RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive189

This is an archive page, last updated 1 February 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>, <188>, <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)

Just How Accurate is This?

Found this post on Facebook, and wanted to know how accurate/effective this statement is. "if rumors of a new assault weapons ban proposal are true, Obama and the democrats are about to hand the presidency over to the republicans in 2016 over a matter of rifle cosmetics (or at the very least expend political capital that could be use on anything from eliminating the debt ceiling authorization as a thing to critical hurricane relief funding).

As a far left liberal who actually understands the mechanics of semi-auto firearms and has reviewed the government statistics that show that they are used in fewer homicides than hammers and other blunt objects (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-11), this to me is an outrageous waste of resources and effort that will in no way make us safer as a society and can only provide an illusory false sense of security at the expense of advancing policies that would otherwise protect and progress our society. There are good proposals out there, but a new AWB will be the ultimate example of the democrats snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Obama, I hoped you were smarter than this. looks like I was wrong." How on point is it?Ryantherebel (talk) 00:28, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

As I've been bitching recently, very on point. I never considered the political stupidity of it, but by goodness that person is right on the money. Not only will it do nothing, politically it will be much worse than nothing as it will give a huge bonus to republicans. Damnit. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 00:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Statistics on general murder rates go out the window when moviegoers and 6-year-olds get killed with a semi-auto by the dozen. Why? 'Cause nobody gives a shit about the young black men in Chicago getting shot with Glocks. But if Americans are willing to turn the White House over to the Republicans in order to preserve their right to own a weapon they don't need, they'll just be confirming a lot of the nasty things that people in the Rest Of The World think about them. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 00:38, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

^^What he said. and by teh way, survey after survey, including that of gun owners, shows that people want regulations, including getting Automatics off the street. even if it's an illusion, it's nice to fell like we are going somewhere forward, rather than back to the wild wild west.Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 00:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Pardon me. What does automatics have to do with a "assault weapons ban"? The fact remains that your do-nothing feel-good measures are going to cost us big next election. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 01:03, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Before you go down that road, please don't mansplain to Godot about weapons terminology. Nobody likes that guy. That said, if the Democrats lose the White House because they can't make a case that a class of weapon that is controlled in most of the rest of the industrialized/Western world should be similarly controlled here, then fuck them, they don't deserve to run the country. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 01:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

But the difference between a fucking CLIP and a fucking MAGAZINE is fucking IMPORTANT DAMMIT!! ^bomination 16:49, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Gun bans are DAO. It's a non-starter. It is this pointless partisanship among our elected leaders, that they know is doomed to failure, that people resent. They only posture like this (proposing anti-gun legislation, for instance) cause it's an effective fundraising tool in some quarters. nobs^{Say hello to my leetle friend} 01:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

"It's a non-starter" I hear the chuckles of Canada, most of Western Europe, and Oceania in the distance. Osaka Sun (talk) 01:57, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Someone's drunk the kool-aid/not read the FBI statistics properly. UNODC says 60% firearms. Osaka Sun (talk) 01:49, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I guess I'm still lost on "how it will cost the election" if poll after poll (at least today, who knows where we will be in 2 and then 4 years) says this is what people want? Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 02:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

This is deja vu from the Clinton era; we went through the same stuff (complete with polling data and congressional action); by 2000, the NRA and public opinion was so galvinized, along with Gore's failure to disavow the anti-gun record of his predecessor, he was never able to seize the initiative to articulate his own vision and walked into an NRA buzz saw on election day. Kerry didn't make the same mistake, he touted his NRA membership and actively courted them. He got swift-boated instead. nobs^{Say hello to my leetle friend} 05:16, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

You know, a lot of the gun owners might not be against it from some of the studies I've seen, and it might help energize the democratic party base, so it might not be a retarded move. So I may be wrong, and the evidence seems to indicate I jumped the gun earlier. Still, an interesting perspective on it. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 05:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

It's like crime & national security; Recent Democrats have overcome the sterotype of being wishy-washy by, for instance Bill Clinton executing a retarded and lobotomized African-American man (after the Willy Horton ad incidentally) to prove he was tuff on crime; President Obama wacked bin Laden persumably out of the same motives regarding national security. Obama would do better going on a Turkey-shoot with Dick Cheney this Thanksgiving if he wanted to build a lasting legacy. nobs^{Say hello to my leetle friend} 06:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Radioactivity FAQ moved to mainspace

Here it is: FAQ on radioactivity and nuclear technology. At its current state, I think it's good enough for a silver brainstar, and not too far from cover story quality.

I like the concept of "Rational FAQs", so later I intend to write a similar document on GM crops. --Tweenk (talk) 01:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I like the idea as well, but I feel like the article is not in line with the site mission, or at least the communities way of approaching matters. We seem to have a habit of approaching issues in the negative - this is what quantum physics is not - while ignoring the issue in the positive - this is what quantum physics is - and a lot of articles commenting on these issues in the positive are instantly labelled "off-mission". --Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 04:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

don't forget that RW isn't a general science wiki, and our purpose is more about refuting false claims than merely reiterating the facts. There are plenty of sites and books for that. If we merely state what is known instead of attacking lies and misunderstandings then we are just a bad wikipedia knock-off for science hobbyists. Sophie^Wilder 11:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the FAQs on subjects like atheism and nuclear science are highly appropriate to our mission. Think about all the bullshit people believe about radioactivity - even major progressive organizations oppose nuclear power despite the fact that is the single "greenest" source of energy we have. Tweenk's work is very useful to combat this seeping anti-scientific dogma that is so prevalent when people, the media especially, discuss nuclear stuff. And that's at least two points in our mission fulfulled. Blue (is useful) 11:09, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Debunking bullshit is OK, but Tweenk tends to... overcompensate.--ZooGuard (talk) 11:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

In this case it's necessary to provide a substantial amount of background information, because otherwise it's hard to show what's the problem with some bullshit claims. In fact we already follow this pattern in several mainspace articles. I think the FAQ format is significantly different from what can be found on Wikipedia. It contains all the critical information collected in one place, whereas Wikipedia would have these facts spread out over many pages and peppered with "Controversy" sections reporting crank ideas. --Tweenk (talk) 16:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll sidestep the negativity and say: thanks, Tweenk! This is all very helpful and I'm looking forward to your GM crop one. Cow...Hammer^time! 14:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Story I'm doing in German

For anyone who's interested in this:

http://blog.sashaweb.net/?p=54

Thoughts are welcomed. Hopefully Google won't be too tough on the translation for anyone else who needs it.

One thing I need to know for the story is some way of expressing trolling in German. A large part of the story will involve it, as toward the end of what I have so far, the girl starts trolling one of her friends without him realizing who it is because of stuff he did on her boyfriend's website that was... weird. The story will continue this plot as well as have various antics along the way.

One thing that I'm wondering about and whether it's a good idea is having Henry not pick up on who Inquisitor Kamarova is when he looks up her address. When registering a .de domain name, she uses her sister's address in Germany along with her own name. Henry sees it and comes to the conclusion Inquisitor Kamarova has the same name as his friend. She thinks she's busted but is surprised when Henry doesn't conclude it was her. I'm concerned that this just seems really dumb, that Henry would realize that Inquisitor Kamarova has the same name as his friend without realizing it's her. The address is in Germany, but she is from there originally. That might make it more likely that he could conclude that it's her. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 04:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Ehm, did you write that in English and used an online translator? If not, you should seriously start working on...well almost everything. The sentence structure is often borked, you have serious problems with articles and the genus of words (which is not uncommon) and you use your verbs in the wrong context. I'm sorry but the grammar and spelling is so bad, that I just couldn't bring myself to read any further. Sorry if I am an ass, but I speak (and teach) German and I can hardly understand what you are saying.Th. Bernhard_{Das Leben ist ein Prozeß, den man verliert, was man auch tut und wer man auch ist.} 09:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't speak German, but that felt very English, with the short and simple sentences and sentence structure. Nihilist 15:16, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

The intent is to work on and improve it. I don't even write stuff first in English ever because it results translating which is too difficult to do. The verb use is something that I've had a problem with, mostly because the dictionary doesn't always give a full definition. I try to look through all the various words for the right one though. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 15:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

You might want to start by taking an online course or something like that and translate sentences with a simple structure, so you can get used to it and the particulars of the German syntax and grammar in general. You might also want to go the other way around, start by translating German stories into English. Writing a story in German at your current level seems like a waste of time to be honest.Th. Bernhard_{Das Leben ist ein Prozeß, den man verliert, was man auch tut und wer man auch ist.} 16:03, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm doing it for class, so the intent is to get better at doing it. If I were to correct it now, it would be a lot of work, but I think I could make it a lot better than it is now. Do you have any ideas about it based on what I've described?ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 16:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean the story? If so, then no, because I just couldn't follow it to the end. If it is about improving the language: Start by improving the articles (Pronomen), particles and the verbs. Once you have done that, hopefully the story will be readable. But I'd really recommend practising with something easier.Th. Bernhard_{Das Leben ist ein Prozeß, den man verliert, was man auch tut und wer man auch ist.} 16:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I'm writing the story for. Thanks. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 18:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of which, I should get demoted

So, apparently I should get demoted so I can unblock myself from joke bans that were accidentally too long. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 06:39, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Already done it. I think you are the record-holder for 'most edits without being sysoped,' at least in recent history. Peter ^{Droid whisperer} 06:41, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you based sysop! And I'm sorry for being a bitch. It's a personality trait. It's a curse, and a curse. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 09:10, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

You know, I'd be curious to see some number of edits before demotion stats. I think I might have a claim to that crown. DickTurpis (talk) 18:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Eyeballing, you were a little less than a thousand before sysopped. Ty^JFBANBSRADA 18:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

At least back in 2008 only a crat could sysop you, which would make the delay then slightly more reasonable... Peter ^{Droid whisperer} 19:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

What we need

Is a convenient way to tell at a glance who needs to be sysopped. We can tell who needs to be autopatrolled by the red bangs in RC. It should be just as easy for sysopping. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 19:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Those navigation popups are reasonably good for that. Peter ^{Droid whisperer} 19:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

(EC) We only have this problem because we're congenitally unable to look at the red exclamation points. They did serve this purpose before someone decided Brxbrx needed his own usergroup (autopatrolled), and he's not even in it anymore. Blue (is useful) 20:01, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Autopatrolling seems like a pointless halfway measure. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:04, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

(EC) Patrolling edits is not that hard. Ty^JFBANBSRADA 20:05, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear

Just no. - David Gerard (talk) 10:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Still a better love story than My Immortal... --PsyGremlin^Parla! 10:48, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

(EC) Well, that gives a new meaning to "Bible-thumping". :D And I just got another link to send to fundies...--ZooGuard (talk) 10:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Bible fanfiction? Do you mean, the New Testament? *Judaism rimshot* Blue (is useful) 10:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Heh, i want to see a female pregnant jesus! Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 20:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Left Behind, anyone? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:21, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

@WaitingforGodot It's fanfiction. You're more likely to see a male pregnant Jesus. Blue (is useful) 20:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that's there. Although it's more of /b/ style trollolol than anything I would describe as literature. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 01:23, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Left Behind is more like an unlicensed "extended universe" hack-work to capitalize on the fandom.--ZooGuard (talk) 20:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

The Book of Mormon. Complete works of Jack Chick. Anything written by any creation scientist. The world isn't short of Bible fanfic. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 01:23, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Coming to America

Ooh, I'm probably going to the US for the first time next month. Is New Yoik all it's cracked up to be? Will I be thrown in jail if my teeth aren't unnaturally brilliant white? Ajkgordon (talk) 18:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry, in New York you're not expected to smile all the time. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 19:21, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Be sure to go hear some jazz/go up to Harlem for soul food/avoid the touristy area around Times Square except to take a quick stroll to see the overwhelming light show/walk the Highline/get coffee at Stumptown/walk across the Brooklyn Bridge/go book shopping at the Strand....Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 19:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

New York is like any/every major international city. Lots of people speaking lots of languages and looking all different from eachother, same huge stores, great food and music, etc. But if you are really daring you can take the ferries to Jersey and see how the real wives live! Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 20:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Winter Storm Khan

Ok, this is the first time I've heard of a named winter storm before. Is this new? Of course, it's Muslim name (yes, Trekkies, I know. Now fuck off) is another sign of Obama's true religion. I notice it's also heading for the reddest of red states. Just another sign global warming is a hoax. PS it was 98F here today. --PsyGremlin^Zungumza! 20:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

The last one was called "Gandolf." Not "Gandalf," but "Gandolf." It's the Weather Channel's attempt to feed the culture of fear and increase its market share. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 20:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Someone should remind them that "Conan" is a perfectly good Celtic name...--ZooGuard (talk) 20:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

It takes a good man with a gun to stop a bad man with a gun. Not.

This story is still unfolding but apparently an armed robber at a betting shop was overcome by other (unarmed) customers. Unfortunately it appears that they may have been over-zealous as he ended up dead. Steven Kavanagh (talk) 23:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Counting down until the cops start arresting decent citizens for murder. 139.168.117.18 (talk) 02:45, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

J. J. Abrams directing both Star Wars and Star Trek

Got mentioned in WIGO:Blogs. Kinda mixed over this. Osaka Sun (talk) 21:16, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

He can't do worse than the prequels at any rate. X Stickman (talk) 22:30, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

ThinkProgress' Alyssa Rosenburg has persuasively argued that this is not a good thing. While Abrams is moderately talented, the consolidation of major franchises and decisions in the hands of a small group of white artists is a step backward for the entertainment industry.

Personally, I also think the guy's a pretty lousy director.--^talk 00:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

It's been said that Disney denied Abrams's interest in the role, so it might be just a rumor, even if Wookiepedia whipped up an article on him already--DoomTay (talk) 02:10, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not so worried about who directs it so long as there is a decent writer employed to create the screenplay. I have heard that the story will be an original one so they won't be using the Timothy Zahn's very fine Thrawn Trilogy as the storyline. However I do think that a guy like Zahn or Drew Karpyshyn should be hired to write the story. Funnily enough, I think those guys are more in tune with the Star Wars universe than Lucas is, based upon the prequels and the special editions. --Damo^Hi 02:21, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

As long as my main man Jar Jar Binks is a key part of the story, and there are lots of Ewoks, I'll be satisfied. Also, child actors and midichlorions. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 02:26, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Hopefully they will also clone the spirit of the Emperor, Darth Vader and give a (still alive) Darth Maul a spider for a body. That would be magnificent story telling. --Damo^Hi 02:30, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Some of the more...disheartening aspects of the Expanded Universe. Osaka Sun (talk) 02:35, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Even though I know you're trolling/joking, parts of my very soul are being destroyed even reading that. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk)

I know that's a joke liberals don't have souls. Nihilist 23:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Karpyshyn? Are you kidding? The guy's hated in the SW fandom for messing up continuity and ruining storylines he didn't start. His controversial contributions far outweigh his universally acclaimed ones, the latter being KOTOR and... KOTOR. - LucidFox (talk) 07:43, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Admittedly, my only direct experience of Karpyshyn was the Bane trilogy. I thought it was excellent, and a hell of a lot better than some of the dross that I have started to read. I was unaware that he is disliked by the fandom - I am only a casual reader of the genre. You didn't like the Bane trilogy? Damo^Hi 07:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm just excited that Abrams will no doubt bring to Star Wars what it has been sorely lacking all these years: time travel. DickTurpis (talk) 07:53, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Already in star wars, actually. --^Mikal 08:15, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Where? Damo^Hi 08:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

... more often than i thought actually. I thought it was just in non-canon stories and something from the more recent books--^Mikal 21:56, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I wish to withdraw my doubt on this possibility (That is part of what skeptism is about, right?). It's been posted on official sites that Abrams IS going to direct this movie AND Michael Arndt will write the screenplay. (He wrote Toy Story 3 and Brave). Now the question is: Will John Williams come back as score composer?--DoomTay (talk) 15:43, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

On that last point, I don't think they need any more score - there is plenty enough already. Damo^Hi 23:06, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Having new music isn't a bad thing. Nihilist 23:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

John Williams' prequel work was spectacular. Don't fix something that doesn't need to be. Osaka Sun (talk) 23:42, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and say Star Wars without John Williams isn't Star Wars. Better to introduce Darth Jar Jar than jettison Williams. DickTurpis (talk) 01:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Logic category purge

So, as I'm looking through the Logic category and its little kiddies, I'm thinking about doing a fairly large overhaul. At the moment there are logical arguments listed in the Argument sub-category and the main Logic category, likewise with the Fallacious arguments, etc. And I suspect there are fallacies listed in the main Logic category, but not the Fallacies sub-category. I find this irritating, because it is needless doubling that makes the relevant categories seem a lot more full then they really are. Unless anyone objects terribly in the next 10 minutes or so I'm about to go through and rectify this situation to the best of my ability. Oh, and I might combine stubbish/basically orphaned articles in the same category.

So, speak now or fuckin' deal with it.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 03:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok but the bigger problem is that some of the articles are shitty. Writing is a lot less controversial than reinventing the whole fucking thing. Please don't go aspieshit recatting all of it with some kind of made up hierarchy before people have had a chance to look. As in "not speak now or fuckin' deal with it" or I'll make you eat your dick. Cats aren't solely for organizing. They're as much for navigating and exploring. 03:34, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

There's basically no chance I'll alter the Logic family of categories themselves, just rearrange articles in them. I'm only saying this because it'll probably take me 20-30 minutes to do, and I have this feeling that if I don't warn the board first, someone will decide to go through and undo my work.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 03:38, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

My dog will bite your head off anyway. Just to point it out that there is a difference between rhetoric and logic. What is illogical may be rhetorically acceptable if your opponent arguer doesn't notice. sterile^{sporadic heavy hitter} 03:49, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

The purge has begun already. I'm not at all planning on messing with the articles outside of the logic family of categories, and possible merging/expansion of said articles.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 03:54, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Sterile will cut you. 04:06, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, there are things listed in argument/fallacious argument that should really be more in rhetoric. So, I'm backing out on my earlier statement. Things that should not be listed in argument/fallacious argument are going to be moved. If Sterile would rather them be somewhere else, I don't care. Just trying to have the Logic family focused on, you know, logical arguments.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 04:11, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Nutty's argument notwithstanding, (not even exactly sure what his argument is), I've done the same thing in religion, just cause it actually makes it easier to surf, find things, explore, etc. But the best thing about doing something, is if anyone cares, they'll change/revert it. If they don't care, they won't. Actually, it's also a really good time to look at each article. When I was working on the religion, I found lots of great things to highlight, and lots of shit to clean up. and some i just said "WTF?" We have so many articles that never get seen after someone stubs them up, that this kind of project does have some value.Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 04:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

As I was going through the articles I realized that a big issue is that most of the logic related articles I wanted to work with had the logic sidebar that was listing them in the main logic category by default. I also noticed that large numbers of the arguments were incredibly small. To go through them will be a much larger project then I realized, partly because I think to rectify the situation as thoroughly as I'd like, I'll probably need to make a separate argument/fallacious argument sidebar. So, I'm canceling this for now, but I'll start laying groundwork for it, and re-initiate over spring break, in like a month or something. --Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 04:42, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

The original intent of the evaluating arguments categoryhmm when I put it together was to avoid separating logic and rhetoric, but the community never embraced it. I always think too much goes into identifying fallacies and not analyzing rhetoric and developing good arguments of your own. But good luck! sterile^{sporadic heavy hitter} 02:17, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't get to that category during my brief Stalinesque purge. If you have suggestions please say so.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 02:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Moving away from technocratic liberalism

Maybe I've spent too much time reading this site (highly recommended, BTW) recently, but Krugman-omics and MSNBC are less and less to my taste these days. Any recommendations, comrades? (And no Howard Zinn, please!) Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:31, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

David Harvey is my go-to theorist these days. [1] [2] [3]. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 20:43, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, at a glance, that list looks really Euro-heavy. Surely there are Asian/African/Latin American thinkers dealing with this sort of stuff? Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 20:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

"David Harvey" I've read A Brief History of Neoliberalism, but not the rest. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:52, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

This is fun. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 20:58, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Just saying TOP, but there aren't very many African or Latin American economists, and all of the most respected economic programs are in the US or the London School of Economics.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 21:01, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

No but there are many respected non-European social/political theorists -- my problem is for the most part, I only really know the literature up to the 1970s or so. I need to learn more about what people are writing today. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 21:08, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, most of the people on that list aren't economists to begin with, so, so what? Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 21:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Chicago, represent! Blue (is useful) 21:08, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Most of the respected non-European/non-American/non-Canadian economists are East Asian. Frankly, I'm not aware of any Latin American or African economists. They may very well exist, but I've never heard of them. And I didn't really look through the list because I don't feel I have a lot to contribute to this. I'm just saying the vast majority of respected economists (because of the Krugman mention) are American, Canadian, or European.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 21:36, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Again, this really isn't a list of economists as it is a list of social critics/political thinkers/philosophers. So again: so what? Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 21:52, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't put much stock in "respected" macro-econ theory, though, for reasons Steve Keen explains. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

The only thing I'll really say about Heterodox/Orthodox is that Orthodox schools are Orthodox for a reason.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 22:13, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure we disagree about what that reason is, though. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:35, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Try marxists.org, you filthy red--"Shut up, Brx." 22:42, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

http://www.fas.org/ if you can't find it there, it probably doesn't exist. It's time to move out of the word of the theoretical and into the world of everyday problemns, nobs^{Say hello to my leetle friend} 02:27, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

There's a general support of the evidence in favor of Orthodox compared to the Heterodox schools. The evidence doesn't completely support Orthodox views, of course, but there's a hell of a lot more support then the various Heterodox schools.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 22:54, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Behold, an interesting graph about RW!

Non-annotated version of this file here.

I created the above graph by generating a list of every page on the whole wiki (about 90,000) and looking through each one's history to come up with an array of users who had edited in each month of RW's history. I then did the same but just looking at mainspace, CP and CP talk, and project and project talk (which includes the chicken coop, the saloon bar, the community standards, all the WIGOs except CP, etc.). (Note on spambots: While a few spammers and vandals are definitely recorded accidentally, it's highly unlikely that more than a couple per month got in, as I measured usernames instead volume of edits and left out deleted contributions.)

There are some interesting things we learn through this graph. One is that while the May 2011 clusterfuck ended up reducing the number of active editors significantly, it didn't really affect mainspace editing as much as the more "social" side of editing.

Another thing we learn is that we are, actually, growing our userbase, at a rate of around 80 users per year. The trendline shows a very good correlation between the average number of editors we have per month and year. I think it's nice that we're growing, of course, but I'd ideally like to see this graph end up a little more S-shaped.

A third thing we see is the slow death of CPspace and WIGOCP. Estimates suggest a complete death in a couple years at most if left alone. I think this rather reflects the slow death of CP itself.

Any other thoughts? Blue (is useful) 12:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

You need to get an outside life. Генгис^{Gum disease} 12:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Blue (pester) 13:05, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm just a casual lurker who doesn't really follow the day-to-day goings-on of the site. What was the "May 2011 Clusterfuck"? No need for a thorough explanation, just the general gist of it. Apokalyps2547 (talk) 15:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Not much of anything. a typical weekish (maybe two) long protracted "oh my god, the sky is falling", side taking whine fest that resulted in tons of hurt egos, lots of children proving they are childern, a few people storming off in protest, and no real changes. Or, you know, Status Quo around here. :-) Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 16:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

It was much longer than two weeks actually... The clusterfuck started in early May with the Trial of Human, then some users removed the entire site's user rights structure, then we had a massive "discussion" about where to take the wiki across several pages, and finally Trent imposed an utterly new user rights regime that included self-replicating sysops, moderators and techs as opposed to sysops and bureaucrats. A period of immense turmoil and furious activity. Lots of people were alienated, and we lost at least 8 longtime users to the crossfire. Blue (is useful) 16:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Was it really that many? Who were they? DickTurpis (talk) 18:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Where's RationalWikiWiki when you need it? Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:05, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. Stupid as that place generally was, it did serve a purpose. DickTurpis (talk) 19:16, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

All RWW, in its known form, served to do after May 2011 was perpetuate drama and continue to drag RW into a downward spiral for which RWW's old rules and structure couldn't repair itself or cope with. Thus, its old form needed to die. Conservative Punk (talk) 08:04, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Interesting perspective from the guy who bought the site & presumably closed it down . . . Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 14:16, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Sophie left for 8 months, Armondikov for a month, Kels for 10 months, DogP for an unknown amount of time, Refugee for a month, Phantoom Hoover, Pink came back and left again, Psy took a long break. Ty^JFBANBSRADA 19:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Self-replicating sysops... You make it sound like a grey goo scenario--"Shut up, Brx." 06:58, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

It was, Brx, it was... Sophie^Wilder 15:24, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

RationalWIkiWIki status

I see no harm in using some of the pages to spice up the History and Timeline, but there was a lot more than Blue's archive. Is everything from RWW effectively gone? Osaka Sun (talk) 20:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

The user pages and some other things are gone, most of the rest are retrievable. Peter ^{Droid whisperer} 20:38, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

That all depends on whether or not RWW returns. I'm still not 100% certain I will continue to fund it once the hosting fees are up in March. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 06:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Does it necessarily need to return? We just need to transfer the good stuff. Osaka Sun (talk) 07:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

If we acknowledge that there is good stuff, why would we not want it to return? It's not like an Evowiki situation where we inherit a dead wiki; RWW was shut down when it was still active. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 14:26, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

If it is to come back, it should be under the rubric of RW so that our community standards apply, and should be only for a good-natured snarky documentation of our history, not a place to take nasty fights to. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 14:29, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm sure it would be interesting if we had a forum to discuss RWW's return here, but keep in mind that RW and RWW aren't affiliated with each other. Blue (pester) 15:04, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, just wanted to say that I like your observations very much! --larron (talk) 10:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

The new gun laws and post ex facto laws

I couldn't help but notice that there are people saying that these new guns laws are essentially taking away the guns of those who already own guns

My dad believes that, and agrees with me that that sounds a bit like post ex facto laws, which are illegal

Then again, my dad also says that this is almost the first step toward tyranny, led by an illegal alien who, in violating the Second Amendment, is essentially a traitor, and thus should be put to death, r at least booted out of office, though he wouldn't be the one to carry out such an action

Let's just say he was once in a big position that involves swearing to uphold the Constitution, just like the President did, hence why despite being retired from that position, is quite...passionate about people in power violating it, and of course, already disliking the President, believes that these laws are yet another addition to the list of crimes committed.

I don't know how to tell him why, for starters, I believe that, as Iago put it, "traitor" is such a strong word, and I find it too hard to believe that someone could get away with doing an ex post facto law--DoomTay (talk) 03:13, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Ummmm, what laws that take away guns from people who already own them? Show me a single piece of proposed or extant legislation that requires that people turn in the weapons which they presently legally own. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 03:18, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Even then, to call that an ex post facto is quite a stretch. Ex post facto is the legislative idea that one should be able to determine today, by today's laws, if actions taken today are legal. That is, one should not need to consider future legislative action to decide if actions taken today are legal. Future legislatures are free to declare actions to be illegal, but only for future time, not for today. I see nothing in this that protects your guns. Sure, you having guns yesterday was legal, and we won't charge you for it, but if we pass a law today outlawing guns, then they're illegal today, and you'd better hand them in. At best, your father is making a property claim, that the government doesn't have the right to take his property which was legal yesterday but legal today, and we should all know what I think of such libertarian ideas that government doesn't have the right to take your property. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 03:38, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

People like your father (and you) often misunderstand ex post facto. You cannot retroactively make the purchase of a gun illegal, but you can make the Possession and discharge of such a gun illegal. Usually, the state is obligated to pay you market value, if they take property because it has been made illegal. As the enlightened one said, it's all in how you word any new law.Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 04:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

The fact that we cannot have a gun control debate, AT ALL, without a kneejerk "don't you try and take my guns away" response from certain quarters says quite a lot about the culture we've fostered. I could stand up tomorrow and state that I'm looking to pass a law that bans ownership of guns by mentally-disturbed toddlers (which is not even allowed under the existing laws, for many obvious reasons) and someone would stand up and accuse me of being part of some Communofascist muslim plot. No sane, rational outcome can come from such a poisoned well. Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 08:52, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

In other words, I shouldn't bother trying to develop any kind of rebuttal with my dad? If so, I couldn't agree more. I said elsewhere that he's pretty much a birther, and there's also that he hates Obama in general, actually stated that we're pretty much not allowed to protest in the streets anymore, and he tends to get in a fuss when argued with over anything. (I still remember that he grounded my brother because he proposed a certain video game tip is possibly erroneous, and he stayed grounded even though he was eventually proven right.--DoomTay (talk) 16:05, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Wait, your dad grounded your brother because of Video Game advice? Your dad is a fucking nutjob. --108.180.91.182 (talk) 07:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Does this website permit right wing views?

I've been following the progress of this website for some time. Although the front page claims open-ness and skepticism, unfortunately it seems to be a hangout for left wingers and socialists who think their juvinile jokes somehow translate into meaningful political discourse. Would it be possible for a member of the conservative party to partake meaningfully in this website or would the said person be removed and possibly banned for holding unorthodox views? ^{— Unsigned, by: ProudTory / talk / contribs}

Instead of just saying "Right-wing" you could give us actual examples of what you believe. Right now I have no clue if you believe a 'theodemocracy' is a valid form of government, if you hate blacks and gays, support chemical castration of anyone on the dole for 3 months, and want to outlaw abortion period, tur on every light in your house on earth day, or if maybe you just have a right-leaning idea on how to fix debt problems and are a bit iffy on public schooling. Polite Timesplitter ^{come shout at me for being thick} 12:03, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

There are a few people on here who have differing views to the majority. We have had our share of libertarians over the years, and more than a few theists. Rest assured that unless you start needlessly trolling over and over again on the same points you won't be banned. In fact, it is almost impossible to get banned from here. This website started with an absolute no censorship policy. We have obviously had to amend that slightly to avoid trolling and gratuitous hate speech, but the principle remains. You will find that people are reasonably willing to debate all sorts of things with people, but only if you are polite and are reasonable. If you are unpolite and unreasonable, well you'll probably still be allowed to stay, but you may get ignored somewhat. --Damo^Hi 12:15, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

The above is exactly what I'm taking about. This kind of hysterical cartoonish right winger simply doesn't exist. I'll give a quick bullet point overview of my positions:

• Euroskeptic (Would like to withdraw from the EU)
• Pro family (Disagree with the gay rights movement, particularly their attempt to re-define the traditional family unit)
• Small State Conservative (Reduce the role of the state so that its only remaining functions are defense, law and order, basic regulation of markets and services, basic infrasture co-ordination and some form of guaranteed educational system for the massed.)
• Low taxes (A smaller state would require a smaller tax base)
• Pro American (The UKs best interests lie in a close relationship with the United States)
• Pro Israel (The UKs best interests lie in a close relationship with Israel)
• Anti Immigration (The vast majority of first generation immigrants should be returned to their country of origin)
• Pro Military (The UK requires a much larger military to protect itself from threats at home and abroad)
• Pro Press (Freedom of speech is in peril as a result of years of socialist misgovernance, whose first target was always the free press and free enquiry)

I am an atheist. ProudTory (talk) 12:18, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

There are plenty of "hysterical cartoonish right wingers" around. Just check out Conservapedia. There are less in the UK perhaps, but this is a worldwide site, not a UK focussed one. Damo^Hi 12:21, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Disagree strongly, but hey, at least you can articulate your ideas. Stick around, see what happens. ^{— Unsigned, by: Polite Timesplitter / talk / contribs}

EDIT: "This kind of hysterical cartoonish right winger simply doesn't exist." Oh, if only that was true. Polite Timesplitter ^{come shout at me for being thick} 12:26, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, don't expect much sympathy here. You won't be banned, of course, unless you start vandalizing; but if you look at articles like LGBT rights, Britain is full, etc., you'll see that we won't humor most of your views in mainspace. Blue (is useful) 12:26, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Finally somebody who is willing to speak honestly. If this website is a leftwing hangout please say so on the front page and stop wasting people's time. I'm correcting some very basic misconceptions about the Tories and Margaret Thatcher, and am meeting an iron curtain of resistance. ProudTory (talk) 12:34, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I suggest trying to argue about your changes on the talk page instead of engaging in a revert war.

Things like LGBT rights are not inherently left-wing. Neither is disdain for people who want to subject the UK to some kind of ethnic cleansing.--ZooGuard (talk) 12:41, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Maybe not "inherently", but they are pretty left-wing positions. Regardless, it's extremely easy to see that this is a left-wing site — do we really have to spell it out to you on the mainpage? Nihilist 17:23, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not a racist and would never countance deporting people born on British soil, or who have married a British citizen. Or a great number of students and/or a fair proportion of asylum seekers. But the mass immigration of the past 50-60 years has been an unmitigated disaster, mulitculturalism has failed, and it is time that Britain slowed down immigration to such a small number that it become manageable. Your attempt to distort right wing positions on these issues will not do you any good in the long run.ProudTory (talk) 12:46, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Assuming you're referring to my list above, no, I didn't distort your positions because I didn't know them at the time, yet I know that they are ideas that peopple take seriously, so I can't be blamed for the buzzing alarm bells (while "redefine the traditional family unit" smells familiar). If you're referring to the above linking Britain is full then yeah, has to be admitted it's often not clear on where the focus is. Read its talk page for clarification. Talk pages exist for a reason. Use them. Polite Timesplitter ^{come shout at me for being thick} 12:53, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

No, the proud Tory was answering me. They just didn't indent correctly.--ZooGuard (talk) 12:56, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not talking about "right wing positions", I'm talking about your words. Which were "The vast majority of first generation immigrants should be returned to their country of origin". It sounds like you are suggesting mass deportation and/or confiscation of property.--ZooGuard (talk) 12:56, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

People who are not citizens of the United Kingdom have no right to permanant residency in this country. Britain isn't full of course but the mulicultural experiment has failed. I grew up in Bradford, I know what I'm talking about. ProudTory (talk) 13:43, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm American — what's this "multicultural experiment"? Nihilist 17:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

"Multicultralism" is a recently-invented word that means "racial equality and religious freedom". It's used by people who oppose those ideas to make it sound like it's some novel, radical, experimental ideology. To him, the "multicultural experiment" is the act of Britain DARING to let non-whites to live as equals with whites. And somehow he insists he isn't racist.Apokalyps2547 (talk) 01:20, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

So it isn't some sort of massive psychosociological scientific study the British government is performing? I'm disappointed. Nihilist 01:29, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

@PT - As an atheist and a Tory how do you stand on disestablishment of the CofE and bishops in the House of Lords? Генгис^pillaging 13:34, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm mostly indifferent but I quite liked the LibDem proposals for the House of Lords, a sort of Senate with 15 year terms voted by gigantic constituencies. Would have created a compelling upper chamber with people with a big enough mandate and who don't need to worry about re-election to really grasp at the big issues. The House of Lords is at the moment an irrelevance. I support the disestablishment of the COE, it has no place in a modern Britain. Nobody is Christian anymore anyway, even when Britain was Christian it wasn't really Christian, we were always basically an atheist country since Catholic Emancipation at least. ProudTory (talk) 13:43, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

"People who are not citizens of the United Kingdom have no right to permanant residency in this country." What about "Indefinite leave to remain" and "Right to Abode" statutes? Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 14:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

"Right of abode" usually means you're defined as congenitally British, even though it's a stamp in your non-British passport (I have one of these) - David Gerard (talk) 16:29, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Wonder when your ancestors came here, Proud Tory? Scream!! (talk) 17:45, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Things like euroscepticism (there are left-wing eurosceptics) and press freedom won't be a problem, of course. The homophobia and Enoch Powell stuff won't fly, though. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:56, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Proud Tory, you encountered it right away. The leftist dominance of this site takes as gospel, "if you hate blacks and gays, etc...." as a right-wing position, nevermind the fact most intolerant, hate filled bigots I've met in nearly six decades living in the United States are loyal Democrats. You can't discuss that here. And there is an internal debate regarding tolerance and free speech, because there are elements decidedly hostile to anything conflicting with their worldview and feel their mission in life is to shut opposition voices down. nobs^{Say hello to my leetle friend} 19:14, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Just for the record, Conservapedia:RobSmith used to be one of the admins of Conservapedia. You know, the website people pointed as a real-life example of cartoonish right-wingers... --ZooGuard (talk) 19:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Tory,meet Rob: Rob, meet Tory. I'm sure you'll get along swimmingly. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 19:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

My family has a proud military tradition, I can trace my family tree back to the Viking invasions. ProudTory (talk) 18:01, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Fantastic! So have you actually had a genetic assay done? They're very telling these days - David Gerard (talk) 21:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

As others have said you should feel free to argue your case here, but if you dealing with what looks like a contentious issue you would be better advised to first make the point on the talkpage. But this advice would go for any potentially contentious edit to an article - it's not a right-wing thing.

For example I see that one of your beliefs is: "Pro family (Disagree with the gay rights movement, particularly their attempt to re-define the traditional family unit)" It would be better to bring your objections to gay rights up on the relevant talk page rather then edit the relevant article.--Bob^{"I thought this was supposed to be "Rational" Wiki?."} 18:51, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Fellow Conservative, welcome to the site. In political matters the site does have a generally left/liberal bias, but if you can be calm and patient, you can get along here too. Just know that for us to get our views heard we need to emphasize calm and rational perspectives, while citing sources as much as possible. Or, you could do what I do, and insert right wing bias when everyone is asleep. Also, the issue you've been having with editing the article on the Conservative Party and PM Thatcher is that by re-verting edits, you're coming off as confrontational. Because we're the minority, we cannot come off as confrontational. If someone reverts an edit, bring it up in the talkpage, or try to reword the comment.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 19:42, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't give me that andrew sullivan tosh, you ain't no conservative. ProudTory (talk) 21:24, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Just saying, but insulting one of the closest things you have an ideological ally among the userbase is probably not a very good idea. There is a reason why Rob Smith is not well liked, you keep having your edits reverted, and I basically have free reign over the site. --Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 21:41, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

ProudTory as far I can tell, anyone can join and post on this website. I used to be a neo-nazi skinhead and involved with several white nationalist groups. I am totally apolitical now. Why did I come to this website, I came to debunk creationism and other crank views when I have a bit of spare time. "Although the front page claims open-ness and skepticism, unfortunately it seems to be a hangout for left wingers and socialists" and it doesn't really matter if there are left-wingers on here, on topics such as creationism or other pseudoscience they do a good job at debunking these things. If you keep yourself to yourself then you should have no problem editing but with a name like ProudTory that might be asking for trouble. By the way the conservative party are not "right wing" and since they have been in, they have done nothing about combating immigration. The only right wing political party in the UK is the BNP all of the others are totally left. At the end of the day there is little difference between labour, the liberals or conservatives they are all left with conservative being center-left. Forests (talk) 22:17, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

As to editing, stick to mainspace subjects you source adaquetely and try to make the more extreme positions expressed in mainspace more moderate, or tolerable. This helps the site look good. In disucssion recognize you'll get stomped, so try to be entertaining, not confrontational. nobs^{Say hello to my leetle friend} 23:05, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit break - "Pro family" stuff

Here's a quick summary of my reactions to your views. 1- Pro family (Disagree with the gay rights movement, particularly their attempt to re-define the traditional family unit); So, you want to impose your lifestyle on others? I consider that quite evil. -- 2- *Small State Conservative (Reduce the role of the state so that its only remaining functions are defense, law and order, basic regulation of markets and services, basic infrasture co-ordination and some form of guaranteed educational system for the massed.); Seems pretty libertarian, and I think libertarians are either evil or wrong on the efficacy of their plans. -- Otherwise, seems fine IMHO. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 03:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm hoping this becomes a meme, so I'm going to repeat: You are not a conservative. I am a conservative, and you are an idiot.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 03:45, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

That's already a meme: see No True Scotsman. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 10:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I do not think I've ever encountered blatant anti-gay bigotry like this that was not at its foundation informed by an appeal to religious dogma. The idea of limiting people's ability to fully participate in civil society because of their sexuality is pretty silly, but, perhaps surprisingly, it's even more silly when the crutch of scripture is removed from the argument. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 03:51, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

EL said: *

• Pro family (Disagree with the gay rights movement, particularly their attempt to re-define the traditional family unit); So, you want to impose your lifestyle on others?

How does passively disagreeing translate into actively imposing something on other people and violating their rights? This is the cartoonish example of leftist nuts, debate style, and advocacy. nobs^{Say hello to my leetle friend} 04:06, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Protip: "pro family" is a code word for "discriminate against gays". You and I both know this. Second, he made himself abundantly clear with "Pro family (Disagree with the gay rights movement". Thus, he disagrees with asking for equal standing under the law. Thus he's an asshat on that issue. Seems pretty clear cut. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 04:12, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

"gay marriage" is a code word for redefining "marriage", and thus the whole 10,000 years of recorded human civilization is the history of asshats, until a handful of readers of the Nation magazine enlightened in the rest of us the past ten years. Do you suppose the Taliban is about to accept the example of American democracy and accept gay marriage, too, or is this possibly a motivating factor to recruit suicide bombers to resist Western influence? Do gays have any responsibility here, at all, in helping non-gays work out an acceptable foreign policy to present to the rest of the planet? Aren't "pro-family" groups entitled to organize and articulate theirs views of gayness and marriage, just as gays are? nobs^{Say hello to my leetle friend} 05:19, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I must say I am slightly surprised that you would let the Taliban dictate US domestic policy. Isn't the US an independent nation, capable of forming its own domestic policies? Damo^Hi 05:35, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Is there really any evidence that marriage has been exclusively heterosexual? That seems like something RW would know--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 05:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

More than that, Rob, are you aware that the idea of marriage for love is incredible recent? Up until the early 20th century (and even today in some cultures) marriages were about continuing the culture, cementing tribal and family relationships, consolidating political power and extending the family name.... Hell, for a large chunk of human history, marriages were arranged with no input from the bride and groom..... What planet are you living on? SirChuckB^{Go Naked, Hitler Wore Clothes} 06:18, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

If the Taliban shoots a 14 year old girl in the head cause she wants to go to school, the Taliban's reaction to gay marriage might be extreme. Come to think of it, the Karzai regime we imposed does not rexognize, support, or advocate gay marriage either. Just what are we fighgting for? Why does Obama support, and continue to support, a human rights violator like the Karzai regime which does not recognize or respect gay marriage? Where are our tax dollars going? What are we fighting and dying for, so gays can continue to be oppressed in Afghanistan? John Kerry said yseterday he thinks America (in this post post-Cold War era) should continue leading the world. So if we're serious about gay marriage, let's put it on US Army recruiting posters to educate our young people why they should be ready to risk thier lives to preserve the rights, freedoms, and values we stand for. nobs^{Say hello to my leetle friend} 06:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

@nobs. Your "tradition" argument is bullshit. Slavery was traditional. Women being chattel was traditional. Tradition be damned. Marriage as you define it is a gender-discriminatory institution, and thus should not be recognized nor promoted by the government. If your only bitch is about using the same word instead of a new word, then fuck off. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 07:42, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

My cousin is a homosexual, I'm not a bigot. Homosexuality exists and people should be free to do as they wish. But the traditional family unit is in breakdown, we see this across society, gay marriage would be the final nail in that coffin and would lead to our ultimate decadence as a species. Whats next, marriage between siblings, horses? Where does the madness end? ProudTory (talk) 10:44, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

"I'm not a bigot". Yes you are. You seem to think that it's inherently immoral, or will lead to the downfall of society. Such thoughts are completely unfounded. If there is a dictionary entry for bigot, you would be right there. And who cares if siblings get married? I don't. And besides, horses can't consent to contracts, so they can't get married. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 10:51, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

If I may distract from the same-sex marriage thing for a moment, I'd like to know what else in the movement he disagrees with: equal protection from housing / employment discrimination? Not being treated as criminals for 'gay propoganda'? Not being seen as a mental illness? THOSE are positions that are miles more objectionable. You edited while I was writing that, so I'll adress that. What is so wrong about the 'daddy brings home money, mummy shits out cakes and babies for him' idea breaking down? Do you have any evidence to back up your claims? Last I checked, the Netherlands weren't collapsing into ruin from all the gay marriage. As for horses, siblings, if you think they still constitute valid arguments in 2013 you should probably come out from under that rock you're living under. As for your cousin, newsflash, Michele Bachmann has gay family too, is she not a bigot? Polite Timesplitter ^{come shout at me for being thick} 10:59, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Siblings are a bit of an issue because it can have genetic consequences for any children. Otherwise I'm pretty disappointed with our Tory friends arguments so far. Damo^Hi 11:03, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

(EC) The traditional family unit has changed for many reasons. The traditional role of marriage was to protect & consolidate inheritance, ensure offspring were 'legitimate' to avoid any disputes, ensure woman & children were economically supported by the husband/father, and to forge links with other families. So sex before or outside of marriages was highly disapproved of, as was divorce & remarriage. The ideal of marriage for love was always around, but it was always mixed with various other social considerations; e.g. look at the marriage-brokering in any Jane Austen novel. None of this really needs to apply anymore (at least in modern western cultures). Contraception is widely available, so every sexual encounter doesn't need to result in a child, & when it does, there are mechanisms in place to ensure that the child isn't left without any financial & social support like an illegitimate child in past times would have been. Women are no longer financially dependent on men, & are no longer viewed only as wives & mothers. People marry (if they choose to) who they want to marry, & if it doesn't work out, they break up — not because of some massive social disintegration, but because they can, something that was very hard for people in pre-twentieth century times to do. Why shouldn't gay people be entitled to the same rights, to marry who they choose, & have children if they want to? Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 11:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Pretty much what Ron said. Traditional family has generally been about male property rights over women, preservation of male genes and hereditary rights through the male line. However, governments like marriage because it provides stability and that is important when you are trying to manage a large society. I'd much rather have people in stable loving relationships than either being forced to stay together unhappily, or being denied the rights of partnership with your 'significant other' just because of some arbitrary 'norms'. People who are in happy relationships and not marginalised are much better contributors to society as a whole, even if their only contribution is eliminating the negative rather than accentuating the positive. I know that my own grandparents 'had' to get married in the 1920s because my grandmother was pregnant, my grandmother attempted a self-abortion but my uncle was born with epilepsy and 'learning difficulties' (as we would now say), they had an unhappy relationship and my grandfather ultimately took his own life with a drug overdose. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 13:04, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

These are all reasonable arguments; I still suspect it's just an effort by the Trial Lawyers Association to drum up more divorce business since traditional marriage is in decline and it's reached it optimal level with a 50% failure rate. I'd wager gay marriage will have a better failure rate and higher turnover (meaning shorter duration, probably closer to six months). nobs^{Say hello to my leetle friend} 14:00, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Based on what? Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 14:18, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Plus there's a big movement towards gay marriage in many countries; attributing it all to the Trial Lawyers Association doesn't really work. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 14:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

"The incidence of domestic violence among gay men is nearly double that in the heterosexual population." There is role for RW here; as gay domestic violence comes out of the closet, there's more junk science appearing to say gay relationships are no more violent than traditional straight. nobs^{Say hello to my leetle friend} 14:50, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

If you want to talk about junk science, start with the thing you just cited. "The incidence of gay men's domestic violence can best be calculated from the known rate of domestic violence among heterosexuals." How about no? These guys took some data about hetero domestic violence, then speculated that rates may be higher among gay men based some highly flawed logic about male on male violence vs male on female, then asserted as fact that gay relationships are more violent than hetero ones; & twenty years later it still gets cited as evidence by the anti-gay lobby. Poor show. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 15:08, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

"can best be calculated from the known rate of domestic violence among heterosexuals." I thought gay marriage was just like hetero marriage, now you're saying it's something different. nobs^{Say hello to my leetle friend} 19:29, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Then you accept that the rate of DV is comparable. thanks.Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 19:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘It's "at least" comparable to heterosexual data. All source agree this an area that's been neglected in research data. This recent article from Nov. 2012 says, "The National Coalition Against Domestic violence estimates that gay men experience domestic violence levels at least as high as heterosexual women. My own research has shown that gay men experience domestic violence levels at least as high as heterosexual women with approximately 25-30% of gay men reporting violence from a main partner, while others have estimated levels between 50-65%." Who are these "others" this credible and concerned source refers to? Yes, this is a highly charged and emotional issue that many wish to shy away from. Another things is obvious from FBI crime statisitcs: the victims of gay domestice violense are 10 to 15 times greater than gay victims of hate crimes; if the incidence of internalized homophobia were factored in, gay domestic hate crimes would prfesumably rise as well. nobs^{Say hello to my leetle friend} 20:33, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

How large was the data set in your own research? Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:36, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry. That was a quote from the underlying link by Rob Stephenson, Associate Professor of Global Health at Emory University. nobs^{Say hello to my leetle friend} 20:47, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Humans beat eachother up. We control eachother. we cajol eachother. What does that have to do with gay marraige?Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 21:07, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

We got about 40 years intensive research data on heterosexual domestic violence. Roughly 25% of a heterosexual households experience at lest one insidence of violent battering. The best we say that is known of gay domestic relationships is the prevalence of violence is "at lesat" comparable the straight relationships, with evidence it's double the rate. So the claim gay relationships are "just like" straight relationships, in this regard is either not true or lacking data. nobs^{Say hello to my leetle friend} 21:55, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, but that assumes a level playing field. When important parts of your existence are frowned upon/stigmatized/denigrated by society at large, when you are denied the right to fully participate in civil society because of what you are, well, stress, violence and other social ills are typical side effects of marginalizing a population because of what kind of people they are. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 22:01, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't care if people object to calling gay marriage marriage as long as they don't have a problem with them being allowed to have a legal marriage under the law. We can compromise on that; instead of gay marriage we can call it sth different. Instead of husband and husband, they're butt buddies. But seriously, they should be allowed legal marriage. I'm not sure about whether churches should be allowed to refuse to marry gays, as it violates the rights of gays who are members of the church. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 23:53, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Abortion March

So, this rally against abortion today that evidently drew half a million people is being called "the beginning of the end of abortion" by many people of different political ideologies. I don't know about that, but I also don't know what to think instead. I'm still analyzing this. What are your thoughts? --P3A58NT86 04:13, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that abortion is one of the very few topics of current discourse that will literally never stop being an issue, so getting emotional about it seems rather foolish to me.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 04:32, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Public support of abortion is at something like 70% now.--^talk 04:42, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but: The anti-choice movement has been throwing all kinds of limitations and challenges at women's reproductive freedom for the past 5 years or so; a lot of it doesn't stick, but some of it does, and more of it will the more their political allies keep gerrymandering the map and the state and federal level. If Obama does any one thing in the next four years, it's to get another pro-choice voice onto SCOTUS, or it may be dark times ahead. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 04:42, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

1)"getting emotional seems rather foolish" - You're a guy. You have never had to face the prospect of an unwanted pregnancy. You don't really have to worry your little head over the day to day consequences of the law. I do. It's highly emotional and should be. 2)There is no "beginning of the end" to abortion. no one, anywhere, will allow us to go back to the days of coat hangers. Abortions have been, and always will be part of our society. It has only been in the last 100 years (in effect, since women started demanding various levels of equality) that it's even been an issue for anyone. That said, with mifepristone, we will never have to go back to "those days". Any doctor (in theory) can perscribe this drug, for all the Right is trying to stop that. And, if you can't find a doctor, 200 bucks and an internet pass will get you all the drugs you need for a do-it-yourself safe abortion. 3) The limitations are the single biggest reality to poor women (and let us at least admit, these regulations ONLY effect poor women, moderate or rich women can hop on a plane to some nice state like NY, or Canada). Planned Parenthood in texas - the whole damn thing - is under threat of folding, cause one jackass of a gov doesn't get that they do far more than abortions. and now, 50,000 women in texas are without other care. And AD, i actually disagree that nothing will change, and taht this will "always be an issue". It wasn't for most of humanity's history, and it won't be, once we see less religion in our government. Women have a voice, and we are not too happy about being told to sit down, shut up, and accept our pregnancy like a man. Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 06:35, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

sorry but guys have to worry about unwanted prgnancies too. A one hour fuck with some drunk you picked up in a bar results in a pregnancy that you as a man have no say in, then if the kid is born up to 1/3 of your income for child support for 18 years. If you dont want kids the dont fuck. Being able to take a viable fetus and shred it for your convenience seems difficult to support. Statistics show 25-35 abortions per 100 live births. A culture of death for sure. Just my opinion Hamster (talk) 16:22, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

The human female body naturally aborts 60-90% (depending on studies) of all fertalized eggs. Of those that make it to implantation, roughly 50% will naturally abort within the first month, before the woman knows she's pregnant. of that, 1/3 will naturally abort before they would have been born. The culture of death is a natural reality. And having to pay for a kid for the rest of your life, or even having to watch a woman kill your fetus is serious. but it's not comparable to being the one who is pregnant. just saying....Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 16:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think anyone really wants abortions, they are generally required because of some earlier failure. Any non-essential surgery is to be avoided so better sex education, availability of contraception and access to morning-after pills are to be encouraged. And if you're going to have an abortion then do it as quickly as possible, it's often the hurdles raised by anti-abortionists that result in late abortions. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 17:36, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

The child support gambit has nothing to do with the abortion debate. There are things to be said for & against men being obliged to pay child support, but it really has no bearing on whether or not a woman has the right to terminate her pregnancy. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:08, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Genghis - in a study done in a generic midwestern, generally lower income town, free birth control was provide for the entire town (men got condoms, women IDS, Pill or shot) for a period of 2 years. Unwanted pregnancies (and of course, abortions) dropped by nearly 60% if i remember right. We could make a world where well over half the pregnancies are planned and wanted. But that's not as politically fulfilling as telling a bunch of men that women are sluts and must be controlled. Or so the right in this country, seems to think.Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 19:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, any anti abortion propaganda is hate speech. As for child support, it should not be required because the woman can always have an abortion. If she's too sexist or religiously ignorant to do so, that isn't the man's problem. It could be argued that men should be able to require that women have an abortion if they do not want to have a child, regardless of whether they have to support it. Some people make personal decisions for themselves not to have children; at a personal level, that should be respected. Though it is the woman's body, so that should take precidence. We shouldn't be forcing women to have abortions the same way we shouldn't prohibit them from having abortions. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 23:37, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

That's a seriously disturbing worldview you've got there. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:55, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

How is it disturbing? I don't support forcing women to have abortions for the obvious reason. I'm only pointing out a thought that maybe we should respect it if someone doesn't want to have a child, based on their own decisions. I'm showing the other side of the argument, or potential opposition to what I am suggesting. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 00:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

It's disturbing because you said that men should be able to force women to have abortions if the man doesn't want the kid. Changing your comment to say the opposite after it's been responded to is sortof an asshole thing to do. Nice try, asshole. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I changed it to what I meant. I phrased it badly, and I made it clear. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 00:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

The way to make such alterations without being a jerk is to say, later, "I phrased myself badly earlier. I really mean such-and-such." Editing your comment makes readers think that your respondents are stupid. Surely you see that?--^talk 01:02, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

It's standard MRA stuff, really.--^talk 00:20, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

So that's actually a thing? I thought of that as a joke one time. I didn't read a lot of that yet, but some of it came off as sexist or retarded. I mean independently retarded, as sexism is retarded; it's been debunked that women are less intelligent than men or whatever. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 00:26, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

It's very much a thing, and libertarian MRAs (of which there are many) espouse identical views to your own.--^talk 00:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Specifically which ones? I don't think women should be forced to have an abortion. Requiring child support (if they were not married) is one sided and seems fairly anti abortion. If they're married and get divorced, then the man should be paying child support. Also, if the man supported having the child even if not married, than he should also have to pay child support. I take it you missed the discussion where I got called sexist against men? ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 00:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

"As for child support, it should not be required because the woman can always have an abortion. If she's too sexist or religiously ignorant to do so, that isn't the man's problem. It could be argued that men should be able to require that women have an abortion if they do not want to have a child, regardless of whether they have to support it. Some people make personal decisions for themselves not to have children; at a personal level, that should be respected."

I am not interested in litigating the similarity, though. I'd suggest you read up on some of the prominent MRA blogs and books, in any case, because you might find a lot of things with which you agree.--^talk 01:00, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

If George Bush said that he thinks Fallout 3 is a good game, I would agree with that. I think this might be one of the few things I agree with them on. Either way, this isn't a group that I really care to support. I'm generally a lot more supportive of equality for women than for men, who in most ways are not nearly as disadvantaged. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 01:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm thinking about making a fad diet

So, I'm doing some research on diet and nutrition to clean up/improve an article here, and I'm just amazed by some of the bullshit people buy into with fad diets, especially since most of them don't even make a whole lot of sense. For some reason it kind of inspires me to want to take all of the good nutritional advice I have, and use it to make a fad diet and see how much money I can make off of it. I think I'll need a catchy name, a logo, and a book publisher. Anyone want to help?--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 18:14, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Nope. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:17, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Pick and weird food and tell people to eat lots of it. Bonus points if it's disgusting. But I seriously hope you aren't doing this, because fad diets can be harmful, and profiting off of people's credulity is wrong.--"Shut up, Brx." 18:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

No, I'm talking about taking all of the good advice, the stuff backed up by science, and wrapping it up like its a fad diet.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 18:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Have you been listening to Skeptics with a K lately? One of the hosts has been trying something like that, and it seems to be working for him. Peter ^{Droid whisperer} 18:37, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Never even heard of that group. This will of course only encourage my bad behavior. Muwahaha!--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 18:38, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Correct your ignorance then. Peter ^{Droid whisperer} 18:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

There's the Michael Polan diet -- "Eat good food, not too much of it, and no prepared foods with more than five ingredients on the label" (or something. I'm paraphrasing here...). Combine that with an exercise plan that is basically "walk more, sit less, get sweaty a few times a week." And then sell it as A TOTAL LIFESTYLE TRANSFORMATION. Get a B-lister to pimp it for you. You're money. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 18:43, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

That isn't Fad Diet enough for me. I'm looking to make money here, I want to go full on cabbage-soup-enema bullshit in terms of branding.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 18:45, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

You've got it backwards. It's not the diet that's gonna make you rich, it's the marketing. You need some celeb telling people stuff they already know, but will only believe when a respected authority like a game show host or a 1990s pop stat tells them. And then they can be JUST LIKE that person. Money. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 18:48, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

It's still profiting from people's credulity, even if it's good advice you're selling them, since you're taking nutrition info & guidance that is already widely available in the public domain & always has been, + presenting it something new & exciting. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel}

Ah yes, I see your point TOP. And Weaseloid, I never said I was not an asshole.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 19:06, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

The problem with good advice, is it's not easy. it means 1 or at most 2 lbs a week, often just 1/2 pound. It means cutting back (for women) to 1200-1500 cals per day of food. It means learning to eat reasonable portions. It means largely giving up sweets, except as some special treats once and a while. Sparkspeople, Mayoclinic, Univerity of Everywhere, FDA, WebMD, pretty much every major health orginization has a program to help you. But it's just not ever going to sell like telling someone that putting fish paste into their oatmeal 5 times a day will insure you lose 10 lbs in yoru first week! or "useing pregnancy hormones will make your body burn fat!" does for people. FAST. EASY. that's what people want. not slow and lots of work.Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 19:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking of recommending a "phasing in period", where you spend (say) 3 weeks just cutting sweets, then three weeks where you focus on Calories consumed, then three weeks on the balance of macronutrients, and then add in fitness, so you get to the place you should be, but don't have to deal with a massive culture shock and then burn out from trying to cut the crap from your diet, watch your Calories, watch your macros, and get exercise.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 19:28, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

My step mom just spent 200 bucks on some "diet" thingy that is really quite healthy. He made it fun. A new task each day for 90 days. Day one, you take a vitiman, day two, you take the vitiman and write down your foods. Day three...etc. And just like you said, he "breaks you in" by cutting out processed sugars, teaching you portion size, each day, a new lesson or "task". Including everything from healthy eating, to exercise, to just being more active. He has 4 videos of 12 minute long exercise tapes. 3 differnt journals. a very basic cook book (like you might get with your new steamer, etc). All tother, probably 30 bucks worth of real printing. for 199.99!!!!!!! nothing new. nothing special. but as TOP said, it's in the marketing. at least if she's going to get a diet plan, it's one that is really healthy! She got it off QVC. I'm sure he's minting a fortune.Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 19:35, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'm being an asshole for semi-seriously considering this, but I am no where near enough of an asshole to sell this for $200. I was thinking $20 to $30. Even with all of that, $45 tops--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 19:39, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

You might have more success selling at a higher price and making it more exclusive. Remember that Bernie Madoff's scam was so successful because he made people work to get into it. So make in secret, exclusive and expensive. This sometimes works for religions as well, so a mystical element might help to make you cash. Good luck with this.--Bob^{"I thought this was supposed to be "Rational" Wiki?."} 20:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Like I said to Godot, I don't mind being an asshole, but I think selling for $200 is being far too much of an asshole. And heavy doses of mysticism, got it!--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 20:12, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

What are your credentials? Unless you have either 1. an expert background in nutrition, or 2. celebrity cred, nobody is going to buy your diet. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:18, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm a Marine who would be working on this with a friend who was a semi-pro boxer and another whose pre-med.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 20:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

If you are going to rip people off what is the difference between 20 and 200 dollars? At 200 you're only going to rip off rich people. And you're going to be an asshole in either case. But you said before that you're a conservative - so do you only want to rip off the poor? :-) --Bob^{"I thought this was supposed to be "Rational" Wiki?."} 21:06, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'd be giving good advice based on years or decades of research by the medical community, I'd just be selling it in the same wrapping as fad diets. That is not exactly what I call ripping people off.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 21:35, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

You've got it wrong Bob, the conservatives price it out of reach of the poor so that they stay unfit and unhealthy; thus consigning them to a shorter lifespan. Only the well off will be able to get the best advice. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 22:59, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't forget to include a weekly "cheat day", where you can give up eating cardboard and string and gorge yourself on food you like. I saw it in Tim Ferriss, it's been a staple since well before - David Gerard (talk) 23:00, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the evil-conservative thing is just an extension of the meme or if people here really hate me :(

Also, "cheat days" are for crash diets.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 23:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I've lost 12 Kgs in the past 6 months mainly through exercise and sensible eating. <Broscience alert>I think that if you base your weight loss mainly on diet then you pretty quickly get diminishing returns. On the other hand if you base it on exercise, you don't get so much diminishing returns because you become able to exercise for longer/harder/more intensely, as well as building muscle that burns more calories than fat. <Broscience alert ends>. Don't know if that is entirely true, but it stands to reason because when I exercise now I am able to burn more than double the amount of calories than when I started. If my weight loss was based around madly counting calories, I doubt I could achieve such a calorie deficit. --Damo^Hi 23:50, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

You can create a Calorie deficit either through eating less Calories or increasing the amount of Calories you burn, such as through exercise. As long as you consume 500 Calories a day less then you burn, you'll continue losing weight. It becomes somewhat more difficult at a point, but that's got to do with initially losing a lot of water weight. This is where a food journal comes in, which has been shown to double the amount of weight lost over a set period. (I linked the relevant article in the Fad Diet page, if you care)--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 01:20, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

The other problem with exercise is (like everything in weight loss) about perception of just how much we are doing, and how many cals we are burning. Most sites, most machines, most heart rate monitors way over estimate how many cals a person is burning. "oh, i ran an hour, i can have that desert". Probably not. Even at their height of the Tour de France, cyclists are burning and eating 3500-5000 cals. Most Americans who are over weight can eat that in one day, without too much effort. I don't know about UK, Canada, Germany, etc., but man Americans would actually not have much problem if we could figure out portion size, for heaven's sake. When i learned what one portion of chicken or pasta was, i was dumbtruck. i was easily eating 3 times that at each meal.Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 01:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

For energy expended in exercise, I like running/walking. There's a formula you can find that figures the amount of Calories burned based on distance, speed, and weight.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 02:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I understand all that, I just think that it is easier to increase the numbers of calories burnt than it is to keep cutting calories. For me anyway. Given that we are sharing fad diet tips I thought would share my admittedly rather personal theory. Basically, I generally run around 50k per week + a couple of games of squash but when I started I would struggle to run even 10k per week. Now as we know, as you lose weight the number of calories required goes down, and it becomes harder to keep reducing the amount of calories we eat, but it actually becomes easier to start increasing the number of calories we burn. This is because the more you run, the more you can run and also the faster you can run. By making some modest changes to my diet and focussing on my exercise I reckon I have done better over the long term than I would have if I'd gone on a "diet". Damo^Hi 02:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Still doubting my own sanity.

Don't know what to talk about, so I'll say a few days ago I cartoonified a Spriggina and now things are getting really weird with Ayaka. I've needed to get out the largely defensive weapon of guillotine at least twice today. Pensees? Immortality's fun, except when you become a two-headed monster ^{Talk to me or view my art} 05:57, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I take it that you want us to ask you about your art? Sam ^Tally-ho! 06:03, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I was just trying to make small talk, but sure. Do you believe lampreys are more closely related to hagfish or jawed fish? Immortality's fun, except when you become a two-headed monster ^{Talk to me or view my art} 06:06, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Umm...yes. Sam ^Tally-ho! 06:10, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

As the pedestrian can surely testify, Utahraptors are terrible things to be in front of when I'm riding through town. She needs repairs, why don't people get it! Immortality's fun, except when you become a two-headed monster ^{Talk to me or view my art} 06:15, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't... I just don't have a goddamn idea what you're saying.--^talk 11:40, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps your doubting of your sanity is appropriate HK? Damo^Hi 12:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps going outdoors and doing some exercise (jogging, cycling etc.) might help you with your sanity doubts, it most certainly helped me. Btw: What happened to Dirk? This thread shiuld have been derailed a while ago.Th. Bernhard_{Das Leben ist ein Prozeß, den man verliert, was man auch tut und wer man auch ist.} 05:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

This should be interesting

Debate at the Cambridge Union between Richard Dawkins and Rowan Williams. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 22:55, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought they'd done this before. They're both smart and quite nice and they respect each other, should be quite good - David Gerard (talk) 23:01, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't Dawkins be debating that intellectual giant Ray Comfort? Sophie^Wilder 11:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Dawkins has a morbid fear of bananas - David Gerard (talk) 13:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

So they really are the atheist's nightmare! Sophie^Wilder 18:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Just plain sickening and outrageous

Please, NRA, tell me again why assholes like this guy need an AK-47? Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 23:06, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Again, not a responsible firearm owner.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 23:23, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's the thing. Who's to say what a responsible gun owner is? It only takes a single lunatic to slip through the cracks for there to be another massacre.--"Shut up, Brx." 23:44, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

EC So then how do we make sure that these irresponsible firearm owners don't ever get the chance to own firearms? Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 23:45, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

A responsible gun owner is a person who doesn't own a gun. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 23:53, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

A responsible car owner is a person who doesn't own a car. --108.180.91.182 (talk) 23:43, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I really hope you're trolling. Personally, anyone who wants a gun should have to do the background check. If someone wants to sell one of their own guns, they should be able to get the assistance of law enforcement to do a background check. People should be able to have any gun that is not automatic. The only people who should be allowed to have automatic weapons are collectors who have an established collection, and they should only be allowed to collect historical automatic weapons. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 00:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Stabby, i grew up in a home of hunters, bow and riffel. just cause you don't like guns doesn't mean those who own guns are irresponsible. Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 00:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 01:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

A responsible firearm owner follows the four weapon safety rules. An irresponsible one does not. Simple enough. Mandate that only licensed dealers can sell firearms, require heavy background checks and system tests to become a dealer, make illegally selling, buying, or possessing a firearm a felony where if you illegally sell a firearm to someone who then commits a crime you do the same time as them (in addition to your 20+ years for illegal weapon sales). Etc, etc, etc.--Just relax, and stay funny (talk) 01:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I always follow the safe direction rule above all else, because even if every other rule is broken and the gun goes off, no one will be killed or injured. On requiring only gun stores to sell guns, that's going to reduce any profit someone can make by selling an old gun by 50%; retail markup is 100%. It would be better to have law enforcement be able to assist gun owners in conducting background checks when selling guns. We should also require a full background check anytime someone sells a gun. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 01:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Public school employee. Figures. nobs^{Say hello to my leetle friend} 00:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Voluntary Eugenics

Do you think that personal or voluntary eugenics is a good idea? It would be were people make their own personal decision not to have children for the benefit of society, or where the government or organization makes recommendations about who should or should not have children, but it is up to individual people whether they will or will not have children.

Or even farther, do you think that mandatory eugenics based on health and not racism for the benefit of society is a good idea?

I think the first example is better, as it's less open to abuse. It respects personal rights more, but then again, it could be argued that it is less respectful of personal rights because it would not do anything to get rid of genes that produce sociopaths, and therefore could be seen as disrespectful to the victims of serial killers. I'm not advocating that position.

ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 23:42, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Seriously, what the hell is wrong with you? Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 23:47, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

(EC) So what are you advocating? Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:49, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) Voluntary? Sure. I bet a lot of people on this site will take comfort in the fact that I have no intention to reproduce. But mandatory eugenics is an unabashed leap towards biopolitics, and we can't allow such gross violations of personal liberty. The best way to reduce genetic defects is to educate people, to provide counseling to prospective parents, and to provide medical services for people who are carriers of a genetic disease or weakness, so that an embryo can be selected that won't grow up to have cystic fibrosis, Down syndrome, or any other hereditary diseases.

Also, troll harder--"Shut up, Brx." 23:50, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Or, you know, we could just work on curing these diseases. Gattaca isn't the only eventuality. Blue (pester) 23:53, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Even liberal eugenics will (assuming it can be implemented) just lead to even more massive disparities based on class/wealth. I question whether the question itself is even relevant though -- "designer babies" are a pipe dream. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:59, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Prevention is far better than a cure. And as far as Gattaca, hopefully if science reaches the point where we can a genetic quotient from a booth on the street corner, we won't have capitalism, or capitalism won't be so pervasive. And a cure for a genetic disease isn't easy. Not even close. I imagine gene therapy would be the way to go, but we're still a long way away from getting anywhere with that, and even further from getting it to everybody that needs it.--"Shut up, Brx." 00:02, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm mentioning when people make personal decisions about not having children if they have a hereditary disorder. I'm asking if people think it would be a good idea for a government or private organization to provide information to people about whether they should have children, and leave the decision up to them. The downside is that the organization would need to be trustworthy, and would not tell people that they should not reproduce for its own agendas. I also believe that mandatory eugenics is a serious violation of personal liberty. I do wonder though completely hypothetically if we discovered a "serial killer gene" (a gene that when active, made people very likely to become murderers) would it be a worse violation of personal liberty to allow people to be murdered than to sterilize known carriers? I realize that in the real world, leaders could create moral panics and abuse such eugenics for their own personal goals, and could easily sterilize people who are not a threat. I also realize from a scientific perspective that it's highly unlikely we would find a gene like that, and so any such eugenics program would probably be abuse. I'm also not advocating for mandatory eugenics at all. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 00:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

For that reason, I'm against designing children with genetic technology, as it will only create class differences, races, master races, and racism. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 00:10, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU?! ^{(talk to a)} Nihilist 00:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I said I don't support mandatory eugenics. Please say what you are asking, or else this is nothing more than an attack. What do you mean? What are you taking opposition to? ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 00:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

My problem with you is that you even felt the need to make this topic. --^Mikal 00:20, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

My problem with you is that you couldn't tell that was a joke.

Why should we limit what we can discuss? ^{(talk to a)} Nihilist 00:24, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

He seems to be a troll. He makes short comments that don't add in any way to the discussion and craps on other users for making improper joke blocks while having received warnings about block abuse himself.

I don't think that we should engage in mandatory eugenics, and I even mentioned why, because genetics isn't that specific and it would be abused for personal gain. Plus most of the people who the US sterilized in the past don't even have children anyway. Now you see retarded couples, and while they might be more likely to have a retarded child, it's not like the nation will fall apart because of it. I was just asking a question and suggesting various ideas; it was just a question, calm the feth down. I'm not going to start a dictatorship over it. I was mostly wondering how people feel about people making their own decisions not to have children, and wondering whether it would be good to have some sort of special advisory organization that would give people advice on whether or not they should have children, but leave it up to them, or whether that would be too prone to abuse with people too likely to take the advice on faith. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 04:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Short comments = troll? When did that happen? Also, I oppose the basic idea of eugenics, on the basis that it is not the best way to get the problem solved, and on the grounds by its system i shouldn't have been born on the chance I got what my brother has. --^Mikal 05:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Similarly, eugenics would have been the death of me too. Peter ^{Droid whisperer} 06:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, I don't believe in a serial killer gene. I don't believe that such things are controlled by a single gene, or series of genes that can be easily eliminated. Therefore, I believe that attempts to force eugenics to remove it would be totalitarian. I do know someone who would argue the birds off the trees that there is such a gene, that we must remove it through intense eugenics, and that he's "seriously disturbed" at all of us that we would rather see people killed than "save" them... ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 04:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Jesus H. Fuck people, this has been proposed before: we have an article on it (VHEMT) and the relevant talk page had a big discussion on this with a supporter. Is asking a question not allowed here? Or is the SB just for talking about how big each user's cock is? ^narchist 15:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

What does that article have to do with this? Those people make me look normal. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 16:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

What's this thing between the Israelis and the Palestinians?

Can someone offer links that can help me understand it? Why aren't they both able to live in the same country? I realize this is probably a stupid question, but from what I've seen, a lot of people can't figure this out. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 00:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Here. Please submit a 25 page (double-spaced, 12-pt Times New Roman) review essay by the end of the term. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 00:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Scream!! (talk) 00:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

My problem with this whole thing is that I support them both, yet I feel that I come off as pro Israel because I reject all the antisemetic garbage. While anti zionism or anti Israel sentiment is often used to hide antisemetism, there are plenty of people who promote those views who are not. We then end up with a clusterfeth of having to decide whether someone is actually just opposed to what Israel is doing, or whether they are covering for antisemetism. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 01:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC) I've heard that Jews and Palestinians lived in Palestine for hundreds of years in peace before the end of WWII. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 01:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello, dear ridiculous user name. Have you heard of a search engine called "google.com" and an on-line encyclopedia called "wikipedia.org"? Do your own basic research. ħuman 06:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Inquisitor has the good sense not to use those liberal sites. ^{(talk to a)} Nihilist 06:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

So, someone asks where to start for doing research and understanding... and you tell them to go do some research and understanding. The main problem with this topic is that everyone disagrees on it. You can't even attempt to form a balanced opinion because at least one side will tell you you're favouring the other too much. There is a massive Gish Gallop of info out there, where to even begin is almost impossible to figure out. And no, Google doesn't help there, it's part of the problem. Wikipedia, maybe, if you want a pure fact-by-fact history will surely help. But as to the opinion why the two state idea doesn't seem favourable? Opinions differ. One that I've heard espoused plenty of times is that the two-state solution is favoured, but pressure from fundamentalists in the US is stopping it from happening. Is that right? I dunno, I'm no expert and I have no idea where to even begin without giving up a decade-long career and restarting from scratch studying the conflict. ^bomination 15:18, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Check out some of the links at the bottom of the list I posted above, for starters. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 15:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

In the middle of that. ^sshole 15:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Currently, the take home message is "You know how complicated you think it is? Well, raise it by a couple of powers." ^bomination 15:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Bad Monkey

http://www.heartmath.com/

Bad, bad, monkey. ħuman 06:10, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

They publish their "rigorous scientific research" in quite interesting "journals". [4] --Tweenk (talk) 00:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Rex Curry

Anybody come across this loony before?

Anybody whose internet page title reads "Edward Bellamy, Francis Bellamy, the Pledge of Allegiance, the website that archives the discoveries of Dr. Rex Curry. News about court litigation and court cases, including swastika symbolism, American socialist influence upon Adolf Hitler, Nazism and the Ku Klux Klan" has to be the kind of nut we're interested in.

Haven't worked my way through it yet, but it seems as if the writers of the Pledge of Allegiance were socialists, therefore NAZIS!!!!!!! --PsyGremlin^Praat! 13:29, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

A couple of thoughts occur to me. One, America really does have a better class of loony than the UK. We've really only got David Icke at this kind of level. Two, just how much time to you spend surfing the murky pools of the Internet to find this kind of stuff, Psy? Great find though. rpeh •T•C•E• 14:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Rex Curry was one of the Wikipedia loon file regulars for a while - David Gerard (talk) 14:48, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

The history of the pledge is quite interesting (even before the Under God bit), and I love responding to Facebook fascists who pimp the pledge with challenges of "Do you know who Francis Bellamy was, why he wrote the pledge, and how it was originally practiced?" Then have 'em Google "Bellamy salute" and watch their worldviews shrivel up and die. --Seth Peck (talk) 18:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

200 years of Pride and Prejudice

It was published on 28 January 1813. I've reached Chapter 16. For the few other people who haven't read it, here's a handy link to the book in different e-formats: [5].--ZooGuard (talk) 16:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear goats, no. That was forced on us in school. Give me Willy Wobbledagger any day of the week.-- ^{Jabba de Chops} 18:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

200 years of pride and prejudice? I thought Conservapedia only launched in 2007. I'm here all week. try the veal Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 18:41, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

NEEDS MOAR TANK Sophie^Wilder 19:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

More proof that the anti abortionists hate women

http://enwp.org/Domestic_violence_and_pregnancy#Birth_control_sabotage

ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 04:13, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Get Vincent Musil Lied playing!

http://a.sturmkrieg.de/7jz0r

ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 05:45, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• rolls eyes*

Because people who are against abortion MUST hate women...

It doesn't matter that they claim that they are protecting the life of the unborn foetus

It doesn't matter that this claim is backed up by their religious texts and hundreds of years of Church doctrine

It doesn't matter that a large proportion of the anti-abortion movement is made up of women

The fact that they want to restrict one aspect of women's health means that they must be part of some grand conspiracy to oppress women.

Yes there are some men who sabotage their wive's/girlfriend's birth control in order to put them in a position where they can be controlled. These people do disrespect women, and I would speculate would view them as inferior.

However this certainly does not mean that a completely separate group who wish to outlaw abortion because they believe it ends the life of a foetus, an act who goes against their religious beliefs, hate women. 139.168.117.18 (talk) 14:07, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Hate is not the correct word. If there is hate, it is part of the larger complex of internalized misogyny that is at the heart of religious opposition to contraception and abortion. Nominally, the opposition is theological. However, in the broader context of historical and modern sexism, most of the anti-abortionists are fundamentally against women (qua people equipped with wombs) having control of their bodies - which, if you look at the actual religion (in the "Give Me That Old Time Religion" sense) involved, is part of a larger scheme to place women under the control of the literal and figurative patriarchs. I wouldn't call this hatred. More... dehumanization. Blue (is useful) 14:34, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

"It doesn't matter that a large proportion of the anti-abortion movement is made up of women"

What that means is that they've indoctrinated women into oppressing women. There were hundreds of thousands of Jewish Nazis, in addition to the continued existence of Russian Nazis. That does not mean that the Nazis did not attempt to exterminate Jews or Slavs. If you support ending abortion even when there is birth control sabotage, than you are supporting the subjugation of women in those situations. It is really not that difficult to brainwash women into being sexist. It's the reason why it has existed for so long.

"It doesn't matter that this claim is backed up by their religious texts and hundreds of years of Church doctrine"

That does not impress anyone here. We are all aware that religion is nonsense, and any claims from it are equally nonsense. The Emperor says we need to burn witches, that is and important Church doctrine that has been in effect for thousands of years. The C'tan Void Dragon on Mars wants us to continually improve technology until we become one with the Machine God. That is how I see using made up beliefs to justify oppressing women.

People like you are the reason why I want to have an abortion for the lulz.

ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 15:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

"It doesn't matter that a large proportion of the anti-abortion movement is made up of women" A large proportion of the anti-suffrage movement was made up of women, therefore, denying women the vote was not sexist. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Abortion and suffrage are two completely different topics. People opposed to women voting did so because they viewed women as inferior and unable to make an informed political decision. People opposed to abortion for the most part do so because they believe the rights of the foetus (to life) outweigh the rights of a woman to have an abortion. It's not that they hate women or that they view them as inferior, it's that in their eyes the act of performing an abortion is akin to murdering a baby.

Trying to equate anti-abortionists to misogynists only serves to make a mockery of rational debate. It doesn't attempt to recognise the opposing view in the slightest, it only serves to try to demonise them in the eyes of anyone reading the debate in order to win support based on emotions rather than logic. Funnily enough, this is a very similar tactic the Nazi party used. 139.168.117.18 (talk) 00:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you fucking kidding me, BON? are you really saying that it is about a BABY when a man INTENTIONALLY pokes a hole in a condom, INTENTIONALLY fakes birth control pills (which is what the wiki link is about) or REFUSES to treat a woman who has be RAPED because he, yes HE, YES FUCKING "HE" not SHE thinks that somehow they will have to actually TELL SOMEONE her options about abortion. FUCK YOU, you trite ass male (yes, i know you're male) jackass fucker who thinks that I should have had my rapist's baby because "it's a life" and "religion has a long history of what the fuck ever". YES, IT IS TOTALLY AND 100% ABOUT HATING WOMEN. (waves at the rest of you. sorry, know it's a troll. he's a jackass, and I couldn't resist). Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 00:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

EC. Lookitthat, Godwin's Law. There's no reason why both ideas cannot be at play in anti-choice discourse; it's pretty easy to see how people who are opposed to a woman's right to choose whether or not to have an abortion do so not only because they have a concern for the fetus, but also because they do not believe that women should have sovereignty over their own bodies, or that reproductive capacity trumps very other aspect of women's existence. I've seen enough expressions of both ideas living side-by-each that it's hard for me not to think that the anti-choice movement, or at least important parts of it, are largely uninterested in women's welfare. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 00:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I can see and understand the anti-abortion standpoint. It's based on a couple of false premises, and it also is quite fascist and anti-freedom. It's definitely incorporates the idea that each individual is a slave to society. Of course, people who adopt these values don't adopt these values elsewhere, such as welfare, universal heath care, etc., and thus they are fucking hypocrites... Still, I see the semblance of a rational position in there, somewhere. They're just wrong, and evil. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 01:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

TOP - when dealing with rape, the game changes. Ask anyone who's looked in teh eyes of someone who is truly pregnant from and act they did not participate in, or an act of fraud (liek teh wiki article talks about), will tell you it's a different conversation than with some one who "just had sex". I've never met a woman, even a so-called "pro lifer", who would not at least say "here's some resources". It truly is, like being raped twice. I have, however, seen men (very rare, very few, and very much teh 'fuck women' types) find it acceptable to say "so what" in those circumstances. Most men or women, truly understand why rape and incest are just different. Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 01:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you, but I'm not sure why this is addressed to me? Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 01:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

<-- You need to consider the intention behind one's actions and the reasons for one's beliefs.

A true misogynist views women as inferior and believes that they do not deserve the same rights as men.

A majority of the anti-abortion community (of which I am not a part, but have been exposed to extensively) hold their views not because the believe women are inferior, but because they believe that the foetus has the right to life. Obviously this means that some rights of the woman are going to be restricted (as you put it, having "sovereignty over their own bodies"). However, this is not because the anti-abortion movement does not care about women, rather that the implications of abortion (in their eyes committing murder) has far worse implications than a woman being forced to carry their baby to term. This is no less valid a position than the opposing view (that the rights of the woman to choice in reproduction outweigh the rights of the foetus to life).

Yes, this view may seem misogynist on the surface. However when you look at the reasons behind it, it becomes less about whether women are inferior, and more about balancing the rights of what they recognise as two distinct individuals.

That's not to say that their views are correct, and a rational debate can take place as to when human life is recognised (at conception, at implantation, at the end of the first trimester, when neural patterns can be identified, at birth etc). However the OP is claiming that the anti-abortion movement exists not because people care for the rights of the foetus, but because they are misogynist and want to outlaw abortion for the purpose of oppressing women. This position is completely ludicrous. The problem is that automatically labeling an anti-abortionist as a "misogynist" and "evil" completely denies any recognition of their beliefs, and it is only through understanding an opposing point of view that we can truly appreciate the complexity of an issue such as abortion. 139.168.117.18 (talk) 01:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the OP is making a shitty argument. I see where you're coming from -- there are people who truly believe that the right to life of the fetus trumps everything else, and their intentions in that regard are pretty noble. I don't agree with them, but I can respect their position. The problem is that the anti-choice movement as a whole has gotten in bed with a lot of folks who are demonstrably anti-woman: the Catholic hierarchy, Phyllis "Marital Rape" Schlafly, etc, that it's hard to separate out the various tendencies. On top of that, by making political allegiances with people who are willing to do anything to make sure a baby is born but then absolve any sense of social responsibility for that baby and her mother once she pops out of the uterus, it's pretty hard to take the "pro-life" idea at face value, and easy to see them as understanding women as breeding machines. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 01:27, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

So we can, then, categorically write off every pinko who made common cause with the Stalinists in the Red Scare days? ListenerX^TalkerX 01:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that the relationship between most anti-abortionists and most anti-feminists is more correlative than ToP and Blue give credit for. I think most anti-abortionists simply view fetus as a human being and consider that whatever rights a women has, they are less than the right to kill a human being. I wouldn't describe that as misogyny personally. I don't deny, obviously, that some anti-abortionists are anti-women; but I do deny that usually their anti-abortion position comes from this attitude. --Damo^Hi 02:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Like most things around here, the issue is less about what "is", than what terms we ourselves are using. by definition, to me it is misogynist to think a child has more rights to her body than she has. Under any circumstance. It is grounded in the idea that procreation matters more than women; and historically it comes from a belief that women exist to make a man's offspring and heirs. When you say "it's not hatred for women, but love for the fetus", i find that to be a bit apologetic to the dismissal and dehumanization of women. if you dismiss and dehumanize them, how is that not "hatred" in the sense of misogyny. Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 02:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

And if the fetus happens to be female, what then? ListenerX^TalkerX 02:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

@WfG, I am in the unfortunate position of trying to justify a position that I don't personally agree with, mainly as I don't accept the premise that a fetus is a human. However, like I say, I simply don't define the attitude that 'a human being has more of a right to live than a woman has to choose whether to give birth' as being an anti-women attitude. It is just an attitude that the sanctity of human life is more important than any other consideration. Of course many anti-abortionists don't follow through with this respect for the sanctity of life to people beyond the womb as much as I think they should, but that is another subject. Damo^Hi 02:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't doubt that there are sincere "pro-lifers," but the anti-abortionist political machinery and interest groups are not concerned with actually reducing abortions. They spread misinformation about abortion (e.g., falsely linking abortion to breast cancer, lying about fetal pain, etc.) and oppose measures that would reduce abortion rates as an article I recently posted makes clear. The motives behind the bulk of the movement appear to be more about misogyny and Puritanical sexual mores (note that anti-abortionists usually also oppose birth control and support abstinence-only sex ed) than about saving souls.

"Trying to equate anti-abortionists to misogynists only serves to make a mockery of rational debate." BON, it's the anti-abortionists who have made a mockery of rational debate by peddling falsehoods about abortion. Show me an anti-abortionist who considers as bunk the propaganda I mentioned above and does not base their case on lies and I will gladly accept them as intellectually honest. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Dano - i get that. even teh BON apparently claims to be pro choice. But my point is that feminists would *define* misogyny in such a way that saying a child is worth more than a born living adult female is "hating women". Controlling women's right to their body is "hating women". Here's the thing, if a man were forced to give blood, give a lobe of his liver, or give his heart to a child on demand, I suspect he'd say that only he has such a right to make that choice. And society would accept that, cause it's not his "job" to die for a child. women's jobs are their children. and again, from a matter of perspective, that is the core of what is instutionalized misogyny. Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 03:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

(EC) There is a difference between pointing out misogyny/sexism where it exists in the pro-life movement, and equating the pro-life position itself to misogyny.

As to the point that "Libby Anne" raises in her blog post, a while ago, I read a letter that Gary North, the Dominionist kook, sent to Paul Jennings Hill, the nearly-Dominionist kook who shot an abortion doctor. North argued that the aim of the pro-life movement should be to make abortion illegal, not to stop individual abortions; the reason for this, he said, was that legalizing abortion would cause God to punish the nation in general, while for an individual abortion he would limit himself to putting the abortion doctor on the barbecue. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

@ 139.168.117.18 – The antiwomanists often claim that they are not sexist and are against abortion not out of sexism, but in order to protect the fetus that they think is a person. This is just a facade; the underlying cause is sexism, even if the antiwomanists are not aware of it and genuinely believe to themselves that they are not sexist. The prevalence of women in who have been indoctrinated into fighting against the rights of women (anti abortion women) means nothing. As has been demonstrated, women have opposed the right of women to vote or be educated because they were indoctrinated by their society that those rights were not for women. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 04:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

You must be quite the clairvoyant to have worked that out. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

No, I've read this in books on the subject. It is not at all uncommon for women to support sexism because they've internalized it. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 05:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Certainly, but I was referring to your insight into what is going through every single pro-lifer's mind. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:22, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

That I can't be sure of, but I can make a reasonable guess. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 08:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

It's certainly not a reasonable guess that you've made, especially in the face of overwhelming evidence that anti-abortionists are motivated by a desire to protect what they see as a human life rather than a conspiracy to oppress women.

Just because someone believes that a SINGLE right of women should not be respected doesn't mean they are misogynists. It certainly does mean that their actions MUST be motivated by some underlying conspiracy.

To give another perspective, I oppose routine screening for prostate cancer. This is because the lethality of the disease is low, and screening methods have relatively low sensitivity. Some people with flawed logic would say that this is because I hate men. If we were to use your logic, we would say that I was trying to systematically oppress men.

As has been accurately pointed out here, there are certainly members of the anti-abortion movement who are misogynists. However there is no evidence that the majority of the movement are, nor is there any evidence that the misogyny of the individuals in question is the reason for their opposition to abortion. It is entirely possible that they oppose it for the reasons discussed above.

Unless you can bring some evidence into this debate, then stating that anti-abortionists hate women is very weak conjecture. Your argument at the moment certainly reminds me of a few regulars over at Conservapedia... 139.168.117.18 (talk) 12:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

"anti-abortionists are motivated by a desire to protect what they see as a human life rather than a conspiracy to oppress women"

I will restate: that is a facade. That is the reason that antiwomanists tell themselves and to other people. In many cases they genuinely believe that this is their reason, and that they are not misogynistic. The underlying cause is sexism. This is its current form, where antiwomanists have justified and rationalized a plan that is misogynistic. You are the only one mentioning conspiracies. I am not the one thinking that there is some sort of conspiracy. This "non misogynistic" antiwomanist view is no different than new views of Jews that are antisemetic. For years, Jews were believed to collect and horde money to destroy other nations. Now the stereotype is that they are good with money and are able to make profits effectively. While the second view is positive, that does not change the fact that it is antisemetic. Another reason why opposing abortion is misogynistic: in the face of birth control sabotage, anyone who thinks that women should be forced to have a child in such a situation clearly believes that women are subordinate to men and are objects for them, as they are clearly being controlled to have a child for the purposes of the man.

"Your argument at the moment certainly reminds me of a few regulars over at Conservapedia."

Where are people at Conservapedia advocating for a prowoman point of view? This isn't the only argument I have; I have others, some of them made already. For example, the ridiculousness of declaring sth that becomes a person to be a person. "Acorns are oak trees. This is what antiwomanists actually believe." A pinecone is not a pine tree, it's not rocket science. As to when life begins, life began billions of years ago and has been a continuous process. There is no point at which life is suddenly created. All new organisms are created from living material within living things; there is no clear point to declare that a new life has been created. Any such point is arbitrarily set. And is there really any such thing as life? What exactly is life? It's just a process of molecules that happen in an extremely complex way. What exactly separates living from non living material? At what level do living things stop being living? Are the subatomic particles that make them living things? Life is an arbitrary human creation. We can certainly make definitions for when sth is alive, but those are our definitions; they do not make the "living" different from the "non living" on a physical-scientific level. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 17:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you know what would make it look like you know what you're talking about? Providing a modicum of evidence for your argument. Without it, this is nothing more than a giant rant that you are apparently pulling out of your ass. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 17:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I meant that your style of argument (making a bullshit claim, not providing any evidence to back it up, continuing to assert that it is correct and spewing a whole lot of irrelevant information whenever anyone calls you out on it) is very similar to the "debating" style of Conservative, Andy et al at Conservapedia. If you reversed your views, it would be impossible to distinguish between them and you.

I'm honestly starting to think that you're trolling, I don't know how many people would persist in trying to defend such an extreme position without any sources.

Saying that people are opposed to abortion because they are part of a conspiracy to oppress women's rights is no different to saying that 9/11 was a false flag operation to gain control over the world's oil, or that Sandy Hook was organised by Obama to implement gun control and allow a government takeover, or that the entire world is controlled by the Illuminati.

There is very strong evidence that people are opposed to abortion because they believe that the foetus has the same rights as a human being, and that any form of abortion is murder. They feel that aborting an unwanted pregnancy is the same as killing an unwanted baby. You have not provided any sources to suggest this is inaccurate.

Ironically the most sexist person on this forum is yourself. By claiming that everyone who opposes abortion (a single right) must be anti-woman (insinuating they are against women's rights in general), YOU are reducing women to being nothing more than walking reproductive organs. 139.168.117.18 (talk) 01:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I did go fairly far outside the box toward the end of my last comment. Just trying to throw out a point/give sth to think about, rather than an absolute. The reason I haven't made a lot of better, more conventional arguments is b/c they've already been mentioned by other people, and I don't want to be repeating what has already been mentioned. On the issue of evidence, I don't keep a stack of every single book, documentary, or webpage that I've read, watched, or visited, next to my desk. If I'm reading a historical book, I usually highlight anything that might be useful for sth I predict I will be writing about, but getting it back still requires a fair amount of work. When I write articles, I make sure I provide verifiable sources for information, but for forum style discussions, I don't generally put in that much work. I can remember one title, Creating Capabilities I think it was, that had a section about how women can easily be indoctrinated by society into promoting sexism. It was an audiobook, so I don't have a page number, but it was near the beginning. I also can't follow at all the theory that I'm somehow sexist for supporting the rights of women. While being opposed to a single right does not equal being opposed to all rights, it is still sexism. Opposing the right of Blacks or women to vote is still racist or sexist, regardless of whether you support them having all other rights. It certainly does not reduce them to being nothing more than voters. Wow, I've never seen such a horrible argument, ever. Under your thinking, it isn't racist to say that Blacks should not be allowed to vote as long as you support their other rights, and anyone who says it's racist to stop them from voting is racist because it reduces Blacks to only voters. WTF. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 05:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

What User bunchanumbers said. Devices such as anti-woman or war on women is sexist and patronizing language reducing women to pitiful and helpless creatures. nobs^{Say hello to my leetle friend} 06:10, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

That is a good point. It's why a lot of Feminism is insulting toward women because it acts like they are dumb and they are puppets of the eternal patriarch. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 15:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Really? Any examples of this? Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Read stuff written by feminists. Not all of them think that way, but there are many who do. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 00:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Name some. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 00:48, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Wait wait wait - feminism is *insulting* to women? God we need an article on mansplaining. Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 01:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good, just wait till I've sent you a pile of helpful tips on stuff you should put in it! - David Gerard (talk) 11:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

On the article cited above

@Nebu. That is an interesting article and I thank you for bringing it to my attention. I was aware of most of those points, but that is a very clear statement on why someone who is pro-life should nonetheless argue for positions that are more commonly associated with pro-choice. Nonetheless I still don't think it means that most, or even many, people who are anti-abortion are misogynysts. I say this for two reasons.

Firstly, this is a well researched and articulated piece containing detailed information about the subject, most people do not have the same level of knowledge and rationalisation when considering the subject. They really don't know that making abortion illegal often has no affect on the levels, nor are they smart enough to realise that many of the economic and social policies that some of them favour will tend to increase the abortion rate. Most people just see it as a simple issue - foetus is human, killing a human is murder, therefore abortion is murder; ergo it should be illegal. If I accepted the first 2 premises I imagine I would accept the conclusion also.

Secondly, and perhaps more fundamentally, the article is an argument that those who are pro-life should adopt certain strategies to help reduce abortions. It doesn't go to the core issue of whether one should be pro-choice or pro-life, not really - its all about tactics. For example, she says that a pro-life person should support the availability of the pill because it will reduce the total amount of aborted foetus's. Well, maybe, but that doesn't really go to the issue of whether one should be in favour of legal abortions or not. I know that she is writing from a US perspective, where the issue of availability of oral contraception and abortion appear to be linked due to the odd healthcare system you have, but fundamentally they are separate issues. In fact, most, if not all, pro-life people that I have associated with are in favour of freely available contraception (with the exception of the morning after pill). One can certainly be pro-life and enthusiastically in favour of contraception.

In short, although I thank you for linking that interesting article, I don't think it speaks to the fundamental issue that we are discussing.--Damo^Hi 08:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

In which we take a little linguistic side-trip

...feminists would *define* misogyny in such a way... And why should the rest of us use their definition, as opposed to the original and correct meaning? ListenerX^TalkerX 04:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Because, there is no "original and correct" meaning. You must have learned that in your philosophy 101 class. Meaning is set - always - by the participants in a conversation. Often, as the crew here constantly reminds everyone, the two participants do not even know what the other person means, much less has the same meaning to a word. The meaning as used by feminists is a very real, very "original and correct" meaning. Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 04:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Because, there is no "original and correct" meaning. Yes, there is. The word existed well before there was a feminist movement, let alone before that movement ascribed that particular meaning to it. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

You're really going to hold to that? Seriously? That a word "had a meaning once, before other people used it". Wow, LX, that's sad. Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 04:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Everyone knows Webster's 1913 is the only real dictionary. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:27, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

And "negro" is a perfectly innocent and acceptable word to describe black folk. Nihilist 04:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

It still has the same definition as it did in the old days, though. ListenerX^TalkerX 04:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘By the way, just cause i'm in a bratty mood, the term has *always* been associated with feminism. It comes into use in the mid 1600's and only AFTER women are beginning to push back against how they are treated in the home and in public life. It was then, and continues to be, about the social norms and how we view women, as much or more than a statement about any one man waking up, looking at his mother and saying "god damn it i find i have a deep loathing abject hatred for you, mother, and you sister, and all women. i just hate them! Want to kill every one of them. muwahahahahah". Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 04:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

This is so gay! Really. It makes me happy. That's the only valid meaning of the word, right?, Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 04:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

(EC) All right, let us assume that people can automatically change word definitions of two-thousand-plus years' standing just by pulling a new meaning from where the sun don't shine. If someone were to re-define "misogyny" as meaning "support for abortion rights," and based on that definition assert that all feminists were misogynists, how would you respond? ListenerX^TalkerX 04:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

If you got a significant amount of people to use that definition, then… it would be a supported definition. I don't accept it, personally. Nihilist 04:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

You are a very silly debater, LX. Where in heaven's name do you get the idea that this word has *thousands* of years standing definition. It's got a 400 year definition, first used in 1650s. Unless you are claiming that "telephone" is a 2000 year old word, also. Secondly, no one says "misogyny" is "supporting abortion" for heaven's sake. Its saying that if a society says "your life is NECESSARILY, and in ALL CASES less than the life, or even equal to the life of the child that you carry, that is saying "you as a woman are worth LESS than someone else". and that, necessarily is misogynist, because it by definition, diminishes a woman's role, even in her own life, as that of a walking womb. She does not have the right to say "my life first". She is less than. That is institutionalized misogyny. But good on you for proving that just because a word has Greek or Latin roots, it's been "in use" for 2000 years. rolls eyes. Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 05:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

"Misogyny" does not just have Greek roots; it is a Greek loanword, and was being used as far back as the classical period with the same meaning as currently appears in dictionaries.

Secondly, no one says "misogyny" is "supporting abortion" for heaven's sake. Oh, dear; you took my attempt at a reductio ad absurdum seriously. Some people actually do use the word "misogyny" with regard to the sex-selective abortions in India, I believe; but the fact that very few people use a word in a certain sense is actually irrelevant if, as you are implying, someone can change the established meaning of a word by fiat. ListenerX^TalkerX 06:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

EXPELLIARMIS!! Nope, nothing happened. Stop treating words like magic spells that mean something by over-reifying them. This is fucking basic stuff. You have not proven anything by running to etymology to try and fight over arbitrary combinations of vowels and consonants. ^{d hominem} 09:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

ListernerX: the meaning of words change. They change over time. They change from region to region. They change from person to person. The best we can do is say "this is how I'm using a word, especially a big ol' philosophical word charged with meaning, emotion, and speficity in the argument I'm making - then move on.

So, instead of "misogyny", I'm going to use the word "trogla". Now "trogle", used here, means "society's general attidue that women are second class citizens, who have a limited role in society, largerly to reproduce, and who are not valued highly by society" instead of misogyny. "Being against abortion has far more to do with trogle than most or even all people who are "pro life" would ever admit, because it is that underling societal trogle that allows them to see women as disposable and having no voice in how their bodies are used. Further, any time a pregnant woman is told - especially when the choice to be pregnant was not evne hers - that being pregnant matters more than NOT being pregnant, it reinforces this institutionalized trogle that effects every women in that society from the day they are born." -- words don't matter, ideas do. The fact is, even those who claim to love the child, and claim it's a "moral belief that all life is scared" can HOLD that belief because they are willing to be seriously dismissive of the born woman before them. That takes more than just a "moral view" of the child, but a view of women that is, at its core, misogynist.Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 16:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

This again? Misogyny means hatred, contempt or disdain for women. That's what it's always meant. But what we consider misogynistic now (e.g. as WfG says above, a "general attitude that women are second class citizens, who have a limited role in society, largely to reproduce, and who are not valued highly by society") would once have been considered the norm. It's more of a change in values than a change in meaning. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

There's the original literal meaning that words have, and then there's the actual meaning. Words change over time. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 22:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I.e., the difference between denotation and connotation. Nihilist 22:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

It's more of a change in values than a change in meaning. I disagree. The common definition has a factual grounding, as it refers to a flesh-and-blood person who hates/contemns women. The new definition has that role filled by an ideal construct called "society;" never mind the problem that ascribing "hatred" or "contempt" to an ideal construct is almost bullshit by definition, defining "society" is like trying to nail Jell-O to the wall.

ListernerX: the meaning of words change. They change over time. They change from region to region. They change from person to person. True. However, communication is badly hampered if people communicate in what is claimed to be the same language but do not use the same lexicon (this has, i.a., caused many misconceptions about feminism among the general public).

...then move on. I was actually trying to discuss the meanings of the word "misogyny," rather than the abortion question.

..."moral belief that all life is scared"... ListenerX^TalkerX 08:29, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Meanings do change over time. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 05:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)