RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive188

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

, (new)(back)

Why do people here claim that psychology is a pseudoscience?

I recently saw someone here claim that there's no such thing as a mental disorder because it isn't a physical thing and doesn't exist. Not only is that an ignorant statement, but you you're here, you believe that it's a physical thing. Unless you believe in spirits, mind body dualism, or in some what believe that the mind exists in an alternate dimension, than you believe that mental disorders are physical. Everything that happens in the brain is the result of physical activity. There are cells that interact with other cells, and if they don't act in the right way, it creates a disorder. It's no different than cancer or other "physical" disorders. And it probably doesn't have any more nonsense under it than any other sciences. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 16:29, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

you may have been reading Dirk Steele. Hamster (talk) 17:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Is the BoN talking about using psychological screening and euthanasia also Dirk Steele? --TheLateGatsby (talk) 17:06, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

No that is Dick Stool who has the opposite psychiatric idealogy to Dirk Steele. ^{— Unsigned, by: Penguin face / talk / contribs}

Dirk Steele does not claim that psychology is a pseudoscience. That was Karl Popper. Dirk regurgitates the Szasz (an existential psychotherapist) view that psychiatry is a pseudoscience. Psychiatry takes the view that societal 'unwanted' behaviours, such as being a naughty boy at school (ADHD), are not caused by a biological or genetic abnormality in the brain which is to be 'treated' and 'cured' by medical drugs to correct this scientifically unproven 'disease', but is the result of personal mental distress in living life - a human condition. Further information can be gleened here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-psychiatry and here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicalization helloSailor 17:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Regardless, Szasz, Popper, and Steele are all wrong. We've known that manipulation of the brain impacts mental health, and we've known this for over a century when a doctor removed a malfunctioning region of brain in an epileptic, who immediately developed anterograde amnesia. To claim that the brain plays no role, or an unknown role, in the development of mental disorders is to ignore literally over a hundred years of science. The closest thing to a real argument members of the mental health denialist club has going for them is the under-reliance on neuroimaging techniques in diagnosis and treatment. And it is not anti-psychiatry, it is mental health denialism, since mental health (including the recommendation for the use of psychotropic drugs) is used in psychology, neurology, and sometimes even general practioners.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 19:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Popper claimed that Freudian psychoanalysis and Adlerian "individual psychology" were pseudosciences, not psychology as a whole. Szasz never denied physical brain disorders either, he just pulled a No True Scotsman by defining any discoveries made by psychiatry as really just neurology. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Low-carb diet

Anyone who knows anything about diet woo might want to keep an eye on what the new guy is doing at low-carb diet. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 16:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I have been, don't worry.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 19:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

What do these people do?

So, despite my hatred of my college I've decided I should probably do something to meet people, because right now about the only people I see that I know is a guy from work that I hardly know. My college has a nice listing of the different clubs and I've got open the websites for the different groups I have at least some interest in, but almost none of them say what they actually do. So, I have no idea why I should join pretty much any of them. Sure, I'd consider myself an environmentalist, but I don't know what the hell the school's environmental club does. I was kind of hoping someone might give me some idea wtf groups like these even do. There's the environmental club, the council for humanist thought, secular student alliance, an economics club, and a math club (math major planning on working into economics, seem not terrible ideas anyways). There are some others, but I think I can figure out what the anime club does. Thanks guys!--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 20:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Join the Hells Angels. All the friends you'll ever need. Aceⁱ⁹ 20:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

It really depends what sort of people you want to meet. If you want to meet chicks then try drama or dance. I'd say avoid the serious ones like politics or economics unless it's something you really are into. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 22:05, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

The university social scene is kindof weird. I joined a few societies but found them a frustrating experience. They tend to have a few real obsessives, plus some casual members who tend to either become obsessive or else lose interest & stop showing up. The secular alliance sound like it might be OK, but I'm basing that merely on the title without looking into it. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

(EC) Bah, meeting people is overrated. But if you really want to, I would suggest volunteer work rather than joining student groups, which tend to be dominated by immature busybodies trying to make themselves feel important. ListenerX^TalkerX 22:13, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'm partly in it for the chicks, but in it mostly to meet people (and maybe do something that'll good if/when I apply for grad school), but a big thing I'm trying to figure out right now is just, what the hell do these groups even do? I can kind of imagine a religious organization probably spends time talking about religion and organizing campus conversion seminars and such, but the secular group specifically says that they don't proselytize, and they meet for an hour a week. So, what the hell are these groups even doing?--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 22:26, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Providing a support group for non-theists, mostly, but the atheist group at my alma mater recently led a protest against the promotion of homeopathy by a university office that serves as Quack Central for the university. ListenerX^TalkerX 22:30, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

If it's anything like most student groups, drinking beer and boning each other. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 22:34, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

UNO's SSA tends to meet for a bit, chat about stuff/do talking, ect, have fun, and also organize things like protesting pastor tom and other such stuff. So, a mix of fun and trying to do things. --^Mikal 22:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm thinking I'm going to go check out a few meetings for some of these groups.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 22:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Anime club: come for the subbed anime, stay for the guys in back playing tabletop games/board games and discussing actual things, sometimes politics--^Mikal 05:05, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I plan on going to UNOtaku, don't worry. I just plan on calling it 'anime club' though, because 'otaku' is meant as an insult in Japan.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 05:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, speaking of Enviro club, I saw a poster for them in.... I think allwine, from what it says, they do enviro stuffs. --^Mikal 05:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Eh. I'm still gonna check 'em out. Worst case scenario, its populated with pushy hippies and I never show up again. --Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 05:49, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘What about sports? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Story about my college's sports teams: we had a football team, so the college built a football stadium five years ago. Then three years ago, my college realized it was loosing a bit of money on the football team, so it canceled the team. We still have a football field. This tells me a few things about whether or not I'd like to get involved in the sports teams.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 04:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

They're gonna replace the football field with a new soccer field, at some point after they get done causing parking space problems. --^Mikal 05:05, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Or they could not be stupid and level the damn thing and make it more parking. Then again, if they left me in charge of certain things most of the college would be leveled with the buildings aligned in a way that makes something resembling sense, with all of the saved space turned into parking. And then terrorists would kill the people who own the golf course, and we would take it over and make it even more parking! And then I wont have to walk half a fucking hour to get to class any more!--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 05:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

But, i like having to park on a different campus so i can be dropped off at the wrong end of dodge campus and have to walk all the way to Ash! also, theres like always parking spots down by the south campus dorms. --^Mikal 05:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I always just park at Elmwood. 15 minute walk to Durham for Calc. Half hour walk to Mammel for Int Macro. At this point I consider any day I don't have to get into a fist fight with an old lady for a terrible parking spot a good day.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 05:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

For practicality I just get a day/night year permit. --^Mikal 05:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I haz no moneyz. :(--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 05:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Story of every college kids life. --^Mikal 05:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, I don't plan on taking out loans unless I absolutely have to.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 05:49, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Theory of Practice

Moved to: RationalWiki:Chicken_coop#Theory_of_Practice 22:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

The editing tools box.

What would people say about opening a discussion about this thing having fewer Greek/Cyrillic/Hebrew character sets and more templates that we actually use every day? The bloody thing has barely evolved in 5 years. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 01:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

All I'm going to say is that Greek and Hebrew are used at different times in math, statistics, and physics, and that if any of these symbols are removed, it may negatively impact current or future articles.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 01:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I was actually wondering why they were needed. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 01:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

There's plently of room on the 'templates' line for {{DFTT}} and {{fact}}. Peter ^{Droid whisperer} 02:05, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't the template be "SUBST"ed for sundry reasons? Scream!! (talk) 02:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

(see here) Scream!! (talk) 02:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Also needs something to make it wrap round the destination; possibly a "+"? see:

<charinsert>{{movedto|}}</charinsert>  

<charinsert>{{subst:unsigned|+}}</charinsert>  

Also whichever iriot just edit conflicted: learn how to wiki edit! Scream!! (talk) 02:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Alright. Ty^talk 03:22, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Rob Smith--Please do not unblock

Rob is not allowed to edit until Obama takes his oath--that was the stakes of a lost bet.As he has now backed out of paying of his debt twice in the past little while, I've blocked him and removed his rights. I will be watching the inauguration and will unblock him and restore his rights within one minute of Obama taking the oath. Thanks. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 21:25, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

That's a lame bet. Nihilist 21:30, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

What's going on?--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 21:43, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Rob and I had a bet on the Presidential election, loser had to stay blocked until Obama took the oath, but he has been trying to unblock himself and edit. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 21:55, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Your private bets don't override site policy. I've unblocked Rob. Please Don't block him again without a proper reason. rpeh •T•C•E• 21:59, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Ummmm, it's not mine, it's ours, he agreed to it, and entered into it with full knowledge of the consequences. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 22:01, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

See previous comment. I didn't agree to the bet so I can unblock him given that he hasn't broken any policy of this site. Stop pissing about. rpeh •T•C•E• 22:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

rob agreed to bet and lost. Take it to mods if you are agreived, Reph. Aceⁱ⁹ 22:06, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

If the Commie-finder-general agreed to it then fine. I assumed it was a typical bit of idiocy from ToP, given then all its latest contributions have caused a lowering of the IQs of anyone who read them. rpeh •T•C•E• 22:10, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

UI There is a semi-serious issue here about whether the site will enforce private flounce bets between users. I'm not so sure that it should; if a guy wants to welch on a bet then that speaks to his character, but so long as the person has not breached any rules of the site, I don't think he should be blocked. Damo^Hi 23:13, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Speaking as a mod, I'm torn. Do we have anything third-party-checkable about this bet? (Not that I doubt you, ToP, I just seek further information.) - David Gerard (talk) 23:54, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Seems to be this. As TOP said at the time, it's none of the site's business if someone LANCB's as part of a bet. This really isn't a community issue; let's not get drawn into it. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

If Rob doesn't hold up to his end of the bargain, all that means is that you shouldn't count on him to do so in the future. There's no need to keep blocking him or preventing him from editing his user page.--"Shut up, Brx." 00:07, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

While we're not going to have any sort of mod-enforcement gang, I think, neither do I care if sysops make bets amongst themselves and then one of them enforces it against the other. If Rob wants to weasel out and requests to do so, then we can deal with it then.--^talk 00:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

much ado about nothing. Rob could have unblocked himself and complained at any time over the last couple months but he made the bet and he is, for the most part, honouring it. It is of no one else's concern. Aceⁱ⁹ 00:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Ace has noted he officiated the bet. My mod hat tells me "well, fuck Rob for being a dick then" and I'm inclined to agree. But I won't actually lift a finger either way, being uncertain - David Gerard (talk) 01:06, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Seems like an open-and-shut case to me. I wouldn't akin this to rules regarding blocks. Rather, I'd akin this to how we treat people who are voluntarily LANCB. If RobSmith volunteered to LANCB until the inauguration, I see no reason for the community to interfere. It's a private contract between RationalWikians that we'd be best to not touch. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 05:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

if your hat is talking to you then I suggest lowering your dose. Or increasing it. Aceⁱ⁹ 01:08, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Nah, that just means he's a wizard. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 02:42, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Can I suggest that bets & dares of this nature are avoided in future? This is a very silly issue, made all the more so by trying to get the community to back it. If the bet is to LANCB for a certain period of time, fine, but trying to enforce it with a block & insisting that the community upholds that block seems like pushing it too far. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

FWW, it was my understanding it was to be a self-block and topic specific (see terms; I only agreed to modified terms and while still neogiating the other party slammed it shut and brought in a third party). All in all, everyone behaved as reprehensible as usual, but I've no complaints other than Ace & ToP robbing me of my ability to demonstrate good faith by blocking myself. Removing user rights was a bit excessive, too. nobs^{Say hello to my leetle friend} 00:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Topic specific? I call bullshit on that. Show me where I ever said anything remotely like that. Don't let your mouth write cheques your ass can't cash, Robbie. Wanna go double or nothing on the Senate confirming cabinet picks? Theory of Practice "Seneca Falls and Selma and Stonewall" 00:45, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, you had my email address the whole time so you complaint's now ring pretty hollow and stupid. Aceⁱ⁹ 00:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Right here. I only agreed "In principle..." to a self block and limiting discussion on certain topics. ToP slammed it shut and brought in a third party which I agreed to given time restraints (see time stamp). AceMcWicked immediately violated the two-party agreement to a self-block by blocking me. nobs^{Say hello to my leetle friend} 00:55, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

From the linked diff: Me: " If Obama wins (with more than 285 electoral votes) you are forbidden from posting...." You: "In principle...howabout allowing a Parthian shot after whomever does the concession speech (say within a reasonable timeframe) until Justice Roberts fucks up the swearing in ceremony again." Me: "It's a bet." Where in that, which precise words, lead you to think there was to be any discussion allowed on certain topics? Theory of Practice "Seneca Falls and Selma and Stonewall" 01:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

ToP: "I promote myself, block myself for a year, no socks, no talk page; Hussein Obama wins, Rob does the same."

Rob:"[I] am not inamenable (if there is such a word) to some modified form."

ToP:"If Obama wins...you are forbidden from posting ...If Romney wins ... I will not post"

Rob:"In principle... My thinking primarily is to reserve comment on new appointments and policy proposals; "

ToP:"It's a bet. "

Where was there ever aggreement for third party intervention? nobs^{Say hello to my leetle friend} 01:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

You are just stirring shit, Smith. Aceⁱ⁹ 01:19, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if you were a sitting Mod at the time, Ace, but it is an ethical question. You should have read the terms of our bet or agreement before interfering and destroying the losers opportunity to demonstrate their good will and good faith. nobs^{Say hello to my leetle friend} 01:23, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Ho ho ho, yes, you are a loser. Aceⁱ⁹ 01:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Gun Appreciation Day

Just found out that yesterday, the 19th, was the first annual Gun Appreciation Day. It's all over Google+ with stuff like this, and how there were several accidental gun-related injuries on that day ^{— Unsigned, by: DoomTay / talk / contribs} 05:31, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Before this goes anywhere, it's worth pointing out that these people are by definition not responsible firearm owners.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 19:16, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I've seen somewhere on this wiki that a handful of gun owners consist of the type who pretty much want assassination to be legal (The wiki actually put it more along the lines of shooting politicians they don't like).

I never actually owned a real gun myself or handled one. My dad handled guns before, I think it was part of one of the jobs he had. Only experience I had with guns from my family were a handful of shotguns perched on a pet crate at one point and an encounter with a rifle butt while cleaning out my dad's garage. So I wouldn't know if those who claim to be "responsible firearm owners" shouldn't even have firearms in the first place, unless they plan to use those guns on the government due to differences in opinion

Fun fact, one of my relatives on Facebook (Yeah, the same one who shared that two-face Obama picture), posts quite a few anti-gun control-related pictures, then at point posted a video from Anonymous and said "They make good use of actual amendments and court decisions. Unlike the gun grabbers and uninformed liberals that agree with them"--DoomTay (talk) 16:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Re-listening to Bowie's back catalogue

You know, because he's releasing a new album in a few months, and apparently "Heroes" is listed as one of the greatest conservative rock songs by the National Review. Osaka Sun (talk) 20:52, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Last night I dreamed that Bonnie Prince Billy won both the American Idol and the X-Factor. Is that strange? helloSailor 11:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

What would really be strange is if - the very same night - Bonnie Prince Billy dreamed that you won both the American Idol and the X-Factor. You should write to him & ask him. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Alternative Medicine

So, Dr. Oz has a reputation for advertising alternative medicine on his show. My mom watches that show, and seems to believe that certain medicine works on certain people, citing how I take melatonin pills.

Do those pills work for me? I can't say for sure

Bottom line, I have no idea what to think or how to respond--DoomTay (talk) 21:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

If a financial adviser on TV told you to buy a motorboat, would you run out and buy it? No. You might check to see if it makes sense for you - why might you want a motorboat, what could you do with it, etc. This advice might work for a lot of people, but it might also be bad advice or irrelevant. Just like you wouldn't buy a boat if someone on TV made a blanket recommendation for them, you shouldn't take a pill because someone on TV made a blanket recommendation for it. Check if he knows what he's talking about (look at the literature) or consult someone who knows your situation (your doctor).

If you get the reply (a frequent one) that it couldn't hurt and doesn't cost much, remember that there is an opportunity cost to worrying and acting on these sorts of things - that's time you could have spent productively.--^talk 22:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Melatonin is a fantastic evidence based sleeping aid for those who need to reset their sleep/wake cycles or who lack the ability to get exercise and sunlight during the day. It will not help people who have insomnia secondary to anxiety or substance abuse (eg benzo withdrawal) etc. I would say that it should be considered no more alternative than paracetamol.

Whisky works well too. Trust me. helloSailor 11:49, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Ahoy it does indeed! 139.168.117.18 (talk) 12:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The Dr Oz show is often a terrible show that throws evidence based medicine out the window. Sure it's a good way to inform health consumers about new products, but I would do extensive research before trusting anything the show says. 139.168.117.18 (talk) 07:47, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I will say that these pills, despite being over-the-counter, were recommended by my doctor, apparently since I was little, yet nonetheless seem to fall under the category of alternative medicine, but I still doubt they are, at least the particular kind I work with.--DoomTay (talk) 16:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Second Inaugural Address

Woohoo! Who's excited? I'm excited. Probably won't be as good as the most famous one, of course, but I'm hoping Second Term Obama plays his cards differently from First Term Obama. Blue (is useful) 12:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I love FDR's inaugurals - listen to them, if you never have.--^talk 12:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

That was way better than I expected.--^talk 20:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

It was very nice. I really liked the "Seneca Falls, Selma and Stonewall" line, though from a speechwriting point of view, the Seneca Falls Convention and the Stonewall riots aren't really common knowledge at the moment. He did come out guns blazing on the whole ideological front, which was very refreshing from the "come together" theme of his last one. Blue (is useful) 05:53, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Lewify your signature

Yahoo News introduced a thing to have your signature look all loopy like Jack Lew's... http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/signature-look-jack-lew-wrote-interactive-164551506--politics.html --Bona fide Taylor Swift lover, according to Conservapedia admins! (talk) 21:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Just had to share this. ^moral 22:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Open Letter to the RationalWiki Foundation

For the open letter (from User:Stabby the Misanthrope), responses and related discussion, please see Forum:Open Letter to the RationalWiki Foundation. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 09:44, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

This raises an interesting question....

Remain with the church you have dedicated your life to and work to make it more just, or just bail out and find a denomination that better fits your views. If there were more Catholics like this guy, they'd probably have a better rep. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 17:53, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes. And the answer is..worshipping dogma is ultimately unproductive. ^{— Unsigned, by: Penguin face / talk / contribs}

Not to be flippant, but isn't that the very question people have of many things in life. should i stay and try to convert from within, or go find like minded. I remember a west wing episode "if every democrat would just join the NRA, they'd have total voting power and there'd be no more guns" or some such. Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 19:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

If people would knock it off with such ethical hand-wringing and focus on reality-based strategizing, they might realize that there is a place for both and they should go where they can be most useful: the more dogmatic people could flee for the comfort of a group where everyone agrees with them, thus providing a moral compass for the fifth columns that work on changing existing institutions from within. In the Catholic Church's history, for example, when large parts of it broke away altogether in the Protestant Reformation, that was a catalyst for the Catholics to clean up their own act.

With regard to this particular case, it is highly amusing that the priest is referring to the actions of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith as "reminiscent of the Inquisition," seeing as how the CDF literally is the Inquisition... ListenerX^TalkerX 21:45, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

ToP, 800,000,000 Roman Catholics (approximately 1 out of 7 human beings on the planet) have a bad rep. Among who? Coming from you, a statement like that almost makes sense. nobs^{Say hello to my leetle friend} 20:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Who blocks the most

There must be a simple report that identifies those who block the most. Anyone capable of running this report? helloSailor 02:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC) helloSailor 02:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC) helloSailor 02:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC) helloSailor 02:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The number of blocks is skewed by the use of "friendly" blocks -people blocking for short periods of time as a means of messaging one another. --TheLateGatsby (talk) 02:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

(EC) Yeah, that report wouldn't say what you think it would. Nebuchadnezzar and WaitingforGodot are easily in the top five for blocks as conversation, but I don't think either of them has ever blocked someone for realsies. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 02:47, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Couldn't we filter out all blocks that are for insignificant periods of time? Tielec01 (talk) 02:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not saying it would reveal the truth. Just a starting point for a discussion. helloSailor 02:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC) helloSailor 02:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

If we filtered out all blocks for less than say 30 minutes we would get moderately interesting data, perhaps. Of course it wouldn't give any indication of whether the blocks were justified or not. Damo^Hi 02:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't remember who it is, but there's someone here that regularly blocks themselves for 8 hours (like, a few times a week). Last year I blocked myself for 30 years. Twice. Besides, while 5 minutes here is a long time, I'm used to a forum that defaults to a week long block, so as far as I'm concerned, 5 minutes is insignificant--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 02:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Sheeeet, I even know one wiki in which most users are blocked for a year or more within a day of joining up. Damo^Hi 03:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about CP. I've never tried to be a member, and rarely go there, or to CP space.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 03:05, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I have no wikifu at all, but surely you could filter out all non-significant blocks, and only leave in blocks of auto-confirmed editors (to get rid of legitimate spam blocks). Again, I don't know how mediawiki deals with it's datbases or anything really so take it with a grain of salt. This would be interesting information, but perhaps this is just me being Aspie. I would love to see Larron graph it out :) Tielec01 (talk) 03:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to run this. Be warned. The block contains about 80,000 to 100,000 entries. Blue (is useful) 05:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Curiousity killed the wiki. (Again.) Peter ^{Droid whisperer} 05:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I have a vague curiosity how many are of Brx and Rob or related to them--^Mikal 05:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah, the question who gets blocked the most is different. I have the data for it, but I haven't sorted it into a nice little graph just yet. And I was actually wrong - the log only contains about 45,000 entries. Blue (is useful) 08:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Longer than 5 minutes	5 minutes or shorter	What it says on the tin

I hope this is interesting. Blue (is useful) 08:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

How did b-flat manage so many unblocks in such a short time? Peter ^{Droid whisperer} 08:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Every once in a while I 1. go on a "get rid of lonely pages" tear and 2. go through the block log and undo a bunch of IP blocks that probably shouldn't be there anymore. Must have been one of those times. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 15:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

There is clearly a conspiracy against User:Rest --Weirdstuff (talk) 09:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't even make the list. I need to step up my game. Immortality's fun, except when you become a two-headed monster ^{Talk to me or view my art} 15:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Graphs r fun. I've been using Google Charts for data visualization on an app I'm working on and having way too much fun. If anyone's got some interesting ideas for RW data you'd like to see, let me know and I'll see if I can put it together. 00:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I found that very interesting thank you Blue. Who would have thought Reckless was the biggest blocker after Pibot (which I assume blocks spam).Tielec01 (talk) 03:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I think Pibot's slice of the pie was when it went and blocked the entire site. If you're doing requests, who edits the coop the most? Peter ^{Droid whisperer} 03:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Not exactly what you want, but still pretty close--"Shut up, Brx." 04:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Pibot blocked the entire site? How? Why?--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 04:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

@Peter - interesting. I'll get on it. 04:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, not the site - apparently Pi used the bot to block tor. Peter ^{Droid whisperer} 04:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, pibot did block the entire sysop corps at one point. It did quite a lot of blocking-for-fun back in the day. The Tor thing caused a bit more controversy, though. Blue (pester) 04:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Why does the archive-bot have sysop powers?--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 05:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't, or at least not any more. Peter ^{Droid whisperer} 05:11, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, why did it? And for that matter, how did it even have the ability to block people? Was it really coded to be able to block people?--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 05:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

The bot? Yes. It's very simple to program a bot to block people, or to do anything you want if it has the user rights. Lots of people thought it was fun I suppose. This was a pretty different time. Blue (pester) 05:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Because when some idiot locked a page that it was supposed to archive, or worse, locked an archive page that it was supposed to archive to, it broke. -- Nx / talk 07:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I will happily accept the title of "RationalWiki's Most Blocked Editor!" In fact, I take that in stride. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 08:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Graphs galore

As requested by PeterL above. Not many surprises I suppose. Blue (pester) 05:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that looks about what I expected. Peter ^{Droid whisperer} 06:53, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Now with added Saloon Bar and TWIGOCP charts! Blue (pester) 07:11, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

w00t! #8 despite being inactive for fucking ages! Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 09:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Clearly I have no life... --PsyGremlin^講話 13:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

One more round of graphs

First, another Chicken Coop graph.

6 period moving average put in for aesthetics. It's otherwise a very up-and-down graph.

Now for some more interesting material.

You know what, I think this website is evolving rapidly! Blue (is useful) 12:53, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I hope you filtered out the spambots... rpeh •T•C•E• 14:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

The method I used for obtaining the all edits from a namespace ensures that it's highly unlikely that more than a couple spambots are recorded per month, if any. And in the data from 2011 onward, no spambots are recorded at all, courtesy of the edit filter. Blue (is useful) 16:46, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Rubber talk

(no, not about these rubbers) Is it so wrong that I rub the eraser on each pencil I'm handed to make sure it has the right "feel"? --TechCheese^protest 04:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you pervert. Nihilist 04:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

It's in Leviticus. Peter ^{Droid whisperer} 04:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I can understand that. Some rubber seems to have a smooth surface which ends up polishing the paper rather than erasing the pencil and annoys me no end. However, I can't remember the last time I used a traditional rubber-tipped wooden pencil. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 09:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I mostly have ones mounted onto mechanical pencils. Though that's rare, I mostly just turn the Wacom stylus around these days. ^sshole 09:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

It's a sign of how much I'm putting off doing some real work right now that I've formed an opinion-of-sorts on this subject... ^sshole 09:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

You, too? Генгис^marauding 10:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I can't remember the last time I hand wrote anything. I can type much faster than I can write legibly. Innocent Bystander (talk) 11:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

You can flip a Wacom stylus over and erase with it? This is intriguing. 14:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Few of you whippersnappers remember when typing meant pushing on keys hard enough to drive a mechanism smiting the paper through an inky ribbon with a shaped type slug. In those days, let me tell you, there were wheely-shaped erasers with plenty of sand in them, and attached brushes, for whisking the crumbs clear of the works.

Even the pink pencil-end erasers nowadays are smooth plastic instead of gritty rubber, which is a mighty good thing in my view. Who knows, someday the tradition of making them pink will fade. The slip-on wedges already come in day-glo colors, and seem to be the same smooth plastic that doesn't beat up the paper surface. 'Tis a good century to be alive, says I. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 14:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Staedtler or NOTHING! ^sshole 15:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Shit, sproket, i am old enough that teh girls were required to take typing class, cause *that's what workign girls might get a chance to do*. Not quite old enough that I had to use those manual things. we at least had primitive electric typewriters. But i remember learning to center, and trying to type on lines in forms. FUCK THAT. hitting a little "center" button on your wp is so much nicer.Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 04:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

You forgot Pitman. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 08:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Easy voting system, allowing for 1st & 2nd choices

Ok, so our complex is being repainted and owners can vote on the new colours. 8 options and they can select their first and second colour choices.

What's the easiest way to take all of these into account. I'm thinking assign 10 points to each first choice and 5 to each second choice and tally up. Most points wins. Remember - the key word here is "easiest" - don't propose this weird system RW uses for elections. Even God doesn't understand that, and we need to explain the methodology to stupid people. --PsyGremlin^Runāt! 13:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

How about each person supplies a pot of paint and they all get mixed together? It might be more interesting than attractive, but that'll just be a valuable lesson not to go on looks alone. rpeh •T•C•E• 13:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

If that's your suggestion then why not just buy a large tub of Baby Poo? Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 13:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Or a large baby? rpeh •T•C•E• 13:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Post the color codes here and we can have the election for them. 14:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

For those old enough and British enough this all smacks of Auf Wiedersehen Pet. Innocent Bystander (talk) 15:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Just straight forward IRV limited to two choices should do it. If you have two, then your re-counts should be fairly easy. ^gnostic 16:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Give everyone a maximum of two votes of equal value, add them up and get the top 2 choices. Then have a runoff between these 2. This has the benefit that the winning colour will have majority support, and the system is transparent and easy to follow. Greater likelihood that people will feel that their opinion has been considered will result. Damo^Hi 01:53, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

But IRV is exactly the system to avoid. using the example in the link, how do you explain how the guy with only 13,000 votes, gets another 12,000 allocated to him, but the guy with 23,000 votes only gets 500 votes allocated to him. That's hardly a proportional representation. Remember - you're explaining this to stupid people. --PsyGremlin^Parla! 08:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Maybe range voting/score voting could satisfy the "simple" requirement? Ideally you'd be able to relax the "two colour choices" requirements and just let everyone score every colour as they feel fit. I'm not yet sure I actually like this voting system, but it's something to consider all the same. --Editor374 (talk) 09:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

What's going on?

Hit it with a hammer!

I needed to type in the URL of the page to edit the SALOON BAR. The "edit" button on the page's head just didn't work. AFAIK, it's just the saloon bar and the main page I can't edit. Is this happening to anyone else, and what can I do to fix it? Immortality's fun, except when you become a two-headed monster ^{Talk to me or view my art} 22:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Works for me... Peter ^{Droid whisperer} 22:22, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

There don't appear to be any restrictions. If you're still getting a problem, try relaunching your browser or using a different one. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Have tried turning your computer off and on again? Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 08:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Leave it unplugged for 5 minutes then rub a bit of soap on the prongs before you plug it back in to the mains. That seems to loosen the electrons up a bit and make it easier for them to do their thing. 99.4.105.133 (talk) 17:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Another one bites the dust.

Atari bites the big one.-- ^{Jabba de Chops} 17:05, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I guess that's what they get for making games that still work and get played after thirty years. Is there still an Atari Japan? Or is it Namco using most of the old games now? I play the (relatively new) four-player Pac Man on a fairly regular basis... --Seth Peck (talk) 17:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

By this time, the name is pretty much everything that has remained of the original company - see wp:Atari.--ZooGuard (talk) 13:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

A Brooker classic...

Certainly had me chuckling, rat chicken nuggets anyone?-- ^{Jabba de Chops} 18:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

"As a consumer, you implicitly understand that each time you buy a 'value' meat product you are entering into a gentleman's agreement with the producer. Your end of the deal: you won't ask awkward questions and you'll swallow as fast as you can." - this is basically why you should avoid cheap meat. In fact, I think it could be well argued that avoiding cheap meat products is better overall for animal welfare and the environment that avoiding it and going all holier-than-thou vegan on everything. ^narchist 18:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The big issue is traceability. Legally everybody involved (manufacturer, distributor, retailler) was responsible for being able to go from "Here's this pack of beef burgers I bought at Tesco" (on which there will be printed a Best Before and potentially cryptic "batch" information) to the records of the cows slaughtered to make those burgers. When (fictitious example) three people in Bolton die of a weird new beef-related illness, this traceability is supposed to ensure that health officials can identify the specific animals that were affected, recall every product their meat went into and view the medical history of the animals. Somehow, the records were not just "a bit poorly maintained" they omitted to mention that a large proportion of the burger was made out of a different animal altogether. It's as though we found out that, whoops, five thousand houses were built with no earth connection for the electrical system but the engineer signed them all off as tested. Somebody OK'd completely ignoring the safety regulations - so if you don't see anybody senior end up in jail over this what you're seeing is a coverup. The feigned "disgust" at eating horse meat is a side show of no importance. 81.2.89.113 (talk) 22:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't horse meat A LOT more pricy then beef, simply because we don't normaly raise Horses for its meat? This reminds me of that dumb rumor that McDonald's burgers were made out of worms, even though worms per pound were about 260x the price of beef. --154.20.2.85 (talk) 02:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what the relative price of horse meat is. I do know that meat which doesn't have any paperwork could be a lot cheaper than meat which has proper records. The most obvious reason not to have any paperwork is because if you could trace the meat you'd know it was unsafe. Maybe a whole horse costs ten times what a whole cow costs, but a horse with a nasty infectious illness that ought to have been incinerated is worth $0 so if you can shift it to somebody who'll put it in burgers with no paperwork for $1 per kilo you're still better off, assuming you don't have any morals. 81.2.89.113 (talk) 02:45, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

At least we finally know what happened to Shergar AMassiveGay (talk) 14:35, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

"hamburgers" is an anagram of "Shergar bum" - David Gerard (talk) 15:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Considering how "value" burgers are actually made, I can't help thinking if they were 40% horse flank they'd still be better for you than if they were all "beef." --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Horsemeat expensive? Dartmoor's feral ponies can go for 50p sometimes. The meat is meant for zoo animals but I'm sure the odd truckload could be diverted elsewhere. Sophie^Wilder 20:22, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

A curious question...

Does anyone have a rough idea how much it would cost to get a power button on a Motorola Defy repaired. Mine's sought of working, but feels like it's recessed into the case a bit, making it difficult to use when the arthritis is bad.-- ^{Jabba de Chops} 01:12, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

The power button is likely soldered right onto the circuit board of the phone. As far as I know, most shops won't even attempt to fix that; they only replace parts. Replacing the whole circuit board of the phone? Sounds like a full replacement. I am grossly ignorant, but I would expect that whole phone replacement is the only option that will be given. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 01:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

That's a shame. Guess it'll just have to last the last 6 months of the contract then. Should be okay, hopefully. Thanks for the reply.-- ^{Jabba de Chops} 01:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

If you can, go in an ask. It can't hurt. I could be wrong. Just don't get your hopes up. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 02:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

If it's still in contract, it should be under warranty (certainly in the UK - merchantability and fitness for purpose) - a button should last the expected working life of the phone, certainly while you're still paying for the bloody thing. Call up the mobile company and/or pop into a shop. (Bet they'll find a way to claim it's cos of "water damage" though.) - David Gerard (talk) 11:55, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately not, the contract is for two years but the phone only had a one year warranty on it. I could try claiming under the Sales of Goods Act, but they'd just claim wear and tear which, to be fair, it is. Plus there's that whole 'rooted and given a decent working version of Android' which tends to mean that phone companies won't pay up for replacements. Oh, and technically it's not the Defy that came with the contract. That phone died last week with what seems to be flash failure (woke up to find that the phone was stuck in a boot cycle, had drained the battery and the damned thing wouldn't reflash, every attempt to reinstall Android of any kind failed, usually at about half-way through the flashing process). This Defy's just a second-hand one I picked up, which works fine, it just has a power button that's trickier for me to use than the old one.-- ^{Jabba de Chops} 16:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Bringing a Neanderthal into the world

What do you guys think about the possibility of someone giving birth to the first Neanderthal in thousands of years? My first feeling is that no matter how interesting it might be to have a Neanderthal in the world, the Neanderthal's life would suck, what with having been created purely for scientific purposes and likely having to go through life knowing that he or she is not human even though they'll likely feel that way growing up in society. Sam ^Tally-ho! 06:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Ethics be damned! We do what me must, because we can.

Seriously, even though it is a moral dilemma, i think that we can't passup a scientific opportunity like this. Nihilist 06:53, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

reminds me, to a degree, of an Asimov story--^Mikal 07:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

For the good of all of us, except the ones who are dead *coughs*

Reminded me of the Pyrenean Ibex. But The Ugly Little Boy feels like a Tom Hanks movie in the making. Hopefully some Hollywood exec isn't here... Osaka Sun (talk) 07:20, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm against this, a Neanderthal would be the closest thing to a human and would end up being a life-long circus freak. I can't see any ethical justification. Even if you did it what exactly would you learn? Because the most interesting thing about Neanderthals is their culture. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 09:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Neanderthals are still around, actually, as a visit to Plymouth on a Saturday night will adequately confirm. Sophie^Wilder 09:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure he'll make a helluva a senator after a long, distinguished career playing (Murkin!) football. C®ackeЯ 10:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Surely one Neanderthal doesn't tell us anything? I mean, suppose somebody, somewhere agrees to do this and it works. Maybe you get an ordinary seeming kid. So what? You can't do any statistical measurements on a sample of one. Kid's dumber than most? Tells us nothing. Hairy eyebrows? Nothing. 2 metres tall? Might just be luck of the draw. Six toes on each foot? Ditto. The only thing we learn is "Yeah, we can do that". So to be of much value for research you need to make lots, maybe you find a hundred women. Now you can do statistics, hey, their IQ is higher by a statistically significant amount, they all have extra toes, most of them go bald by thirty and half are dead by forty. But again, what are you going to do with this information? It's really hard to imagine any practical application so this would be pure science. On the ethics side, there are some scary possibilities. The least scary case is that Neanderthals are largely indistinguishable from us, then we just have to face up to bringing them into a bigoted world where they'll have to choose between lying about their identity or being treated badly by the general public. But the not-like-us cases are scarier. Suppose the Neanderthal babies seem developmentally normal, but then simply don't acquire language. That's not a crazy extrapolation, we're not entirely sure why human babies take to it so easily while other primates seem largely uninterested. You can't function in our society without language, so they'd have to be institutionalised permanently. 81.2.89.113 (talk) 11:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Innocent Bystander (talk) 11:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

most evidence suggests neanderthal had language. and you CAN function in society without language, just fine. doesn't mean I'm for or against this. and as someone else pointed out, the single biggest issue would be culture - did they have religion, how complex; how adept were they with language; what kinds of complex cognition were they capible of. they'd have our culture, so what would that tell us?

I think that the danger of the potential Neanderthal not picking up language and then being cruelly incarcerated in a mental institution is overstated. A much bigger danger is that the Neanderthal would be much more intelligent than us and that he would take over the world and force us to make more Neanderthal babies! Or perhaps we have no idea what would happen.--Weirdstuff (talk) 12:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I think, if anything, it's understated. Most people know that they were created out of some sort of love - we are genetically programmed to love our children - and that they share a great deal in common with their parents. Now imagine that you were created out of some sort of curiosity. It's "My Sister's Keeper" writ large. And, much worse, you are always and forever alone. No one should be put in that situation, no one. And, what's worse, is that we don't know, can't know, how much of someone this experiment is going to produce. Will the Neanderthal be little more than cattle - hey, here's the latest gastronomic treat and it's not cannibalism because they're not us. In my mind the worst - out of many very bad - situation would be that the Neanderthal has an IQ of, say, 80. Almost human but not quite and thick with it. The ethical problems are immense. Innocent Bystander (talk) 13:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

For me, the biggest problems would be getting a big enough starting population (it's never going to happen, but if it did, I'd like to see at least 500 individuals created, as that would give enough numbers for communities to form and interact with each other) and recognition that the individuals created were human with all the rights and protections under the law. Language shouldn't be a problem, Neanderthals were fairly advanced tool users, and that seems to go hand-in-hand with fairly complex language capabilities, and, of course, both ourselves and Neanderthals shared the same tool-making skill-sets at one point; the simplest explanation for which is that there seems to have been some form of communication going on between the two, even if it was only on the level of watching, copying and then learning.-- ^{Jabba de Chops} 16:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that you would need to start with 500 infants. There would be no inherited culture or knowledge. Neanderthals may have been tool users but the manufacture of those tools is something that was handed down. How do you raise a Neanderthal from scratch without transferring modern knowledge, culture and morals? Генгис^evolving 18:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I just made the assumption that you would transfer all the knowledge required to live in the modern world. To do otherwise would be pointless cruelty. It would be akin to breeding animals to release into the wild, but never giving them the chance to develop the skills they'd need to survive once released.-- ^{Jabba de Chops} 18:31, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognises "the inherent dignity and the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family". Taken literally (& I see no reason not to), this would apply to homo neanderthalensis as well as homo sapiens. That means no to the meat cattle idea, & would throw into question a lot of the stuff that being the subject of one big lifelong science experiment would entail. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:17, 22 January 2013

Well, literally (assuming literally you mean taxonomically) "family" is hominidae, which includes chimps, apes and orangutans. Homo being the genus. But, if you take the human rights declaration to apply to all Homo and not just Homo sapiens, then you're right, they'd be covered very much so. The ethical consideration is then in the same ballpark as the so-called "designer babies" that can used for bone marrow transplants with ill siblings. And also in many respects it's similar to a lot of early test-tube babies, who could be considered "experiments" in this sense, and such ethical considerations didn't stop that (again, assuming the UN human rights declaration literally applies to Homo, putting bearing a Neanderthal in the same sort of area). ^sshole 18:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Course, you all know it's going to happen. That's what someone earlier said, regardless of "should", if it can be done, someone will do it. Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 18:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm intrigued by the unsigned comment some way above that claims people can function "just fine" without language in our society. Notice we're not talking about the functionally illiterate, nor even the actually illiterate, but people without language at all. Supposing that we took this claim at face value, how has anyone gathered this information? It's a fairly complicated evaluation, beyond claiming that they survive (which they do, in a hospital or other institution), but there is no means by which to make it since by definition the subject is unable to communicate their experience to you. So I want to hear more, a lot more about this "just fine". 81.2.89.113 (talk) 21:52, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Essay about alternative medicine

As some of you may know, I have been flooding the recent changes with hundreds of minor edits writing an essay about alternative medicine. I was motivated to write it, because I couldn't find any one webpage that comprehensively covered all the important arguments for and against CAM. Now, I have a few things I need help with:

1. I read once about this woman who went to a faith healer's show to be healed by him. At the show he "cured" her, so she exerted herself -- and broke her back. I've tried Googling it, but found nothing. Does anyone know the case I'm talking about?
2. I copied information from the Wikipedia article about spontaneous improvement; in the essay, I cite an study about the statistics of SI, but the abstract says nothing about it, and I can't read the article. Does anyone know where I can find anything to replace that reference?
3. There are some anecdotes in Harriet Hall's book referenced by SkepDic, which I have included, but I don't have the book. Should I remove them? If not, I think it would be useful to cite the pages in which those anecdotes occur.
4. There's a blog post (in French) about what would happen if aspirin were made from willow trees instead of synthesis. He argues that it would take 600.000 hectares of willows. He also says there are 175.000 hectares of willow trees now, but provides no reference for this claim. Are there really 175.000 hectares of willow trees on Earth?
5. Is the section about herbs and antibiotics in Part II OK?
6. I've listed some conditions cured or improved by modern medicine, but the list is very small. Anything I can add?
7. To a person reading the part about vaccines, it might seem that I just analyzed five random chemicals used in vaccines and found one with adverse effects. (Which is exactly what happened.) The reader might wonder what other chemicals can be dangerous. How can I rewrite this part without being dishonest? Maybe by listing all adverse effects of vaccines...?
8. Near the end, I compare the hourly wages of naturopaths with those of general practitioners -- in Canada, because I couldn't find equivalent statistics for the U.S. But are there? I don't imagine the differences are more marked in the U.S. statistics, but a reference would be nice, to make sure I'm not comparing apples and oranges.
9. Weirdstuff suggested merging the essay with alternative medicine. Is this possible?

Thanks!--Krej^talk 17:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I just noticed I didn't include a link to the essay. Sorry. I've added it.--Krej^talk 23:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

You know what they call alternative medicine that works? Medicine. --PsyGremlin^Zungumza! 08:12, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Your point being?--Krej^talk 17:42, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Essays are quite variable in form but they are really for making fairly short posts which for some reason aren't appropriate for the "encyclopaedic" parts of the wiki. For example for making a point which does not fit well with the world-view of most contributors and consequently cannot be incorporated into the wiki, or alternatively for making an impassioned first-person plea about something.

However, a lot of the stuff you have put in your essay could be incorporated in existing articles - if it's not already in them. So, I'm not sure that you're going to get a lot of people piling in to improve your - already rather long - essay when they could more reasonably improve existing wiki articles.

Perhaps it might be better to devote your time to improving existing content?--Bob^{"I thought this was supposed to be "Rational" Wiki?."} 22:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

The reason I didn't edit the alternative medicine article directly was that I wasn't sure if the broad scope of the essay would be appropriate for an article. I figured It'd be easier to write the essay from scratch, and then incorporate it into the alternative medicine article, or if that were't possible, then to link to the essay in the "see also" section (like in scientific consensus). The essay's pretty much finished, I think, except for the factual issues above and the proofreading (which I haven't done yet.) I posted here to ask for help in finalizing the essay, and to ask whether it can be merged into alternative medicine. My main goal in writing it was to create a webpage where CAM arguments are covered in one place (I haven't yet found such a webpage.) I think adding the information to a bunch of separate articles would have been far less useful. Anyway, can the essay be merged with alternative medicine?--Krej^talk 01:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

"...a webpage where CAM arguments are covered in one place..." There are so many different CAM "treatments" that one article would never be enough to even cover them all in broad brushstrokes. Barry Beyerstein's Why Bogus Treatments Seem to Work is the best I've seen that covers that wide of an area without being obnoxiously long. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't know about that article.--Krej^talk 18:30, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Another school shooting.

I am seriously beginning to consider my career choice. This is bullshit. Theory of Practice "Seneca Falls and Selma and Stonewall" 20:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm waiting for this to crop up in the teaching course I'm taking. Ty^JFBANBSRADA 20:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

How'd you miss this one? Young homeschooled mass murderers. Disclosure: I know one of the victims. nobs^{Say hello to my leetle friend} 20:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that, Rob. Aceⁱ⁹ 20:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

The Pastor? Tmtoulouse (talk) 20:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC

Yes. Greg Griegos. I know him through the Albuquerque Rsecue Mission and other ministries. We deal with the same people. nobs^{Say hello to my leetle friend} 20:44, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Didn't miss that one, I actually WIGO's it. And my condolences on your loss. God bless, Theory of Practice "Seneca Falls and Selma and Stonewall" 20:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

What about "Well Regulated Militia" am i missing??????????Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 20:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, it was a Christian preacher killed, so the anti-gun lobby's been staying away, so far. nobs^{Say hello to my leetle friend} 21:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Why wouldn't it keep staying away? Nihilist 21:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

This preacher may have been a felon in illegal possession of an automatic firearm that his son used to kill him. And the kid has already admitted to enjoying violent video games, though I doubt he volunteered information like that. nobs^{Say hello to my leetle friend} 21:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

The violent video games angle is a red-herring. Do you know where else they play violent video games? Everywhere else in the world. Aceⁱ⁹ 21:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I'm saying. After he gives a detailed confession to police, the interrogators throw in, "Do you like playing violent video games, like Grand Theft Auto?" Then in a press conference they say, "...and he admitted he enjoyed playing violent video games". nobs^{Say hello to my leetle friend} 21:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Meanwhile, in Canada

Stricter gun control laws aren't enough. I used to live about 4 blocks from the site of this totally senseless tragedy. Theory of Practice "Seneca Falls and Selma and Stonewall" 22:11, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Meanwhile, in Finland

I noticed that in the comment sections (Yeah yeah, I should never read the bottom half of internet.) of our news articles of these recent shootings, some lone(?) weirdo is claiming that these incidents are staged by Obama as an excuse to take away people's guns. Is this a common conspiracy theory on your side of the pond? Vulpius (talk) 23:22, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I've met a few people here that believe that. Ty^JFBANBSRADA 23:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't know. I hope that these psychos are small in population. However, there is a very large portion of the population which is very concerned that Obama is going to go for a gun registry as a first step to getting rid of all private gun ownership. That fear has been there for quite a while among the gun nuts. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 23:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I think there is a racial/survivalist component to the increase in gun purchases over the Obama years -- not so much as anything Obama could do to effect ownership and possession rights (cause he can't do anuything), more so what he represents -- or to put it crudely, the spread-the-wealth-tax-the-rich disrespect for property rights, and the hoards he represents who feel entitled to other people's property. Crime definitely is up in the Obama era; that may be the result of the economy, but it sure as fuck isn't Georege Bush's fault. The criminal class that supports Obama's views, and feel justified in their theivery and "getting even", are for the most part uneducated whites (let's call them "Democrat rednecks"). But there is a misperception among conservative rednecks that Obama's behind this mass chaos that knows no racial bounds. Fear is the motivation to own a gun, not aggressiveness. nobs^{Say hello to my leetle friend} 03:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

"Crime definitely is up in the Obama era." Shut up, Robbie. Theory of Practice "Seneca Falls and Selma and Stonewall" 03:12, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Dateline Jan. 14, 2013 FBI: Property crimes rise across U.S.. Keep in mind these numbers are skewed in comparison to previous years because of budget constraints. Some police departments do not even respond to certain types of calls, hiring freezes, etc. There are communities that have no police protection at all because the tax base is too low and they can't get grants and aid from states or the federal government. nobs^{Say hello to my leetle friend} 03:24, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I think our Sandy Hook article addresses some of that conspiracy stuff, no? It should. Theory of Practice "Seneca Falls and Selma and Stonewall" 23:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Meanwhile in California

For anyone interested, recent and relevant exchange on facebook:[1]

She's a good toe-the-party Republican, so she deleted my comment. I expect to hear from higher powers then her that I'm a naughty naughty boy--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 01:42, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Question

A friend once told me that there are no garden centres in Pamplona. Is this true? Sophie^Wilder 20:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean by garden centers? stores that sell garden supplies? or gardens. cause they have like 3 amazing gardens including their boatanic one.Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 20:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Is that where they grow boats? --2.39.39.47 (talk) 21:39, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

No, that's gently down the stream. 89.241.99.248 (talk) 21:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you you mean "Is it true that your friend told you that?" Only you you would know the answer to that one.

Or do you mean "Are there no garden centres in Pamplona?" (Presumably Spain) I live in Bilbao which is about 70 miles from Pamplona and there are plenty around here. In fact, I can think of at least four within about five kilometres of my house. So it seems unlikely that Pamplona would have none.--Bob^{"I thought this was supposed to be "Rational" Wiki?."} 21:53, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

A garden centre is somewhere that sells outdoor clothing, greeting cards, discount books, smelly candles, amusing signs, teddy bears, kitchen equipment, gaudy crockery, luggage, Christmas decorations; and perhaps a few plants and seeds. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 22:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

And there is always a large cafeteria selling crap that old ladies and gay men like to eat. Ham sandwiches are renamed "Focaccia flat bread with a slab of honey glazed ham off the bone with fresh garden greens" served by hipsters with ironic mustaches. Aceⁱ⁹ 22:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

This is one of the bigger ones near me.--Bob^{"I thought this was supposed to be "Rational" Wiki?."} 09:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Does this stream work for you?

I can't get this stream to work for me. (The one in the middle of the page, not the one on top.) Tried two different browsers. Can anyone else get it to play? If so, can you start it up, call me, and hold the phone up to your speakers? Theory of Practice "Seneca Falls and Selma and Stonewall" 23:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Using Firefox 18.0.1, and the middle playlist is blank here--DoomTay (talk) 01:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Gotta love youtube ads....

Even when you aren't watching anything related to the topic, you can still find hilarious yarns like this shoved at you by youtube. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 09:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if what you choose in the 'vote' really makes any appreciable difference. Nihilist 19:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

What's a more accurate measure: gross operating budget or net operating budget?

Because the comedian of a Mayor we have in T-Dot is doing some peddling. Osaka Sun (talk) 01:56, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Explanation requested please

For this site. Scream!! (talk) 02:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Good question. Even translating it I couldn't figure out what it meant. Aboriginal Noise ^{What the hell is that thing?} 02:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

My guess is that maybe they want people to vote for whether or not they think RationalWiki's "Expert" ("EXP"?) or "shit." Sam ^Tally-ho! 02:43, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I think it's more about debating rather than rating—another entry is apparently comparing wikipedia with the great soviet encyclopedia. Peter ^{Droid whisperer} 02:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

The commenting dude says we're "too young, too little information" and then links to... a Wikipedia article. Blue (pester) 03:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Is this a great country, or what?

They're playing the Monty Python theme at the Inauguration. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 15:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, of course, the inauguration of Barack Obama is a farce! He's not the real president, and we'd be better off with a Republican who would do the exact same things, but wouldn't be a Mooslum. /sarcasm

I must admit, I cannot hear the "Liberty Bell March" and not think of (it's!) Monty Python's Flying Circus. --TheLateGatsby (talk) 15:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I heard a story that in 2000, John MaCain's campaign used the Liberty Bell March as it's theme. Didn't sound a bad idea -- a nice, peppy tune and you don't get much more patriotic than a Sousa march. But then the campaign staff started hearing jokes about McCain being a lumberjack who had a silly walk, and they checked into other places the song has been used... MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 16:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Wait...so everyone on McCain's campaign staff had no idea what Monty Python was??? No wonder why they picked Caribou Princess as candidate for the Silly Party a running mate...they had no foundation for humor to recognize what a joke she was!

Though in all fairness and reverence, I hear the full version of this song (without the fart noise) played at least once every 7/4, usually by the Boston Pops orchestra. I think it's great, having played it in high school, and like most (all?) Sousa marches has a second cadence which is also very interesting. The "Washington Post March" is also very catchy. --Seth Peck (talk) 17:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

A lot of those Sousa marches (and others of that ilk) have parody lyrics. E.E. Bagley's "National Emblem" will forever be "The Monkey Wrapped His Tail Around the Flagpole", but at the moment I can't think of the proper title for "I Love to Go Swimmin' With Bowlegged Women". Anybody? Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 00:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• The one that always makes me laugh is that they used a hymn in praise of poverty arranged by a homosexual Jewish Communist at the inauguration of Ronald Reagan. JzG (talk) 23:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Church and State at the Inauguration

1. Invocation. In other words, a prayer.
2. First song: "Glory, Glory, Hallelujah.
3. Bibles and "so help me God".
4. Ah, there's another prayer. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 16:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to say that this isn't an issue, but I will say I think there are bigger issues to deal with when it comes to the fight for separation of church and state, and if we try to fight every battle at once, no matter how minor, we'll wear ourselves out, spread ourselves too thin, and look ridiculous to those who are neutral on these issues. And really, any attempts at social policy are going to be as much over gaining public support as gaining legal support.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 16:47, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

There are bigger issues to deal with, sure. But this is part of the discursive foundation of the country, and that matters. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 16:49, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Am I wrong, or were there, like three prayers last time? The Saddleback guy, an African-American preacher and someone else? This is actually pretty lightweight on the church and state front. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 16:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Then we're making progress on that front, so I say we focus efforts to bigger issues.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 17:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, I hardly think that some guy in a basement making a few notes on a marginal website is detracting huge resources from the struggle. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 17:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I think of it as relating to the quote by Gandhi "Be the change in the world you want to see", if you want to see more secularism in the world, maybe you should do something about it? You may only be making notes on a 'marginal website', but if everyone who was doing the same did so towards a single goal, I think a lot could be accomplished.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 17:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Dude, you are taking this way too seriously. I was having a little fun while killing time waiting for a speech to start. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 17:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Sweet Jesus make this poem stop

Please. Stop. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 17:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

That was a poem? I thought it was just some random thoughts by a passing stranger. Certainly sounded like it.-- ^{Jabba de Chops} 17:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes I hate my parents

While obama was giving his nice long speech, when he mentioned Equal rights for gays my mom in particular gave an amused snort and some comments about it -.- Really can't wait to move out of this house so I can actually say what I believe (or don't) and my orientation. --^Mikal 18:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Be comforted: that way of thinking will vanish within the generation.--^talk 20:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

And it will only get better. I knew no one, anywhere who was gay in highschool (early 80s). not just at school - anywhere in town. and the ones who might have been around town were very queeny and fit the "preditor" style of gay sterotype. Then aids came, and people all over Greeley Colorado (a very hick town) said, "hi, we're here". now you have kids in school totally obvlious to why it even matters. "i'd hit on him, but he's gay, it sucks". it sucks cause he's cute, not cause gay is wrong. that is a great sign. Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 23:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Try calling them out on their bullshit. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 23:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I would love to do that, but it isn't practical to do so. --^Mikal 05:17, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

It never will be. C®ackeЯ 10:25, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, it especially isn't now, while im still needing them so as too not be living on the streets or a friends house. --^Mikal 22:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Osama bin Laden interview

I think I am going crazy at last.

When the first wave of dust settled somewhat after 9/11, a Dutch television program aired a special on bin Laden. I distinctly remember the program including clips of an interview he had given a few years prior. In this interview, he spoke English (quite well, too), had a short and trimmed beard, was nearly bald (he was not wearing a turban), wore jeans and a baby blue t-shirt (if I remember correctly), and was being interviewed by a similarly ethnic looking man speaking perfect English, though I am not sure with what type of accent. I think that one of the questions concerned violence: he explained that he was not a violent man, but if someone were to punch him, he would retaliate--and he looked spectacularly untrustworthy saying this.

Thing is, I have never been able to retrieve this interview; Hell, I've not even been able to find any images of him without the beard and turban, or any recordings in which he speaks English. What the painful fuck is going on here? Have any of his brothers (some of which look quite similar) given interviews that fit the description? Or have I stumbled upon something The Man tried to cover up that I, being the intellectually formidable warrior-poet that I am, have managed to resist? I think the program made a pretty big deal out of the fact that that guy right there was the man responsible for what happened. Any help would be hugely appreciated because this has been nagging at me for a few years now. WF Lizardbrain (talk) 19:23, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you sure it wasn't a joke? Nihilist 20:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

The closest I'm aware of would be his appearence in 1988. There is a least a few seconds of video from the same time period although I can't find an extended interview. English is unlikely since bin Laden's views has signficant amounts of arab supremacy in them but that could well just be due to dubbing.Geni (talk) 19:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

From what I can tell, you must be mistaken: glancing through search results on YouTube, I see that he did interviews in 1998, but definitely had his long beard at the time. Nor have I ever seen pictures of him with a short beard and no turban, which he adopted as a sort of branding long ago.--^talk 19:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Really decisive opinions on child treatment

This is years old, but anyone remember the incident of a photo of kids crying to accompany an auction of Beyblade tops?

I want to get note of the comments section. Some see that such things are normal, and they are told "I hope you aren't a parent". I also see that some explain what's wrong with these methods of treatment, and those people are told similarly

As with a lot of things, I want to side with those who believe those things are abuse, but the only thing stopping me is what is said to those who hold that viewpoint; probably the closest I'll get to peer pressure--DoomTay (talk) 01:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I would say it depends on how these kids behaved. If this is not the first time they've damaged something and they've been told beforehand that this will be the result, then depriving them of the toys is perfectly adequate. If this is an impulsive action by the mother, it's not good. I guess people were more outraged at what they understood as public shaming than at the form of punishment. The 'hot sauce mom' is clear abuse though. --Tweenk (talk) 01:56, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Because actually supervising your kids, paying attention to them, bringing them up with good examples is just too fucking difficult for these breeders. ^theist 17:34, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

At Tweenk, getting rid of the toys is not the issue. I thnk that might well be appropriate. it's the need to shame your kids infrot of others. SHAMEING KIDS is a disgusting show of your own inablity to actually raise your kids. You disipline, you don't bully, and you really don't emotionally abuse. Dad took our toys away, our tv away, made us sit in the corner, or go to bed without dinner, etc. But he didn't put it out for all teh world to see - especially in a world where images will follow those kids for the rest of their lives. "ohhh, you were the Tub Top boys!"Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 17:43, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

More emotional abuse nonsense. It's insulting to victims of real abuse. Nothing better than Godwin's Law nonsense in the way that is degrading to memory of the Holocaust. "WAAAAAAA! My parents are being mean to me! I'm going to involve the courts now!" The only thing that will do is create disorder in families when kids realize they can be in charge by getting the courts and social services to veto punishments they get. It's going to result in a generation of candy ass kids. If WWII happened with this generation... ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 02:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Things that shouldn't happen in a modern industrialized democracy.

A friend of a friend broke her collarbone and needs surgery to get herself put back together. She does not have health insurance. The hospital would not do the operation unless she put down a payment of $1700 first. She had to start a website to crowdsource the money. Why Americans settle for this nonsense is beyond me. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 01:50, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Sadly, the path from here to there includes repurposing US health "insurance" companies, or flat out putting them out of business. I mentioned universal single-payer in conversation with an in-law who is an exec in that business, and he just forced a laugh. Then he tried to tell me that, without $$ as incentive, cutting-edge tech will not be developed. Sadly again, I think he knows exactly where the bulk of the money gets spent. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 02:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

While obama care is not a perfect fix, it is a start. by forcing everyone to buy insurance, the cost goes down. granted, that doesn't mean it goes down enough. On the other hand, state run insurance is not all it's cracked up to be, either. (see France), just cause the cost is so very high, you don't get good, timely care quite often. I think there will be some kidn of working blend somewhere. state run but with individuals either by a state insurance or private pocket money, picking up some part (in france, it's becomming larger and larger, as their population grows) of the cost. Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 02:19, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

"Why Americans settle for this nonsense is beyond me." 'Cause we ain't commies. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:43, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I was lucky enough to get the hospital to provide care under their "Caring Hearts " program. They allocate funds for charity cases not covered by other state or federal programs. There are many fundraisers on websites, medical expenses, funeral costs and such. Chipin.com is one such site. Hamster (talk) 21:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

North Korea

Is at it with the crazy again. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 09:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Someone needs to explain to Mr. Kim that being maximum dictator for life is only fun if you life is longer than the next six months. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 09:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

You know, if the only reason for denying North Korea and Iran nukes is that they're run by crazy people and religious maniacs, then I do hope that the US is going to start dismantling its arsenal immediately. --PsyGremlin^Siarad! 09:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

If there is no sanity or religiosity test for buying guns then why shouldn't the same apply to nukes? Генгис^{Gum disease} 10:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Lumping Iran with North Korea is a fucking insult to Iran. Say what you want about Iran, its a real nation. Not the Kim's personal Sandbox from hell. --108.180.91.182 (talk) 11:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

As I see it, the main reason why they are being denied nuclear weapons is that the U.S. fears they will destroy Israel, while North Korea will destroy South Korea. I would say that it's extremely improbable, as it would result in an immediate foreign intervention. In reality, the leaders of Iran want nukes as a status symbol and to 'brag' to their own population, while Kim wants them to protect himself against foreign military intervention, which would he would have no chance of fending off. --Tweenk (talk) 12:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I think they both want nuclear weapons because they genuinely think there is a possibility of their being attacked by the US. They believe that if they have nukes such an attack would be a lot less likely. OK, that may not be all of it as life is complicated - but I'm sure it's part of it.--Bob^{"I thought this was supposed to be "Rational" Wiki?."} 13:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Nobody wants another cold war, which is what the US (and S.Korea/Israel) could have on their hands if either of those countries had nuclear weapons. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

"In reality, the leaders of Iran want nukes as a status symbol and to 'brag' to their own population." If I were the leader of Iran, I would probably want nukes. In the last decade, two of the states that bordered mine have been invaded and had their regimes overthrown by an imperialist power with designs on my natural resources. Nothing like a nuke to make you invasion-proof. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 13:55, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

^^^THIS^^^. From strategic view, it makes perfect sence for Iran to go for nukes. Since 1979, it has been involved in a massive war of attrition with Iraq (with Iraq agression encouraged and supported by the USA) and has been overtly and directly threatened by the US, and has seen both Iraq and Afghanistan be directly invaded. Had Iran had nuculear weapons, the Iran-Iraq war would quite possibly never have occured, and the US would definitely not be threatening to add them to the list of vassal states.

Indeed, the very different attitude of America toward nuculear-armed North Korea (sanctions but no talk of invasion) and themselves (constant talk of interventionf rom both US and Israel) makes the nuculear option ever more an attractive way to gurantee freedom from direct military attack. With so many US bases and allies surronding Iran, the option is even more attractive since it doesn't require complex full ICBM delivery systems or advanced design to have a suitable deterrent effect. A modest gun-type warhead, mounted on a medium range missiles in the 1500-2000km range (which Iran already has) or short range one deleivered launched from the torpedo tube of a conventional submarine would be just as effective in dampening American will to intervene as a 10,000km ICBM, at a fraction of the complexity. A submarine platform operating in the Indian ocean would give Iran an ultimate security gurantee as the US values Diego Garcia too highly to risk it for the relatively small prize of Iran - and America's icreasing interest in the Cocos-Keeling islands may be a sign that the US and Iran are - ironically enough - thinking along identical lines. If I were president of Iran, I'd be working flat out on getting hold of a simple, reliable warhead and potato lobber to throw it with --Llegar a las estrellas^¿Dígame? 14:14, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to put this out there - what does happen if Kim fires off a missile at the US? Will there be a UN-sponsored intervention or will the US nuke back? Osaka Sun (talk) 16:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you serious? Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 16:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

MAD isn't as not as prominent as it used to be. Of course, I'm assuming that Kim has the capability and is insane enough to do it. Osaka Sun (talk) 16:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah. It is. NK launches a nuke on the US West Coast. Obama finds out, calls China, warns them to keep their noses out of this or risk a global cataclysm. Pyongyang, and every other NK urban center with more than 100,000 people in it gets turned to a heap of radioactive rubble. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 16:38, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

MAD is irrelevant to a nuclear exchange between N Korea and the US. The only country facing Assured Destruction would be N Korea. I don't think there would me anything Mutual about it.--Bob^{"I thought this was supposed to be "Rational" Wiki?."} 17:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

China would never pull what they did in 1950. China is under the control of very pragmatic technocrats, not the mass murdering fuckhead that was Mao. They may condemn publicly (and that would be the extent of it) but behind closed doors be VERY happy that someone got rid of the North Korean problem for them. --108.180.91.182 (talk) 20:38, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Why wouldn't Kim use them? You are assuming he is a rational human being and not a lunatic with delusions of godhood. I could see him suing such weapons if he honestly felt he would lose power, say from an internal revolt, simply out of spite. Besides the destruction wrought on the United States could be devastating to the entire nation to the point of total societal collapse. All North Korea has to do is detonate one high yield warhead in the upper atmosphere above the continental United States and the resultant EMP pulse would destroy most electronics across most of the lower 48. The result wouldn't put the United States back into the 19th century, it would plunge it into Dark Age barbarism.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 22:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

No, that's the wrong question. There's no reason why NK would use them. rpeh •T•C•E• 22:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ To cause EMP over the entire area of the U.S., a thermonuclear weapon would be required, which Kim does not have. A pure fission weapon is insufficient. --Tweenk (talk) 00:43, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

The latest SMBC

I don't get it--"Shut up, Brx." 15:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Seriously? Even with the bonus panel? It's hilarious, if a little too close to an XKCD cartoon. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 15:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't help me. I'm assuming it has something to do with the golden lode?--"Shut up, Brx." 15:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

You've never worked in academia have you? Ty^JFBANBSRADA 15:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Has the unemployed high school dropout worked in academia? Nope.--"Shut up, Brx." 15:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Unemployed? I thought you got a job. Okay, the strip is not so much a "joke" as it is a commentary on how inquiry works. We tent to follow in the footsteps of previous inquiries/methods/fields/whatever, and to support work that builds on the work that's done before, sometimes long after that approach has been "mined out," even whe intellectually lucrative results might be had just by shifting our gaze a little. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 16:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

It was temporary work, for the elections.--"Shut up, Brx." 18:32, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't explain the joke! ^sshole 17:13, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

The joke is that Brx didn't understand the comic. Which xkcd did you have in mind, ToP? Prodigal (talk) 17:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Not a particular one, just the use of stick figures in an allegorical take on how science works. More of a stylistic nod than a rip-off. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 17:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

In content it's very Zach Weiner. Peter ^{Droid whisperer} 21:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Bomb threat at denver school

No worries, it was a hoax. And it was generally considered to be "non-credible" from the moment it was called in. But everyone took it seriously, never the less, and there is/was/willbe a full investigation. The school is closed for the day, and there are cops and FBI swarming the place. But here's what i wanted to comment on: The NRA whined about Obama protecting his girls with guns. His girls, who are under constant very real threats. Then they claimed that he has no interest in protecting *out* kids with guns. Yet the very instant there is a possibility of real danger, even if the threat is deemed a likely hoax, you see real, TRAINED officers with serious gun power on campus. We don't need rent-a-cop, or worse, 'weekend warrior pretend-a-cop' at our schools. we simply need the system that is in place, to be trusted. No, it's not going to work all the time, cause sadly in life, it is the surprise that does the most damage. but no rent-a-cop is going to make things better.Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 16:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Conservapedia Bible Project

This discussion was moved to Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?#Conservapedia Bible Project. 21:19, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of NRO

Is it real? Cause [this list], that has "heros" as a top 50 conservative song (see above) is truly just as bad as CP's list that copied it. This is a troll site, right? Janie's got a gun is about 2nd amendment rights!!!! sighs...Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 00:52, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

No, it is real. Ty^JFBANBSRADA 01:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

AKA K. Lo's House of Crazy. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:43, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh NRO, why must you treat me like this?--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 02:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

"Battle of Evermore" is conservative because it includes the line "The tyrant's face is red". Hmmm. Is Andy guest writing for the National Review these days? --Damo^Hi 09:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

1. Money
2. Money Money Money
3. I Want Your Money
4. Money Makes The World Go Around
5. For the Love of Money
6. Money Talks
7. Take the Money and Run
8. Money for Nothing
9. Money (the other one, not the one at #1)

And then I got bored. JzG (talk) 23:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

You forgot one. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 08:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Second Amendment as a means to slave suppression, or, why P.Z. Myers should stick to what he knows

Just had a topic about this, and now PZ Myers has picked up on this horseshit. http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/01/22/root-of-all-evil/ I would think if anyone he would be able to read critically and for comprehension. Apparently no, he just runs with his biases sometimes. This is historical revisionism, through and through, to state that the second amendment was only about slave patrols, as many seem to be doing now. /sigh EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 22:42, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey, let's have a pointless argument about an archived comment!

I brought up the original topic and the only conclusion is that Sprocket J Cogswell is an idiot with no functional sense of humour. I saw PZ's article and was a bit surprised - having read up a bit more I'd agree with EL's conclusion that it's historical revisionism. rpeh •T•C•E• 22:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Rpeh, you started a topic with "sounds plausible, but I wonder if some of [you twats] could indicate how true it really is" Idiot. Sense of humor only applies when something is funny. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 23:44, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Maybe you know this, but he meant it as a play on words for American. American said fast might sound like merkin. Kind of like some people hear like to say "furriner" instead of foreigner, except there doesn't seem to be a double meaning there. Far be it from me to defend Rpeh, but I think you're just being obtuse here.--"Shut up, Brx." 03:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Right, and maybe you'd like to persuade me that "cheese-eating surrender monkey" is naught but a jocular term of endearment.

Rpeh doesn't need defending, and does a fine job, for the most part. Still, I think that a request for considered, cognizant discussion is more likely to be fruitful when it doesn't come with veiled insults. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 18:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

"Merkin" is often used as a "funny" synonym for American. I've already linked you to the many places where it's used for that purpose on this very site. It's not really meant to be disparaging, certainly not in the cheese-eating sense. It was particularly relevant when W kept coming out with stuff that sounded like "I'm a Merkin. I'm proud to be a Merkin". You're being ridiculously oversensitive here. rpeh •T•C•E• 10:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Good thing you put "dick quotes" around "funny" up there, since funny is generally in the mind of the beholder. Care to find any US contributors using the word in that sea of links? Ever since the heyday of alt.folklore.urban, lo these many decades ago, "merkin" has carried a whiff of dog whistle, as in "silly clone eels don't even know when they're being called a twat."

For the most part I keep shut about it these days, but you were asking for US input about a US topic, and a dog whistle is still a dog whistle. I'm thankful that the main space comes up empty in that search. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 14:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Nope. Not even a trace of a sense of humour. Dog whistle? Fuck off. If you've seen my posts on this site you'd know damn well that if I want to call someone a dick I'll come right out and say it. It's difficult enough getting a point over on the Internet without trying to be subtle about it. I'm not going to indulge your Karajou-like request to scour the Internet for examples of Americans using "merkin" because I can't be bothered. To any Americans except SJC who were offended by my use of the term: I apologise. To SJC, you're boring me now. Run along and try not to be offended by all the nasty things you see. rpeh •T•C•E• 15:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

The offensive part here is your ignorance. Stupid cunt. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 15:14, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I see. I'm ignorant because you don't understand when people are engaging in friendly banter. Gotcha. Good luck with applying that logic elsewhere. rpeh •T•C•E• 15:36, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

You want logic? How about this: Either you don't know what the word means (ignorance) or you are aware of its offensive significance, and think it's "friendly banter." In case you are too thick to see it, that last one is ignorance as well. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 15:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Nah, let's talk about the actual topic at hand

Actual legal scholar weighs in, calls bullshit. Theory of Practice "Seneca Falls and Selma and Stonewall" 23:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

PZ acting like the people he loves to condemn? Get the fuck out of town! --108.180.91.182 (talk) 23:39, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Biologists are apparently as good at constitutional scholarship as they are at sophisticated theology. Theory of Practice "Seneca Falls and Selma and Stonewall" 23:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

"Apparently no, he just runs with his biases sometimes." Welcome to reality. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:32, 23 January 2013 (UTC)-

Damnit Nebuchadnezzar, don't burst my bubble! All of my heroes are all perfect, yourself included! (j/k) EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 02:39, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Nebuchadnezzar has no biases — he's a Turing complete machine designed to correct people's misconceptions. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 07:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

At least the commenters seem to be correcting PZ. Nihilist 19:21, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Does anyone still actually read PZ's blog? I gave up about the time he started plastering it with that "why I am an atheist" filler crap. Or I guess yo could say about the time he gave up on writing it. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 09:48, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

It's the most popular thing on FTB, so, uh, yeah. What quickly-retconned subclass of "anyone" did you have in mind? - David Gerard (talk) 14:43, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

"People who count frequently inspiring, sometimes touching, personal stories as 'filler.'" Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 14:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I still read it, but I avoid the comments section like the plague. I think PZ's head has got a little too big, though I understand the constant harassment he's under for defending women would make a lot of people defensive. A lot of the regular commentors though are insufferable. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 19:20, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I recently resubscribed but the only story that has interested me in the 10-12 days since was the one quoted above, which was already so old it had been discussed on RW having been discussed on a different blog. Fact is that if you want the news quickly, you have to stay away from the most popular bloggers. They get deluged with so much stuff that they can't keep up. rpeh •T•C•E• 21:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Women allowed into combat roles in the US

About fucking time. Though the "women don't have enough muscle strength" argument is popping up everywhere again. Osaka Sun (talk) 03:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

There was a female major from the British Army on Today this morning who was raising the issue of standards and how to make sure those are not affected. She was saying that there is a danger, because of equality laws, that standards are at risk of falling. An example would be fitness tests - from distance/speed running to being able to lift weaponry and equipment. If the pass standards have to be the same for both male and female soldiers (as they do by some interpretations of the law), then the risk is that the standards have to be lowered to allow the female soldiers to pass. She said this was already happening. It's simply an issue that needs to be thought through properly and relevant laws adjusted to allow for it. Nobody needs to get their knickers in a twist. Ajkgordon (talk) 10:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Uh... I guess, congratulations to American women? Sort of?--^talk 11:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Yessss .....I guess the right to kill foreigners on an equal footing with men is a sort of step forward.--Bob^{"I thought this was supposed to be "Rational" Wiki?."} 13:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Well dudes, it looks like ther'll be more dudettes in the brass, as combat is a faster way to get promoted man. Dudeman (talk) 16:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, Bob and AD. That was my attitude when DADT was repealed - the big advocacy groups were partying in the streets and I though... Congratulations, now you can join in the massively unsustainable, serially human rights offending American military complex. Progress marches on! Blue (is useful) 16:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

What amuses me about "muscle strenth" is that in today's modern army, most soldiers on the front lines don't need muscle strenght cause they aren't carrying lots of things. Yes, they are doing endurance, but there are several studies that suggest women's bodies (in part, thanks to needing 20 hours of labor to push a baby out) are better at endurance then men. Yes, they need to carry packs, but we are not talking RAMBO here. any strong, fit woman can carry an 80 lb pack, many miles. Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 16:48, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Just doing a google search on this it looks like the average combat load for British soldiers in Afghanistan is 110lbs (About 50 kilograms) at 40 degrees centigrade (around 100F). (Warning - article is from the Telegraph.)

I walk a lot and temperatures here very occasionally hit 40C but simply going outside in that temperature represents a near-death experience for me. You need to something special walk miles in that heat with that weight. --Bob^{"I thought this was supposed to be "Rational" Wiki?."} 17:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I think it's closer to 100 lbs these days, it's gone up considerably since WWII when it was, like, 20. But tech is helping to reduce it, such as the new plastic magazines for the SA80s. But what is wrong with the military being open and inclusive? It's an organisation that put the boot to the ass when needed, and previously people were stopped from doing that even if they wanted to. Yes, it is something worth celebrating and being happy for because perhaps all this bad shit you hear about it will stop when things become more progressive and open, or perhaps it won't. ^moral 17:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I was remarking upon the irony of progressives celebrating their right to participate in a profoundly un-progressive institution. I'm not saying that having an "inclusive" military is a bad thing in itself. Blue (is useful) 17:33, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I can't particularly see the military being de facto un-progressive. I mean, if it didn't exist we most certainly wouldn't be here being all happy-clappy about it. Sure, it could be improved in many places and, yes, certainly, let's not wage totally pointless wars. ^{d hominem} 18:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

War is a Racket, my friend. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Does this mean that they'll start requiring women to register with the Selective Service? Or that they'll stop men from being required to do so? Because, really, equal rights and all... --Seth Peck (talk) 17:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

of the two options, I think you'll see that no one is required to register rather than both. Drafts, and more importantly, draft based fighting units are a marked failure. I still want to see US implement systems like they do in France, Germany, where if you sign up for govt service (it should not just be milatary, but schools, hospitals, tax aid for poor or elderly, etc) you can have 2 years of your school paid for, for each X years of service. Or we could make health care contingent on some small time of service to your community, etc. wishful thinking and all - i know. Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 17:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Draft based fighting unit are a failure? What? Ty^JFBANBSRADA 17:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Dude, have you read Starship Troopers? ^{d hominem} 18:03, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

If anything, all-volunteer militaries are more broken. Volunteer systems prey upon the only people desperate enough to take high-risk, high-stress jobs for low wages: the poor — especially the rural poor, for whom the local recruitment office is often the only bankable ticket out of town. While the existence of chickenhawks shows that drafts aren't perfectly equitable, in practice they're far more equitable on society than volunteer systems. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 18:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

While I don't ever set myself up as that informed about this stuff, most every expert report out of RAND, out of the DOD, and even countries like France or Isreal say that if you are drating, you tend to have far greater problems with training, with compliance, with people shooting the wrong thing, or "worse" in the eyes of the military, not shooting at all. Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 18:13, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm no expert either, but the levée en masse appears to have worked quite well against the Prussians. Also the Franco-Prussian War come to mind. I suppose things are different today, but saying draft based units are a failure tripped the pedant switch. Ty^JFBANBSRADA 18:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm no expert on this, but levee en masse worked well only because a) it was a source of order and nationalism amid the turmoil of the revolution, b) the French were being invaded, not doing the invading themselves and c) it was the first huge draft, so they just overwhelmed by force of numbers. Blue (pester) 19:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Conscription seemed to work well for the allies in the Second World War.--Bob^{"I thought this was supposed to be "Rational" Wiki?."} 20:50, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there's that much of a difference between conscription and volunteering in practice. For most nations it's excessive/too expensive to give everyone full training (both in terms of training cost and the cost to economy of people not doing something productive), so a conscript has lots of ways to weasel out of longer service (e.g. just stay demotivated). --Henk (talk) 23:40, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Good to see everyone here is such a strong supporter of slavery! --108.180.91.182 (talk) 20:56, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Anyone know if this covers submarine duty, too? Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 22:38, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Personally conflicted about this. Honestly, I don't know if it will work or not. FailDeadly (talk)

What do you mean by "work"? Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 22:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I get why some people don't like the us military in general, so adding women to combat isn't all that much an improvement - but assuming you don't have those reservations about combat in general, what could possibly be an argument against women in actual combat situations?Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 23:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Women tend to get pregnant at some point. They could order women to not get pregnant, but women would still be less likely to renew their contract. Which means that the larger the proportion of women gets, the more the military needs to pay to lure in people who have at least N years of combat service. --Henk (talk) 23:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd just like to say, as a member of the massively unsustainable, serially human rights offending American military complex, that I would appreciate it if people would at least try to hide the insults directed at myself and my profession.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 02:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

You fucking suck. Burn in hell. Nihilist 04:25, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

After you hippie.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 00:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, it is massively unsustainable, and involved in a number of questionable practices re: human rights and international law. Also, it hasn't won a proper war since 1945. None of that is your fault, though. You keep getting set up for failure by a state that is unwilling to make the sacrifices necessary for the commitments it takes on, and seems to be averse to learning from its past mistakes. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 00:18, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit Point: In Which Some Guy Gets Shrill On Nazis, Barbarians, Pansies And Rape

Please do not derail this conversation more than in has been. If for some reason you want to continue it, please do so in a new discussion. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 16:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

As long as they don't lower the standards for needing to join the military, it's fine. That might make it harder for women to join, but evolution is to blame for that. We can't lower the quality of our military because our enemies aren't going to do the same. In fact, our enemies are going to be all male because they don't respect women. All of our enemies for the past 80 years have been uncivilized barbarians who don't respect women. This includes the Wehrmacht. If you have a problem, tell it to the 10,000,000 Russian women they raped. This is also why we should not force women into the military. If you think it's unfair that you have to register for the draft, <sarcasm>be a man and deal with it.</sarcasm> ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 04:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

You had me until here: - "If you think it's unfair that you have to register for the draft," - No, just no. With equal rights comes equal responsibility. "Be a man and deal with it"? Talk about sexual stereotypes and sexual typecasting. If a man dared to say that to women, you can be sure they'd be told off, so I'm here to tell you off. Fuck off. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 05:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

@Ehr... the fuck? --^Mikal 05:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Exactly, I'm not saying it about a woman. Women should be treated equally to men, but that doesn't mean that it's going to be good for men to be less masculine. While were talking about equality, it might not be bad if women became slightly more masculine. It certainly helped in WWII. Think about how that war would have ended if men were pansies. I'll tolerate men being effeminate, but that doesn't mean I approve of it. I have my own reasons for valuing masculinity, but that doesn't mean everyone does. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 05:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I concur. Conscription per se is bad enough. Gender-restricted conscription is worse. Also, yay gender stereotypes, yuck. - LucidFox (talk) 05:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

We should be giving rights to women, but that doesn't mean that we need to lower standards for men. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 05:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

So, as long as the sexual discrimination and gender roles favor you? Asshat. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 05:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

How exactly am I favored by men being required to join the military? Any supposed inequalities toward men are nothing compared to the inequalities that women have had to deal with. I have been unable to find accounts of 10 million men in any country being raped by the Germans in WWII. Plus the inequalities that women have had to deal with in daily life have been far worse. Comparing gender inequality of men to the inequality of women is like trying to compare the bombing of Dresden to the Holocaust. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 05:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘you know, other things did happen in the world besides world war 2 and war crimes. --^Mikal 05:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm aware. WWII is a subject that I have studied. I have a lot of familiarity. That is why I am able to make the connections, though I try to do so in a meaningful way and avoid Godwin's Law. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 06:01, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

and im dedicating my life to the study of topics related the the ancient-medieval near east, but you don't see me bringing it up all the time and mucking up a conversation with it, do you? --^Mikal 06:04, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I realize that I bring it up a lot. I have been trying to monitor how much I do so and avoid doing so frivolously. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 06:07, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I have been unable to find accounts of 10 million men in any country being raped by the Germans in WWII. Perhaps you're asking the wrong questions. It was our glorious Red Army liberators who did all the raping. nobs^{Say hello to my leetle friend} 07:21, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I can't believe I'm saying this, but I kind of concur with nobs. While there are some documented cases (around 5'000) the sources are way too scarce to just throw such a high number in the open. No serious historian would/should do something like that. Maybe you should study more seriousworks about WWII...

I also find your following comment quite problematic: "All of our enemies for the past 80 years have been uncivilized barbarians who don't respect women." For one, you denounce entire countries as barbaric for their treatment of women and for the other I would have to ask, where exactly you see the massive difference between the U.S.' treatment of women in the 1940's and the treatment of women in Nazi-Germany?Th. Bernhard_{Das Leben ist ein Prozeß, den man verliert, was man auch tut und wer man auch ist.} 09:21, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

"Our enemies are uncivilized barbarians" isn't a great attitude towards international relations & military intervention in the 21st century. It's no wonder the US military is resented pretty much everywhere it goes when this kind of thinking is still so prevalent. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

The Red Army raped 1.42-1.6 Nazi women. That is hardly comparable to the Wehrmacht. The Germans were not uncivilized barbarians for their treatment of women alone; it was also because they were putting people into concentration camps. That would be one of the differences between us and them that you ask about.

So is it wrong to consider people who build concentration camps to be uncivilized barbarians? There were plenty of other reasons why they resisted. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 15:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I think you omitted a multiplier (million?) there. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 16:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

So all German non-combatants were "Nazis"? How many Nazi children and Nazi babies were harmed? How about Nazi pets? Also, calling people "barbarians" is an often-used tactic that helps to dehumanize an enemy. That's a road that's always dangerous to go down. Be careful with it. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 15:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I see your point. People with malicious intent can misuse descriptions like "barbarian enemy." Non combatants were not Nazis if they did not support the Nazi party. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 15:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ (EC) Being dickish about semantics: The US put people in "concentration camps" as well. Japanese internment facilities were called concentration camps at the time. The expression you were looking for is "extermination camps" (Vernichtungslager). Being dickish about the rape comment: You just assert that the Wehrmacht raped a higher number of women than the Red Army, I'm not saying that that might not be true, but as I pointed out above, there is no way to prove your assertion with the currently available source material. As for calling German non-combatants, as well as combatants "barbarians" is indeed problematic and usually leads to very circular reasoning when it comes to the Holocaust. You might want to start changing your perspective by reading Robert Brwonings "Ordninary Men".Th. Bernhard_{Das Leben ist ein Prozeß, den man verliert, was man auch tut und wer man auch ist.} 15:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Starting toward calling them barbarians might not be a good idea, but it's a bit of a slippery slope argument doing so. There is also no comparison between the interment camps and death camps. Doing so is a moral equvialency argument of Holocaust denial. Non combatants were not really barbarians, that would fall to the Wehrmacht and the SS. If we want to continue this discussion, we should start another discussion for it. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 16:07, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

"Uncivilized" isn't a useful term when talking about any post-industrial societies. Treatment of women & minorities has little to do with how civilisation is defined, which is all about levels of development in culture, technology, governance, etc. (& indeed the whole validity of "civilisation" as a concept is disputed). Plus words like "uncivilised", "barbarian", "savage", etc. are classic othering language typically used by conquering peoples to dehumanise or delegitimise their victims, and have been used to justify oppression more often than not. If you want to talk sensibly about the USA's wars & interventions, past or present, I recommend avoiding terms like these, or better yet, rethinking your attitude towards other cultures. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

That is true. Even though the Germans acted uncivilized, they were still a developed country. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 19:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)