air. There are legitimate devices which exploit this called air ionisers that act like dust filters. A related device is the electrostatic precipitator. I suspect that the supposed health benefits of negative ions began as a bullshit marketing claim for air ionisers. --Tweenk (talk) 12:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I know (or at least, I know that "air ions" is nonsense and that negative ions in the air doesn't really affect your health; the science behind it all eludes me). I just wanted to make sure he didn't say something incorrect by condemning ions altogether.--"Shut up, Brx." 13:15, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The whole concept of anions flying in the air is bogus. *cough* ^narchist 20:59, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

"Page not available".

Anyway, my statement is obviously wrong... I was thinking how more anions than cations could be generated through evaporation of NaCl, and I'm quite sure that's impossible, but there are many other processes. --Tweenk (talk) 03:01, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Obama Executive Orders

What do you guys think of the 23 executive orders Obama signed today? I thought he was going to assign all the gun owners to prison camps and have jack-booted UN soldiers break down all the freedom lover's Nativity scenes. Huh. ^{— Unsigned, by: RachelW / talk / contribs}

(EC) It's still a bad idea, what annoys me is that the great mass of idiots in the general public seem to imagine this all happened in a vacuum. The United States is a nation ruled by Authoritarians -people want to be told what to do, and were quite happy to surrender to Bush's decrees without much struggle. Where did they imagine the erosion of the bill of rights was going? --TheLateGatsby (talk) 01:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

He signed three, actually (also they're "memoranda," although they are functionally indistinct from "orders"). Fairly mundane, but a good start. I'm honestly surprised that Obama is going to take this one to the mat and go for the magazine limit, weapons ban, and universal background checks. Things like appointing a director of the ATF for the first time in six years are easy, but a hard fight on the ban? Tough stuff. But then, I'm growing increasingly confident in Obama's newfound willingness to hold the line on things like the debt limit.--^talk 01:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

(EC all the way across the sky) I don't think the actual content of those executive orders matters one lick to the opposition that's already placing orders for barrels of tar and crates of feathersammunition. Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 01:42, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Let's see. 5. "Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun." is bullshit. 16. "Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes." is bullshit. Otherwise the executive orders seem like good ideas. As for his legislative proposals, unfortunately, he is making a ban on "military style" "assault weapons" and 10 round mag limits the central bits of his plan. This is a bad idea. I have to go with reality. Sam Harris described the problem here. Specifically, this:

“”As I said at the outset, I do not know how we can solve the problem of gun violence. A renewed ban on “assault weapons”—nearly the only concrete measure that anyone is talking about—will do very little to make our society safer. It is not, as many advocates seem to believe, an important “first step” in achieving a sane policy with respect to guns. It seems likely to be a symbolic step that delays real thinking about the problem of guns for another decade or more. By all means, let us ban these weapons. But when the next lunatic arrives at a school armed with legal pistols and a dozen ten-round magazines, we should be prepared to talk about how an assault weapons ban was a distraction from the real issue of gun violence

—Sam Harris

EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 01:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

If you want to reduce/eliminate unsanctioned gun violence, figure out why people feel the need to have guns (I'm reminded of the paranoid American who was anxious and overly defensive because he wasn't allowed to bring his personal sidearm into Canada on vacation, and on a walk through Nose Hill Park, Calgary, he and his wife were accosted by two dangerous young men with hostile inte--they wanted to give them free tickets to the Calgary Stampede) and attack those underlying social issues. Poverty, gang violence, injustice, a perceived lack of upwards mobility of any sort, poor education, etc. These are muuuuuuch harder problems than just writing laws about gun ownership. But given how difficult it's been for Obama to convince the House GOP to just pay its fucking bills, an assault rifle ban is a lot easier to implement than shifting even a micron towards that foul whore, socialism. Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 02:37, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree to your analysis of the underlying causes, and the needed fixes. However, 95% of gun deaths are from handguns. That's what Sam Harris meant when he said a ban on "military style" "assault weapons" (whatever the f that is) is a red herring. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 02:44, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure that's true, because the things proposed are not mutually exclusive: implementing procedures to make sure that all sales (instead of only 40%) get background checks, criminals can't get permits, and at least some fraction of the most powerful guns are whittled out of circulation. You can do that and station more security in schools as Harris and the NRA propose, although I believe the latter should be a local decision. That's why a big approach like this is great: he has specifically avoided building his plan around the assault weapons thing, but rather enumerates two dozen different things of variable efficacy. More school counselors, a magazine limit, and so on are all things that can be done at the same time. The ban is not a red herring, because there's a whole kettle of fish being talked about.--^talk 03:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Meh. The "assault weapons" ban is feel good publicity only. An AR-15 is a rifle that shoots bullets. Are we going to ban all semiauto rifles? Are we going to do caliber bans? Are we going to do lol-cosmetic feature bans like bayonet mounts and the ability to take a screw on suppressor? "Assault weapon" is a completely fictitious term invented by those who know nothing about guns. -- The magazine limit has limited practical use. Mass shootings happen in gun free zones, reload time is already quite small (a couple seconds), and thus it's really a non-issue in mass shootings. In not-mass shootings, I don't see a magazine capacity limit doing much either. -- But as Sam said, please, go ahead and ban these weapons, and when it happens again with perfectly legal guns, will you recognize then that these measures really don't matter? EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 03:07, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Your demand does not seem reasonable. Naturally, there will still be frequent examples of gun violence and mass killings. Our standard should be a reduction in their rate and severity, should it not? We have not abandoned car safety standards, after all, even though there are still fatal car accidents.--^talk 03:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

There are some semiautos that seem designed to convert quickly to auto. I'm sure it's reasonably possible to create a legal definition of those that isn't too ambiguous and work from there. The large-capacity magazines seem also to lack any legitimate nonmilitary purpose; even if you allow for the use of assault weapons in hunting (which is, pardon the pun, overkill, but at least somewhat imaginable), it's really quite hard to imagine a situation where an ordinary civilian is going to have much need to have thirty bullets on hand right then and there. (I can think of a couple situations where it might come in handy, but those are situations where an ordinary civilian is unlikely to be of much assistance, if not outright getting in the way.) EVDebs (talk) 03:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

EL, you do realise that those few seconds it takes to reload a gun can be quite crucial. Jared Loughner was subdued wihle reloading. The point of relaoding is the point where the attacker can not hurt you for a few seconds, so you can either attack him or flee. I have the feeling you're playing intentionally dumb, when you pretend not to be able to see The difference between a high capacity mag, which in the case of the Aurora shooting could hold up to 100 rounds and a mag that can hold merely ten rounds.--Th. Bernhard_{Das Leben ist ein Prozeß, den man verliert, was man auch tut und wer man auch ist.} 04:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

It's my impression that this simply isn't how it goes down. For all of the talk of the pro-gun control side about vigilantees and superheroes risking life and limb being dumb shits with guns, I'm starting to hear a lot of that when they're much less armed and equipped to actually handle the situation. I don't know if you adopt this position, but -- so, "your side" doesn't want someone with a gun to try and stop someone in the middle of a mass shooting, but you're ok with telling kids that they should run at the shooter with pencils in the couple of seconds it takes to reload? I don't know if I should laugh or cry. -- As I said, from my stupid little amount of education on the topic, most mass shooters are not stopped by people rushing them while reloading. I think it's a Rambo pipe dream to even consider this a plausible tactic while unarmed. Of course, you may not have a better option. That's why I said, go ahead, ban them, and when it happens again regardless, the other side will be here to say "I told you so". -- EDIT: Oh, and what's to stop them from having say .. 2 guns? Brilliant idea, isn't it? EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 06:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The large-capacity magazines seem also to lack any legitimate nonmilitary purpose; - As I'm oft to say, if that's your position, then just be for the repeal of the second amendment. IMHO precisely because they have a legitimate military purpose, that's why there is an argument to protect them under the second. The second amendment was not made to protect hunters and sport shooters. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 06:05, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, do you agree that heavy machine guns should remain banned? If so, under what principle?--^talk 06:14, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

(EC) I wrote: so you can either attack him or flee, you seem to be willfully ignorant. How can you not see that the victims survival rate would be higher if the shooter has to reload every ten shots instead of every 50 or 100 or whatever number? As to your other "point": In all honesty I think kids running against the shooter with pencils have a higher chance of survival then they would have with guns in their hands (but that is a morbid point). AFAIK most mass shooters used to kill themselves. Either because they got fed up or because their victims could flee. Whie you may ridicule my example of Loughner, I have not yet heard that a civilian successfully stopped a mass shooting with a gun.--Th. Bernhard_{Das Leben ist ein Prozeß, den man verliert, was man auch tut und wer man auch ist.} 06:16, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Small mags would be a significant thing. The MOST stressful action in a fire-fight, even a completely one-sided, is reloading. Missing the feed by even a millimeter could cause at best, more seconds defenseless, or dropping the mag, or worst case, damage the feed lips and cause the gun to jam. The only time I can think that having a very large mag would be nessarry for a civ. is if they are in heavy bear country. Sometimes nothing short of 20-30 rounds will stop a raging bear country. Even the big .44 mag revolvers can't put down a bear cleanly. Now that I think about it, you'd be better off with a .44 magnum lever rifle dealing with a bear then a military style rifle. --108.180.91.182 (talk) 07:11, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

@AD. First, you do know that automatic weapons, machine guns, rocket propelled grenades, and other such things can be owned legally by civilians in the US (or at least in most US states)? Sure, it requires a ton of paperwork and AFAIK a highly discretionary approval by the ATF, but some people have. So, do I think there needs to be a change there? No. I don't see a compelling reason to investigate the current policy in that regard for being insufficient. -- Now on to your intended question. Do I think that they should be easier to get? Meh. I don't know. I'd guess not. I'd guess more strongly that machine guns, and especially RPGs, should not be as easily available and as easily licensed as a modern handgun or AR-15. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 18:29, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

So you favor restricting access to some forms of weaponry? Under what principle? Is it fair to say that it is because a civilian has no compelling need for those items and their destructive potential would vastly increase the damage a deranged or villainous person could do?--^talk 20:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Obviously I support restricting access to some kinds of weapons, such as nuclear, chemical, biological. I believe we ought to act in a way that increases everyone's happiness and self determination, and from that principle it's obviously true that giving access to nukes to everyone is a very bad idea. Similar logic applies to restricting weapons of all kinds. On the other side we can argue for the right to self defense, deterrence, right to revolt, and right to guns as a means of creating a culture of freedom where we don't feel subservient to the government. In short, of very demonstrable, immediate harm, vs a bunch of completely nebulous pipe dreams which may be pure fantasy. This is all a moral argument. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 20:58, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

You say "obviously" a couple of times here, but I'm afraid I'm still vague on your ideological bases here. If you conceive one of the main purposes of gun ownership in America to act as potential resistance against an oppressive government, then why would you favor restrictions on the availability of the heaviest of weaponry? There might be foreign-policy reasons to oppose allowing people to buy nuclear missiles and Apache helicopters, but why do you support obstacles to the sale of water-cooled belt-fed machine guns? Shouldn't they be easy to buy if you have a license?

As you might be able to tell, I'm hoping you can explicitly spell out for me the reasons you think there should be some gun control. That way, I can understand why you draw the line that you do. If guns are to resist the government, then shouldn't there be easy access to guns that stand at least some chance of that purpose? Why not sell missile launchers to anyone with a permit, no wait?--^talk 21:09, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The legal argument is different, and IMHO fraught with uncertainty. I do think that when legislative power is invoked to write law or constitution, they are making a value judgment, which is binding, unless and until it is repealed through legislative power. If the value judgment is narrow, then it applies narrowly. If it's a vague and general purpose value judgment, then it applies in that sense. Regardless, I think it wholly unreasonable that judicial power should ever be considered sufficient to override an established value judgment because of arguments like "common sense", "the will of the people", "the common good of the people", etc. That is an invitation to destroy the rule of law. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 20:58, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

To the specifics of the second amendment. I do think that if it is to mean anything, it is the right to be as well equipped as the average soldier. Of course licensing, training classes, safety regulations, and so on, can and should be applied under the intent and spirit of the law, and under any sane policy under that law. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 20:58, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The 64 million dollar question is whether the the value judgment of the second amendment, that it should be allowed to be equipped as well as the average soldier, is a good idea in today's day. I don't know. I very weakly suspect yes, with lots of regulations, licensing, mandatory training classes, etc., but I don't know. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 20:58, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

@108.180.91.182. This is pure conjecture, but I think it's quite incorrect to describe a mass shooting as a fire-fight. They always happen in gun free zones (more or less). It's more like shooting fish in a barrel. From what little I've read of the psychology, they like the feeling of power and control they have over their victims. They might be high or jittery, but I think your description of stress that one would feel in a legitimate firefight probably doesn't apply to mass shooters in the act. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 18:48, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I have never respected Harris, and now I have another reason why. I'd like to know how many mass shootings happened with handguns alone. ^{— Unsigned, by: Osaka Sun / talk / contribs} 08:54, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

A lot, actually.--^talk 09:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Here's one of considerable note. --Seth Peck (talk) 16:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Is motherjones a reliable source? No really - it's one of the first things I found via google. Sorry for whatever bias it has, but if it's correct, of all the mass shooting since 1982 in the US, all 62 mass shooting, 68 of the 142 guns used were semiauto handguns, with another 20 revolvers. Only 35 were "assault weapons". Throw on 19 shotguns to reach 142. Kinda bullshitty that it doesn't break it down by mass shooting and instead it breaks it down by "gun". Even so, we can correctly surmise that at least about half didn't involve an "assault weapon". EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 18:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, let me note the irony that longarm or rifle doesn't appear in the breakdown. Apparently all semiauto longarms are "assault weapons". Maybe it's just coincidence that all these murderers happened to not use one of the not-"assault weapon" semiauto rifles? This just demonstrates the sheer absurdity of the term "assault weapon". EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 18:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Wait, he's left handed as well? Bring the tar and feathers! JzG (talk) 08:33, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

AD and me, again (lol, sorry)

Moved to Forum:Guns--^talk 23:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

When did we start getting so sensitive?

Part of my research has me reading old newspapers. In March 1965, 15 Canadian naval personnel were killed in a training accident. The story made page three of the Montreal Gazette, maybe 15 column inches. The next day, the story was gone. If 15 Canadian or American soldiers/airmen/sailors were killed in a single incident now, even in war time, when soldiers are supposed to die, it would dominate the news for at least a couple of days. So when did we get so sensitive? Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 20:46, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Nam? Ty^talk 21:02, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't really think so. we weren't even all the sensitive in nam. And frankly, I don't think we are now. My own personal view is that it's more to do with modern media and politics. It's a coop if you say "look at all those people obama killed". If you say "we went to syria and 15 of our guys died". And then there's the "STORM OF THE CENTURY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" hyperbole of the media. 15 deaths doesn't sell. "OH MY GOD, PEOPLE!!! 15 MORE PEOPLE WERE KILLED WHILE WE FOUGHT THERE. WE SHOULD BE OUTRAGED!!!" sells. Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 21:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

That's true. Ty^talk 21:08, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Godot, but I think there's another explanation. The European Enlightenment, the writers of the US constitution, and myself, are all concerned with government overreach and tyranny. Now, we/they all didn't go batshit insane like modern libertarians or modern Republican partiers - we still recognize that government action can be a net good - but omnipresent in discourse was this fear of government power. I think that the pro gun control side largely does not share this. They have an implicit trust in our democratic republican government. That or perhaps they do fear the government and feel powerless in the face of it. Either way, I think this leads to a belief that private gun ownership serves no legitimate purpose, which is why the US population now is a lot less "tolerant" of gun crime. My armchair 2 cents reasoning. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Did you post this in the right section, EnlightenmentLiberal? Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Godot on this; it's more to do with media saturation & media spin than human sensitivity. Cf the level of coverage by western media that violent incidents in the Middle East get when westerners are hurt or threatened (like this hostages situation in Algeria) compared with similar incidents when they affect only locals. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I really think it's relevant. We never hear this about backyard swimming pools or driving accidents because people accept that those things have legitimate uses, and private gun ownership does not. Hell, I bet that's another big reason why the 15 death training accident didn't make the news. Soldiers need to train, and thus it was not because of easy access to dangerous "items" which serve no legitimate purpose. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 21:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I would disagree with that reasoning. I think you do not hear about it cause it's common place. Alcohol has no legitimate value (in one sense) and drunk driving really has no value, but you don't hear about the 11,711 deaths in 2011 due to DUI. Speeding has no legitimate value or use, but you don't hear of the huge accident on the daily news, unless it was spectacularly huge. School shootings are never going to happen in your school, statistically. But that doesn't stop us from saying "oh my god, we need to change MY school!" what we see, we believe. and we see what the media tells us.Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 21:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

You're probably right on the whole why it makes the news. I think it's also a large part about the public sentiment. I thought this was about how we are seemingly "so sensitive", but if you meant why does this sensationalize stuff get published, sure. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 21:50, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Sensitive could also be tied to the ever so annying "that offends me". (more the right, i think, than the left... but all sides, sure). Or parents saying "how dare you criticise my child" etc. so maybe that really is something, too.Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 21:52, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

(EC)We hear about accidents all the time here. I'm reminded of a certain Stalin quote. Peter ^{Subsisting on honey} 21:54, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

What is that Stalin quote? I've been meaning to ask. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 00:59, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I presume it's the one about the death of one person being a tragedy but the death of a million being a statistic. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 09:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

The rise of 24/7 cable news would be my guess. They need stuff to talk about to fill time, and they need to sensationalize stories to compete. Edit: Basically the plot of The Newsroom. Blue (pester) 21:16, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Higher life expectancy, developments in medicine etc. might also be a factor. As silly as it sound, but death has become less frequent in our time. We are not as used to it as we were. So were death was kind of normal or usual in earlier days, it has become unusual nowadays and thus gained narrative potential and "newsworthisness". The change of the media certainly plays a part in it as well. If you want, you could also include Norbert Elias' Civilization Theory, but his theory has some issues.--Th. Bernhard_{Das Leben ist ein Prozeß, den man verliert, was man auch tut und wer man auch ist.} 11:14, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Help with an article

Any chance anyone can help on this article Infinite Universe. I want to merge in all the models such as the Electric Universe model. Forests (talk) 17:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Nope, the "Electric Universe" is a separate thing and deserves a separate article. You can mention Alfven's "plasma cosmology", but it's not the same with all the junk that has been added since. And if you are going to list alternatives to the Big Bang theory, name the article appropriately.--ZooGuard (talk) 18:29, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

What title do you think is suitable? First all the alternatives to the Big Bang argue for an infinite universe so I named it that, What about Alternatives to the Big Bang is that suitable? Or alternative cosmology theories? Forests (talk) 21:51, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I think it should simply be alternative cosmology. --Tweenk (talk) 02:29, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Videos

What is the policy on adding links to videos to articles? BunchOfNumbers (talk) 05:31, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

It is not prohibited, provided that you can make a case for its inclusion. It would need to be highly relevant to the subject at hand. What did you have in mind? --Damo^Hi 05:35, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

My god, I can't believe that this website exists

http://www.lancesupport.org/

And yes, it's still being updated--"Shut up, Brx." 07:43, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Liberals? --Damo^Hi 07:57, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

because children , a lying cheat is the perfect role model Hamster (talk) 16:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I am somehow not surprised at all. If you ignore the evidence collected by USADA, the Armstrong fiasco looks like envious colleagues ganging up on someone famous and respected just because they can't stand his glory. People believe in more far-fetched conspiracies all the time. --Tweenk (talk) 02:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, but, he confessed...--"Shut up, Brx." 02:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Obviously it was false, these allegations have crushed him like a Soviet prisoner --Tweenk (talk) 03:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Anyone who supports Armstrong now seriously needs to get help. It doesn't matter if his teammates ratted on him, it's the fact that he used his "success story" to nearly deify himself with a cancer charity. Consequentialism never looked so bad. Osaka Sun (talk) 06:02, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Eh, Like anyone else was clean at the Tour. It was still a level playing field when everyone is on the Gas. --108.180.91.182 (talk) 08:05, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

And voila, the tu quoque that everybody's heard ad nauseam. I exceptionally doubt that all of the 200+ cyclists were doping during each of those seven Tours; it would probably be a painstaking process to find the actual winners though. Osaka Sun (talk) 08:29, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Ya right, The Tour De France has ALWAYS been about how well you could cheat. Now its drugs, back in the day, it was hiring french villagers to swarm rival cyclists. If I recall, (and this is only for the first race) if they were to award the race to the first person clean (Read: Not doping enough to pop up) it was the guy who came in 26th place. --108.180.91.182 (talk) 10:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Osaka Sun put it quite well. Lance is a shithead not so much because he cheated, but because he had himself deified--"Shut up, Brx." 14:09, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

A Tour De France(I think?) cyclist was disqualified after he was found, after dark, racing with a cork in his mouth... which was attached to a wire... which was attached to a motor vehicle, giving him a tow by his teeth. I guess he didn't think things through because his "quick-release" scheme didn't work. Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 17:38, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Wow. Looks like they don't vet their comments very carefully.

It's okay that you deified yourself under false pretenses. I can look past your arrogant demeanor. Also, I don't care about those people whose lives you ruined because they spoke the truth about you. I can't admit that I was wrong for being a fanboy of yours all these years and that's all that matters. Go Lance Armstrong! —Camille

--"Shut up, Brx." 14:37, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Most dramatically pathetic assassination attempt ever?

Something from my neck of the woods: "Crazed gunman’s assassination attempt on politician caught on camera" So, if you decide to kill a politician while he's delivering a speech during congress of his party, with the cameras rolling, it's a good idea a) to pick a gun that has a more effective range than "point blank", and b) to make sure that it can fire and/or that you can actually fire it. That guy would have done more damage to Dogan if he had whacked him on the head with it. (For those who don't know - a gas pistol is a pistol specifically designed to fire only tear-gas rounds, but still dangerous at close distances. It's a popular weapon in the former Eastern Bloc, due to the stricter gun regulations here.) On YouTube, you can find more videos of the way the perp was treated by the DPS delegates.--ZooGuard (talk) 17:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Politicians have been killed by swords, so why not--"Shut up, Brx." 17:52, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Saw this on the TV news. Several people kept beating the gunman when he was already disarmed and on the ground - I don't know why but I found it rather funny. I don't quite get the motivation of the gunman though. He tried to kill someone stepping down from party leadership, what was the point? Can you give detail? --Tweenk (talk) 03:30, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

he did not use a state approved Umbrella for the assasination. Thats why so many bystanders were upset. He was also incompetant and no one likes a poor perorming assasin. Hamster (talk) 05:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

The puzzling part is that there's no apparent motive. There are groups in Bulgaria that hate the DPS ( = MRF, Movement for Rights and Freedoms, a.k.a. "the Turkish party" to some people and "Dogan's money-making scheme" to others), but the wannabe assassin is ethnically Turkish, which makes xenophobia an unlikely motive. There are going to be parliamentary elections soon, and some people have voiced the conspiracy theory that it was a publicity stunt to unite DPS voters. "Some people" here includes several politicians, including the local wannabe fascist. So, we are waiting for the police to say something.--ZooGuard (talk) 16:16, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Wait, you mean maybe there was an act of senseless violence involving a firearm? Wow, I've never heard of that happening before. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 16:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

What happened to rationalbeta?

Can anyone who's in the know say what happened to rationalbeta.com? Blue (is useful) 03:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I ate it. It was delicious. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 05:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Did you savor each byte? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 20:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

It exists when there is a need for it to exist. Tmtoulouse (talk) 06:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Frustration Rant

Why do religious people expect nonreligious people to kowtow to their personal beliefs? A little background: I am staying with my parents for a few months before I head off for Law School and there has been continuous friction because they are weekly churchgoers and while I still consider myself agnostic, I'm so close to the atheist line I could easily high five Richard Dawkins. My parents are simply unable or unwilling to accept that I do not want to go to church with them. They don't understand why it makes me uncomfortable. Aside from the theological concerns, I'm always getting invited to join the choir, or the building committee or the deacons and I have to either A, explain that I'm not religious and I don't want to be there or I have to make up some excuse and I don't like lying to people. I tried to speak to my girlfriend about it, but she's a religious person herself (more like a wavering religious person, but meh) and all I get from her is "keep an open mind, maybe you'll get something out of the experience," as if just putting me in a church by force is going to magically make me Christian? The extremely annoying part is, if I was going to an atheist conference or a skeptic convention or anything of that nature, I would never ask my parents to join me, let alone pressure them to go, simply because I know it would make them extremely uncomfortable. Why is it that we nonreligious are expected to "respect the beliefs" of others, but they see no need to respect our non-belief? </ramble> SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 08:31, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

You need to take into account your parents are probably upset by the thought that you won't be saved. Something to keep in mind. Aceⁱ⁹ 08:43, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

(EC) There are social and cultural as well as theological elements to church attendance. I think most people who are breaking with the culture they grew up in have similar experiences to yours. ListenerX^TalkerX 08:45, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

To be honest its just a process you have to go through when you are 'coming out', as it were, to family. I had exactly the same experience around the time I finished school and it has taken a long time for them to accept my decision, mum in particular. Nowadays we just avoid the topic altogether. I imagine that my experience is very common. Damo^Hi 08:51, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Obviously Chuck you are just being a shrill dickhead and obnoxious jackass by not accommodating their wishes. Генгис^mutating 09:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

What Genghis said. And just FYI law school will only turn you into a bigger asshole. Like that Nutty Roux prick. He's awful. On the other hand, you will have no compunction about telling the people your afraid of hurting to fuck off. Being a huge dick means never having to lie like that. 173.15.70.78 (talk) 17:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

When did you pass the bar, BoN? Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 01:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Start discussing Christian theology in detail, but only when the topic comes up. Extra points for history of the writing of the Bible. This is entertaining and erudite. You'll know you're winning when they get that rabbit in headlights look. - David Gerard (talk) 10:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

As has been pointed out, if they're even moderately religious then they likely view your deconversion as you walking down a path that leads to an eternity in hell. Their pressuring you to attend Church events isn't so much a disrespect of your beliefs as it is an act of love.

To be brutally honest, if you're only staying with your parents for a few months (presumably getting free/cheap board and having social supports) then why not just man up and go along with it for a bit? If you're a non believer then going to Church related activities should be far less uncomfortable than if you were Jewish/Muslim. As long as you're open with the fact that you don't believe then you're not deceiving anyone. The worst that could happen is that you have to have a few (possibly awkward) conversations with some old religious folk, but you could certainly gain some skills or make some new friends. Whatever you do don't get into a whole discussion with your parents about why you're an atheist, there's nothing better to cause conflict in a religious family.

It must also be pointed out that there are many examples of atheists disrespecting religious beliefs just as there are many examples of theists trying to convert atheist. 139.168.117.18 (talk) 14:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Think of going to church as an anthropological survey that helps you learn about they way other people relate to the world. Also, the more you know about religion and the religious, the more you will be able to convince people (even here evidently) that your decision to be a weak atheist is rational and informed and not just a rebellious stage. On the other hand, maybe you've seen enough already. Weorthe (talk) 14:29, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Totally disagree with the couple of comments above. For one thing, I don't know about your parents' beliefs, but not all Christians believe that non-believers automatically go to hell. For another thing, while you need to make a few sacrifices & fall in with other people's routines when staying with family, I don't think being dragged along to Church if you really don't want to be there is one of them. If you're uncomfortable being there, you shouldn't be obliged to go. Explain it to your folks & then be firm about it. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 15:30, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Maybe your parents are just being assholes about this? I joined a church, go every week, but I don't expect my house guests, family or wife to bugger up their Sunday morning on my behalf, and I have stayed in the houses of enough Christians, Jews and Muslims who don't drag me out on their holy days. I respect the religious dietary restrictions of my guests, but beyond that, the religious folks I now keep it pretty private. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 15:45, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

[EC]No matter how old we get, we are still our parents' children. I remember one summer I worked as construction help for a fellow who was a suave businessman and a non-bragging survivor, having been a leg in the Battle of the Bulge. Once or twice we went by his mother's place, and his affect changed subtly but very noticeably when talking to her. Some of the confidence leaked out of him, as he was still her little boy.

In my untutored view, one of the reasons Christianity has taken root so widely in our world is its component of evangelism, proselitization, salesmanship, call it what you will. That "close the deal on as many souls as we can gather" part was there from the founding of it, and remains systemic to this day. I've met a few (i.e. fingers of one hand) good salesmen who presented the product and its options, helping the customer get what they needed. I've met far more whose tactics I didn't care for. That distaste has motivated some of my attitude towards the Christianity I was born into.

When my own family included small children, we did take them to church, and were lucky to have a thriving Unitarian Universalist congregation in the district. Singing and coffee and socialization without the dogma, what's not to love? Too true, the definition of a UU as an agnostic with children.

Sorry, Chuck, none of the above may help ameliorate your situation. Hope you find the kind gentle compassionate ways to persuade your own folks that your path is also a valid one. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 16:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I think Ace hit it on the head. Because of the nature of Christian theology, they are concerned for your "eternal soul" as it will. If they believe an eternal hell and believe those who are not saved go there, then in their minds they must at least try their hardest to save their son from the damnation they believe he is on the path towards. I can see how that would be pretty distressing for a parent.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, now—there's your problem right there, thinking the head is where to hit it. While we are on a so-called "rational" (time for another gulp) site, it's worth noting that much human behavior is motivated not by the head, but by the gut. Life is best lived in ways that encourage collaboration between the two; systems that suppress one or the other can be life-denying. Don't get me started about the limbic system and mirror neurons... hugz, Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 19:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

See belief in belief. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)