RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive190

This is an archive page, last updated 6 May 2022. 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>, <189>, <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)

RWF Trustee election winners

Can be found at: RationalWiki:2013 board of trustees election/Results. Tmtoulouse (talk) 02:49, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

As I said: no worse punishment than granting someone's wish. MUWAHAHA - David Gerard (talk) 11:53, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I voted for you, David Gerard--"Shut up, Brx." 13:01, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Shit. Forgot to vote. DickTurpis (talk) 01:32, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Blue is the only incoming freshman? the rest have some experience, isn't that correct? nobs^{Say hello to my leetle friend} 01:45, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Sterile is also new to the board. Peter ^{Droid whisperer} 01:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

And David Gerard didn't run, Brx... Blue (is useful) 12:07, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I could swear I voted for him. Must have been for moderator--"Shut up, Brx." 12:09, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Hah. I was looking at 2012 results... went to the wrong page. d'oh! :p Refugee^{talk page} 02:59, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Gay marriage and churches

When gay marriage is legalized, should it be left to the churches to decide whether they will marry gay couples? I think in a liberal sense, that is the best as it allows a private organization to make decisions regarding itself on its own. However, if they decide not to, it could violate rights of gays within the church who would want to have a religious marriage, as opposed one that is strictly political. It could also be seen as a compromise, that gays can legally be married, but that churches would still be able to define their own position on whether they support it. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 01:20, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

So, bascially, you are just a troll? When has the government EVER interfeered in who a church does or does not marry, or how they go about it, or if they (the church, not the state) recognize divorce, polygamy (again - so long as it's not legalized), or the marrage of humans to animals in 32 states. Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 01:23, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

For the reason of separation of Church and state, and because of individual freedom from government regulation, I don't think that the government should require churches to marry gays. That does create a problem for gays who are members of the church who want to be married; they can get it legally, but not from their church. One can make the argument that gays should not be members of a church that is anti gay, but that church would represent the religious beliefs of those gay people, and so they wouldn't be able to just find another church, unless its religious beliefs were the same as their own. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 01:34, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Dude, they NEVER HAVE required ANYTHING of a church. where would you get the idea they would require a church to perform gay weddings. They don't require churches to perform weddings on divorced people, or people of different faiths, or people of different colors.Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 01:53, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

It's very simple: do what many countries (I think Germany's the best example) do, require all marriages to be civil. Church weddings are just ceremonial. nobs^{Say hello to my leetle friend} 01:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

^^^^ :) ħuman 06:20, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. but no, not here. here Churchs are the only way. In some states, you can't marry someone unless it's done by a pastor. even if you are an atheist. stupid. stupid. stupid.Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 01:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

^^^^ illiterate and wrong. ħuman 06:20, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Sweet Fucking Holy Jesus Christ. Somebody must've hacked into Robert's account. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 01:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't be an ass. RobS is far more interesting than the knee jerkers who hate him. ħuman 06:20, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Rob is very intersting, in the way that multicar pileups or the eastern DRC is interesting. That doesn't make him smart or relevant, though. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 15:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

It would be better if marriage was deinstitutionalized and it was all just ceremonial, with benefits being provided on other basises. ^{(talk to a)} Nihilist 03:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that the government should force churches to marry gays (this could mean though that Fred Phelps could have to marry gays). I was pointing out that it could be a problem for gay people in churches that are mildly homophobic. Regardless of whether religious marriages are legal or not, gay people who believe it God would want to have a marriage in the church they belong to because they would believe that God would recognize a marriage by a church over one by the government. Even if legally all church weddings are cerimonial, everyone who believes in God would believe that they would be real to God while the legal wedding process would only be a process of the government. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 04:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, but you really aren't very good at expressing yourself. "Gay people in mildly homophobic churches" are not gonna get married in the "their" church, obviously. But they should be able to obtain a legal civil marriage contract. This ain't rocket science. ħuman 06:20, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

By mildly homophobic I was referring to churches that as an official doctrine say that homosexuality is a sin while not feeling the need to banish gays, and which have members that are not generally homophobic. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 03:42, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Adultry generally won't get you thrown out of a church; even murder. This is in keeping with Galatioans 6:1. The only thing that might get you thrown out is failure to give money over a long time. Is there a point to any of this? Burnum (talk) 17:15, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Texas education documentary: The Revisionaries

For those who get PBS, the US Public Broadcasting Service. In my cable lineup, it's on at ten tonight. PZ Myers is annoyed that such shows tend to get disappeared in his corner of Minnesota. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 16:20, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Very cool, thanks for posting this. --TheLateGatsby (talk) 22:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, great show. Any way to link to this in its entirely on the web in an article or two? ħuman 03:56, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

To tide you over in the meantime, OnKneesForJesus put that trailer into a compilation he released today of some tripe from the board. Have antidepressants at the ready. Polite Timesplitter ^{come shout at me for being thick} 14:26, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Some fuckwit who doesn't deserve us having this conversation about him

Bob Sorensen has contacted us repeatedly about his "defamatory" page even recruiting the aid of some sort of "online anti-harassment" organization. The article could use some work and clean up though, anyone want to take up the cause? Tmtoulouse (talk) 23:26, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll start on it. The article mentions he's a "TAG fan" — what's TAG? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 23:29, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

In the context of christian apologists, Transcendental Argument for God. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 23:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Are there any specific claims he has a beef with? Or is it just the tone? Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 23:34, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

He should learn to man up, unless he can prove actionable defamation. We shouldn't white wash just because someone calls the Wambulance. --108.180.91.182 (talk) 23:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Its not so much about white washing as using the complaint as an opportunity to improve content. Tmtoulouse (talk) 23:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Ugh, his blog is a giant archive of terrible nonsense. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 00:04, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Nothing specific, there rarely is I have encouraged him to read our RationalWiki:Guide for individuals or companies we cover. Tmtoulouse (talk) 23:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Media major here. He can't sue for defamation (libel) unless he can:

• prove that he has lost income as a direct outcome of RW's statements about him.

• prove that it has damaged his reputation. Not 'could' damage it. Seeing it online and feeling sad someone said things about him isn't enough; he has to be able to prove that knowledge of RW's page in others has changed their opinion about him. Without showing the page to them himself, obviously.

• say he's acting in a timely manner, if it has been up for a long time and he's done nothing about it or hasn't noticed it, well tough luck for him.

• prove the statement was false. As far as I know, we don't publish outright lies on RW about anyone, not even fundies.

He is not a public person, so he technically has a shot at winning a libel suit in the first place... but I don't think he fits ANY of these criteria. He can't sue RW on the basis of saying mean things about him on the internet; the most he can do is to round up a troll mob and try and digi-lynch us with spam or some kind of attack on the site... which is illegal. So yeah, clean up the article on the grounds that the article should be clean. But there's no need to cater to this person. He has no wind in his sails. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{sufficiently advanced argument still distinguishable from magic} 00:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Again its not about catering to anyone, but rather taking opportunities to improve an article that is having an impact. Tmtoulouse (talk) 00:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Just continue to list the facts. Kinda difficult to sue if he can't dispute them.. Osaka Sun (talk) 01:04, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I have talked/debated with A Bob Sorensen and various permutations of that name on facebook in the past. I had no idea that he wasn't just some random fundie on the internet. He's not a very nice guy.--P3A58NT86 01:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

As it were, this would be a libel case. The law is different from public officials, public figures, and private citizens. At the very most Bob is a limited public figure, and he would have to prove actual malice- knowledge the information was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. It would have to be shown that the writer knew it was untrue or ignored risk. I would recommend cleaning it a little to be safe, regardless of the circumstances. --P3A58NT86 01:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Seems like a troll to me. ^{(talk to a)} Nihilist 01:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Whats this? A conservative is making empty legal potshots at Rational Wiki? [[1]] ^{— Unsigned, by: Our Generous Benefactors / talk / contribs 2013-01-29T02:59:31}

My first though when reading the article was why we even have it. Unless he has a huge following for combating his misinformation to be on-mission, I don't see why the article is necessary. The article does admit that he has very little following, and most of his followers are just atheists laughing at him. Without necessity, the article feels like some sort of troll attack. That said, if he's making ridiculous libel threats, we should keep it just to avoid looking like we're caving to such threats. Public figure or not, there isn't a snowball's chance in Hell that page is libel. For one thing, it's just repeating his own views; if he thinks those are libel, then he's admitting that he's lying on his blog.

I will add that we might want to consider getting rid of it at some point in the future, unless we can find some way why it's on-mission. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 04:26, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

What do you think the 'mission' is? No cheating, but I'll give you a hint: notability has precious little to do with it. Peter ^{Droid whisperer} 05:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Am i the only one that has the suspicion that Bob may be User:Conservative? ^{(talk to a)} Nihilist 04:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Ken is not that literate. Believe it or not, there are others beside him that share such views. Peter ^{Droid whisperer} 05:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I refuse to believe that somebody other than User:Conservative would be as enthusiastic about & in-agreement-with the Question: Evolution! 'project'. I mean, we know that he's made multiple accounts and socks before, so one or two more wouldn't be too implausible. ^{(talk to a)} Nihilist 05:28, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Whether it is the international person/people of mystery or not, he has a Conservapedia account. Damo^Hi 05:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I know the mission includes science and debunking pseudoscience and other nonsense, so documenting examples of such nonsense can certainly be on-mission, but we should probably have some sort of threshold for which idiots we document. If we try to document every idiot on the internet who runs a blog preaching insanity, we'll run out of disk space. I think the article is funny to laugh at because of this guy's lunacy, (when I think you're crazy, you seriously need to reevaluate) but it doesn't seem like something we need since it even admits that he doesn't have many serious followers. It's up to the community and I don't have a strong position either way. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 06:26, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

We've already documented him, so what's the point in deleting it? ^{(talk to a)} Nihilist 06:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

It may have been a borderline case, but now that he is claiming defamation/threatening lawsuits it is a definite keep. Damo^Hi 06:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Just because an article gets written doesn't mean it has to stay. I do agree though, once he started threatening libel suits, it's not something that we want to get rid of. Maybe he'll make pointless vandalism we can document.ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 06:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

"Eco-pragmatists" on The Colbert Report

The head of the Breakthrough Institute is tonight's guest. Bjørn Lomborg's managed to spread his ideas to the US, it seems. Osaka Sun (talk) 04:22, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Breakthrough Institute is not really similar to Lømborg. The position of mainstream environmentalism is that climate change should be solved mainly through demand-side interventions, such as energy efficiency and carbon taxes. BI says that it should be solved mainly by supply-side interventions, which means technological innovation making clean energy cheaper than fossil fuels. Both of these positions are defensible. IIRC, Lømborg argues that climate change doesn't have to be addressed at all, because it's not a big problem - which is obviously false. I think that the truth lies somewhere in between, and the most effective combination of demand-side and supply-side measures should be used.

BI apparently bases their opposition to the carbon tax on something akin to game theory. The countries that do not adopt a carbon tax are at a competitive advantage to the countries that do. In the long run, production shifts to countries which don't have a carbon tax, defeating its purpose. --Tweenk (talk) 05:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

More detail: from my limited research it looks like BI draws angry attacks from the left, because they don't want a carbon price and therefore superficially appear to be allied with the deniers and right-wingers. But what the BI actually wants is the direct funding of clean energy facilities by the government. In other parts of their website, they appear to emphasize that emissions trading is ineffective and that specific technological changes are more successful. In other words, they argue that you can't just set a carbon price and then sit back and let the market sort it out; for maximum effect, you have to actively research and support specific solutions. This policy is as far from right-wing (in the U.S. sense) as it can get. --Tweenk (talk) 06:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't know about BI, but Lomborg has taken a different tack recently, advocating geo-engineering quick fixes. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 15:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Reading stuff to debunk it, waste of time?

I've been dithering in the library at university a few times a week so I have a quiet place to write, and one of the better spots just so happens to be next to a couple shelves on religion, particularly state/church interaction. I've been having a peep and a flip through, and there's obviously a lot on Ireland here (albeit a lot of it is rather old, there's only a handful of recent volumes discussing things such as the RCC's monopoly on education) a few books have caught my eye, including the Oxford Handbook of Politics and Religion in America (which requires two hands to hold), a book on The Third Reich persecuting the Churches, another on the same topic but focusing on the Catholic Church (this is a very dense one, presumably to hold all the mental backflips it requires), a book on the rise of the Religious Right in the GOP, including a lengthy section on Puerile Patty's bid for the presidency (which is only given a mention in the categories section of his article) and...an eyebrow-raising title called Under God which "Explains how religion has been a progressive force in U.S politics" and asserts that "Church and state will never be separate". Thinking of taking out a loan on it when I run out of toilet paper to give it a read and write a page, but is there really that much use for another book article? Most of this tripe is pretty fringe anyway, although it does come under "the full range of crank ideas". Could be fun, but I have a backlog to start as is alongside RL work. Polite Timesplitter ^{come shout at me for being thick} 14:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

You can't criticize something you know nothing about--"Shut up, Brx." 14:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, you could... But that's the habit of people who end up in articles on RW. --TheLateGatsby (talk) 15:56, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Is it a history of stuff like the social gospel movement, or is it just another argument for theocracy? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd say have a look and see if you just find you can't not write about it - David Gerard (talk) 16:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Military helicopter exercises

Military helicopters over Miami, Houston and other places in the US are performing exercises flying over civilian areas and firing blanks. Just a warning since this is the kind of thing conspiracy theorists and gun nuts go into a frenzy over. --CoyoteSans (talk) 21:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

There was some of that in a few New England cities last summer, minus the blank firing, as far as I could tell, but with special ops troops rappelling onto rooftops from the copters, and much rattling of windows. It made a small one-day splash in the news, more of a plop, really. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 21:46, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Depending on the firearm caliber and elevation, you wouldn't even hear the firing, but the sound of a blank is pretty distinct compared to a real round, so if you do hear anything it'll be noticeable. --Token Conservative (talk) 00:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I remember the sound of a Vulcan being fired for effect, and the answering roar of the shells hitting the ground. I also remember how to de-frogatize an M-1 Garand. We thought it was funny in those days, the defrogatization, that is. Apparently there is something similar you can do with the bolt of an '03 Springfield, sneakily enough that when offered for inspection, it does that Rowan Atkinson thing. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 01:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, you clearly played with bigger weapons then they trust near me.--Token Conservative (talk) 01:03, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you kidding? They never let me near the Phantoms, not my job, man. The scariest things I ever played with were those egg-shaped manually-operated fragmentation wotsits. Them'll put your eye out, and clear away both bony and soft tissues down to C2 or C3 and beyond. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 01:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

RW blog proposal

This was floated as an idea before, and I like it. Something to perpetuate the good name of RW.

Here's my proposal:

• Host it offsite, so it's up when the site is down
• New cover articles
• New silver articles
• List of the week's new articles
• Relevant RWF-related concerns
• Some designated operator(s) who care(s), other RWians can write suggested posts which can be accepted or not

Possibly repurpose the current tech blog to the purpose - it doesn't do a whole lot right now, and we didn't even use it the last few occasions it arguably should have been used for planned outages.

The hard part is how to (a) keep it from turning into a clusterfuck, even occasionally (b) without bogging it down in bureaucracy.

Thoughts? - David Gerard (talk) 14:03, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Here. Ask Trent for the password. Go nuts. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 14:08, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually as I said before, I think the problem with be consistency, in terms of coming up with blog posts and quality. Blogging is hard work, and difficult to maintain unless it's your fulltime job. But if the resource are available .... (although the blogspot page isn't really intended for that....). sterile^{sporadic heavy hitter} 14:21, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

No, but it could be repurposed. It barely gets used as it is. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 14:30, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I was thinking in terms of repurposing it.

I'd be happy to do the blogging (I proposed it because I'm reasonably sure I could keep up with it for the foreseeable future - Blogspot lets you queue up posts, too), but others having the keys and posting would be nice. Something good enough people would bother adding it to their RSS should be quite achievable. Stuff that's reasonably on-topic (RW/RWF), that no-one here would consider deeply contentious in an official RW outlet.

Who runs the @rationalwiki Twitter? Posts should be noted there too - David Gerard (talk) 14:34, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I had thought it was Osaka Sun, but maybe I'm wrong about that. sterile^{sporadic heavy hitter} 14:45, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

KnightOfTL;DR has mentioned to me that she'd be willing and able to regularly write for a RationalWiki blog. I'd also be willing to write a post every now and then. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 22:42, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

It's Osaka, unless he gave it to someone else. I'll help if you need other people. Peter ^{Droid whisperer} 22:44, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I will also help, once I'm back from India in a few months.--^talk 23:50, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Pinged Trent, still waiting (I appreciate viva hell is not to be trifled with) - David Gerard (talk) 23:54, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

If you see the history my tweets are getting more intermittent (thanks to university). I don't mind sharing the work with others. Nutty already has access, I'll also send an email to Trent. Osaka Sun (talk) 23:56, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Can you set up automatic tweeting with blogspot? I know you can with wordpress. Peter ^{Droid whisperer} 01:09, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok you got it

I just registered Rationalblogs.org and Rationalblogs.com. I'll donate them to the RWF once the new board gets situated if it's interested.

• In the meantime, here's what. If anyone wants a free Rationalblogs.org blog, email me with your real identity and your RW username so we can talk briefly about your intentions.
• Once the new board gets set up, we can decide whether and how to deal with this - it's squarely in Trent's bailiwick but he may want to punt - I'd rather not have to see David Gerard have to fuss with it unless he wants to - perhaps an interested RW editor can oversee a blogs projects - perhaps we'll have a board member do it, though that's totally unnecessary because hey did you guys know that instead of bitching about and endlessly discussing the board's unforgivable shortcomings, anyone here can actually do real stuff for the RWF? You don't even have to publicly posture by claiming you've got or are close to special expertise yet offer nothing actionable about what you'd do with it. Just come forward to one or all of us and make a concrete proposal in the form of: "Hey I want to _____! What do you think?" Yay!
• I will set up as many Wordpress instances as well-intentioned people come forward for. You may be auditioned if don't already have a great blog like Psy or PeterL (sorry to whoever else I'm leaving out). They can either be on the main domain or an appropriate subdomain. I haven't decided. *I'll also give bloggers a reasonable number of Rationalblogs.org email addresses. This is all subject to being vetoed by the board, but I've got a knife.

Holla, 17:13, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

As much as I'd like to start the new Board term with a kumbayah moment, there's no reason why you should own and operate a website that is clearly affiliated with RationalWiki by yourself without so much as a wink to Trent or the rest of the board. We should be more scrupulous with brand management if don't want RationalX websites popping up that the RWF has no control over.

That being said, this is pretty much exactly the way I envisioned this happening, though another good option would simply have been to create a RW subdomain like "blogs.rationalwiki.org". I do think we need to emphasize integration with RW proper - this isn't a "we want to have a blog, so let's make a blog" project, it's more like "we want to expand the media in which RW is involved, we have great bloggers, so let's make a blog that we can proudly showcase/link to on RW." Blue (is useful) 17:51, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Nutty bought a couple of domains for a purpose that had already been discussed & has a fair amount of support from the community (including from Board members), + told the community about it straight away. I don't see much cloak & dagger here. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:08, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not to do with cloak and dagger, but rather to do with the problem of individuals creating websites ostensibly under the RWF brand and making expenses using their personal finances without official board approval. Would it really have been so hard for him to wait a week or two for the new board to convene? He also says that he will "donate" these domains to the RWF; however, they are registered to him personally, which means that for the next 60 days he will be unable to transfer registration to the RWF. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the creation of the blogs itself, but Nutty Roux cannot continue acting as if he is the Foundation. Blue (is useful) 21:50, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Blue, you're being stupid. Thankfully you can do better. Nutty has got up and done a good thing. People actually getting off their arses is a good thing, and you thinking first in terms of any action being fraught with power grabs is reminiscent of Citizendium. Stop doing that, embrace the chaos, and you'll be fine - David Gerard (talk) 22:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Gah, David, you know I'm not accusing him of making a "power grab". I'm saying he's not playing by the rules. This isn't chaos and you know it. Nutty Roux has, as he explicitly said, full control over this new blog project, a project which is supposedly The Blog Arm Of RationalWiki. If he intends for it to be unaffiliated with RationalWiki, he should have said so, but what we have now is a RationalWiki-branded website that is unapproved by the entity that owns and operates RationalWiki. If this were anyone else with another project he'd be the one saying "cease and desist." Just because this idea (rationalblogs) is a good one doesn't mean we can just fuck right off the diving board and not pay attention to how it's being financed and operated. Blue (pester) 23:08, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh Blue. Not playing by the rules. Really? More misconduct now?

I wouldn't be saying "cease and desist" if the person was the only other person on the board working closely with the Chief Operating Officer to actually accomplish this aspect of the RWF's goals. Know why? Because I'd have known that this was something the Chief Operating Officer and I had been discussing on and off for a looonng time. Not playing by the rules doesn't mean what you think it means, but thanks for this enlightening glimpse into what a year with you on the board might look like.

I don't think or act like I am the RWF, I just happen to be one of two people officially associated with the RWF visibly doing anything. Maybe when you learn the difference between actually doing something meaningful and organizing talking big yet doing nothing but talk big some more, you can be the third. Or fourth. Or whatever. The RWF needs help people who want to help, not promote themselves.

Finally, I'm glad at least one person is worried about how badly me donating two domain names and hosting blog sites for free will hit the RWF financially. Do you think it can recover?

Guys, someone you all just elected to the board made me briefly question why I would take time to help a not for profit that runs a site that puts someone like her forward. That sucks. 18:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I would not be troubled if you fucked right off from the Foundation or this website, my friend. It is patently ludicrous that for years on end I have to sit and take your bullshit directed at my intelligence, my appearance, my motivations, and my character, and it all gets magically forgiven because you Do Things For The RWF. You've forced one resignation already and you might get another before the week is out. Blue (is useful) 18:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Fuck Blue - you're awful. Aceⁱ⁹ 20:10, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Blue, I can only imagine how frustrating it must be that 1 single person has the temerity to call you out on your bullshit artistry. When can we expect to receive your resignation, then? So yeah, let's be very clear about this - I don't question your intelligence. You wouldn't be going to my alma mater (I cringe) if you were a moron. I don't care what you look like and I regret commenting. I do question your motives. I vacillate on whether I question your character. I'm glad I don't know you better. I'm not asking to be forgiven for anything. People here know very well I don't give much of a shit what they think of me as long as they recognize I'm trying to help. I'm actually fairly sure most people here dont like me, which is fine. I like RW and I like the RWF more. I'm a difficult person. Surprise. I do, however, expect people like you to know what they're talking about when they address issues like this. Or anything important. You've got such a long record of talking straight out of your ass that this kind of thing isn't so much surprising as it's just becoming frustrating drudgery. 18:26, 28 January

Whose resignation did I "force" this week? Yours would be welcome. 18:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, but the thing to do is officially say "go for it". I'll be blogging per plan ASAP on it because Trent is busy with the crap that comes with life, for instance. My sincere advice is to embrace the chaos, RW is getting this free - David Gerard (talk) 23:20, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Nutty brought this to the community rather than the Board, which was the right thing to do, IMO. If it later becomes something that uses Foundation funds, that would be a Board matter (with the community kept in the loop, since it's likely to be funds donated by site users). Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:12, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Blue - I do appreciate that being a douse about this sort of thing is actually your job now. I think Nutty is working to the rule of "forgiveness gets shit done when asking permission seems to get lost in a black hole", and I do suggest the board retrospectively bless the creative actions of a long-term dedicated RW user and enthusiast who loves the thing deeply and sincerely - David Gerard (talk) 00:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I suggest that there be a general RW blog on there as well as individual bloggers, which can be used for posting copies of some of our best articles & essays, + maybe for users who want to post a one-off blog now & then without running a regular blog. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I can't find your 'email this user' link, Nutty. Peter ^{Droid whisperer} 19:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. Enabled. 19:48, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Sent. Peter ^{Droid whisperer} 20:22, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Trent runs the DNS, but I suggest that pointing blogs.rationalwiki.org at the name would be good.

Gimme the keys to the goddamn tech blog, Trent, I'm rarin' to go. Failing that, Nutty, set up a blog to be "the RW blog", make it so the board can post to and gimme the keys too, I wanna start posting per my conservative guidelines above - David Gerard (talk) 21:11, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

(I've just emailed Nutty re: rationalwiki.rationalblogs.org, with postings per my above plan.) - David Gerard (talk) 22:38, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Here's my first concern: Isn't this blogs idea in violation of the Foundation's bylaws? Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 04:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Uh, in what way? Tmtoulouse (talk) 04:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

" The Board of Trustees may authorize any officer or officers, agent or agents to enter into any contract or execute and deliver any instrument in the name of and on behalf of the Foundation, unless otherwise restricted by law. Such authority may be general or confined to specific instances."

Bluntly, RW Blogs wasn't previously authorized by the Board. I'm not saying it's a violation of our bylaws, I'm just looking for some clarification that it is not a violation. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 04:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Notice the wording, trustees are not the ones that have to authorize such things, it would be me as the COO. And nothing has to be authorized till the RWF officially takes over a project anyway. Tmtoulouse (talk) 04:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. That's the answer I was looking for. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 04:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

The next question is out of a concern an accountant friend brought up: How would entities like the IRS or grant-writing firms view setting up entities (in this case, internet properties) at a private citizen's expense and then transfering them via "donation" to the RWF? Specifically, could/would the IRS or grant writers accidentally construe this as a shell game to hide assets and/or financial liabilities? I only ask these questions out of acting in the best interests of RWF, and, I assure you, out of nothing more. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 11:34, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

In the public sector, this is never a problem. People set up private trusts, private corporations, or just private little projects all the time, then decide it's more effecient, effective, functional to have a differnet body run/manage them. Donations do not have to be in cash. They can be in property, they can be in intellectual property, they can be in work product. The issuse is that both the individual and the Foundation carefully disclose what is or is not going on. I cannot see how this would be a major issue in the private sector. I am of course, not an accountant. Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 14:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

How does this even start making sense, Goonie? This is a not for profit with annual revenues of less than 10 grand. We're talking about 2 domain names and a blog site that will make zero dollars. I do the taxes. That consists of going through the year's books and confirming that we still comply with IRS regulations that exempt small 501's from filing the full 990EZ tax return, which would take a a dozen hours to prepare. It's a nearly completely make-work exercise I do solely for due-diligence because we're likely going to be waaayyyy below the lowest threshold there is for filing a super-abbreviated 990N return for a loooonnng time. You ought to know this because I've reported it to the board 'in lengthy emails to which I received few or no responses. This isn't Enron. any whistleblowers want to come forward and blow this whole rationalblogs.org thing wide open, go for it. It might get us some more interest from potential donors who care about what the RWF says, not what people say. 18:18, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I gotta say that people need to slow down and think about the legal stuff before they start talking utter shit like this. "Just asking questions" takes on a completely different tone when you're (a) this wrong, (b) doing it in public, and (c) defensive about being so ignorant. 18:18, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I apologize about the above comment I made. I was very out of line when I made it, and having gone to hysterics the way I did with it was completely unbecoming of my normal self. honestly, I have no idea what the fuck came over me, and I am completely ashamed of my behavior surrounding it all. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 08:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The Trustee manages other peoples property. If the Trustee were to divert funds to himself from the earnings on the property he/she donated to the Trust, that would be a breach of fiduciary. The domain name has produced no earnings yet, has it? So what exactly is the issue here? nobs^{Say hello to my leetle friend} 20:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

There isn't one. There isn't even a blog yet. Much bitching about nothing. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I haz keys to techblog

Frist psot, sticking to technical update for the moment - David Gerard (talk) 00:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

You can change the "About this site" box on the right - at the moment, it describes only Trent.--ZooGuard (talk) 11:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Couldn't find it at a glance, I'll look again later.

On contemplation I favour leaving the techblog as the outages blog it is now - Google strikes me as likely a pretty robust Server Of Last Resort. Nutty's "rationalblogs" is a great idea and needs no RWF permission because RWF doesn't own the word "rational" (that's LessWrong who do^{[citation NOT needed]}). rationalwiki.rationalblogs.org is unofficial until it's official. Do good stuff first, tidy up later, ignore the querulous - David Gerard (talk) 11:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

It's right under the "status" box. :) --ZooGuard (talk) 12:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Not editable by me, though - I only have the power to make and change posts, not change the interface stuff - David Gerard (talk) 13:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

We should be using the Rational Wiki domain. It's a CNAME, not rocket science. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 05:52, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Ladeez gemmun, start your bikesheds

Good evening. This is the World Service of the RationalWiki. The about page.

It looks bloody boring. Needs at least a cover image. Anyone feel creative? Something like the Facebook cover image with a WIGO-like brain logo?

I suggest some sort of blood-soaked combat arena on the wiki for people to write and vote(ish) on prospective posts.

The blog is not RWF-endorsed, but I aspire to it being something suitable to become an official public face - David Gerard (talk) 23:26, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, when the fucking DNS resolves everywhere instead of going to a GoDaddy holding page. Fucksake. Hopefully by this evening (UTC) - David Gerard (talk) 12:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Works ok for me. --PsyGremlin^Sprich! 12:28, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I still rather dislike the WIGO icons, and prefer just the brain, but do what's easiest. sterile^{sporadic heavy hitter} 14:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Is the main page of the site supposed to be redirecting to rationalweb.org? Peter ^{Droid whisperer} 04:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes. There's no root page yet. 06:26, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

At last, some bikeshedding! It's adapted from Armondikov's header image for the Facebook group (which is pretty good and you should join it if you've sold your soul to Zuckerberg). It's not perfect but it's better than its absence - David Gerard (talk) 08:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Government intervention is an act against God (said in 1795!!)

Reading a historical source at the moment for an essay which argues against government intervention in the grain market of Britain, and this paragraph really struck me.

I beseech the Government (which I take in the largest sense of the word, comprehending the two Houses of Parliament) seriously to consider that years of scarcity or plenty, do not come alternately or at short intervals, but in pretty long cycles and irregularly, and consequently that we cannot assure ourselves, if we take a wrong measure, from the temporary necessities of one season; but that the next, and probably more, will drive us to the continuance of it; so that in my opinion, there is no way of preventing this evil which goes to the destruction of all our agriculture, and of that part of our internal commerce which touches our agriculture the most nearly, as well as the safety and very being of Government, but manfully to resist the very first idea, speculative or practical, that it is within the competence of Government, taken as Government, or even of the rich, as rich, to supply to the poor, those necessaries which it has pleased the Divine Providence for a while to with-hold from them. We, the people, ought to be made sensible, that it is not in breaking the laws of commerce, which are the laws of nature, and consequently the laws of God, that we are to place our hope of softening the Divine displeasure to remove any calamity under which we suffer, or which hangs over us.(John Burke, 1785)

So essentially, the laws of commerce are the laws of God. Can't argue with that. Therefore the best way of removing any kind of natural disaster is to please Him. Can't argue with that! Doraemon^{話そう！話そう！} 18:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

But wait, there's more!

The consideration of this ought to bind us all, rich and poor together, against those wicked writers of the newspapers, who would inflame the poor against their friends, guardians, patrons, and protectors. Not only very few (I have observed, that I know of none, though I live in a place as poor as most) have actually died of want, but we have seen no traces of those dreadful exterminating epidemics, which, in consequence of scanty and unwholesome food, in former times, not unfrequently, wasted whole nations. Let us be saved from too much wisdom of our own, and we shall do tolerably well.

A 200 year old version of "The liberal media are poisoning us all and trying to turn the poor against the rich, when they should be appreciating the benefits of trickle down!" (Earlier in the tract, it went on about how labourers should appreciate farmers for giving them employment, food and shelter, and that the market mechanism for doing so is the best thing since then-uninvented sliced bread.), coupled with "that can't be true because I haven't seen it with my own eyes". Today's right-wing have a long, long history.... Doraemon^{話そう！話そう！} 18:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

This was a common view among the physiocrats of the 18th c. I believe the idea that prices are maintained at an ideal level by god traces back to Medieval philosophy, though. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:51, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out that at the time it was the liberals who were anti-intervention. Read the comments by Thomas Paine in damn near anything he wrote: he's fine with taxes, but the idea of the government playing in the economy is an abomination.--Token Conservative (talk) 00:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

He also advocated a guaranteed minimum income -- sounds pretty socialistic-y to me. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

A "well regulated" militia, says the Second Amendment, and other news

I'm starting to become more content with the "regulate guns" side

One of the things that Facebook relative of mine reposts is an image that basically says that the Second Amendment ends with "shall not be infringed" and that it couldn't be more simpler than that

I posted how I read someone state that the same amendment starts with "A WELL-REGULATED" militia", emphasizing a completely different point, and questioned if it really was that simple, then that guy responded with this

"James Madison states in the minutes of the Bill of Rights that the Militia is comprised of citizen's with their own arms to gather and organize in times of need or emergency. I am paraphrasing because i don't have the exact quote. They thought that making the 2nd amendment short and too the point, it could not be mis-interpreted. The Liberals say they could not have known about modern weapons when they wrote this, but I think they could not have know there would be educated people that could twist those 2 sentences to mean any thing else"

And then I found this, who also points out the "well-regulated" bit

Still, how should I respond to this cousin of mine without ticking him off, if I should say anything at all?

In other news, I have posted an advertisement for a textbook I'm selling throughout my college campus, with a stamp of approval. Yesterday, one of the ads disappeared from one of the walls I posted it to. The thing needed a bit of updating, so I printed a new one and took it over to be stamped. I got told that such a thing wasn't allowed, even though an earlier rendition of the flyer already got approved (Though not necessarily by the same guy)--DoomTay (talk) 02:50, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

This article from a couple of sections down might provide a little thought-food on the subject. Ask the right questions of it and you'll get a constructive response. ^bomination 11:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Still solidly on the pro-gun side of things; I cannot think of any legitimate reason in my personal life not the have them but plenty of reasons to have them.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 13:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Because of statistics pointing to the fact that having them increases the likelihood of an accident occurring (combined with the fact that "oh, but I'm sensible with them so I'm different" is perhaps the single biggest cause of complacency-style accidents)? Or maybe that escalation means that if you're armed it's likely that someone will shoot first, as they have more to lose when threatened. Again, stats can show that happens.

Or more pressingly, in fact, that the issue isn't nearly as simple as "have guns" or "not have guns", but a case of who has them, and what guns. ^moral 15:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Could I have a self-inflicting accident with my guns? Sure, I know that is a risk, but I work to minimize that risk, but I acknowledge it is still a risk, but an acceptable one, and the level of risk for me s lower than the risk I would take being caught completely defenseless.

As for myself, well I have no criminal record, no mental health issues, I am on no medication. The weapons themselves are not anything out of the ordinary. A .22, a 9mm, a shotgun (12 gauge). Some people may feel that is too much, and they are welcome to their opinions but I have no sufficient reason not to be armed in this way, not like I just go about carrying them around or threatening anyone with them.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 17:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Statistics aren't opinions. ^theist 17:40, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Mass shootings, and this.

After Newtown, Occasionaluse got on his high horse about the crocodile tears we shed about mass shooting victims. While I disagree with him, in that the number of mass shootings that have taken place in America since Columbine is a worrying phenomenon, I have come to agree with him to a certain extent; while we gnash our teeth and rage about dead school kids and dead geeks in a movie theatre, there's a much bigger mass shooting going on that gets very little media play, partly because it's happening in slow motion, and partly because the victims are largely black, and that's kind of what we expect to happen to black kids in this country--they get shot, so it ain't news. Anyways, yesterday there was another episode in this horrible tragedy, maybe this one will draw some more of our eyes onto the issue. Edit: Numbers Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 17:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

To steal a quote from Hotel Rwanda, I think at best people might see these statistics, say to themselves "thats horrible", and then go back to eating their dinners. And that's the fundamental issue. Most people don't care enough to do anything about tragedies like this unless they personally feel threatened. Since the victims in this case are "just poor, uneducated, black kids" its just that much easier for most people to ignore it, or simply sigh sadly before forgetting about it. Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 18:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The biggest probable factor is the idea that their usually isn't an "innocent" victim when these shooting occur. And, I'd be lying if I said that wasn't my usual thought. So, there are multiple far larger problems to deal with to solve this. I think it is pretty obvious, and unfortunate, that no one is going to bother trying. --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?} 19:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Salience. Shootings at schools perk people up because "hey, I went to school! My kids go to school!", ditto cinemas (which even I occasionally find myself in). But in these circumstances, it's more like "well, I don't go out on the street in rough neighbourhoods!!" ^theist 19:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I remember reading an article in the RedEye recently (not a bastion of responsible journalism, I know, but free) suggesting that the Chicago PD was incorrectly classifying victims of south-side shootings as gang members in order to avoid a public outcry. (not in a conspiracy theory kindaway, just in a "we can't afford any more bad press and there's not much we alone can do about this issue). I have some in-laws who openly dismiss those kinds of crimes because it's just "poor uneducated black kids" and therefore it "shouldn't be surprising". — Unsigned, by: ORavenhurst / talk^{Do You Believe That?} 20:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

THE CITADELLLL.

A whole new level of prepper crazy.. http://iiicitadel.com/index.html FailDeadly (talk)

I'm feeling a sense of déjà vu. ^{(talk to a)} Nihilist 04:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

See "#What could possibly go wrong...". Peter ^{Droid whisperer} 04:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

If it could always be this easy

Oh if it could always be this simple and easy... Girl bakes cake Fifteen-year-old Laurel baked a cake for her parents as a way of announcing that she is gay. Accompanying the cake was a note: "good morning parents, i'm gay. i've wanted to tell you for a long time. i thought doing it this way would be a piece of cake. i hope you still love me." Her parents reacted well, everyone hugged, etc. If only all life's situations could be solved by baking a cake and everyone reacted by being understanding and loving. Refugee^{talk page} 02:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

That is pretty heartwarming. -- Heh, if I was there as a family member, I wonder if I could resist the obvious joke. ("But the cake is a lie!", but of course quickly hug said person to let them know I'm joking.) EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 02:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

If you have any interest, click on the link & read the full story (it's pretty short) I only posted a part of the note, the whole thing is kind of cute. :-) Refugee^{talk page} 03:15, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Face it - cake makes everything better. If Chamberlain had baked a cake for Hitler and they'd had eaten it together, no WW2. --PsyGremlin^{話しなさい} 07:32, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but what if Hitler had baked the cake (which he probably did, looking at the outcome), saying: "Butt I vont siss vorrr!".... 194.246.46.15 (talk) 16:08, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Hitler was just one guy. To turn one guy's idea into WWII it required a population of people who were willing to believe that conquest was desirable, even necessary. Not just "agree with the statement on a survey form" but go off and fight a war for it. It also required that onlookers would keep saying "Well, they're in violation of the treaty, but we're not sure what to do about it". Everybody who mattered knew Germany was building submarines and planes, which it was strictly forbidden from doing after WWI. Without U-boats Germany would have lost WWII in a matter of months, the French or British navy could blockade Germany with impunity and the whole war machine would collapse. In hindsight bombing German naval dockyards in the mid-1930s would have been an entirely effective resolution with far fewer dead, but of course at the time that seemed like an insane violation of Germany's sovereignty, grossly disproportionate to the mere violation of a paper agreement made under duress. 81.2.89.113 (talk) 14:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure, sure, but what about the cake then? Anyhow, back on topic, this reminds me of the situation in a close friend's family. He told us that their 17 year old son recently came out as gay by introducing his boy friend to his parents. When someone asked my friend how they reacted he anwered: "I said good evening.." A genuinely nice family! 194.246.46.15 (talk) 16:08, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh right, the cake. If every German family had a plentiful supply of cake through the 1930s then I suspect "let's invade neighbouring countries" would have been a harder sell, assuming it was decent cake. So yeah, on a big enough scale cake could have solved the problem. 81.2.89.113 (talk) 16:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

So what do Nazis have to do with some girl coming out of the closet? I can't believe I'm seriously the one asking this. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 18:14, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Black Forest gateau. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 16:23, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

This dessert is from Germany -> Germany is the home of the Nazis -> Nazis ate cake -> Clearly the Nazis had superior engineering due to their awesome cakes. Copperhead^Hisssssss 16:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Jesus H Christ, can't we have a discussion about anything that doesn't get derailed by military history nerds banging on about Nazis & WW2?? The link & story above: heartwarming. Rest of the thread: not so much. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Short answer: No. Long answer: Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo. But, as nice as it is, wouldn't it be even nicer when you don't have to make anything out of "coming out"? I mean, I never came out as straight. ^narchist 19:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

It's bad when I'm the one pointing it out. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 22:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Huh? Copperhead^Hisssssss 04:53, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Is the problem the questions we are asking?

I think a lot of you who are into rational thinking, the importance of shared definitions in arguments, etc., might enjoy this quick article about the importance of how we frame questions. Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 03:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

<3 ^{d hominem} 11:40, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

You might want to rephrase this heading. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 16:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Cliff Clavin...

So I was walking past our local Christian bookstore (hysterically called Cum Books I kid you not) and I see everybody's favourite postman is staring in something called WWJDII - The Woodcarver. [http://www.hollywoodsoapbox.com/?p=7247 Which is apparently pretty awful.) Just an actor trying to make an honest buck, or has he gone Kirk Cameron on us? --PsyGremlin^Siarad! 09:56, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

"For those foolish enough to expect anything less than a total commitment to Christian idealism, the movie will be a bore." Given Ratzenberger's prolific Pixar-supported voiceover career (movies AND video games), I doubt he needs the money OR is drinking the Koolaid, but rather enjoys working on a minor side project that's inline with his faith (which a majority of Americans possess). A comparison to Kirk Cameron is probably inappropriate, given that Cameron used his evangelizing to reboot his otherwise dead acting career, while Ratzenberger never really went-away-and-came-back. --Seth Peck (talk) 17:00, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Proximity alert

Proxima Centauri is messing with the Sophisticated theology‎‎ article again.--ZooGuard (talk) 11:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I plan to leave Proxima to it and possibly revert the ungrammatical splurge by the end of the day. Let's see just what the tally is of incomprehensible sentences and mangled references after 24 hours - David Gerard (talk) 13:14, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I gave it a quick glance, it's not totally horrible, but I will go in and clean up/proofread a little bit later this morning. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 14:48, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

"not totally horrible" - progress! Or she's been hacked. Sophie^Wilder 15:18, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Law and Order: SVU, with real rapists!

Rape culture? Or Michael Vick-style forgiveness? Interestingly, the convicted rapist will be playing someone convicted of murdering his abuser, and not a rapist. --Seth Peck (talk) 16:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Evowiki

Am I to understand that I am able to port material over from Evowiki at my discretion?--P3A58NT86 19:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

And while I'm at it, how do I remove a hidden category from an article?--P3A58NT86 19:39, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

The ported article has to be made to fit the style and mission of this wiki, I think. As for the second question it will depend how the category has been added - is it transcluded, or if you open the edit window is it down at the bottom of the page with the rest? Peter ^{Droid whisperer} 19:43, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Alright. And in order to see it, I had to enable hidden categories in my preferences. Does that help?--P3A58NT86 19:51, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Which page is it on? Peter ^{Droid whisperer} 20:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm adding refs to articles in here. I added references to this page and I can't figure out how to take it out of the aforementioned category.--P3A58NT86 20:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

That is because there is still an uncited statement in the article. The category is added by the [citation needed] tags. Ty^JFBANBSRADA 20:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Directions weren't clear. Got my dick stuck in a tree.--P3A58NT86 21:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Symbolic Logic question

Basically, how in the name of christ do you express in SL "Of X, Y, Z, only one will win" and "Of X, Y, Z at most one will win"? I'm sure I could come up with some big long convoluted bullshit version, but I feel like I would be way over complicating things. Can anyone help?--Token Conservative (talk) 00:27, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The state of the world

When did it become fashionable to attack common sense safety advice (Don't get drunk in a bad part of town with no friends around to assist) as victim blaming? SirChuckB^{Boom Goes the Dynamite} 19:18, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Whether it's victim blaming depends a lot on context & what is said. What prompted this? Is it an example you can link to? Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:23, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

(EC) Well, it would be victim blaming if the rape victim was being blamed for their rape because they didn't follow this advice. If, for instance, someone were to say, "If you don't follow this safety advice and you get raped, it's your fault and not your rapists'." Blue (pester) 19:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

It's actually been boiling for some time now. While I'm happy that the rape problem worldwide is getting more attention, people are going insane. I used to teach self defense courses and one of the basic rules of self defense is awareness and smart choices. However, I see articles of this nature all the time that seem to have the basic argument "we women have the right to do whatever we want, whenever we want, in total disregard for the realities of the world we live in." Anybody who suggests maybe putting yourself into a dangerous situation isn't a smart or safe way to live suddenly becomes a rape apologist or a victim blamer or whatever passes for the insult du jour SirChuckB^{Boom Goes the Dynamite} 19:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

(EC) See the last paragraph. The Chief Inspector made the same kind of comment you did above (Don't get drunk in a bad part of town with no friends around to assist) & the blog author commends him for it. She takes issue with other comments that are phrased in more victim-blaming ways & that dictate how women should dress on a night out. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Here's my take on the difference, and it's very very personal. I was raped, as you probably know. I reported it. The interview with the Detective went something like this: Why were you out drinking alone? Were you looking to hook up? Had you flirted with anyone at the bar? How often do you go to bars? Did you shut anyone down, who tried to hit on you (this was one that actually might have been reasonable, had i not just been accused of going into bars and hitting on men.) When you report that your tv was stolen, and they find out you left yoru door wide open - it's still a crime, adn they still take it as seriously as they would any other tv theft. When you report rape, they are looking for reasons that it wasn't "really the rapist's fault", or "not really a rape". Should you walk down town at 3 in the morning? No. But if you do and you are mugged, no one sits you in an **interrogation room** (explain that to this victim, thanks) and ask you to JUSTIFY your mugging. they may think it was a dumb move to be out, but it's still a mugging. With rape, it's somehow "less" a rape. That is why it matters. That is why in this specific issue, we talk a lot about victim blaming. Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 20:22, 28 January 2013 (UTC) (edit) by the way, the questions about hooking up, flirting, and how often i'd had sex were not about seeing if maybe there was a potential suspect in my head, but about *was i really raped*. they were stated accuitory. so how OFTEN do you flirt? is flirting the way you act at night, etc. just saying....

Godot, everything you mentioned is a perfect example of what's wrong with our system. Those are specific problems you can target and attack, notably, changing the perception that rape is a crime of sexual passion or a need for release rather than what it really is: an assertion of power. However, how does simply pointing out that "The best way to avoid being a victim of any crime, be it simple assault, a mugging, a racially motivated crime or a rape is to be aware of your situation and take safety precautions" has turned into rape apology? As enlightenment says below: He wouldn't go driving around certain areas of town, just as I won't go wandering around Rural Mississippi at night. I'm not suggesting that it's a victim's fault if they get raped, but putting yourself into vulnerable and dangerous situation is certainly increasing your risk of being a victim to all kinds of crime. SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 20:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Is anyone saying otherwise? ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

No one is saying otherwise, CB. but in this world where women have to sit and be interrogated, listing to jackasses on the news tell women "the way to prevent rape is to stop dressing like sluts, and don't go out without your friends" just reinforces what cops think about rape. it also never touches the fact that most rapes happen in places we feel safe. Of course we all walk with rape whistles, and mace or tazers; of course we look under the car before we get near it; of course we ask someone *hopefully male* to walk us to our cars, but that's not the reason we were raped, it's just something that might lower your risks of stranger rape. And by the way, it just FEELS slimy when i hear it. i know that's a shitty argument for a Rational, logical site. but sometimes emotions rule. when i hear people say "you should try not to go out alone at night", i feel bad, crappy, and 2nd class. Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 20:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

@Godot, I express my condolences, and I agree in the strongest possible terms. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 21:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

"Blame" and "fault" are loaded words. The fact remains that if my white, skinny ass went driving around the east side of Detroit during the middle of the night, and when I likely get mugged, shot, or something, I would say that I acted stupidly and irresponsibly, and some of the fault is my own, but I did not act immorality. The person who shot me is the one who broke the law, and that person is the problem in society that we need to fix, not me driving around peacably on public roads. In the meantime, it is unfortunate that I must be careful in what I do in the east side of Detroit as a white man (such as avoiding it all together), but that is reality. inb4 rape apologist. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 19:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

This is exactly why Take Back the Night/SlutWalk groups were formed. --Seth Peck (talk) 20:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to be bothered to dig up actual statistics, but an important number of rape victims know their victims -- they're not raped walking through the park at 4 AM by a stranger, but in a bedroom on the third floor of Kappa Chi Delta by that guy from their physics lab who invited them to the frat party. By focusing on those situations where a little more due diligence might have led to a different outcome, we lose sight of the fact that a good number of rapes are also violations of a reasonably-placed trust. I might not go strolling around certain neighbourhoods of Detroit late at night (..well, I do, but I'm a very large man), but I don't know how much I could do to protect myself if my brother-in-law decided to run off with the money I invested with his financila planning company. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 20:41, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Another aspect is that the whole "don't dress like a slut" thing is a red herring which promotes a judgemental attitude to women with very little basis in fact. Studies in this area suggest that a woman who dresses "provocatively" is no more likely to be a raped than a woman dressed more modestly. Rapists pick victims who are vulnerable, an easy target; what they're wearing is irrelevant. In fact, some studies suggest women who dress extrovertly are actually slightly less likely to be targeted, as they give an impression of assertiveness, while a woman dressed in more casual clothing may be seen by a rapist as more passive or submissive & less likely to fight back. Yet there is still a widespread perception that women who wear sexy clothing are more likely to be the victims of rape, or even to be provoking it, and this perception is perpetuated every time these "don't dress like a slut - for your own safety" comments are made. This perception influences the media, law enforcers, jurors, & makes it very hard for rape victims to get justice if they happened to be wearing something revealing or alluring at the time of the assault. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not doubting you, but do you have links? ^{(talk to a)} Nihilist 22:34, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

(EC) Here is a study (on rape & sexual harassment cases) which also cites various other research. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel}

2/3 of rape victims are assulted by someone they know. often well. http://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/sexual-assault-offenders. A Federal Commission on Crime of Violence Study found that only 4.4% of all reported rapes involved provocative behavior on the part of the victim. In murder cases 22% involved such behavior (as simple as a glance).http://bcsd.org/trapezoid/article.cfm?story=1706&cat=2 Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 23:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

(unindent) Weasel, thank you very much for putting that in clear terms. I see now that the perception of a dismissive or blaming attitude is what drives a lot of the scorn. However, that said, I still think educating people serves better than throwing vitriol. I'm amazed at how many people think rape is a result of sexual desire, IE "men have urges and if they can't get it willingly, they'll take it by force" (see the insanity over women in combat). Education, in this topic, will serve far better than simply insulting, mocking and labeling people rape apologists... Unless it's a Todd Akin style "women can shut that down." In which case, mock away (actually, I think Akin fully believed his statement was factual, which is even sadder). SirChuckB^{Gentoo Penguins is the best kind of Penguin} 23:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Education. There is a whole other side of this we didn't talk about. we were talking the "advice" shit. but the reality of rape is that it's not strangers. It's OUR boys and OUR girls, and they don't have fuck all of an idea how to talk to each other before they have sex. You have a society that tells girls "you should not want sex, sex is bad". So the girls don't want to stand up and say "i really like you, and really want to have sex with you" where it's open, honest, and right out there. You have a society that tells guys they HAVE to be macho, they HAVE to have sex, and then turns away when our boys say things like "have sex with me or i'll dump you", which is a form of rape, in the most technical sense of coercive sex. WE need to teach. we need to get our girls and boys, as teens, the tools to navigate sex, and adult relationships -openly, honestly, lovingly. Do that, and the number of teen pregnancies goes down, the number of "rape claims" from girls ashamed or whatever the MRAs clame, and the number of acual rapes goes down. Cause most of it, especially for our teens and young adults is about stupidity, and our culture's fear of, and shame of sex. *hops off soap box*.Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 04:11, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with everything you said, except for one bit, but I don't feel it's important to mention here. Your point about education and how we do it is important. It's also worse that we can't even talk about sex, and by extension rape, because weirdos have their priorities completely out of order; I live in the US of Jesus and don't register the intense violence but notice immediately when one of the characters in a video game is naked. People seriously have their priorities about what is evil out of order.ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 06:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

""have sex with me or i'll dump you", which is a form of rape, in the most technical sense of coercive sex" - that doesn't look a very robust statement, and I suspect it is unlikely to convince anyone who needs to be convinced as it's stated. On the face of it it says that anyone who wants to break up because their sex life has died is therefore a rapist. Surely you meant something a great deal more specific - David Gerard (talk) 12:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd agree. The fact of the matter is that all human relationships involve pressure in some way or another. Some kinds of pressure and amounts of pressure are deemed acceptable, and some are not. Some of this also depends on culture. Regardless, unless we're talking about meeting the criminal standards for duress, I would never call emotional blackmail rape. Doing so seems to de-legitimize actual rape, the kind that involves physical force or the imminent credible thread of physical force (or doing it to someone unconscious, etc etc.), not merely being a manipulative ass. This plays into my whole thing about how people are responsible for their own choices, not others. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 12:30, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Sighs, it's doesn't "delegitimze *actual* rape" (there's that word again). it IS rape. look up the definition of rape, sometime. WE live in a culture where sex is used as a tool (largely by men, in the context of do it or i'll leave). A 13, 14, 15 year old girl is not equiped to say "fuck off". They don't get how this is manipulation. We have to TEACH that. we have to teach our boys that it IS RAPE. No, they are not likely to be prosecuted for it, but then again, men who demand it during a marriage are not likely to be prosecuted too, but we've all said "oh yes, marital rape exists". This is how we continue to reinforce a culture of rape. we say "this is just part of dating". Then why, in marriage, is it a crime to do the very same thing? Ask a 14 year old girl, who didn't want to have sex, but in her own fucked up little teen mind, her boyfriend and being "loved" was more important to her - ask her if she wasn't raped. Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 14:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

So add "if there's a sufficient power imbalance" or obvious objection is obvious - David Gerard (talk) 15:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. and when i talk about this with youth, i want us to frame it, but that doesn't mean it should be illegal. it's about education. it's about how we look at power, and control. not about sending 15 year old boys or girls to jail. ;-) Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 15:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

So, most sex is rape? I think before you try to teach other people you need to get this stuff straight in your own head. From a legal point of view coercion is a high bar to climb over. To some extent as explained above our whole society relies on coercion, that's why civil disobedience is effective. but the law sets a higher standard. On the one hand you seem to be expecting medicine's bright line of informed consent‡, on the other hand you're talking about sex, which is stereotypically unplanned and frequently involves people who aren't thinking very clearly. Realistically something has to give, and in practice that something has been informed consent. It's no skin off my nose, but my impression is that precisely zero people I know are interested in having a calm, sober discusion where they think through all the consequences, establish what each partner wants to get out of the interaction and sign pieces of paper agreeing to what's ahead. If I really thought you had any chance whatsoever of inculcating such a procedure among future generations I'd wish you luck, but I just don't see it. AIDS showed us that you can, with a lot of effort, get a majority of sexually active to make a very small change to their sex lives. Still nowhere near all of them, and it's a tiny change, and that took essentially the threat of a grisly and fairly imminent death. Fast forward to today, with talk of potential cures and people living for decades with HIV and that change is being unwound.

‡ Or maybe not so informed. Psychology experiments suggest the current model of informed consent might not be sufficient. Patients feel passive, there's a person sat there, explaining what will happen, using jargon they don't really understand, and they're nodding along, and then they sign the piece of paper. But can they prove understanding by explaining what they were just told and agreed to? Er, no. Whoops. 81.2.89.113 (talk) 17:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Good opening sentence. I agree that the old threat of breaking up with someone who won't have sex being rape is ridiculous. It's not strong enough in any way to be coercion, and anyway, anyone who thinks like that should be abandon anyway. The correct response to that threat is to break up immediately. Considering such action to be rape is insulting to all victims of rape; I would recommend to Liberal that he not talk about "actual rape" as it comes close to making classifications of rape, or "legitimate rape". Godot is also being fairly insulting towards girls by saying that they don't know how not have sex in the face of such a bogus threat. Claiming that 13-15 year old girls do no know how to not have sex with someone making idiot comments is extremely insulting toward women. Yes, we need better education; claiming that girls need to be taught not to have sex is insulting. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 20:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Where have i EVER said "girls need to be taught not to have sex?" Where have i EVER suggested that all sex is rape. COERCION is rape. Just like bullying is bad, threatening a immature girl, who's pushed by society to have the boyfriend, and be ms. popular, when mr. popular says "have sex, or i lable you a loser in teh school" is a huge threat to a teen mind. I get , Ehrenstein, that it's offensive to you to not have to rely on coercion, but no one should ever be put in a position of "have sex or else". that is rape. by defintion. Most men I know, (maybe not most male teens - don't knwo many) say "do you WANT to have sex?" not "Have sex, or else". Most men say "I like you, i want to date you, sex should be a healthy part of that, if you're intersed in me", but not as a threat. not as a way to use the fact that - again going back to teens - you're popular and you're banking on that. When we teach guys to stop leveraging sex against what the woman wants from them, we go a huge way in curing what ails us. I like sex. I have always liked sex. I had sex early, and often, and healthily. but then again, it was open, discussed, adn talked about and i never felt pressured. That's not the same for most of the girls in my circle of friends. I'd say, before you continue to tell me how insulting i am to teen girls, ASK YOUR WIFE, your daughter, your sisters how often sex is the price for something else.Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 20:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I was being purposefully provocative when I said "actual rape", and frankly I'll stand by it. A boyfriend and girlfriend of roughly the same age, where the boy says "have sex or I break up with you", is not rape in my world view. I'm sorry Godot. You are right on a great many other points, and you enlightened me to how much more scumbaggy our police are, but you are wrong here. If there's an actual threat of force, then sure I can call it rape, or a variety of other factors. But simple emotional pressure between approximate equals does not constitute rape. It may constitute extreme douchbaggery, but not rape. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 21:04, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm with Godot on this one. If you have to pressure, threaten or manipulate someone to say yes, it's not really much of a yes. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:08, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Would you convict a hypothetical boyfriend, if all admitted that these were the facts of the case? I would not. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 21:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it needs criminal intervention, any more than a 12 year old bully needs criminal intervention. i have specifically said and maintained that the issue is how we teach our kids. you teach boys (especially, frankly, the ones who have the clout to hold it above girls heads, popularity, or jocks, or whatever else) should be taught and "punished" in some appropriate non-legal way, that this is bullshit and not tolerated by society. and you teach girls not to need that kind of base, group acceptance. Any time you say "pressure is not rape", you are reinforcing the conditions that allow us to be a rape culture. by the way, if you tell someone "drink this, or break up with me", and they die from intociation, you will be held criminally responsible - at least in colorado. Why do we defend anyone who uses coersion for pretty much anything?Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 21:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Hey, I'm all for better education so we can treat each other like good human beings. I'm all for trying to reform our culture. Still, I can imagine scenarios where if I ever manage to get a gf (28 m never been kissed), if we're together for a year, and we're still not having sex, I probably will have to break up with her. I may try to have more tact in any "ultimatum", and instead have a discussion about our mutual wants and see if we can make some compromise. Still, I can foresee that I may say exactly that myself at some point in the future. Context also matters. So, I politely disagree. Still, you cannot call it rape. And really, you would get convicted in Colorado? I'm really curious now. Got some links to case law? Or something that I can google at least? Did it perhaps stem on the fact that the person was already drunk? That wouldn't apply in our hypothetical scenario here. I suspect your are telling badly, and there's something else there. That, or I could just disagree with that particular overreach (just like for example I disagree with the overreach of Myspace Megan). EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 21:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Putting pressure on someone to have sex is not good, and anyone who does it is an asshole. However, being an asshole is not illegal and being an asshole about sex is not rape. More extreme coercion would be rape. Threatening violence, even non-severe violence would be rape. No one should ever be an asshole and say "have sex or I will break up with you". Under your definition of rape, and girl who says "stop playing WoW and have sex or I'll break up with you" is committing rape. In reality, it doesn't take some sort of super sexual kid to be popular. I was popular when I was far more hyperactive and Autistic than I am now. High school is not like on TV. There was a kid somewhat more severe than I was, and the only thing that stopped him from being popular in a good way was inappropriate behavior. Education like you suggest is a good idea, but calling emotional pressure rape is a bad idea. Not only is it degrading to the tragedy of rape to absurdly broaden what it is, but saying that girls were raped when they were not will cause them to internalize the idea that they were raped and will lead to a much worse outcome. And you said that girls need to be taught not to have sex when you said that they need to be educated to say no when someone says "have sex or I'll break up" because they're unable to resist because of "social pressure". Anyone who really didn't want to have sex in that situation would not have sex. Saying no does not need to be taught; saying that it does reveals thinking of women as complete idiots. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 22:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

God i hope you aren't the parent of a teenager. We TEACH kids how to act. We TEACH kids how to have self confidence. we TEACH kids how to find the strenth to say no, to a jackass who is pressuring them. Nothing changes, though. putting pressure on someone is coercion. coercive sex is legally deamed rape on most states. No, no one is ever going to prosecute. but it's comments like yours that belittle real teen women (and men, frankly) from saying "I was pushed into sex, and had no recourse". idiots liek you who think that "anyone who can't say no derserves waht they get" or that girls know how to say no, are, well, idiots.Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 22:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Yea, that sounds about right. If you are just being applied emotional pressure from a rough equal, and you cave, it's your own fault, legally and morally. It might also be partly the other person's fault, but only morally. "Rape" is still a completely wrong word to use to describe the situation. -- This follows from my basic beliefs from Mill, if everyone person knows what's best for them, I am not going to be in a position to second guess them and call it rape. It's a basic proposition in my belief system that everyone is responsible for the choices they make. -- However, this stance is in no way incompatible with wanting to teach our kids to respect each other, and to not use undue pressure to pressure someone into sex. However, invariably some pressure is used to get sex in every relationship, ever. Even a simple ask carries with it some pressure, however slight. I reject your silly view that emotional pressure for sex is always bad. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 22:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

You said yourself that you haven't had any sexual relationships, so you don't really have a great frame of reference for lecturing others on what they do or should involve. No, there is not invariably pressure to have sex. Most of the time, people have sex because they both want it. Maybe one initiates it, or one is slightly more into it than the other, but at some level they both want it to happen. What we're talking about here is situations where a person doesn't want to have sex but is pressured into it by some form of threat or emotional blackmail. Ultimately, if you have a choice between having sex against your will, & facing some adverse consequence, you'd still basically be having sex against your will. & There's not much difference between that & rape. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:14, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

"Against your will", this presupposes that it is rape. I reject that description. I'm sorry that I am going to reject out of hand your childish notions that relationships don't involve give and take, some small amounts of emotional pressure, etc. That kind of give and take is part of every relationship, sexual or not, "romantic" or not. ... So, it appears we're not going to get anywhere with this discussion. Looks like we're just repeating ourselves. So, have the last word if you want. I think I'm done. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 23:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Saying that someone was "pushed into sex and had no recourse" when someone threatened to break up with them is far more insulting to victims of rape and belittling to rape victims. People do not need to be taught how to say now; it's all little kids do when they don't want to do something. While it may technically be coercion, it is entirely insufficient to "force" someone to have sex. Anyone who does it is an asshole, and they shouldn't, but it isn't rape. I do agree with Weaseloid that you can't really be commenting on what happens in sexual relationships when you haven't had one. You really don't understand it in those situations. I do agree with what Liberal said to an extent about relationships being give and take. Obviously you can't force someone into anything, sexual or otherwise. I also agree with his statement that even a question carries pressure to an extent. For example, for anything non sexual, if someone asks you for something, unless you have a very good reason to say no, you often feel pressure to say yes. Afterward, you might have some feeling of resentment that someone asked you for something, but you can't say that they robbed you and that you were coerced into saying yes. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 23:57, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

That's like the eighth time on this page you've described something as insulting to either women or rape victims. When did they appoint you to speak on their behalf? Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Since as far as I know, there isn't one of them here to give their perspective. You bring up a good point. He was portraying them as helpless, which is hardly empowering. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 00:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what "He" you're talking about. Godot is a woman & has been a rape victim, as she said further up in this thread. Yet you keep mansplaining to her that she's the one insulting rape victims & belittling women. Anyway, I'm not sure what angle you're coming at this thing from, but if you've ever talked to somebody who's been in an abusive relationship, or read stuff written by them, you might rethink this attitude somewhat. How much pressure (or coercion or bullying) goes into getting a partner to have sex, or controlling their behaviour some other way, or keeping them as a partner, depends heavily on the dynamics of relationship. Sometimes people do feel helpless in their relationship; often these people are women; but it's not "insulting to women" to say so, nor to point out that they may have been made to have sex when they didn't want to. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 01:24, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

That would give her more credibility. After reading what she wrote on her userpage, I can see what she is getting at better, and I have more agreement with what she wrote there. The way some of her stuff was worded made it sound like she was calling girls idiots. If she's talking about some sort of abusive relationship, that's a different issue than some random kid saying "I'm going to break up if you don't have sex." ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 02:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

To the OP, if a suggestion like that is given as general advice, there's nothing wrong with it, but if it's mentioned after a rape, than it's victim blaming. It depends on the context. It's a bit ridiculous giving advice on how to avoid getting robbed is accepted, yet giving advice on how to avoid being raped is extremely objectionable. Then again, most rapes are committed by someone known to the victim. Additionally, I've seen a lot of good advice be accepted. It makes me suspect that the people who complain about "rape prevention" being "victim blaming" are just people who want to promote victim blaming attitudes themselves. I think it's unlikely that they would be consciously aware that their attitudes were victim blaming ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 04:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Re educating, raising awareness, changing attitudes etc., this campaign is running in the UK. Instead of warning women/girls how to avoid being rape victims, it warns men/teenage boys how to avoid being rapists. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Colorado case

I still want to know about the (poorly) cited Colorado case. Godot or anyone else, do you have information that might let me google some of the particulars of the case where it was decided that it was murder to pressure someone to drink alcohol to death? I'm definitely interested, and it seems my google-fu is weak, and I couldn't locate it with a couple minutes of effort. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 01:25, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't finding it, so I guess i'm misremembering. It was in mid 2000's (2005?) in Fort Collins, and the college woman died. but clearly i've got details wrong, cause it's not comming up for me.Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 03:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, thank you for trying! EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 07:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

comments by EnlightenmentLiberal

"Still, I can imagine scenarios where if I ever manage to get a gf (28 m never been kissed), if we're together for a year, and we're still not having sex, I probably will have to break up with her. I may try to have more tact in any "ultimatum", and instead have a discussion about our mutual wants and see if we can make some compromise. Still, I can foresee that I may say exactly that myself at some point in the future." – Enlightenment Liberal

Wow, that just confirmed a large part of what I suspected the kind of person who would say "have sex or I'll break up" (or the equivalent) would be like. I suspected it would be someone sexist and viewing women as objects for sex, someone who might commit rape anyway, or someone who is desperate. I think you're really jumping the gun in these hypothetical relationship thoughts. If you've never had a girl, I don't think you can really correctly imagine what it's going to be like. If you could, you'd probably have a girlfriend because you'd know how to interact. If you did find a girl who you really cared about, you would continue the relationship if there were other reasons why you cared about her. If you really cared about her, you'd be willing to wait to have sex. If not, you would either be in a bad relationship or you would not be viewing her as a person, only as a means to sex; that would be sexist thinking. I doubt that many people have found someone they truly loved and against their feelings for that person, broke up because they weren't having sex. Usually when someone does that, it's because they didn't really care about the other person, and likely objectified them. That's one of the points I was explaining, and why girls should be taught that if someone does say that to them, they should take it an immediately break up. Your last sentence is of interest to me. Is your position on this coming from what you actually believe rape is, or is it because you think you might be in that position one day? That would be justification as a defense mechanism, where you see yourself possibly having to coerce someone into sex one day, this creates a conflict because you don't want to see yourself as a rapist, and so you decide that it isn't rape. This is one of the reasons why victim blaming occurs. People are afraid that someone they care about could be raped, so they reassure themselves that it won't because "only women who dress get raped." It's normal to have theses thoughts, everyone does, but it's good to be able to identify and overcome them. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 04:24, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I feel no need to defend myself, but I will explain. Look. I want a loving, caring relationship with lots of cuddling, and sex. If the other partner doesn't want that, then we need to break up. It's not so much an ultimatum as it is a discussion about what we each want and are willing to give, though it may sound quite like the proposed ultimatum. There is nothing wrong with this. There is nothing wrong wanting sex in your desired monogamous relationship, and there is nothing wrong ending a relationship if you're not happy. And I am not desperate. In fact, it's my lack of desperation, my own slight anti-social tendencies and not giving fucks, which makes me who I am. And fuck you and fuck your shit for saying I think of women as sex objects. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 07:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I think everybody is talking at cross-purposes here. Ending a relationship because you don't want the same things out of the relationship is fair enough, & nobody is saying otherwise. However, the decent thing to do in this situation is just to break up & be honest about it rather than pressuring your partner to have sex when they don't want to. Situations when somebody says "fuck me or I'll dump you" (or hit you, humiliate you, rape you anyway, etc.) don't come up in healthy relationships. They tend to either happen in teenage relationships when one partner pressures the other to have sex when they're not ready to, or in abusive relationships where one partner uses coercion & manipulation to control the relationship. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 14:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Even if you say that you're breaking up because you aren't getting what you want, you're still creating pressure for your partner to do what you want. Even if it isn't an a "we need to do this or I'll leave" way and is in a "I'm leaving because we don't have this" way, someone who really doesn't want to break up would be pressured to do what you want, even if they aren't directly telling them to. While it's not rape, it's immoral and objectifying to tell women that you'll break up if they don't have sex with you. I can see where you're coming from though. Even though we would make accommodation for someone that we truly care about, at some point not wanting to have sex would be problematic. If someone didn't want to have sex ever except maybe only to have children, that would be problematic. You might be better off as a friend of that person than as an intimate lover. It would be important though to make that clear and that you aren't just leaving them. I'm not entirely sure why, but I sometimes get objectifying vibes from the unexperienced; I'm not saying all of them are like that. I think it's because they see women as a means for sex (even if not consciously) rather than as normal people. I remember support for this as one of the explanations for "hover handing." (I thought it was crap, but the more people made alterative arguments for it, the more convinced I got.) It was suggested that one of the reasons for hover handing isn't because virgins are "afraid" of women or anything like that, but because they see women primarily sexually, and they have a problem making contact with someone they aren't in a sexual relationship with. Once they have sex, it stops seeming elusive and they see women as regular people. The person who said this said he thinks it's the reason why he used to hover hand. It's important not to give up hope. You'll find someone as long you don't get completely shit faced and sit in the corner making Roman salutes. This actually happened at a party I was at. Then I yelled at him in German and eventually told him I would find him a girl that night, which he refused with all the fanaticism of the defenders of Berlin. Good times. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 18:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Klingt nach einer tollen Party. Wie kann man einem solchen Idioten überhaupt noch anbieten, dass man ihm eine Frau auftreibt? Mit dem eine-Frau-Auftreiben hast du übrigens gerade gezeigt, wie einfach es ist, Frauen als Objekte anzuschauen.--Th. Bernhard_{Das Leben ist ein Prozeß, den man verliert, was man auch tut und wer man auch ist.} 14:15, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Er wurde nicht eine Frau finden, weil er viele Nazi-Grüßen gemacht hat. Niemand wurde mit einem verrückten Jung zusammen sein, der Nazi-Grüßen macht. Seinen Freund hat "But he'll explain to people that it's a Roman salute and not a Nazi salute and they'll understand." gesagt. Viellicht war er völlig blau. Frauen-Anschauen ist einfach und häufig aber es ist nicht völlige objektivierend. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 07:35, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

What could possibly go wrong...

... when you're building a "Citadel" of heavily armed, hard core libertarians? MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 14:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

What's unusual is that this seems to involve staying in America. Usually these scams, uh, I mean, legitimate business proposals by like-minded individuals, involve a rusty old boat parked in the open ocean or some other ridiculous proposed mechanism for escaping US law. On the one hand, this means it, or something like it, might actually get built, on the other hand, surely this doesn't achieve much more than you'd get by looking up the address of the local NRA chapter president or whatever and moving in next door. The "lease" structure looks like the clever libertarian-as-in-unethical-bastard part of the plan, you "buy" the right to live there for a lifetime but you don't end up owning the land. As owners of mobile homes have been discovering in the US, this means you have personal property, not real property and so it depreciates because land is scarce but buildings are something you can just make more of. 81.2.89.113 (talk) 15:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

We now have an article about it. --TheLateGatsby (talk) 15:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

It looks more like one of those Patriot groups than the typical libertarian pipe dream. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Isn't this Glenn Beck's? ^{(talk to a)} Nihilist 18:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Glenn Beck has a similar venture in Texas. --TheLateGatsby (talk) 18:40, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Imma just leave this here. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 18:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

"Thomas Jefferson's ideal of rightful liberty" is an agrarian state with universal education and healthcare. I hope this place plans on being a large farming collective.--Token Conservative (talk) 20:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

"...I chose the impossible. I chose... Rapture The citadel. A city where the artist would not fear the censor. Where the scientist would not be bound by petty morality. Where the great would not be constrained by the small. And with the sweat of your brow, Rapture The Citadel can become your city as well." --Revolverman (talk) 22:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm exhausted from a long run in the cold and shoveling a bunch of snow, help me out here because I think I'm missing the reference.--Token Conservative (talk) 22:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

BioShock. ^{(talk to a)} Nihilist 22:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, at least rapture was under the sea. These guys seem unaware of the last... 400 years of warfare if they believe castle walls are going to protect them from the big bad government. --Revolverman (talk) 06:10, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

It looks even more like one big paranoia-exploiting advertisement for III Arms ^gnostic 16:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Are non-americans, ie those who live north of the border, allowed to ask them to move their batfuckery somewhere else, preferably further south of the border? 172.218.56.132 (talk) 05:58, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

R v Mernagh

Well, I'm going to be busy in about 24 hours. The Ontario Court of Appeals just announced it will release judgement on R v Mernagh at noon EST tomorrow, Feb 1st. This is pretty big. The best possible outcome would have personal possession and cultivation legalized, with a 90-day delay. However, I'm pretty sure that the government won't stand for that, and will appeal to the Supreme Court. I hope the SCC denies it, because otherwise, tack on another five years. I really have no idea what's going to happen (the court has a variety of options and not a binary yes/no on the outcome), but I hope my government's forced to stop violating my Charter rights. (The complaints in R v Mernagh revolve around Health Canada's medical marijuana program being unconstitutional, and the judge agreed in the provincial court.) Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 18:06, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Which specific Charter right is at stake? Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 18:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Sections 7 and 8; I've not been privy to any documents from the appeal itself, but as I understand it, the Charter situation breaks down to this: Health Canada (an entity of the federal government, and therefore bound by the Charter) has spent the last ten years making it functionally near-impossible for Canadian patients to obtain medical marijuana despite it being established as having medical value, and therefore has had dramatically negative impacts on suffering Canadians' lives. Because Health Canada has made it so difficult to find a doctor who's willing to touch the application forms, tens of thousands of Canadians (if not more) have been forced to choose between becoming a criminal, or continuing to suffer with their ailments or the sometimes potentially-fatal side effects of prescription medication (and disturbingly often, marijuana is more effective at treating symptoms than the pill on top of the less-severe side effect profile). Being a criminal also means that you're at risk of getting caught and busted and all the fun stuff that comes with drug charges, all because Health Canada burned the bridge to legal treatment.

And even license-holders have had their homes raided and possessions confiscated by RCMP who knew it was there (MMAR licenses require you to disclose to the RCMP that you're running a legal grow-op and to inform them of the security measures you've implemented to protect your cultivation operation) but went ahead and acted like it was illegal possession anyway. There's your life/liberty/security of the person and unreasonable search and seizure violations.

This edit goes back into my first comment and wikilinks the article I wrote on here about it (I have questions about whether it's really on-mission, but that's a different discussion) with a less scatterbrained and better-referenced history and analysis by my very much non-legal-scholar little head. I really need to see the appeals decision to see exactly what Mernagh's team's Charter angle is. Note that the Crown indicated pretty early on in the appeals hearing that they'd reach for Section 33 (the Notwithstanding Clause) if they had to; Justice Doherty was not pleased with that response. Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 18:58, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

The TL;DR version is, the federal government is struggling to rescue its prohibition-maintaining "medical marijuana" program after one too many Superior Court judges find that it's unconstitutional and is lip service while keeping the drug war intact. Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 19:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I just noticed how high we are on Google for the case's name

In Canada and the US, at least, a non-logged-in Google search for "R v Mernagh" (without quotes) returns our article as the first hit. Remember, this case has the potential to flatly legalize growing pot in Canada. This is about to blow up big, and RW has the chance to shine with a detailed (if flawed; I'm very much not a legal expert of any sort) article about what the case is and the details. WP doesn't even have an article on it, only a two-paragraph subsection on the wp:Legal history of cannabis in Canada page. I've gone to lengths to be detailed and fairly thorough while keeping it firmly in the voice of a RW article instead of a misplaced WP summary. I don't think anyone here has the same active interest in the case as I do, but I would really welcome any corrections or insights into the legal matters around the case that I might've missed.

For example, I know that I'm going to have to make multiple corrections to the background and case overview sections to better highlight how this is a Charter situation. As well, only since the announcement of the release happened have I learned that this is practically a rerun of R v Morgentaler, the case that legalized abortion in Canada (which, ironically enough, is being attacked by pro-life Tea Party-equivalent wingnuts in the Conservative Party who want to reopen the abortion debate and ban it when even the government doesn't want to revisit abortion) -- the government prohibited it, was forced to make a program to allow it, and then did their damndest to make that program as broken and ineffective as possible to continue prohibition. I don't know that many RWians are experts in Canadian law, but consider this the Poutine-signal. I know I've made mistakes and this is going to blow up big. I'd rather it blow up with as few of my shitty legal fuddlings showing their asscracks in public. Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 09:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Get to it, should be fun! - David Gerard (talk) 15:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Verdict: New trial

Well, fuck. It's not a loss, strictly speaking, but the appeals court seems to not have been convinced by Mernagh's arguments that Health Canada deliberately engineered the program to discourage doctor participation, which collapses the Charter case. They've also found that Taliano established facts that were not supported in the evidence. So, back to Ontario Superior Court. At least Mernagh's still not going to jail. Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 17:45, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Cute Baby Goats Frolicking

Seems like this is as good a place as any to drop this. We still dump any goat-related stuff all over the place, don't we? DickTurpis (talk) 06:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Is it bad that i read that as "Cute Baby Goats Fucking"? ^{(talk to a)} Nihilist 06:09, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Yes it is. DickTurpis (talk) 06:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

That's the greatest thing I've seen all week. Blue (is useful) 06:30, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

When that little goat frolics, it seriously frolics. Thanks for the link! rpeh •T•C•E• 07:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

THAT IS TERMINALLY CUUUUUTE, particularly when she keeps jumping on the black one and knocking it over - David Gerard (talk) 15:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Since we're sharing cute bouncy animals: foxes on a trampoline. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:44, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

WIGO

The Twitterverse is an interesting source of... well, interesting. See https://twitter.com/xGogsx/status/296992358979997696/photo/1 for example. Is it worth considering a WIGO/Twitterverse? JzG (talk) 09:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd put it in Blogs or Clogs until and if it gets to be too much of it - David Gerard (talk) 15:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Twitter is just a medium, rather than having a corporate message a la WND or CP. WIGO Twitter would make as much sense as WIGO Blogspot or WIGO Youtube. Sophie^Wilder 18:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Brown not running for Senate

Gotta admit I called this a couple months ago. Should make the seat pretty safely Democratic. So how long before Kerry's easy ride to Foggy Bottom finds itself suddenly facing Republican opposition? DickTurpis (talk) 20:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Scott Brown's election was mostly due to the complacency of Democrats. They took the voters for granted, and Brown, by virtue of having half a brain showed up and ate their lunch. After his drubbing by Elizabeth Warren, I don't see why he'd subject himself to any more of that nonsense. --TheLateGatsby (talk) 21:01, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Love is all

A few days ago I found a tiny part of a song going through my head. All I could remember from something I saw about 30 years ago was the line "All you need is love and understanding", plus a vague vision of some cartoon characters marching through a forest. After the relevant searching, I can't get the song out of my head and it seems to be a perfect lyric for the modern progressive world. Here you go. rpeh •T•C•E• 22:54, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Never saw/heard that one before. It's actually a respectable presentation of the idea that empathy (call it love and understanding, if you like) is a way forward in the human condition. Might as well use those dreams for something: by firing the visual and motor neurons, but without connecting to actual movement, we can explore what it's like to be someone else. We've got imaginations because our ancestors found them handy for something. Sorry, probably reading too much into this, connecting it to my current cognitive-science hobbyhorse, but I do believe you have brought up a message that bears repeating. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 23:32, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Man shot in 'defense' of home

This is the sort of thing I can see Karajou doing. Aceⁱ⁹ 20:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

The victim had arrived in the USA from Cuba only three months ago. Welcome to America. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 20:26, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

You can't deny, though, that the murderer was very safe from criminals. ^{(talk to a)} Nihilist 20:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Those kids should have had guns. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

People get hung up on the mass shootings but it's shit like this that is the real reason America needs to stop being so fucking retarded and grow up about firearms. ^pathetic 22:46, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Exactly right. Aceⁱ⁹ 01:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I.e, stop being so timid about them and place them everywhere physically possible. ^{(talk to a)} Nihilist 23:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Not a responsible firearm owner. Incase anyone was wondering what my opinion was.--Token Conservative (talk) 00:40, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Glad to know whether they're a responsible firearm owner or not makes a shred of fucking difference to the victim. Do be sure to keep raising the point, it's very convincing - David Gerard (talk) 01:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

To expand on that: how could we have made sure he was a "responsible firearm owner"? The article says he had no criminal history, and it would be baseless to assume he had given enough of a prior indication that he would do something like this. ^{(talk to a)} Nihilist 01:40, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Hamilton, this :not a responsible firearms owner" meme is starting to sound like a "No True Scotsman" argument. And if the only way to determine that someone is not a "responsible firearms owner" is by waiting until after somebody gets shot, you'l need to come up with a better system than the one we have for weeding out the irresponsible ones, unless we all agree that you get one manslaughter free. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 01:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

What was the time of day this incident occurred? nobs^{Say hello to my leetle friend} 03:03, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

10 PM. Let's be clear. They were in the driveway. They never got out of the car. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 03:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The Atlanta Constitution reports at least two of the group four may have been outside the car at some point. nobs^{Say hello to my leetle friend} 03:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Standing in the driveway does not justify deadly force. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 04:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Firing a warning shot - OK I can sorta see how he might jsutify that. But following it with a head shot as they are trying to leave? Justify that Rob. Aceⁱ⁹ 04:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Let's act as impartial jurors and establish the facts. A 69 year old homeowner is home late at nite with his wife in an ordinarily quiet neighborhood which has recently suffered a spate of burglaries; a gang of four strangers pull into his driveway and two get out. Under American law, even kids who play video games that shoot and kill people for fun understand the real life possibilities of being a dumb kid just out having fun. nobs^{Say hello to my leetle friend} 04:26, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Spate of robberies my white ass: Lilburn Police Chief Bruce Hedley said two calls were placed to 911, one from a passenger in Diaz’s car and another from a neighbor who said they heard gunshots and screams. Hedley said claims of heavy gang activity in the area are false. “There’s a sampling of crime in their neighborhood, but no more than anywhere else,” he said. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 04:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

So people get killed in Baghdad all the time, BFD if it happens in Lilburn GA. nobs^{Say hello to my leetle friend} 04:50, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

clearly, because of this person, we must take everyone's cars. The only responsible car owners don't own a car. Calling this person irresponsible is no-true-scotsman. All car drivers are rednecks. All car drivers are psychotic. Blah blah blah. In 2010 almost 33,000 people in the US were killed by cars while only 11,000 were killed with firearms.--Token Conservative (talk) 04:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Tired, cliché analogies always add so much to the conversation. DickTurpis (talk) 04:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

So does insulting the opposition. Still happens here.--Token Conservative (talk) 04:45, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey, guess what Hamilton, no one is taking guns away. Also, guess what - when you can drive a car, how you drive, car safety, licensing all exist for drivers but you are saying we can't do that with guns? Aceⁱ⁹ 20:25, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Ok, so you can take a 69 year old man's driver's license away so he's not a hazard on the road anymore, let him retire to his quiet neighborhood and await a bunch of youngsters to rob him. As an aside, not a word about the blind faith in science and technology -- The GPS device -- that supposedly is at fault here. So a piece of shit GPS device gives someone the excuse to scare the shit out of people. nobs^{Say hello to my leetle friend} 04:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The GPS isn't to blame, and nobody was out to rob anybody. A car pulled up in the driveway. Instead of either figuring out who these lost folks were and offering them a hand or waiting inside the house with the gun to defend the home if they tried to enter it, this senile fuck shoots first, asks no questions. Rest of his life in jail. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 04:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok thank you. We won't be needing yuour services. You are dismissed from the pool of impartial jurors. nobs^{Say hello to my leetle friend} 05:03, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, several issues. First to Token: You're argument is actually ironic considering we regulate cars much harsher than we regulate guns and thanks to pressure from the federal government (in the form of federal highway funds) every state has almost completely identical licensing laws. In order to drive a car legally, you have to pass a written test, or a practical skills test or both, which you can not legally do until a certain age. You also have to prove proof of insurance to own a car, which has to be registered EVERY YEAR (or two years) with the state government. In addition, minor violations in laws get you points on your license that can lead to a complete revocation of that same license. By comparison, some states don't require a background check for long guns such as rifles and shotguns, and those states that do are required by law to destroy that information within 24 hours and they cannot report information on who purchased those weapons. In Colorado, if you sold that gun privately to another person, not only was there no background check required, but the government legally couldn't even record data of the sale. Second to Rob: you're on the losing side here. Nobody in their right mind will accept a self defense claim when the victims explicitly stated and the shooter agreed that they were trying to get away from the home when he shot. They hadn't committed any property crimes (even trespassing, as he gave no warning). Paranoia is not a valid defense in this case, sorry buddy. SirChuckB^{Boom Goes the Dynamite} 07:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC) EDIT: Sorry, I was mistaken on one detail. The shooter claimed the car accelerated towards him, the police report and victim statements indicated they were trying to get away.

There's many details we don't know. Perhaps they were playing the radio at 9,000 db at 10PM; why couldn't they leave in the time he was in and out of the house, twice. nobs^{Say hello to my leetle friend} 12:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Is there anything this man could have done that you wouldn't attempt to justify? Maybe if he came outside of the house and handed them a communist flyer? Q0 (talk) 12:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh and how many scary criminals, who go around robbing houses and apparently threatening the lives of people within, play music at a high volume as their calling card? Or is loud music a crime worth killing over either way? Q0 (talk) 13:03, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The teens threatened him and brandished a shotgun. There just isn't any justice nowadays (I suspect the reasoning here is the shooter was in a public place, not defending his home, and should have just driven away). And SirChuck raises good points; driving is a privilege, whereas keeping and baring arms is a right. nobs^{Say hello to my leetle friend} 13:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, please show me your biceps, Rob.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 20:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Note that this is the defence lawyer's version, retelling what the accused says. From previous coverage it's known that the police found no gun in the other car.

And the "bearing of arms" being a right, a lot of other things are and face regulations. "Well-regulated" is even in the amendment itself.--ZooGuard (talk) 14:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, true. The Florida Stand Your Ground Rule (same as in Trayvon Martin case) speaks of "reasonable beleif", and like the Trayvon Martin case, is intended for street confrontations, not just defending you home. What is "reasonable belief"? There are police shootings regularly of unarmed persons becasuse the cops thought a cassette tape (for instance) a driver was holding was gun. nobs^{Say hello to my leetle friend} 17:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

So basically you're saying anyone could shoot anyone for any reason as long as they say they felt threatened, and you're okay with that? By the way, you're wrong again. It's hardly standing your ground when you're the one that starts the confrontation in the first place. Not to mention that if he didn't have a gun, thinking he was all badass safe, do you think he would have approached another car at a gas station and told them to turn their music down in the first place? Q0 (talk) 00:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

The stand your ground rule in both Trayvon Martin & this case was written exactly to do that. Of coarse, it's up to a jury to accept or reject your claim for "reasonably beleiving" you felt threatened enough to use deadly force. Asking a stranger to please turn down the music, in most cases, should be no more confrontational than saying "excuse me" in a crowded shopping aisle (now if he shouted, "Turn that shit down!", maybe that is provocative or confrontational). If it were established the kids did swear at the guy and ignored a polite request, a jury just might consider that confrontational or threatening. A gesture or object in a dimly lit lot under stressful circumstance easily could be mistaken for a weapon. In America, lots and lots of people who don't carry guns bluff people all the time into thinking they just might be carrying a weapon. nobs^{Say hello to my leetle friend} 01:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Funny, what I'm hearing from "responsible gun owners" elsewhere is that both guys will probably end up behind bars.

In the Jordan Davis case, the shooter opened file blindly on the other vehicle, fled the scene, spent the night in a hotel and returned home, 175 miles away, where he was arrested. At no point he or his girlfriend called the police, even though he thought he had been threatened by a gang. There's speculation that he was drunk at the time of the shooting, as he was returning from his son's wedding.

So, yeah, something's fishy here. If I were you, I wouldn't be so fast to defend him.--ZooGuard (talk) 10:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

ok so long as you can convince a jury of those facts beynd a reasonable doubt. nobs^{Say hello to my leetle friend} 13:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

A drunken condition (if provable 24 hours later) may anul someone's claim to acting "reasonable". In most states even without the "stand your ground rule", if someone pretends they have a gun (say with a pointed finger inside a coat pocket) and threatens you, they may be lucky to survive the confrontation. Also, what was the nature of the threat? Did the youth say worda to the effect, "Fuck off, man, before I shoot you." But this may be dependent on witnesses. nobs^{Say hello to my leetle friend} 13:41, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

You're factually incorrect on one issue Rob (I know, I was shocked too). A main complaint of the stand your ground rule is that many cases are dismissed before a jury hears the facts. Judges get to decide is a case is justified under Stand Your Ground and if they say it's justified, the case ends (excepting appeals of course) SirChuckB^{A product of Affirmative Action} 18:56, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

There is a fairly large amount of bullshit being hurled my way for some reason.

• @Ace: I am aware that no one is taking away anyone's firearms, but it has been suggested by users here, just like users here have called firearm owners irresponsible by definition, rednecks and psychopaths.
• @Sir Chuck B: for my argument involving vehicular manslaughtter/murder to be ironic, I would have to be opposed to firearm regulations, which is not the case. I've gone into some detail on what I would like to have happen before. I'm just trying to point out that because cars are used to kill people by stupid/irresponsible people does not mean that smart/responsible people cannot own cars/firearms.

some break

I'm sure if this is allowed to go on I'll catch more flak from people who apparently think "conservative = wants no firearm regulations at all".--Token Conservative (talk) 20:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I cannot fathom what could ever be responsible about owning a tool which has solely been produced for the purpose of killing other people. Maybe it's because I'm not an American-212.123.158.42 (talk) 00:18, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Last time I looked, the old guy had a .22 pistol. The primary purpose of such a weapon, in my view, is perforating tin cans in a sand-pit, or maybe shooting rats in a chicken coop. (Responsible gun control includes minding the backstop.) Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 00:51, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

If you think a firearm is only designed to kill people you're sadly mistaken, and demonstrating a pretty severe lack of understanding of what a firearm is.--Token Conservative (talk) 04:44, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

The fact that you use your gun for firing at empty beer cans doesn't man that guns are not designed to kill. Guns were designed to be an highly efficient tool to put people into the next world. The fact that since the invention of the gun it has also been used to kill animals or put holes in beer cans doesn't change the fact that it is still a very effective tool to kill other people. If you cannot take an emotional distance from your perspective on guns does not mean I am mistaken.-212.123.158.42 (talk) 11:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Or, what is a saw but an object solely designed to cut through things? A gun is an invention that is designed to do one thing: Put bullets into things. The fact that not everything on the planet can be shot to death (e.g. rocks, cold weather) does not preclude a gun from being labelled as a tool for killing. Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 11:32, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

A handful of specialist firearms are not designed to kill people at all. Flare guns and starting pistols are both pretty stupid as weapons, not to say they aren't potentially dangerous. A second group grew out of a desire to retain a feature of early firearms that was not particularly effective against people, firing many pellets or shot. While some shotguns are designed to be used against people, as a general category they're more suitable for killing birds. The former group of specialist firearms are becoming obsolete, a starting pistol is pretty bad at its job (the athletes hear the sound at different moments in time which is stupid) and they weren't used at the 2012 Olympics for example. But yes, the majority of weapons people are talking about when they say they need guns for hunting or "home defence" are designs that were conceived for killing humans, no doubt about it. 81.2.89.113 (talk) 14:05, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not arguing to outlaw that all. Assault weapons, normal pistols, etc. are definitely not made for any of the aforementioned and should be illegal. Then you can regulate the other weapons based on how deadly they are and on their applicability or historical value.-212.123.158.42 (talk) 20:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

"Assault weapon" is a meaningless term invented by people who don't know anything about firearms. Firearms are designed to shoot, not to kill. The majority of firearms made in the US that are not sold to the military are designed for hunting or target shooting.--Token Conservative (talk) 00:51, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I can support that sentiment that the majority of firearms made and sold in the US are for "hunting or target shooting". For example, the glock-17, the most common handgun used amongst police, and I'd assume quite popular amongst civilians too, was definitely not made for hunting or target shooting. It was originally designed for use as a sidearm by the Austrian military. (There was a fun program on NPR today about it.) EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 00:58, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

IIRC the majority of weapons sold in the US are hunting rifles. Perhaps that would be a better phrasing of my statement: by numbers sold, rather then numbers made--Token Conservative (talk) 01:00, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm unaware of the statistics. However, I also think the entire discussion is a red herring because IMHO the second amendment doesn't just protect weapons designed to kill deer. That's not controversial and not worthy of an amendment. It specifically protects guns designed to kill people. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 01:20, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not a red herring. I'm not arguing on the Second Amendment, I'm arguing against it. If enough people disagree with the Second Amendment, it can be amended or repealed, not matter what it says.-212.123.158.42 (talk) 02:23, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Understood. Sorry I phrased that badly. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 02:36, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I now realize I also might've misunderstood something, well it's all clear now.-212.123.158.42 (talk) 03:45, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

You're not seriously thinking the Second Amendment will be amended or repealed anytime in the foreseeable future, are you? There isn't remotely a national concensus necessary for that. And most elected officials either like their jobs or are looking to advance in electoral politics. Outside of some urban areas, were views on guns are mixed, pansey-ass journalists, and a few unemployed activists looking for a new cause, there isn't much support. nobs^{Say hello to my leetle friend} 14:07, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't expect that, but I believe that change can be brought around slowly. I also don't expect religious violence to be stopped in the foreseeable future, but there have been so many things in the past that seemed to be unchangeable and we have done away with so many of them. -Strangelove (talk) 16:13, 2 February 2013 (UTC)/212.123.158.42 (talk)

Most people agree to some reasonable regulation; it's sad, but there won't be any legislative hereos out of Sandy Hook who can use the issue to furhter their career by exploiting the death of children. The American people, for all their failings, are pretty sophistacted when it comes the gun issue. nobs^{Say hello to my leetle friend} 16:33, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Question for Second Amendment fundamentalists

Should US citizens be allowed to own rocket launchers? Landmines? Black Hawk helicopters? A-10 Warthogs? Cluster munitions? Nuclear weapons? Either there is to be no infringement on the right of a citizen to bear and keep arms, and I should be allowed to put anti-aircraft missiles on my roof, or there should be some sort of infringement and I shouldn't. If it's the former, why is the NRA not doing advocacy work for my right to put Claymores in the garden? If it's the latter, why is an anti-tank weapon a reasonable limitation but an AR-15 not? Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 16:45, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

You are correct. The 2nd Amendment uses "arms" and makes no reference to "guns". A taser or battle axe certainly are lethal or potentially lethal arms. Government regulations exist that limit, or interfere with, a persons right to bear arms. For example, in most localities you probably could not carry a battle axe unto a city bus. A gun is just a more efficient technological improvement. Human nature hasn't progressed to where we can adopt benevolence toward all strangers. nobs^{Say hello to my leetle friend} 18:01, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

You haven't come anywhere near answering the question Rob.--Token Conservative (talk) 18:19, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Supreme Court has ruled, the 2nd Amendment does not apply to the wp:W-88 warhead; there is a legitimate need for regulation here. nobs^{Say hello to my leetle friend} 19:01, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Rocket launcers? I'm ok with different grades of licenses and regulations. I think you can make an argument for the constitutionality of the destructive arms license of the ATF as long as it's not arbitrarily given out. -- Landmines are outlawed by international treaty, more or less, and IIRC the US would also be a signatory if they could get a Korea exemption. -- Black Hawk helicopters are hella expensive. Wikipedia says ~21 mil USD per pop. Letting civilians own them? Sure. Maybe like one or two crazies would get one. I see no problem here. Dittos for that attack plane. -- No private civilians gets nukes, at all; the second amendment, the rule of law, and the entire US constitution be damned, assuming you couldn't find a loophole or legal argument otherwise. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 21:51, 2 February 2013 (UTC)