RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive191

This is an archive page, last updated 10 February 2013. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>, <76>, <77>, <78>, <79>, <80>, <81>, <82>, <83>, <84>, <85>, <86>, <87>, <88>, <89>, <90>, <91>, <92>, <93>, <94>, <95>, <96>, <97>, <98>, <99>, <100>, <101>, <102>, <103>, <104>, <105>, <106>, <107>, <108>, <109>, <110>, <111>, <112>, <113>, <114>, <115>, <116>, <117>, <118>, <119>, <120>, <121>, <122>, <123>, <124>, <125>, <126>, <127>, <128>, <129>, <130>, <131>, <132>, <133>, <134>, <135>, <136>, <137>, <138>, <139>, <140>, <141>, <142>, <143>, <144>, <145>, <146>, <147>, <148>, <149>, <150>, <151>, <152>, <153>, <154>, <155>, <156>, <157>, <158>, <159>, <160>, <161>, <162>, <163>, <164>, <165>, <166>, <167>, <168>, <169>, <170>, <171>, <172>, <173>, <174>, <175>, <176>, <177>, <178>, <179>, <180>, <181>, <182>, <183>, <184>, <185>, <186>, <187>, <188>, <189>, <190>, <192>, <193>, <194>, <195>, <196>, <197>, <198>, <199>, <200>, <201>, <202>, <203>, <204>, <205>, <206>, <207>, <208>, <209>, <210>, <211>, <212>, <213>, <214>, <215>, <216>, <217>, <218>, <219>, <220>, <221>, <222>, <223>, <224>, <224½>, <225>, <226>, <227>, <228>, <229>, <230>, <231>, <232>, <233>, <234>, <235>, <236>, <237>, <238>, <239>, <240>, <241>, <242>, <243>, <244>, <245>, <246>, <247>, <248>, <249>, <250>, <251>, <252>, <253>, <254>, <255>, <256>, <257>, <258>, <259>, <260>, <261>, <262>, <263>, <264>, <265>, <266>, <267>, <268>, <269>, <270>, <271>, <272>, <273>, <274>, <275>, <276>, <277>, <278>, <279>, <280>, <281>, <282>, <283>, <284>, <285>, <286>, <287>, <288>, <289>, <290>, <291>, <292>, <293>, <294>, <295>, <296>, <297>, <298>, <299>, <300>, <301>, <302>, <303>, <304>, <305>, <306>, <307>, <308>, <309>, <310>, <311>, <312>, <313>, <314>, <315>, <316>, <317>, <318>, <319>, <320>, <321>, <322>, <323>, <324>, <325>, <326>, <327>, <328>, <329>, <330>, <331>, <332>, <333>, <334>, <335>, <336>, <337>, <338>, <339>, <340>, <341>, <342>, <343>, <344>, <345>, <346>, <347>, <348>, <349>, <350>, <351>, <352>, <353>, <354>, <355>, <356>, <357>, <358>, <359>, <360>, <361>, <362>, <363>, <364>, <365>, <366>, <367>, <368>, <369>, <370>, <371>, <372>, <373>, <374>, <375>, <376>, <377>, <378>, <379>, <380>, <381>, <382>, <383>, <384>, <385>, <386>, <387>, <388>, <389>, <390>, <391>, <392>, <393>, <394>, <395>, <396>, <397>, <398>, <399>, <400>, <401>, <402>, <403>, <404>, <405>, <406>, <407>, <408>, <409>, <410>, <411>, <412>, <413>, <414>, <415>, <416>, <417>, <418>, <419>, <420>, <421>, <422>, <423>, <424>, <425>, <426>, <427>, <428>, <429>, <430>, <431>, <432>, <433>, <434>, <435>, <436>, <437>, <438>, <439>, <440>, <441>, <442>, <443>, <444>, <445>, <446>, <447>, <448>, <449>, <450>, <451>, <452>, <453>, <454>, <455>, <456>, <457>, <458>, <459>, <460>, <461>, <462>, <463>, <464>, <465>, <466>, <467>, <468>

, (new)(back)

Terry Hurlbutt calls a sitting US senator a pedophile.

Wow? Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 18:30, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Launchbooty is seriously going off the rails lately. Watching him and his acolytes post is like watching a train wreck in slow motion. I'd love to see him defend these claims in court. --PsyGremlin^Parla! 19:06, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

This particular Clog has such a small audience, it can't do measurable damage to Menendez's reputation, though bringing suit might give the site's contributors a heart attack... or an erection. --TheLateGatsby (talk) 19:16, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Do you really wanna go there, ToP? become an apologist for pedophilia? how about "human trafficing"? or "under age prostitute"? or "crimes against children"? nobs^{Say hello to my leetle friend} 21:27, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Cool Story, Bro. --Revolverman (talk) 01:32, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Another American national anthem based on the war of 1812

The [star spangled] banner high! Fort tightly guarded.
Continentals march with calm firm steps.
Comrades the, red coats shot dead,
march in spirit within our ranks!

Sorry, when I saw Menendez this, I lost my shit!

It looks like we have another pro-rape party who would rather see women brutally raped and murdered than not see their own rich-White agendas passed!

Note the fact that I use the actual words and not feth and gak. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 08:09, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

what?--^Mikal 08:24, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

TL;DR: I saw someone on the internet who was an idiot. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 08:43, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Which led you to make a random song and then go off on a unrelated tangent about rape, murder and the oppression of women?--^Mikal 08:47, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

This is why we can't have nice things. OK, so why is gun control specifically a rich white guy agenda? & Why is it pro-rape when the cited rationale for not having guns in the home is preventing violence within households? And why are you attributing this image macro to a "party" anyway? And what's with the 1812 thing? And why is there a comma after "the"? Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 11:26, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Truth: 50% stranger than fiction

Some people say that if the commie Obama condemned the holocaust then wing nuts would feel compelled to defend Hitler. Ridiculous, of course. Oh, wait... http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/339003/president-obama-commemorates-senseless-holocaust-eliana-johnson#comments JzG (talk) 07:45, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Already under discussion at RationalWiki talk:What is going on in the clogosphere? #How dare Obama call the Holocaust "senseless!". ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 14:57, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Splendid. More confirmatory evidence for Poe's Law if you ask me. JzG (talk) 19:36, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

"Following the controversial 'Drinking is Gay' campaign..."

This is in German, but apparantly, the city of Zweibrücken has had to issue a public apology after it turned out one of their campaigns featured the slogan "Sobriety is Cool, Drinking is Gay" (or possibly "Sobriety is Groovy, Drinking is Fruity" if you enjoy painfully outdated not-quite-rhyming slang). What the hell. --Yukabacera (talk) 14:15, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

How to be a bankster

Hi there Welcome to GoogonalWiki! Please tell me if this Keiser gentleman is in need of the debunkery. [1] ^{— Unsigned, by: Arbo / talk / contribs}

Keiser is kind of like Zero Hedge in that you'll find a lot of stories that are being buried by the MSM, but you have to pick them out of vast sea of conspiracy theory they're awash in. Pretty much par for the course at RT. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:53, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Dafuq?

PZ just introduced me to Archimedes Plutonium's site and his Plutonium Atom Totality. I hate PZ forever, and I'm off to read some Timecube to bring normality back into my life. --PsyGremlin^Sprich! 13:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

This is the greatest thing I have ever read. ^sshole 15:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

People tried to make an article on this on teh wikipediaz, but it failed for lack of independent sources. I say people, I think it was Ludwig himself. Should I bring it over here? I have the deleted contents. JzG (talk) 09:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

DO YOU EVEN NEED TO ASK. - David Gerard (talk) 15:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Eh? WTF is this? What is he even talking about? It's not even wrong... --Llegar a las estrellas^¿Dígame? 15:38, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Obama caves on contraception and religion.

Disappointing. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 18:07, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

But extremely predictable.

Is there anyone who still has faith in Obama?; if so, why? The rightists hate him because he's too marxist, and the leftists don't like him because he's like every other corrupt politician. ^{(talk to a)} Nihilist 18:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I still see gitmo open. I still see the PATRIOT act and similar abuses still on the books. I see an increased use of drones (aka "extra judicial killings"). So yeah... I have some problems. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 01:18, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

(1) He had to do this because most likely the administration would have lost in court eventually, and (2) why is it disappointing when Obama virtually kicks the religious opposition in the nuts, adopts a moderate compromise, and dispels the image of a radical? nobs^{Say hello to my leetle friend} 18:09, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

You RatWikians mock Ron Paul. He votes against spending nearly every time. Do you not believe he would end foreign occupations? Arbo (talk) 18:13, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Ron Paul, for lack of a better term is a "deflationist". Here's a secret: population growth is economic growth. Hence the need for a growing money supply which gold cannot accomodate. Yes, price stability is a good thing, but Ron Paul advocates anti-growth policies, be it return to the gold standard, or blanket opposition to expanding budgetary and monetary aggregates. Having so firmly rooted himself in the anti-economic growth camp, Paul has in effect allied himself to the same ends of Karl Marx and Marx's progeny. nobs^{Say hello to my leetle friend} 18:30, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

So, he continues to violate the letter and spirit of the law for fear of maybe losing a court case. If I was president, for the ones who are obviously not guilty of anything, such as the Uyghurs (sp), I would let them free in US proper, and pardon them of any and all crimes. And surely I can whip something up to let them be legal US residents and/or citizens. What's the court and the congress going to do? Pass a bill of attainder saying they need to be locked up? Yea, right. It's criminal that these people are completely innocent of everything, and everyone knows it, and some of them are still there. -- I also have not seen him pass an (executive) order banning the use of torture and waterboarding. Last I checked, he can do that, but he hasn't. He hasn't done similarly for decrying the powers given to him by the PATRIOT act et. al. and forbidding its use. There's a lot he could do, but he isn't. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 21:56, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

As to immigration, the last reform measure (Simpson-Mazzoli) created the dreaded I-9 Form, passing off the government's dirty work and forcing private sector business people to become (unpaid) gestapo enforcers ("Your papers, pleeze.") nobs^{Say hello to my leetle friend} 02:46, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Gitmo, drones, Patriot act, private prisons, no improvements to infrastructure, worker protection and union laws that are also feudal, and border policies so fucked up that people fly circuitous routes on long-haul flights to avoid having to trasnit through immigration hell. What's remarkable as not how crap Obama is, but that even with this the democrats are still noticably better than the GOP. --Llegar a las estrellas^¿Dígame? 15:33, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

So, Obama sacrificed 60 incumbant House Democrats and control of the House to pass the unpopular PPACA; now other Democratic initiatves are stymied. It is a question of leadership and effectiveness. nobs^{Say hello to my leetle friend} 18:39, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Atheist Christianity

Would it be good to start a philosophy that follows the good parts of Christianity that Jesus created, but without the imaginary man in the sky? Even though Jesus might not have existed, it could still be used to the point that it makes. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 16:30, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Right, like pray to God even though he doesn't exist sort of thing?--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 16:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

No, you just follow the parts about not bombing the gak out of other countries. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 16:42, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

And where doe that bit come in?--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 16:46, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

This would be an good place to start. It works for me. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 16:47, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

This already exists. It's usually known as Christian atheism. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 16:50, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

In addition there are already workable ethical systems that do not involve the personality cult of a long-dead martyr of questionable historicity. They do not preach a "rational" nor an "objective" universal morality divorced from human meatware, but rather a metaphoric morality, acknowledging a plurality of human moral systems. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 17:03, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Other than "blessed are the cheesemakers" what particular part of Jesus's moral teachings (without reference to a god) are unique to Christianity? Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 23:00, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

None really. The stuff with appeal is the familiar stuff about the good Samaritan, turning the other cheek, letting he who is without sin cast the first stone, etc. etc. But there are comparable ethics in nearly all religions & many secular philosophies. Plus you would need to ignore or downplay the fact that Jesus seems to have talked about God quite a lot. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:47, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. But if there is no god then the book cannot have been inspired by him. So it really is just a book of magic stories with some good and some bad moral advice.

So you'd need to go through it, remove the God bits, remove the magic bits and then see which bits of the moral teachings you agree with and which bits you don't. It seems like a rather pointless excessive exercise.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 08:31, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The Christian founder Thomas Jefferson did this (wp:Jefferson Bible); it was a forerunner of the Conservapedia Bible Project. nobs^{Say hello to my leetle friend} 13:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Such a good Christian... Jefferson referred to the parts of the Gospel he liked as "diamonds in a dunghill", implying the parts he cut out were shit.

I wouldn't go that far, I'd say the Bible is a poorly-edited book. I could understand people obeying the precepts if they were at least consistent. Of course, when one edits it, one tacitly acknowledges it was written by men without divine inspiration. It's also worth noting that Jefferson did it as a hobby. He was successful enough he didn't suffer from delusions of grandeur. --TheLateGatsby (talk) 14:52, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Well that's a misinterpretation of New Testament Christianity; the Christian bible is not intended to be a book of precepts or rules to obey. It is a gospel of grace, not law. nobs^{Say hello to my leetle friend} 16:54, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Coulda fooled me. --^Mikal_lakiM 18:49, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The notion that the Christian bible is a book of rules of do's & don'ts is a Satanic lie from the pit of hell. nobs^{Say hello to my leetle friend} 19:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Is Jewish atheism practical? If so, I'd rather promote that because it would make a certain group of evolutionary leftovers insane. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 20:42, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Rob the things you say are adorable. @ Inquisitor... cool? --^Mikal_lakiM 20:46, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't really understand the desire to take atheism & hang fragments of a religion over it. If you want to embrace an atheist philosophy with social and moral dimensions, try secular humanism or Atheism Plus which, for all its flaws, is at least relevant to the times we live in and the issues we face in the modern world. Whereas Christian atheism & Jewish atheism are really just halfway measures for people who have lost faith in their religion but can't quite let go. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:35, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the weasel's main points but I'm not so sure about the impracticability of "Jewish atheism". That's is because "Jewish" has two meanings - a religious one and a social/political/cultural one. Being a religious Jewish atheist would seem to be a bit odd. But being culturally Jewish and an atheist? Why not?--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 21:42, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

If you're from an ethnic/cultural Jewish background & want to keep some ties to the Jewish community & traditions, fair enough I guess. But it would seem rather odd for a gentile to embrace Jewish atheism, unless there were some particular reason for entering the Jewish community (e.g. marrying into a Jewish family). Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:49, 3 February 2013

Those are good points, so there is a bit of impracticability to it. Except for the one by Mikal. I don't get what he's trying to say, as usual. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 22:15, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

you dont understand a confused reaction to your random plan involving the nazis?--^Mikal_lakiM 22:26, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I admit I did bring them in again. I would have linked to racists if we had a page title on that specifically. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 04:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Not everything has to be tied to racism and sexism love. --^Mikal_lakiM 04:36, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

FUCKING FIX WIGOBOT, WILL YOU

Could whoever runs WIGObot please fix the "Recent entires" bug? Thanks! - David Gerard (talk) 19:29, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Since WIGObot runs on the bot server, don't you have access to it? Or is that just Trent? Blue (pester) 23:26, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Is that the one in Trent's house? No, I don't. (Trent, is this lurking somewhere on our box of evil?) - David Gerard (talk) 00:00, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

It's Trent's yes, the same server RWW is on. I thought Nx had access to it but I could be mistaken. Blue (is useful) 00:04, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I thought WIGObot was run by Pi? Peter ^{Droid whisperer} 00:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I am under the impression that WIGObot, Pibot and Capturebot2 are run from the bot server, which means that Pi wouldn't have access to WIGObot (even though he wrote the script). Blue (is useful) 02:23, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The times and dates that WIGObot appears—it missed January completely—very much suggests manual operation. Peter ^{Droid whisperer} 02:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Who has the code 02:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

That could be. I'm sure Capturebot is on the bot server but WIGObot might not be. It would be strange, though, considering Pibot runs daily. Blue (is useful) 07:07, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Pibot is on the server, starting at the same time every day. Capturebot is similar, but wb doesn't follow the same patterns. I've looked for the wb script (I remember seeing it before) but I can't find it anywhere. Peter ^{Droid whisperer} 07:14, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Honestly I suspect it's pywikipediabot, which also makes me want to kill myself. 15:42, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

David, the bot server is on the smaller Linode slice that's not the non-RW slice with the other IP address. Don't know if you've got access to that one. I'd love to get the code for WigoBot and rewrite it as a learning lesson in something that doesn't make me want to kill myself. 15:39, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Ace’s easy way to regulate guns (or how not to lose you nut and shoot everyone for no damned reason)

Firstly – at the outset – I am believer in gun ownership. I enjoy firing guns and I believe that responsible people have a right to own firearms. That said the problem as I see it in the USA is that guns are not treated with respect. The respect that one might give to say, a wild animal or a fast car. Guns are dangerous items that can maim and kill if you aren’t respectful of their ability. I also find that this attitude extends into people viewing them as a valid way of settling disputes. A recent case was the school shooting in Houston wherein the student brought a gun to school, ostensibly for defense, which he then used to settle an argument with another student. The same with the section I brought up a few sections above where an elderly man shoot a man in his driveway without second thought it seems. America loves her toys but there is little to no respect for the power of guns….so here is what I propose:

• Hunting rifles, small bore rifles and the like should still be sold quite openly as they are in other countries. When purchasing one you must, of course, be subject to a universal background check – provide ID etc. But these rifles aren’t too much of a concern. They are not quick to load, hard to shoot in a crowed area, cannot be easily hidden and generally do not make good weapons to go on a shooting spree with.
• Handguns/shotguns are a different beast all together. Designed to kill humans (or ducks in the case of shotguns), easily concealed and just as easily shoot without thinking. To own a hand gun or shotgun one must first be validated. Validation comes through taking a mandatory training program. Gun safety, gun storage and lessons on how to properly use a weapon in defence (i.e. Don’t just fucking shoot it at people – identify your target, warn you have a gun, fire a warning shot etc). Teach people to respect the weapon as a deadly device not to be used with impunity. After you have completed your training and the required background check then you are licensed to own a handgun or shotgun. You licence has a five year expiry which means after 5 years it is time for a refresher course – not necessarily as in-depth as the previous course but still a re-validation of your licence.
• Assault rifles as above but with a 3 year renewal but one also needs a third party validation. If you want to use for target practice then you need to be part of a registered gun club. If you are a collector or not part of a gun-club then a local authority must validate you are a safe and reasonable person to own such a weapon.

None of the above will stop gun-crime but it at least makes a change to the attitude of gun ownership. Taking from “Gimmie my gun, it’s my right” to “If you want to own a gun then you need to take reasonable steps to ensure you know how and when to use it”. We do this with vehicles, heavy machinery and other dangerous items so why not with guns? You’ll note that note one of these steps involves taking anyone’s right to a gun away. Thoughts? Aceⁱ⁹ 20:52, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I have a question. Fedinstein's Committee allegedly is having hearings on her proposal to re-introduce her assault weapons bill. Gabby Giffords testified today, however Gabby Giffords was not shot with an assault weapon. Can you explain the confusion some people may have regrading Sen. Feinstein and supporters stated purpose to regulate assault weapons, whereas it appears the public hearings are being conducted to gin-up support for some other purpose? Thank you. Burnum (talk) 21:03, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not know of this. Aceⁱ⁹ 21:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Issues I'm having:

• • Small bore rifles are uncommon for medium-big game hunting rifles, as I'm aware, but actually fairly common for military weapons. The M16 uses a .223 round, which is barely bigger then the .22 in terms of bore size, and the .22 is usually considered the definition of a small bore.
  • I would extend mandatory firearm safety courses to obligatory for every firearm purchase, with review courses required every 7 years (same as in Nebraska for cars), and failing to follow them is the same as assault with a deadly weapon (remember the asshole that shot someone with a firearm at a firearm show? Yeah, fuck that noise).
  • "Assault weapon" is a fairly meaningless term. I think the definition used in the assault weapon ban is that it had a pistol grip, or some other such thing.
  • I'd also add requiring a gun lock and/or gun safe for each firearm purchased, and some serious repercussions for things like illegal purchase/sale of firearms.--Token Conservative (talk) 21:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Good points Hamilton. Aceⁱ⁹ 21:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

[EC]In my lexicon, "smallbore" means .22 rimfire, most usually .22 long rifle. The 5.56x45mm military round is closer kin to varmint loads than it is to plinking ammo. I'm not sure how suitable it is for hunting; the projectile is unstable in flight, and tends to tumble when it hits something, which fucks up the meat. Something about a full metal jacket not being subject to treaties forbidding dum-dum rounds...

Here is as good a place as any to share an anecdote: The serious shooters who spend regular time at the ranges keeping their skills sharp are seeing more poseurs showing up in full camo drag. Could be a regional thing, but I wouldn't be surprised to find it pretty widespread. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 21:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

The expiry idea is stupid. A lot of people aren't going to have money or time for classes, so it should be limited to when people want a conceal carry permit. All non automatic weapons should be available with a background check or registration. Automatic weapons should be limited to a more intense background check and for collectors of antique guns. They should demonstrate that they already own guns from the period they plan to collect automatic guns. If people want a SCAR-H, they can get a semi automatic one. Magazine limits are not necessary, and often result in highly irregular magazines for guns like the AKM that probably don't have the same standard of reliability. American made plastic crap for some dumb magazine size limit is not going to work well with people who use the AKM for reliability. Weapons will malfunction and people are going to die because rich White "liberals" wanted to pass gun laws.

An assault rifle is a Sturmgewehr. It's a short range rifle that is automatic.

Encourage people to be responsible and take classes if they need to, but don't require it for everyone who knows how to be responsible on their own. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 21:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Concealed carry or not - people need to be taught to use guns responsibly. Not having the time or money is no excuse. Being responsible =/= knowing how to use a weapon. I'm responsible so fuck getting a driver licence! And are seriously suggesting that anyone will walk into a gun store and say "Say, I'm irresponsible so I better get some lessons". EVERYONE thinks they are responsible until they mistake a family member for a burglar and shoot them in the face. Aceⁱ⁹ 21:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Car safety courses are required in the state of Nebraska every 7 years (5 if you're over 65). Failing to do so is an automatic lose of your driver's license. It's run by the state, and really just amounts to a pen and paper test, eye examination, and spending like 5 minutes on the road with a state driving instructor. Takes half an hour and you can do it anytime from like 6am to 6pm Monday to Friday, and like half that on Saturdays

@Sprocket, I don't spend much time hunting, but I'm pretty sure that for medium to big game hunting (like deer, for example) you want something a bit bigger then a .22. That was basically my point.--Token Conservative (talk) 21:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe you are correct about what size slugs make sense to use on deer. I was picking a nit about including a center-fire military caliber such as the 5.56 in the smallbore category. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 21:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

As far as reducing the likelihood of someone losing their nut and shooting bunches of unarmed civilians, I favor cultural and systemic solutions rather than bureaucratic ones. Beyond that, I don't have concrete suggestions. Lots to be said for numerous viewzpoints. Not everyone with a .30-06 standing in the rural corner of the bedroom needs to be recertified once per lustrum, but whacked-out loners are scary when they have enough hardware and caps to start a little war. (If you don't know what a lustrum is, ask Rooster Cogburn.) Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 21:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, isn't smallbore (and related terms) defined by the diameter of the round? So, I think that regardless of the round specifics, a .223/5.56 would be a smallbore. And you are right, we need changes in our culture and overall criminal justice system to effect any real and long lasting change in overall murder rate, but firearm regulations I think are an essential part of that, since such regulations would reduce deaths and injury from accidental fire. --Token Conservative (talk) 22:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

According to the rules, The rifle authorized for use in smallbore rifle matches is the .22 caliber rimfire.... Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 22:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I meant smallbore as a general concept--Token Conservative (talk) 00:09, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

That's what the term has always been used for. Rimfire, plinking, very small game, junior match competition kind of context. It is not just about bore size, but the lightweight charge behind it. Feel free to redefine it, but not everyone will know what you're talking about. This is tangential to Ace's scheme, though. I read that as including hunting rifles and smallbore rifles as two general classes in an overall category some of us would call long guns. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 00:22, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not trying to redefine anything. I'm not very familiar with the minute of firearm terms and construction, I just thought that smallbore referred to the diameter of the round.--Token Conservative (talk) 04:48, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Mandatory continuing education and re-licensing

Requiring such (mentioned above by at least two contributors in different forms) for guns is a very good idea that you might be able to get the NRA to, if not actually support, at least refrain from openly arguing. I'm impressed that a US state managed to get this done for car drivers, the EU still only has it for larger and commercial vehicles. It has to be mandatory, and a condition of licensing, because of Dunning-Kruger, voluntary continuing education is available for drivers in most places and essentially nobody uses it because those who are most in need of it mistake their over-confidence for ability. Cultural change is the big deal here, but continuous education can be part of that change. 81.2.89.113 (talk) 20:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I dunno if it would do anything. Even the most psycho of gun nuts knows and pays lip service to the rule of gun safety. You might get some of the "You're not the boss of me!!" people though. --Revolverman (talk) 20:49, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

The intention of such regulation on driving is to catch people who do not follow basic safety rules, not to prevent intentional vehicular homicide. Same principle applies.--Token Conservative (talk) 23:27, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

This is an interesting proposal. If shooting ranges/continuing education facilities could qualify for Pell Grants courtesy federal spending and the U.S. budget deficit, perhaps NRA types could be persuaded to go along. And there's no reason they wouldn't given mandatory licensing and certifications. Thus you'd have the gubmint subsidizing gun nuts. Hell, I might even become a co-investor in a shooting range/continuing education center and cash in on the government gravy train. nobs^{Say hello to my leetle friend} 21:59, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

"Assault weapon"

I'm still really curious what you think is the difference between a "hunting rifle" and an "assault weapon". Are all hunting rifles single shot, like bolt actions? EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 01:22, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

The difference is that "hunting rifle" is a real thing: a weapon specifically designed to hunt, generally medium to big game like deer. An "assault weapon" is a term invented by people with the purpose of banning it. The Federal Assault Weapon Ban banned "Folding or telescoping stock; Pistol grip; Bayonet mount; Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one; Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device that enables launching or firing rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those mounted externally)." according to wikipedia. This is, to someone who knows their stuff, basically a random listing of weapon feature, which are either not at all dangerous (folding/telescopic stock, pistol grip), or fucking random things that basically no civilian will even have (bayonet mount, flash suppressor, grenade launcher). A version of the bill that wouldn't have been incredibly stupid would be to just ban bayonet mounts, flash suppressors, grenade launchers/grenade launcher mounts, and magazines with more then 10 rounds, or whatever.--Token Conservative (talk) 01:36, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Don't reinvent the wheel

Seriously, America. Just look at what Australia does, and fucking copy it. It's that simple. --Llegar a las estrellas^¿Dígame? 15:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

...Because Australia has had the exact same historical and cultural background and current culture as America, right? Polite Timesplitter ^{come shout at me for being thick} 20:33, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that we should look at what works for other countries, but America is not other countries. ^{(talk to a)} Nihilist 20:37, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Both are anglophone settler society of primarily European extraction, with particularly strong Anglo-Irish elements, and have mature political systems based on nominally democratic, capitalistic systems of government. Most core elements of the cultures are shared, so porting social and cultural elements between the two doesn't pose that many challenges. America is just another country, not some special snowflake. --Llegar a las estrellas^¿Dígame? 01:25, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

As much as I (strongly) support the Australian system, I suggest it might be worth looking at the comparative levels of gun ownership first. The 1996 gun laws were (and are) very unpopular with gun-owners in Australia. However they were such a small minority their protests went unheeded for the most part. (I don't have exact figures, but gun owners were only 1-2% of the population at the time). I don't know the US figures, but I suspect they are considerably higher than 2%. While a simple majority might be enough to get any given law passed, enforcing such laws on a large, unhappy minority has proved to be quite difficult in the past (qv. Prohibition) VOX^HUMANA 05:25, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Some fuckwit who doesn't deserve us having this conversation about him part 2

So, as it turns out, this fine example of a human being is becoming more active on facebook. I can't seem to link the convo from my secret facebook page, so here is the word of the bob: "Atheists call themselves "freethinkers" (which is a genetic fallacy of sorts), but there is no truth in it according to their worldview. We are all just modified pond scum and slaves to our brain chemistry. An atheist's worldview does not allow him to be horrified when school children are shot and killed, it's just one bit of modified pond scum rearranging other modified bits of pond scum. When they say "It's wrong", they're admitting their worldview is faulty and standing on the biblical creationist worldview." Am I the only one that thinks this is incredibly amusing, or do you meet people like this everyday, among yourselves?--P3A58NT86 02:16, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

He's been making a mess of himself at my blog too lately. He's annoying, but also strangely amusing. Peter ^{Droid whisperer} 02:39, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Jason Petersen? Another familiar name. I do believe it's because of him I heard of Rationalwiki in the first place.--P3A58NT86 02:48, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Where did you encounter him? I thought he only started his blog last month. Peter ^{Droid whisperer} 07:04, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I need my own blog. ^{(talk to a)} Nihilist 06:43, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Write for RationalBlogs! </plug> (Seriously though, you should.) Peter ^{Droid whisperer} 07:04, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I've always loved that "slaves to our brain chemistry" line. Since they really don't mind the slave part of that phrase, do they? --Revolverman (talk) 07:10, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Two Three Two problems with that:

• I probably would suck
• Only like 25% of my posts would be "on-topic"

^{(talk to a)} Nihilist 07:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

a) Unlikely and b) the mission is a broad beastie. Peter ^{Droid whisperer} 07:29, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Does talking about language reform count as on-topic? ^{(talk to a)} Nihilist 07:31, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Depends if you want to control what people think with it. Peter ^{Droid whisperer} 07:35, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, i guess i could give blogging a shot. What forms do i have to fill? ^{(talk to a)} Nihilist 07:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Email David, and he'll sort you out. Peter ^{Droid whisperer} 07:49, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

He's been all over facebook as well. Thats where I remember him from.--P3A58NT86 16:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Here is the facebook page he is believed to run--P3A58NT86 21:10, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

There's some derp-and-a-half. ^narchist 13:01, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

So this is the same guy who was threatening libel suits? This guy sounds hilarious. I should do a blog report on him. Does anyone have any of the libel threats he sent? ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 19:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Help!?!

Basically, what's happening right now is that I'm about to be in a position to need an extra $400 a month for the next few years, but I'm a full time college student that tries to focus on my studies, so I have a hard time coordinating an actual "job". So, I was hoping that someone somewhere could make some suggestions on something I could do to help me survive until graduation.

Notes:

• At the very least, I cannot get scholarships/grants until like May, and I still need to pay for gas and shit until then
• I will not get a loan. Period. Not negotiable.
• Cannot cut costs anywhere. Right now my costs literally come down to gas to get to and from school, school, and phone bill with no data package
• I could, possibly, get a part time job at my school as a math tutor, but not until the end of the semester, and I have no idea how they do their payments and crap
• Yes, in theory, I do rate unemployment/welfare, and no, I have no problem with those programs, but I always have a weird time getting money from people unless I'm completely fucked.

There's a reason for this that involves the very real possibility of me being fired in the end of the month, but I doubt anyone cares so I wont waste your time.--Token Conservative (talk) 19:48, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

If you need the money for meds, is there a charitable recourse? If that's not relevant, call centers/strip clubs/McDonalds/paper routes/Walmart are always hiring part time. Are you musically inclined? Go busk. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 19:54, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Not a medical thing, just a general "I'm about to lose my only source of income I use to pay to get to school. And to pay school" kind of issue. And like I said, my school schedule tends to make it hard for me to get a job, even a part time one. I was really looking for something I could do at whenever I have the free time. And I get at best mixed reviews on my singing.--Token Conservative (talk) 19:57, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Get food stamps ($200 per month), buy generic soft drinks from Wal-Mart ($5 per case) = 40 cases; sell them for 50 cents per can (40 cases x 24 cans per case) = $480 clear funded by a government emergency stimulus spending program. nobs^{Say hello to my leetle friend} 20:57, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

You have some sort of problem, Rob. Osaka Sun (talk)

It's old fashioned entrepeneurship. But if someone in the Ivory Tower is too lazy to work and expects a lump sum bailout, see User_talk:Nutty_Roux/Archive6#True_story_about_Pell_Grants how to parlay a $5500 Pell Grant into $25,000 in one year. nobs^{Say hello to my leetle friend} 22:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Continue fucking off Rob.--Token Conservative (talk) 00:42, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Fuck off Rob.--Token Conservative (talk) 20:59, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what kind of magic answer you're looking for. Either you do what most students do & take a loan from the government (oh noes!) or you get a job. That or petty crime. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:45, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't know how much free time you have, but ChaCha.com is all right. I had a friend used to do it and he said that it won't pay as much as a "real" job, but he usually made a couple hundred a month, enough to supplement loans. SirChuckB^{Go Naked, Hitler Wore Clothes} 22:17, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Honestly Weaz, I don't either. I know people who have paid most of their way through college doing things like selling digital art, and I was hoping someone would say something similar to that, but with something I can actually do. Thanks Chuck, I'll take a look at it when I get some time--Token Conservative (talk) 22:19, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

You can make a few bucks for relatively little effort by retailing on eBay. Find something you can buy cheaply in bulk from a wholesaler & resell individually at a mark-up. Again, you're unlikely to make as much as you would in a real job (unless you put some serious time & money into becoming a big seller) but if you do it on the side of a part-time job, you'd probably make enough to keep going. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:31, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

It depends on what you're good at. A friend of mine's son had a good sideline selling stock photos (istockphoto.com) when he was at university. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 22:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Here's the thumbnail business seminar (for which you could pay $2400 for a weekend seminar or $60 per hour consulting fee): all it takes is an idea, and the idea doesn't even have to be your own. You can steal the idea. What is necessary is execution. Craigs list offers all sorts of ideas and opportunities for brokering deals (brokering, i.e. getting paid on both ends by buyer and seller). Or you could rent the banquet hall at the local Ramada (for about $240) on weekends, and rent tables to gun sellers or collectable doll sellers or coin collectors or silkscreen Jesus sellers for $10 to $25 per table. Promote the event on Craigslist & elsewhere for nothing and print flyers cheap at Kinkos. Ideas are a dime a dozen. nobs^{Say hello to my leetle friend} 23:53, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

You mentioned math tutoring, so maybe see if you can get some private tutoring gigs. Not sure the going rate in your area, but I've often charged $25-30 an hour in relatively poor areas in the US, so you can make some good money doing that. Look for high school students, because their parents will be paying. Also, check into any after school programs, which might be looking for tutors or teaching assistants.

See if any depts on campus are looking for paid research subjects. Psychology, exercise science, etc.

It doesn't help you right now, but at the end of the semester, see if your school hires people in the bookstore during finals week to work book buyback. Mcnamara12 (talk) 00:04, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the input Khant. Mcnamara, I could probably become a private math tutor fairly easily except my university has their own, and from what I understand they don't appreciate the idea of someone advertising an alternative. But research subject is a possibility. If I get some time tomorrow I'll do some looking on the website/make some calls.--Token Conservative (talk) 00:40, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Wait wait wait....an institution of higher learning that takes government money frowns on individual initiative and the poor, needy, and oppressed fending for themselves? Dafuk? nobs^{Say hello to my leetle friend} 00:53, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Rob, eat shit and die.--Token Conservative (talk) 00:54, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Shame about the tutoring at your university, but that is unfortunately pretty common. You might look around for tutoring jobs outside of your university. There are websites you can register with for free to find tutoring clients, but take a cut of any money you make. You might also try craigslist. There's the potential for sketchiness, but I've had some luck with finding part time gigs on there before. Mcnamara12 (talk) 01:39, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm thinking about doing crap on craigslist. Not sure how desperate I am though.--Token Conservative (talk) 02:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Ok, here's what I mean by stealing an idea. Several years ago a contractor friend came to me with an idea. He was in a position to gain exclusive rights for a new process of sealing concrete with a color-spray to make it look like expensive sandstone or granite. Typically contractors buy concrete for about $10 per yard. With this new process (which other contractors would have to buy from him) a contractor could do walkways or artifical pools and waterfalls like this and charge $70 per yard. We decided on seminars using a local hotel & banquet facilities, prepaid for two persons (lodging included), charging $2400 to teach other contractors throughout the Southwest about this new lucrative opportunity. We solicited by telemarketing. The hotel facilities were damn cheap, room included, compared to what the seminar grossed (plus the added business from new customers out of the seminar). This model can be used for anything, like my seminar on business startup, marketing, and tax planning advice. Wanna make reservations? nobs^{Say hello to my leetle friend} 01:48, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Or, you might consider turning tricks. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 02:35, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Others got that bizness sowed up. Here's a picture of your tax dollars at work in an instituion of higher learning. nobs^{Say hello to my leetle friend} 02:58, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

If you pass the health criteria, etc. you might be able to make some money by donating plasma. I've never done it myself, but from what I've heard there's a reasonable possibility of clearing $100-200 per month. Doctor Dark (talk) 04:37, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I've looked into doing that before, but they recommend 24hrs+ off from when you get pumped before you workout again. Although if this happens at the end of the month that may stop being an issue. Huh.--Token Conservative (talk) 04:44, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Fuck, why not just panhandle, or steal the money, since you seem to be averse to working, taking out a loan, selling stuff, or any other method of getting money that may involve a modicum of effort or sacrifice on your part. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 05:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Eat a dick--Token Conservative (talk) 06:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

It's just that I've never met an American conservative who eschews the work ethic before. Get this -- life ain't supposed to be easy. Get a job, hippie. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 14:14, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Now look; people are seriously trying to help you. If you don't wanna listen, it's no wonder you're broke, starving, and out in the cold. nobs^{Say hello to my leetle friend} 07:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

P.S. No fucking way can you make $400 a month donating blood. They only pay maybe $50 and only twice a month (possibly slightly more if got AB- blood). And you wanna tutor math? Get fucking real. nobs^{Say hello to my leetle friend} 07:53, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Twice a month, or slightly more?? Jesus, you are stupid. Minimum period between blood donations is 56 days. Red Cross says at least 8 weeks between donations, UK blood bank says 4 times in 12 months, with at least 12 weeks between donations. Sometimes, you really do need to shut up, Rob, rather than display your ignorance. --PsyGremlin^Fale! 10:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, you're both wrong. Donating plasma is not like donating blood and it comes with different rules. A person can donate up to twice a week. At approx. $50 per donation, assuming you're going as much as you can, that equals roughly $400/month. SirChuckB^{This country needs more Rutabegas} 10:33, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh ok then. Still, I have a problem with people being paid to donate blood. tends to attract people who need the money for the wrong reasons. We don't get pain over here, but if you give over a certain amount (I think 10 units) then any blood you might receive in hospital is free on a matching unit for unit basis.) --PsyGremlin^Khuluma! 10:50, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you in theory, but speaking as someone who has donated plasma, it's not really that bad. Assuming you're going to reputable centers, they are very professional and take safety very seriously. They also do quick scans to check blood, something that a lot of poorer people could never afford to have done. On the scale of general atrocities, this one is pretty low. I have a much bigger issue with paying people to take part in drug trials. SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 11:13, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I quit donating blood (decades ago) when I saw the markup for the middle man; I was getting $5 per unit and they sold it for $250. No way did the labor cost of attendees and the cost of refrigeration justify that kinda markup. Greedy sonavabitchin' healthcare scammers..... 13:19, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, Rob, because why save somebody's life, if it means somebody is going to make a profit. Way to protest man! And you call yourself pro-life? --PsyGremlin^Snakk! 13:27, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

We're not paid for blood donations in the UK. Well, there's tea and biscuits provided, that probably comes to ca.$5 or just less. But I think $250 per unit considering storage, screening and checking isn't bad... But this is really a problem with profit-driven healthcare, not with the concept of giving blood. I.e., you're just an ass to stop giving just because you're underpaid yet still endorse privatised healthcare. If it's all about market forces, and they restrict supply by not encouraging people to donate (though not paying, or paying minimal) while demand stays high (people will always have accidents and need transfusions) then of course it's going to be expensive to buy a unit of blood. They can get away with that. You're being hung by your own system if that's the case. ^{d hominem} 13:31, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Today the resell value is about $500. But I ignored the markup for a longtime til one day coming out of the clinic I was so hungry & liteheaded I went straight to McDonald's and a happy meal was $5. Didn't see where I was ahead for the two hours invested and broke and hungry again two hours later again. But my heart goes out to Token Conservative, being a starving student and so fucking stupid at the same time. nobs^{Say hello to my leetle friend} 19:59, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Christ, if you're that fucked actually go for the welfare. It's not there for when you're nearly a skeletal corpse on the street (as much as some would like it to be for) it's there for when you need it. Swallow the pride and use it. It's temporary. A year on benefits stopped me from killing myself over financial stress. ^postate 11:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Superbowl

White House releases photo of Obama supposedly throwing a football. More sleight-of-hand from Comrade Obama. Look at the direction of the "throw" - conveniently obscured by a blank white column. Or is it a green screen? Why's he raising his right leg? That's how you throw a baseball, Mr. "President," not a football. Can't believe the sheeple fall for it every time, it's like they're begging to give this man their guns.

Also, I guess the Superbowl is happening? I don't even know who's playing. Blue (is useful) 23:45, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

That's nothing. Here is proof that Obama was the second shooter on the Grassy Knoll. (And it is, indeed a superb owl. I always feel like the only guy in the world working when these big sports things are on...) Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 23:48, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

having much more fun watching a stream and avoiding homework. --^Mikal_lakiM 23:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Cheering for Baltimore since they use to have a CFL team. --Revolverman (talk) 00:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's green-screened, but it's not a new photo. A quick Google image search turns up versions dating back to at least 2011. Plus Obama seems to have been photographed posing with a football a hell of a lot. (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8) Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:14, 4 February 2013 (UTC) Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:14, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

watching Superbowl on the beeb. Fuck is it dullAMassiveGay (talk) 00:44, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

BBC is showing the Superbowl now? --Revolverman (talk) 00:46, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Balmore is eating SF's lunch right now. nobs^{Say hello to my leetle friend} 00:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Your colonial hand-egg sport is very slow methinks. Also, what's so super about that bowl? Is it filled with popcorn? Vulpius (talk) 00:57, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

The athletes exhibit total exertion every play; that's why it takes two mintues recovery time for every one minute of play. nobs^{Say hello to my leetle friend} 01:09, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Have you ever played competetive sport? Total exertion is not uncommon. Long breaks are. Worm (talk) 01:55, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes. I was a linebacker. nobs^{Say hello to my leetle friend} 07:44, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Lights out, Vest up, SHIELD!! --Revolverman (talk) 02:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

People are fucking nuts. A former co-worker is seriously trying to convince me that The NFL rigged the game so Baltimore would win. When I asked him why the NFL would risk their reputation, this is the response I received (all spelling mistakes in original):

I know it sounds like crazy talk!! I have never seen a game like this before!! In an average super bowl if my team lost I'd be disappointed not angry but still congratulate the other teams success and then move on with my life. This was not the average game. For one, I've never seen a 35 minute power outage and a confrontation between a coach who was winning in a landslide and the NFL chairman. I've never seen a poorly graded referee be chosen to ref the most important game ever, I've never seen an NFL player physically assault the referee and not get ejected, I've never seen a game where penalties have been called one one team and rarely the other, I've never seen an NFL player get away with murder and try to retire with one final super bowl ring. You ask why would the NFL risk tainting their reputation by fixing a game? 1. They think we the fans are stupid and aren't going to notice all of this. 2. They've already been threatened & sued with a bunch of lawsuits by families of retired players who have had health problems after retirement, native American tribes have accused the NFL of racism for the name Washington Redskins, and players unions have also threatened to strike if they didn't get more money. That & Chris Culliver made anti-gay remarks so clearly someone was blackmailing the NFL to fix the game ot they would face further lawsuits... This entire game would not have made sense to the average viewer because what happened in this game would not normally happen —Crazy Former Co-Worker

SirChuckB^{I brake for Schukky} 05:58, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Putting aside all the other ad hominem and non sequitur nonsense, the original "power outage staged so Baltimore would win" doesn't follow since Baltimore had a 22 point lead at that point in the game, and if anything, the break in play favored the 49ers since they made a strong comeback afterwards up until the final minutes of the game. A slightly stronger, though still very unlikely conspiracy theory, would be that the refs purposely ignored an instance of holding that could have led the 49ers to a win, or that the Powers That Be staged the outage in an attempt to drum up viewer interest and shake up what at that point was a boring blowout for the biggest televised US sporting event of the year. --CoyoteSans (talk) 07:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Yep. The NFL TV people pulled the plug to break John Harbaugh's momentum. He beat the shit out of big brother in the first half, deferred to recieve in 2nd half. After the 45 minute halftime & power outage, it was only 4 minutes into play and SF finally got into the endzone. Without the break (which they could sell a few more commercials) the score would've been 35-6. Baby brother John Harbaugh owns his big brother who once played in the NFL. Incidentlally, John Harbaugh is Number 6 All Time NFL Winniest Head Coaches by pct, up there woth Lombardi, Madden, and George Allen. Clearly the superior coach of the two brothers. A living legend as such a young man. nobs^{Say hello to my leetle friend} 07:44, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, it's "winningest" (unless you're counting Winnies) and secondly that must be the worst word in the English language and "the winningest coach" the worst phrase. --PsyGremlin^Sprich! 09:56, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

As is my tradition, I watched absolutely none of the Super Bowl. I didn't even find out who won till I saw it mentioned on CNN when I stopped to get breakfast. I did watch the Puppy Bowl, though. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 12:28, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Conservative Facebook

are already whining about being infiltrated by trolls, going down to DDoS attack (the fact that their servers are as slow as molasses has *nothing* to do with that) and to top it all, account creation has been turned off, and now it's invite only. My account is still there, so pm me if you want an invite :)

Amazing how conservatives act the same everywhere. --PsyGremlin^Parlez! 07:58, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I've discovered even the THINNEST hidden parody goes completely unnoticed, as no one has noticed I'm actually the Enclave president AI from Fallout 3. --Revolverman (talk) 08:01, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

To be fair, they are infested with trolls as far as i can tell, and i wouldn't be surprised if they were DDoSed. ^{(talk to a)} Nihilist 08:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

https://www.teapartycommunity.com/andrew_ryan/ I think this, and the most recent comment sum up the site QUITE well. --Revolverman (talk) 08:06, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

You have to be signed in to see that message. For those who didn't get an account in time, it reads "These accounts are NOT our staff, They have no power and were created by trolls. We are playing major catch up to deal with over 2k in new reports. We have also set the website to invite only while we catch up. This means people can only join now if they are invited by another TPC member. Thank you for your patience and understanding as we clean up our site today.".

Trolling, most definitely. I wouldn't be surprised if a clear majority of accounts have been set up by non-Teabaggers. DDoSing? Maybe, but they were clearly unready for the demand and I doubt it would be necessary to go to those lengths to kill their servers. rpeh •T•C•E• 08:07, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I see the "free and always will be" site is asking for $30,000 in monthly donations to keep afloat. Maybe somebody should drop the Koch brothers a note. -PsyGremlin^Speak! 12:39, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Is there a term for this sort of activity? Is it just "taking your ball and going home", or is there a specific term for this behavior? --TheLateGatsby (talk) 13:24, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

What is this? Is this Facebook? Or is there some social networking software that looks like Facebook? I'm interested in this. ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 19:19, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

MRAs again...

Rant ahoy!

So, this fiancé of someone I know is a bit of a dweeby anti-feminist type and unfortunately the girl who said "yes" to him believes all this crap he posts, and so I get flooded with it on Facebook. That includes the vile Faux News piece about women putting men off marriage by not being submissive enough. Now, these views aren't necessarily a problem, you're entitled to some degree of opinion. And if you're "anti-feminist", in some contexts that can be quite reasonable; If you take, say, Cathy Brennan or Andrea Dworkin's views, I'm very much against them. But so are most third-wave feminists or sex-positive feminists. Certainly, the views of Maggie Mayhem and Rebecca Watson can't be confused with Germaine Greer unless you're an idiot. This is fine, but it's not what he's actually said, though. What he has said, is that "most" or "all" feminists - that is, everyone who declares themselves as such no matter what their actual views are - are man-hating whores, who want special privileges over men, and that because Suffragettes got the vote they don't need feminism any more. Yeah, because a school-level knowledge of an early 20th century group qualifies you to understand the opinions of modern feminists, like Blue or Godot here, or myself even though I dislike using the term too explicitly on grounds of redundancy and hidden connotations.

Okay, fine. If this dick is saying all feminists are like this, so I do exactly what I normally do under such situations and ask for evidence that feminists actually want special privileges and hate men. Hell, I didn't even ask for the "all" or "most" to be satisfied, and that makes it bloody trivial! After all, saying "Group X believes Y" isn't a subjective opinion, it's a statement of fact about the world that can be demonstrated. Reasonable request, no? Stop me if this isn't reasonable.

Did I get the evidence? Did I fuck! After being called an emasculated pussy, and being told I was trolling, I simply got the answer that he didn't need to read what feminists had to say because they were all sexist towards men. Instead, I ended up with a link to a video by TheAmazingAtheist - but apparently it's also "trolling" to point out that a guy who has regularly threatened to beat and rape women isn't really the best authority on the subject of whether men are oppressed by women. This is the exact answer I got. I didn't even get an example of an actual self-defined feminist. How easy would it have been to even misquote Dworkin as saying "all sex is rape"? Piss easy, but no. Not even that much.

This is like me saying that I hate all Italians because they're racist, but I don't need to prove Italians are racist by looking at what they've said on the subject because they're racist and I don't need to read it. Yet, apparently I'm being the arse because I wasn't respecting someone's opinion.

I hate people. ^bomination 13:18, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

This has literally been pissing me off and eating at me for days now. ^moral 13:19, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I feel you. I sometimes feel that horrible crap like this comes partially from 'normal' people just NOT KNOWING their arguments are bad. Like, they are never ever taught that the way they make points doesn't make sense and is horrible. What you got was a face-full of this chap's just base reasoning (emotional or otherwise) that don't have to make sense at all. Be it a mixture of emotional attachment, personal experience, fixations, and enculturation, you just got a huge gummy scoop of this gushy kind of stream-of-thought non-reason and it's totally useless to argue with it because to do so basically calls the person's feelings (emotional feelings, ideological feelings, and other sorts of feelings included) about the matter 'wrong.' To which the answer ALWAYS is 'NO, I FEEL MY FEELINGS SO THEY ARE RIGHT.' ±KnightOfTL;DR^{sufficiently advanced argument still distinguishable from magic} 13:31, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Two of the worst things: a link to somebody like The Amazing Atheist, and an accusation of trolling because you disagree with and/or are challenging him. ^{(talk to a)} Nihilist 15:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

When somebody backs up their argument by linking to the TheAmazingAtheist, you should respond by linking to something of equal intellectual value and eloquence, such as this for example. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:33, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Yep, that's pretty much what goes on in my mind every time I switch on a computer these days. ^{d hominem} 19:43, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! Men don't have enough rights! ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 00:59, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Literally Unbelievable

Blog listing of Facebook comments about Onion stories people thought were legitimate news. MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 14:11, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

For Star Wars Fans

That's stunning. I hadn't seen it before.-- ^{Jabba de Chops} 14:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and for those that follow I.M.P.S. but haven't seen the Indiegogo campaign -They are asking for donations for Chapter 4 VFX. There's 18 hours left before the campaign closes.-- ^{Jabba de Chops} 14:18, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

What is I.M.P.S?AMassiveGay (talk) 16:00, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Imperial Military Personnel Stories. A multi-part fanfilm that is damned near professional in it's quality, and is actually better than the prequels. Well worth a watch if you haven't seen it, as is Troopers by the same group, which is a piss-take of Cops, and tells the real story of how Lars and Beru died, and just why the imperials killed the Jawas.-- ^{Jabba de Chops} 16:42, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Got some links? Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 16:46, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I tried to watch Star Wars the other day. As a rather big fan of Star Trek, I have to say Star Wars is an unbelievable clusterfuck of inconsistency. Couldn't suspend my disbelief for an instant. Occasionaluse (talk) 16:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

you have never been a child AMassiveGay (talk) 17:17, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I was in a SW fanfilm once. Great fun to make, although having a local farm stand in as a spaceport wasn't the best planning. Sophie^Wilder 17:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Original artwork is better. Maybe they shouldn't try a blatant ripoff next time.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 18:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Wait, what? You do understand the concept of "referencing," right? Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 19:45, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured that was the entire point. ^{d hominem} 19:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Links for download:

• Troops - 1997
• IMPS Chapter 1 - Davenport Gateway - 2005
• IMPS Chapter 2 - Norca System - 2011
  -- ^{Jabba de Chops} 18:39, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Cheers! Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 19:45, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Lucis Trust conspiracy

can someone create a page about the lucis trust conspiracy? it is suposed to be a luciferian cult and the spiritual core of the united nations, thanks!!!! (just created it please someone debunk this not so popular but difficult to find contradictory evidence conspiracy) ^{— Unsigned, by: 190.44.181.43 / talk / contribs}

The article is at Lucis Trust. It's on-mission but otherwise so bad it fails to improve on a red link. Anyone feeling creative and like writing something not shit? - David Gerard (talk) 07:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Uh, what?

Novel, certainly. Wonder if this will make it to WND?: Update:- Turns out it has, but I won't pollute the site with a link,-- ^{Jabba de Chops} 19:37, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, the comment-dumb.... ^sshole 19:53, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh please, everyone knows watching porn means you're gay. Ty^JFBANBSRADA 19:54, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

"porn-addicted partner" -- instantly dismissed. I simply do not understand people like this. Well, I guess I do, they have a huge prejudice, a thing which they pre-judged, and they're willing to any sort of mental contortions to support these pre-conceived notions. I remember one christian just recently linking me to some "study" that says that porn addictions cause ADHD and OCD. I tried to calmly explain that ADHD typically presents before age 7, and porn additions typically "happen" after age 7, and thus there is no fucking way that they're related. And yet, the dogma was so strong that they tried to defend it .. somehow. I'm not quite sure how, but they tried. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 21:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I cannot view links to the daily mail. My flat mate blocked it on the router for his sanity AMassiveGay (talk) 23:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I think we should block people on this server for posting links to the Daily Heil, for our sanity. --PsyGremlin^Khuluma! 07:11, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

But... but... if watching porn makes you pro same-sex marriage... and conservatives watch the most porn in the US... ooh! What a fiendish conspiracy... --PsyGremlin^{말하십시오} 07:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Cry me a fucking river already

A pastor acts like a total bitch, get called out on it, and then gets the waitress who called her out on it fired because "My reputation has been ruined!" Call the whambulance! Conservative Punk (talk) 08:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

A waitress shames a customer for not leaving a tip by posting receipt on internet. Why shouldn't she be fired?AMassiveGay (talk) 11:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

US minimum wage law is a mess. If you have an economic structure that says "Tipping is an essential part of our economy" by agreeing that it's OK to pay people less to do a job if the job offers "tips" and then you say "Ah, but tipping itself is optional" then you create this mess for yourself. Presumably nobody thinks it would be OK for Applebees to fire employees who post up their payslips or other evidence of income (or lack there of). So why is this income paperwork, which the US Federal law likes to pretend is just a normal part of the job, not protected? Ah, because it embarrassed someone. Well you should all be embarassed, I'm embarrassed enough by the UK situation where tips are on top of the usual minimum wage. 81.2.89.113 (talk) 13:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Tip-ocalypse now has a followup: an atheist (probably) has the perfect riposte. rpeh •T•C•E• 17:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

An 18% automatic tip?? Honestly, I'd also tell them to fuck off. --PsyGremlin^Sprich! 19:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Except that the pastor in question had a party of 30 she was treating to dinner. If it was just the pastor, I'd understand being pissed. But if you are treating a party of that size, at least here in the states, most places tell you full in advance they charge an automatic tip. Conservative Punk (talk) 19:22, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

And frankly, at least in the US, 20% is pretty typical a tip. unless they were not a good server, of course. Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 19:30, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah, missed that bit. Then yes, because I've been waiter and there's nothing like finding a $1 tip left behind after running after a table of 20. Also, I'm happy to tip if the service was good. I have a problem with automatic tips, however, because you pay it, regardless of how good or bad the service was. If you rely on my for your tips, then let me decide what to pay you, based on your service. --PsyGremlin^Runāt! 19:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

When I worked at the local pancake house a "normal tip" was 10-15%, but most people are assholes that barely tip. In the US the minimum wage for staff that are supposed to make tips is $2.25, which hasn't increased in like 30 years. Want a good working idea of bullshit? Get job at the local pancake house.--Token Conservative (talk) 00:56, 2 February 2013 (UTC

What a dumbfuck. (a) Tipped employees are more dependent on building a repeat business customer base than the nickels and dimes thrown their way. If she doesn't understand this much, she may do better panhandling or dumpster diving; (b) advertising on the internet that she's an ungrateful, vindictive dumbfuck (after she padded the bill and screwed the man) is no way to solicit future business and build a customer base. Jesus fucking christ, with people this fucking stupid, no wonder America has a hopeless economic and employment problem. nobs^{Say hello to my leetle friend} 21:43, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

"after she padded the bill and screwed the man." 1. Adding tips like that might well be corporate policy, not done at the server's request. 2. The customer in question was a woman.But you knew that already, because you wrote "she." So what "man" are you referring to? Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 21:54, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Let's be clear on this: the pastor paid the 18%. The posting was done by someone other than the pastor's server, so the waitress who got fired (a) did not wait on the pastor; (b) was not shortchanged by the pastor; (c) the comments written by the pastor were not directed at her. What the fuck bizness was it of hers, other than spewing her hatred of God on the internet and performing a public act of hari cari in her business career and relations with other human beings? nobs^{Say hello to my leetle friend} 00:49, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The pastor DID NOT PAY the 18%. The total of the bill was $34.93. The automatic tip was $6.29. The pastor crossed that out and paid a total of $34.93. Zero tip. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 00:57, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Who cares? It's a private citizen patronising a private business. Why should the public care specifically about whether she left a tip or not? If there's a problem with the American tipping/wages system/culture, fair enough: that should be addressed. But shaming individual customers about being sarcastic about having to tip, or individual staff about being sarcastic about customers not tipping, really doesn't help anyone. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 01:16, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the waitress should not have leaked the note, but the pastor going after the waitress' job like she did is pretty despicable. I generally have a low opinion of people who become ministers of a church but this is a new low even for them. Seeking revenge and trying to inflict harm and suffering on the waitress (and her family) like she did is about as far from the message Jesus taught as is possible. Damo^Hi 01:24, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

(EC)If we're getting into the nitty gritty, how do "a party of 30 she was treating to dinner" (according to comments further up in this thread) acrue a bill of only $34.93? One dollar a head seems exceptionally good value for dinner. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 01:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

(ecx2)@ToP: You're right. Some of the foregoing discussion is incorrect. It was not a party of 30, and while it is standard practice to tack on gratuity for large parties, a $34 bill at Applebees is probably only 2 or 3 people. So it was not the aggrieved party who was cheated out of a tip. The pastor didn't intend to get the waitress fired, she only complained when her privacy was violated. As to tipping (current Tip law in the U.S. formaulated c.1982 under TEFRA-the Tax Equity and Fiscal Reform Act, courtesy Bob Dole) and uses the so-called "allocation method", some controversial and unfair bullshit (as much tax law is). However, a mandatory 18% gratuity on all parties is no longer a tip, rather a bill for services rendered. It's doubtful this is actually Applebee's company-wide policy, rather left to the discretion of management, but I'm only speculating. nobs^{Say hello to my leetle friend} 01:38, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

My understanding is that it was a party of 8 and that, contrary to the statement above, she did contact Appleby's and request that the staff be fired. Damo^Hi 02:08, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Quite frankly, the amount of the tip, paid or withheld is irrelevant. The waitress, in a customer facing role, represents her employer to the public. The waitress publicly shaming her customers is the same as her employer shaming or insulting its customers. She deserved to be fired. AMassiveGay (talk) 01:46, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Another error earlier in this discussion: in the U.S. tipped employees like waitpeople get at least 50% of the federal minimum wage, which would be $3.63 (not $2.25), and technically under the law, are entitled to full minimum wage for every hour worked that they do not earn a comparable $3.63 in tips. However, no one (employers or employees) adhere to the law, and everyone simply averages their earnings in tip reporting. Under the allocation method, an employee would not simply report $3.63 in tips for each hour worked, rather the employer must "allocate" a certain percentage of the restaurant gross as tips earned by employees. Typical-Washington D.C.-bullshit. Now if a restaurant relieves the customer of discretion and hands them a bill for services, I just don't see how the fuck it's a tip anymore, under the Uniform Commercial Code. It's a bill for services, and the employee becomes a subcontractor. nobs^{Say hello to my leetle friend} 02:32, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that there are two issues here on both the side of the pastor/customer and the waitress. There's the legal side and the moral side. The pastor first of all came into a restaurant with a large party (btw, those noticing that $34 seems too low should realize that when a large group takes separate checks, the gratuity is still added; that appears to be what happened here.), was informed beforehand that a gratuity would be added, and decided at the last minute that she didn't want to pay it. What she tried to do in withholding the gratuity is illegal--anyway it didn't work. That she additionally tried to make this about God is immoral and stupid; obviously the Bible's command to tithe has nothing to do with what waitresses should or shouldn't earn, and the pastor using her status as a bludgeon equates to taking her own God's name in vain.

On the waitress's side, it was certainly illegal to breach the customer's privacy, and Applebees had every right to fire her, but it's hard to say that it was immoral of her to bring shame to a sanctimonious bitch who really fucking deserved it. On the other hand, the Christian thing for the pastor to do after being found out would have been to show up in person, ask the restaurant to keep the waitress, and then apologize to the waitress she stiffed. What did she do? She called and demanded that every server get fired. That's not only un-Christian, but it's worse behavior than most non-Christians would exhibit in the same situation. Junggai (talk) 21:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I think you have summed it up perfectly. No-one comes out of this looking good, but it is the last action by the pastor that is the worst. I don't buy into the idea that Christians tend to be more moral than Non-Christians, but pastors are supposed to exemplify theoretical Christian behaviour such as compassion, tolerance and forgiveness. She is clearly a hypocrite of the highest order, which to me is close to the worst thing a person can be. Damo^Hi 21:58, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

(EC) I seriously doubt that withholding the gratuity was illegal. A gratuity is just that - something extra paid on top of the fixed value of the meal/service/whatever. Even when the restaurant automatically adds a recommended minimum tip, it is still discretionary & you are within your rights not to pay the tip. Usually this would be because you were unhappy with the service during the meal; hence the fact that you were told in advance that a gratuity would be added is irrelevant. The restaurant might expect you to say why you were dissatisfied (preferably a better reason than some shitty false comparison to church tithes) but ultimately if you want to refuse to tip, & don't mind looking like an asshole, that's your prerogative. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:05, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

(ecx2) Exactly. The pastor may have been told, "a gratuity will be added", but not informed of the 18% rate, and later disputed it. And the person who posted the photo was not the stiffed waitress. She should have remained a disinterested party. Posting goes beyond mean-spiritedness. A $34 bill for 30 people could have occurred if they only drank coffee. nobs^{Say hello to my leetle friend} 22:13, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

In NZ there is no culture of tipping and we pay people properly. You yanks are fucked up. Aceⁱ⁹ 22:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

As I understand it, the legality of an automatic gratuity depends on what state you live in. There have been cases in NY and PA where people were arrested for refusing to pay it, after which a judge had the charges revoked. @Rob, by the way, are you saying that it was mean-spirited to post the photo but not mean-spirited for a pastor to make a religious point out of shitty tipping? Junggai (talk) 22:47, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The poster was not the waitress whom the comment, "I give God 10% Why do you get 18%?" was directed to. It is a valid question: why does someone expect more than what God is entitled to? nobs^{Say hello to my leetle friend} 23:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

When I was last in New York I was getting pissed at university bar on Amsterdam Avenue. Tuesday special was Bud Light at 50c yet there was a compulsion to tip $1 per drink effectively making the tip double the price of the drink. Aceⁱ⁹ 23:25, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Please, . Thank you. Peter ^{Droid whisperer} 23:26, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Umm, Rob... A pastor refusing to tip + using a completely irrelevant comparison to tithing to justify being a cheapskate + rubbing in the point by signing the bill "Pastor XXX" = "Valid Question"??? And alternatively, Waitress (who is unaffected by this) exposing said "valid question" to a greater audience through Reddit = "Mean spirited"???

And just out of curiosity, I fail to see what huge difference it makes that the waitress posting the photo was not the one who got stiffed. In any case it was not the right thing to do. Why does her being unaffected by it turn the posting into something EEEVIL? Junggai (talk) 21:58, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

No one knows what the quality of service was between waitress/customer; maybe it was piss poor cause the pastor left nothing (5% or 10% means "needs improvement", vs leaving nothing, which can mean "totally unacceptable", but risks being confused with "I'm a cheapskate".) Most adults who reach a certain age know this. It is entirely possible the waitperson offended these people of faith which prompted the sermonette on the bill, and the pastor reminded her she is entitled to nothing ("by their works ye shall know them"). A gratiuty is just that -- from the root of the same word -- grace. And it is a gospel of grace most orthodox Christians preach, meaning the lost sinner is entitled to nothing, their works fail, and only by "the grace of God", (a gratuity), are they saved. nobs^{Say hello to my leetle friend} 20:53, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Anyone who has worked in a job that involves dealing with the public would support this. Considering how few customers actually act like jerks, I doubt that the businesses would be negatively affected at all if they allowed their employees to just ban such customers from the store. It would cut down dramatically on people acting like that.ఠ_ఠ Inquisitor Sasha Ehrenstein des Sturmkrieg Sector 01:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Is this Social Darwinism?

I have seen several instances of complains that people with so-and-so traits are screwing up the gene pool. There also instances of, for example, if someone rides a bike helmetless, people will say that he should stay helmetless and "let natural selection take its course" (Googling those words bring up some other cases) I keep thinking that this is pretty much the definition of Social Darwinism, but I'm also thinking I may be thinking of something else--DoomTay (talk) 18:25, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Kind of, but not really. The key difference is that when I make that crack about helmetless bikers, it's all about individual behavior, and has nothing to do with the "type" of person I'm talking about; he could be black, she could be Asian, the argument still holds because of the behavior. Classic social Darwinism sees different races/nations/groups of people as akin to species, and tries to explain why some species allegedly develop/have better outcomes than others. That said, as we are now living in far more individualistic times, there are interesting parallels. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 18:30, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Richard Hofstadter distinguished between "laissez-faire social Darwinism" and "collectivist social Darwinism." This would be the former. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:41, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm quite sure that when most people say that others are screwing up the gene pool they just mean it as a jab to express their dissatisfaction with them, not that they actually advocate the creation of a master race consisting of people who actually understand traffic lights and how to indicate coming off a roundabout, no matter how nice that would be. Polite Timesplitter ^{come shout at me for being thick} 19:56, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I have seen several instances of complains that people with so-and-so traits are screwing up the gene pool. No. That sounds more like Josef Goebbels than Darwin. Maybe Hitwin? nobs^{Say hello to my leetle friend} 21:31, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

If "bike" above means a "push bike" rather than a motorcycle then the evidence for helmets is very mixed for adult cyclists using bicycles to actually get somewhere. Bicycle helmets are designed (and tested) to reduce the chance of a serious head injury from a fall. If you're five and still learning to ride, or you routinely travel over rough ground (e.g. mountain biking, BMX) then this is a big deal because you're going to fall off all the time. If you are going from home to the office along a road or cycle route, falling off is unlikely. On the other hand if you get hit by a car (something people commuting by bicycle legitimately worry about) then a bike helmet doesn't do squat. The helmet you'd have to wear to protect against impacts like that would (unsurprisingly if you think about it) look like a motorcycle crash helmet, a heavy, expensive and unwieldy object compared to the cheap, lightweight bicycle helmet. There are people who credit a bicycle helmet with saving their life during an RTA, but then, there were people who insisted being "thrown clear" by not wearing a seatbelt saved their life in an RTA too. 81.2.89.113 (talk) 23:42, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

One of the sometimes reported problems with cycle helmets is that it can change the behaviour of the wearer (takes more risks) and that of other road users (drive closer to "sensible" helmeted riders). Jury's out on that, I think. However, for passive safety, i.e. protection offered in the event of a collision, cycle helmets do offer protection even in RTAs. One of the most common accidents for cyclists is vehicles pulling out of a side road into the cyclist's path. Ditto for motorcyclists. In this case and similar where the impact speed is that of the cyclist rather than of the other vehicle, then the protection offered by the lightweight cycle helmet is worthwhile. To use a somewhat useless anecdote, my eldest son crashed while racing, broke a dorsal vertebra, and his bicycle helmet did save him from serious head injury. He was 20 years old, 1m91, 80kg and travelling at around 50kph at the time. I don't know of any cycling club here (France) that would advise against the wearing of cycle helmets. Ajkgordon (talk) 11:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

This is Ron Paul-Libertarianism -- if someone chooses not to wear a bike helmet, it is their God-given right to kill themselves without government interference. So is the sanctity of anal sex and gay marriage basically libertarian. nobs^{Say hello to my leetle friend} 20:49, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Except for when you kill someone else while you die. Then its an issue.--Token Conservative (talk) 20:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Laws mandating wearing crash helmets and seatbelts, for example, can be justified by the costs of having to treat serious injury and the cost of RTA deaths. Fatal accidents are estimated to cost around £2m each in the UK and I read somewhere that it's around $4m in the US. Non-fatal accidents are "cheaper". So these laws can be justified purely on economic terms. Ajkgordon (talk) 11:00, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Non-fatal accidents are "cheaper". How is that so? It's far cheaper to haul a corpse to the morgue and dispose of it than a few days stay in intensive care. Not to mention the costs of physical rehab or settling civil claims. nobs^{Say hello to my leetle friend} 21:00, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

The 10 Commandments for atheists

Courtesy of Alain de Bottom - http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/life/the-10-commandments-for-atheists-20130205-2dw83.html

TL:DR version - "Don't be a dick". VOX^HUMANA 08:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Fuck ten, I only need two commandments. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

We pagans only need one. If it harm none, do as you will. Seems to work, if you don't count "bitching at each other about stupid crap" as harm. Sophie^Wilder 21:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Do as you will but harm none is a bit simplistic. our very existence as modern computer using persons harms not only the environment, animals and our future selves, but living people who are making our damn computers for 2 cents an hour. Eating fish harms our ocean, any more, pretty much any fish, even farm raised, and it can harm subsistence fishermen. shrugs. I'm too selfish for all that. Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 23:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

But then any list of moral guides is subject to "I don't want to do that." Sophie^Wilder 09:21, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

We atheists don't need any commandments. That's basically in the nature of being atheist. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:07, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Captain Obvious. ^{(talk to a)} Nihilist 00:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

The "ten commandments" he espouses may be very worthwhile things. But none of them stems from or is necessarily related to being an atheist. One could be a "good" atheist ( where "good" means not believe in gods) and yet follow none of them. --Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 10:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. None of them are specific to atheism, & you don't become an atheist or cease to be one by adhering or not adhering to them. I really wish people would stop coming out with stuff like this which implies that atheism is like or should be like a religion. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

You'll love this atheist church service then. :-)--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 13:28, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

You can "wish" it all you want, Weasel, but humans, especially ex-religious ones, want to build a world they are comfortable and familar with. It makes their life easier and more manageable. So, they make services that look so very much like the churches they grew up in, rather than finding some totally new expression for their need of community and "spirituality" or "deep philosophy" or whatever we will call it. Canada's "Vision TV" did a special on atheism, and if it's the next "religion", and while they ended saying that "many athests are simply out of religion fully, a larger precentage of them are seeking and building bodies that resemble Churches, and will make them the next great religion" or some such. It was a compelling argument, when laid out liek that.Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 16:16, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

The show even delved into the probably inevitable "you aren't doing it correctly. You are Incorrect Atheist, and only we have True Atheism" - I kid you not. and waht was this split over, in some texas "not god" service? How much power the "pastor" has as a pastor, vs, a "minister" type vs just a "leader". And if the "sermons" (their terms, by the way) should be moral, and about what morals. sighs....Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 16:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure I resnarked elsewhere that Alain de Botton is the only person to ever fail at being a non-believer. But I do want to cite everyone's favourite loudmouthed libertarian on this subject. ^gnostic 16:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

..."the only person to ever fail at being a non-believer..." Forgetting someone, are we? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:38, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, I guess that if some Canadian TV show said that not believing gods exist is going to become a religion then who are we to argue?--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 18:21, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Marriage (same sex couples) bill

For those who are interested, the above bill will be voted on in the commons at 7pm AMassiveGay (talk) 18:07, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

From BBC: "A number of Conservative MPs have spoken out against the plans - one calling the idea "Orwellian"." Conservatives in all countries are all really really stupid aren't they? Dendlai (talk) 18:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes i think this "revert to the 1950s" is just a problem in the States. Then I watch Canada, France, Germany, Denmark, and UK all have similar (hopefully less popular) attitudes becoming more vocal. Is it a reality of the internet, and finding like minded idiots? Or just a totally expected knee jerk reaction to "straight xian white dudes" seemingly losing power? anyhow, i hope your conservative voice is all bark and no biteGodot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 18:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

to be fair it is the conservatives who are putting this to the house AMassiveGay (talk) 18:59, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, i'm use to the US use of "conservative". I should say "family value types" or "back to the 50's" types. Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 19:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

In defence of (British) conservatives, the final vote was 134-132 from the Conservative MPs. Slim yes, but still a majority. Feel free to be amazed - I certainly was. VOX^HUMANA 22:39, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

"Just" in the States? *coughrussiacough* - LucidFox (talk) 09:16, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

It's a hit. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

now which one of you chaps wants to get hitched?. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:31, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Does the bill stand a chance of being killed in the Lords? Blue (pester) 20:04, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

There will probably be more opposition, but I think it will go through. Whenever that maybe, I'm not resally sure on the process. I think it needs to go througnh the commons again after tweaking. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

More dangerous is the line-by-line scrutiny to which the bill will now be subject in the Commons (before it gets to the Lords). I haven't studied the text of the bill but it's not impossible that some particularly controversial provision will be voted out in a kind of unofficial deal. Not likely, but still possible. The Lords only try to kill bills when they're really tight in the Commons, or if they think the Commons are trying to override the Lords' traditional powers. In this case, there'll be a few speeches against (mainly from the appointed religious types) but it'll still pass with clear air. rpeh •T•C•E• 21:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

"Conservatives in all countries are all really really stupid aren't they?" "I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it." -John Stuart Mill Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

No way will the House of Lords mess with it. There's yet another "Reform the House of Lords" bill currently sitting dormant in the House of Commons, and they aren't going to give the media any reason to resurrect it. (The House of Lords has few friends in the media, it's about the only thing that unites both the Murdoch and the Liberal press). If the Commons vote had been close then maybe they'd poke at it, but 400-175 is a step WAY too far. The Lords Spiritual will complain and so will a few others, but it will otherwise pass without drama. What really amazes me is that it won a majority among the Conservative MPs 134-132. VOX^HUMANA 22:36, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure no one gives half a shit about my lowly views, but I'm generally of the opinion that the first person to coin or word or define a movement or ideology is the only person to define what it is. In this case, Edmund Burke is the only person who can really define "conservativism" (being the person both sides pretty much agree defined the ideology). In that sense, the opposition is not conservativism. Somewhat ironically, the people pushing for gay rights are in a better position to call themselves conservative. Along with a lot of the "liberals" here.--Token Conservative (talk) 23:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

What does any of that even mean? It's just political semantics. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:59, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Assuming everything gets through the lords intact, this is it for Gay rights in the UK. There is nothing left to legislate. As a gay male I am now fully equal to everyone else. People will still be dicks, but you can't legslate for that. AMassiveGay (talk) 00:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Congrats to all. I'm not gay and don't even have any gay friends. I sincerely look forward to the day when I can with a clear conscience not give a damn about the LGBT community. We're not there yet, obviously, but it is coming. VOX^HUMANA 02:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Despite what you might think, the Lords tends to be fairly liberal. Whenever the government has wanted to introduce something draconian, it has a tendency to smack it down. There are the CofE bishops, but a good chunk of those are also fairly liberal, as the fiasco over female bishops was caused by the middle ranks voting, rather than the ones who would be in the Lords dictating it. And since people have an overwhelming tendency to vote for their own demographic and we have a winner-take-all system, we get mostly old white folk in the Commons, which lags considerably further behind the Lords in terms of minority and female representation. ^theist 02:52, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

AMassiveGay: "Assuming everything gets through the lords intact, this is it for Gay rights in the UK. There is nothing left to legislate. As a gay male I am now fully equal to everyone else"

Did the case of the couple at the B&B end in legislation or just reparation, btw? Polite Timesplitter ^{come shout at me for being thick} 11:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

that case resulted in damages paid out to the gay couple involved. There is already legislation in place to prevent businesses discriminating on the basis sexual orientation. They would not have won their case if there was not. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

But religions can still discriminate if they want to. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I believe it is beyond the remit of any government to legislate what the religious believe. And religions cannot discriminate in the services they provide like, for example, adoption services. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:17, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

In theory, the Queen could tell the Church of England what their policies should be, and she's the head of state so technically part of the government. In practice, no she couldn't and no she isn't. rpeh •T•C•E• 13:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about legislating what people believe. Under the same-sex marriage bill, religious organisations (or their ministers) can opt out of performing same-sex marriages. That is discriminating in the services they provide. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:16, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Nice comment on the issue by Jesus & Mo. Генгис^evolving 11:47, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

ongoing bloggery

Just in case nobody's paying attention, David is basically ossum. In less than 24 hours. With a Twitter feed and he's saying nice things about you guys. I just hope I can keep up with the server load. No. I hope I'm, challenged. I hope I move this fucker to EC2 or Heroku or Sitepad or whatever. The wiki's got strong content that needs to be pimped strongly. David is my hero today. 06:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 08:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

It's just a copy of the @rationalwiki twitter feed that Osaka Sun runs. I've asked for posting access to it so I can pimp blog and other RW stuff on it - David Gerard (talk) 07:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

No need for modesty. Peter ^{Droid whisperer} 22:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Writing up a cover article: Project Blue Beam. This was fun - David Gerard (talk) 20:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Let me stress, by the way: OTHERS ARE WELCOME TO WRITE - David Gerard (talk) 22:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

What do you want other people to write about right now? Wiki-related or mission-related? Peter ^{Droid whisperer} 22:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Ooh ... you and your difficult questions. Something more in the wiki direction, though see yesterday's post on Project Blue Beam. Hmm, surveys of articles in an area? Might write one of those today ... I'm short a post - David Gerard (talk) 20:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

How does "5 Random Pseudosciences" sound? Peter ^{Droid whisperer} 21:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

PLEASE WRITE THAT FOR TOMORROW. (Start now.) In the meantime, here's New Age:Dolphins and money. SPREAD IT ON THE SOCIAL NETWORKS. - David Gerard (talk) 21:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, your blog's special subject is the ICR - there's a novel's material in summaries of that! Then there's the all-but-forgotten works of Henry Morris, which are far more wildly batshit insane than those of his heirs ... - David Gerard (talk) 22:00, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I've already written a novel's worth... Maybe next post? Peter ^{Droid whisperer} 22:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Anything roughly coherent will be good :-) I'm pretty sure anything you write will be very good. (I'll note however that if someone contributes something and I don't think it's up to scratch, I promise to bring it to the wiki and to abide by the mob's decision.) - David Gerard (talk) 22:48, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I wrote the pseudoscience post (could do with some copy-editing and spellchecking though). How should I get it to you? Peter ^{Droid whisperer} 00:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I emailed it to you. Peter ^{Droid whisperer} 08:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Up now. A BIG HAND FOR PETERL, EVERYONE! Anyone else think they could translate the RW state of mind into a good blog post? - David Gerard (talk) 15:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I guess I'll have a pop, just E-Mail it to you? Do you have any suggestions for a topic? ^{— Unsigned, by: Man of Perspective / talk / contribs}

Something sceptical peppered with RW links would be ideal! - David Gerard (talk) 21:53, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Brendiggg's post has some broken links, btw. It's great otherwise. Peter ^mqzp 22:12, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Fuck, I must have been posting in my sleep yesterday evening. Now to come up with something to post today ... A BIG HAND FOR BRENDIGGG, EVERYONE! Anyone else feeling bloggy? - David Gerard (talk) 07:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Did you get the Jason Lisle post I sent you the other day? Peter ^mqzp 07:59, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah - didn't realise it was the whole thing *blush* Bit short, there's gotta be lots to say about Dr Lisle. Want to go with it or extend it? - David Gerard (talk) 12:50, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I could extend it if you wanted me to, but then we run into the issue of how much of the article should be reproduced. Peter ^mqzp 08:14, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

EMP =the new WMD?

I see the latest squealing from the right is the threat of an EMP attack on the US, which would - to quote WeirdNuttersDaily "cause a multitude of deaths and shoving the nation back into the 19th century." Have they been watching too much Revolution, or Dark Angel, or are they hoping for a pre-emptive strike against Iran and North Korea? --PsyGremlin^Siarad! 12:06, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I thought they'd be excited at the prospect of going back to the 19th century. --TheLateGatsby (talk) 12:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like someone watched Goldeneye and mistook it for a documentary. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 13:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Technically the threat is real enough; one would just need a well placed high yield thermonuclear device exploding in the upper-atmosphere to get a large scale EMP pulse of sufficient strength to knock out most electronics across a wide portion of the nation. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

"One" is rarely in a position to get a "high yield thermonuclear device" or the means to ensure it detonates in a "well-placed" location. It actually is rocket science. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 16:24, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes but there are a few powers in the world capable of such a feat; granted most of them most likely wouldn't attempt it, but it isn't that far off of a prospect for North Korea at this stage. It is wrong to assume that it is impossible, as much as it is wrong to have no preparation for such a possibility, which is where our government is right now. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

The few powers in the worls that are capable of doing this have been capable of doing it for decades, and many are in formal alliances with the U.S., so I wouldn't worry about that too much. As for North Korea, their 2009 test yielded 5-15 kt. "Little Boy" yielded 12. Still a long way away from a " high yield thermonuclear" explosion, which I think is on the order of 10,000 kt. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 16:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

NK has about as much chance of getting one of their firecracker nukes to go off with "sufficient strength to knock out most electronics across a wide portion of the nation" as I have by sneezing.--Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 21:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Why not spend the money now to be prepared for the possible worst case scenario by hardening vital electrical infrastructure instead of scoffing that "it can't happen here". Better safe that sorry in case of a man-made or natural EMP disaster. We surely spend hundreds of billions of dollars on bloated government programs we don't need, why not something that actually serves to protect out vital resources?--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 02:07, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Is there anything that can actually be done? Never mind the power gird, how about all the computers and other machines we need to make sure that we have filtered water and sewage treatment? And sufficient trains and trucks to deliver food? And hospitals? Is there any feasible way to protect basically every thing we own? Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 02:46, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Fuck man, haven't you been following this page? Everyone just needs to have a gun, that'll protect us. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 08:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Usual right-wing hysteria. If someone both wanted to attack the US and had the technology necessary (high yield nuclear weapon and ICBM) then why the fuck would they deploy a single or few EMP and thus start a nuclear war with a crippled, symbolic attack - rather than, you know, actually nuking ground targets - and actually minimising the ability to respond by destroying enemy nuclear facilities, conventional military and infrastructure targets? The thing is, any kind of nuclear attack (EMP or otherwise) WILL guarantee a similar response, so only a fool would use a single weapon that is guaranteed not destroy their opponents ability to launch massive retaliation. You don't start a nuclear exchange and not finish the bloody job. This is the typical right wing logic that assumes "evil enemies" like Iran and North Korea are not rational actors - but even a brief look at their actions reveals a consistent, reasoned approach to their policies. --Llegar a las estrellas^¿Dígame? 14:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

In a previous life I designed command and communications hardware for hardened strategic systems. You can bet that the electronics were EMP-resistant. Some of the fucking antennae were buried in concrete, for all that makes sense. Not sure whether it was the US or the CCCP that used vacuum tubes (valves) in some of the bits of kit that were meant to survive a first strike. Pilots wore an eye patch so they would still have a functional eye to carry on with after the flash had roasted the other one.

My old 1960 Beetle would likely have carried on saying, "What EMP? I didn't feel a thing..." Modern civilian vehicles that use delicate semiconductors for fuel metering and spark timing (maybe even rolling the windows up and down?) will not fare so well. Anybody else remember the neutron bombs, which were supposed to kill the population while leaving the infrastructure mostly intact?

Speaking of the cold war, the house I live in has a mid-twentieth century heating plant, so it would survive, but folks with smart thermostats would be in for a rough winter. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 14:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see below that someone else remembers cold-war era Soviet aircraft with vacuum tubes... I don't think the US did anything so simple and elegant. One of the radios I was working was going to use the TMS9900 for a controller, which was then the only microprocessor available in an EMP-hardened variant. Teh whole project went away when Saint Ronnie and his handlers decided it was a dumb idea to thimblerig MIRV's in the desert valleys of Utah and Nevada. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 16:50, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

An EMP attack over California (1/8 the US population and economy) would have a signifiacant impact, both in terms of immediate deaths caused by power loss (air traffic control, for example) and longterm disaster relief. Theoretically NK has the capability and knowhow. So this is probably a negotiating position for more blackmail money. As President Clinton did, when he paid them cash & food assitance in his first term if they agreed not spoil his re-election chances or legacy in a second term. And as everyone knows, they took the cash and built an operational bomb which now is the root of the present crisis. nobs^{Say hello to my leetle friend} 21:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

"Theoretically NK has the capability and knowhow." Does anybody else smell bullshit?

Reminds me of the part in Vonnegut's Sirens of Titan when a bunch of expatriate Earthlings living on Mars decide to vent their frustrations on the home world:

The Martians announced their presence by radio to Earth, demanded Earth's surrender. And they gave Earth what they described as "a taste of hell."

This taste, to Earth's considerable amusement turned out to be a very light shower of rockets carrying twelve pounds apiece of TNT.

After giving Earth this taste of hell, the Martians told Earth that Earth's situation was hopeless.

Earth thought otherwise.

<and so it went; spoiler: Earth "won.">

Not even worth reaching in the wastebasket for a used envelope to do the sums on. Yield, throw weight, bla bla honkity honk weeble wibble... Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 00:12, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Dunno. Sounds like the faulty information that warned bin Laden determined to strike in the US or of Saddam's WMD. See CRS report, January 4, 2013: "Congressional testimony from senior officials in the intelligence community has not produced a definitive statement on whether or not North Korea has achieved this critical capability....(pp. 15-16 pdf)". What would be an optimal number of deaths? or, as in the immortal words of Hillary CLinton, "WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE? nobs^{Say hello to my leetle friend} 17:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd say it's a bit more important to see that North Korea's obviously fibbing about their leverage. RobSmith, clearly you recall how the USSR overstated both its offensive capability and the number of friends it had. --TheLateGatsby (talk) 17:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

CIA exagerated their capability, but that was part of the culture, telling Congress what they wanted to hear so they would continue defense appropriations for jobs in their respective districts. nobs^{Say hello to my leetle friend} 17:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

More North Korean Idiocy

Seems that North Korea has slightly jumped the gun on their almost entirely unsuccessful space program. Their government website has recently released a video heralding their imminent conquest of space (complete with the best of late 80s cgi) followed by carpet nuking of the USA.

I gotta wonder with all of North Korea's latest attempts to piss off China, Is Kim Jong Un really this stupid? or is there some kind of deeper plan to all this? Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 12:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Always assume they want more food. NK is starving to fucking death. Dogs in China eat better than doctors in North Korea.

Dunno what they're doing trying to piss off their last friend in the world. SK isn't looking forward to the bill for cleaning up the mess either - David Gerard (talk) 12:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm really just waiting for the Chinese to attack North Korea. A war between the US and North Korea will pretty quickly end up with the North Koreans retreating into China (like the last Korean Civil War). That'll probably end up with the Chinese involved (like the last Korean Civil War), which will destroy the world economy, since the US and China are so heavily invested in one another, and every other country is so heavily tied into one or the other. So, really, China has far more incentive to smack North Korea then the US, since the North Koreans would be trapped between China and the freaking minefield-border. My only real question: will the Chinese give North Korea to the South Koreans, or keep it for themselves?--Token Conservative (talk) 15:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

The idea of the Chinese putting the smack=down on NK is not entirely insane; I kinda wonder why they haven't already. One thing states hate is refugee flows coming in, and, for more than a few years now, NK has been ripe to produce just that for China--a "regime change"/"humanitarian intervention" framework could justify it.Also, since the Cold War is long over, they don't really need NK on their side anymore. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 15:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Other than international law, which china is now far more bound to than it was, say 20 years ago, so maybe that is enough -- what keeps china from just basically buying/invading/taking SK and making it a (dis)functional part of their state? Are there real economic disadvantages to just taking what they want?Godot She was a venus demilo in her sister's jeans 15:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

"what keeps china from just basically buying/invading/taking SK" --> If you meant South Korea, the thousands and thousands of US troops massed on its border. If you meant North Korea? The fact they have the bomb now would be a big deterrent. Also, the same things that should have kept the US from taking Iraq. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 15:50, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

There would be little incentive for North Korea not to drop a nuke on Beijing if Kim felt his regime was about to collapse from a Chinese invasion, and it would have to be a full on invasion because he still does have that million man army. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:24, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

While I wouldn't want to be near one going off I can't help but feel that the NK nuclear bomb is a bit oversold. They have yields in the 2 to 6 kt range. The ones the US dropped on Japan were in the 13 to 22 kt range. (Modern US weapons are orders of magnitude greater.) I also have difficulty in believing that they are anywhere near getting a reliable system of delivery for the things. --Bob^{"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that."} 17:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

You never know, they might use the same trebuchet they used with their space program Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 18:25, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the threat of countries like north Korea or Iran nuking the neighbours is particularly serious. I think real threat is them handing nuclear devices to terrorist organisations with no qualms about using them. This threat isn't that great either, but looks like a major worry in Pakistan at the moment. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

The reason China doesn't just invade NK now is that they would then be stuck with NK. They don't want it either - David Gerard (talk) 19:22, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Like I said re: " the same things that should have kept the US from taking Iraq." Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 19:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I think it said alot that when NK does something aggressive, all China does is tell the US and Co. not to do anything rash. --Revolverman (talk) 20:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm going with David Gerard on this. NK government isn't stupid, they just only really have one means of leverage, and that is the nuclear sabre rattling. So, whenever they want something, out it comes. And what they want is invariably food and/or fuel.

I agree though, in the event it looked like things were getting serious in terms of NK going too far, or of collapse, then China has the most interest in intervening. Though the cold war is over, China definitely would not want US/S.Korean intervention in the north, as that would mean US forces far too close for comfort. The interdependence between the US and China is causing tension of it's own as the two increasing compete for the same resources, so the peace is as cold as the war was. Though China is supposedly more entwined by international law, her economic might means that like the US, she is largely impervious to it (as Tibet, the Paracel and Spratley islands all show), and it is not as if NK has friends. The US could probably bring itself to live with a more stable and predictable Chinese puppet state in NK as being preferable to the alternatives.

I'm guessing the only reason China has held back so far is that it is playing a waiting game, and taking a gamble that the current NK regime will exhaust it's options in the foreseeable future, and will peacefully become a Chinese client state - either by the existing regime doing so of it's own volition to preserve itself (i.e. "reform from within" - a clone of the Chinese embrace of authoritarian capitalism, as a Chinese vassal) or by a palace coup. A lot of the former already seems to be underway despite the surface hostility. There's a lot of construction in Pyongyang, and a lot of the well-connected seem to have access to Chinese goods and influences, and given the new guys fairly young, the party will want to keep him as a sign of continuity and to avoid infighting. I wouldn't be surprised to see him fall into the Chinese orbit within the next 10-15 years - once the nuclear programme hits a dead end, a major famine comes along (the kind you can't contain or "manage"), or the Russians refuse to accept a maxed out credit card in return for spare parts for their life-expired military gear. --Llegar a las estrellas^¿Dígame? 15:07, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I don' know about the US gear, but the Mig-25 used vacuum tubes to ensure EMP resistance. Simple but effective. I for one plan to hide all my toys under an upturned satellite dish... --Llegar a las estrellas^¿Dígame? 15:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Nice small soldiers reference there! Sophie^Wilder 23:28, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand the hubbub. It's doubtful China would allow NK to destroy markets for its manufactured goods; but from the NK's perspective , its nuclear blackmail diplomacy toward the US & China is only "spreading the wealth". nobs^{Say hello to my leetle friend} 17:56, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Blog: Calling RWF board members

So I keep failing to get around to emailing you all, so I'm going to post this here instead.

I'd like posts from each of the incoming board for the unofficial community blog - who you are, what you do, why you're there, what possessed you to join the board of a tiny charity, etc blah. (Blue wrote a post on her own blog as well, of course - she could probably precis that.) Just write 'em up and email them to me for now.

And if you want to write other stuff you think would go well on an RW-related blog, please do!

(I understand that before giving someone a blog on RB, Nutty wants visible evidence of good writing sustained over time. So this is an excellent place to do that too.) - David Gerard (talk) 19:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Do we e-mail our responses to you for you to post, or.......? Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 09:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, just email to me for now, it's simple and works. Cheers :-) - David Gerard (talk) 10:47, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I will definitely do this soon. Blue (is useful) 06:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll do this Friday morning. Out most of tomorrow (today?!)—. Cool idea. 07:49, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

At your leisure :-) Though I'm hoping someone gets one in soon, or I'm going to have to compose an original piece on cancer woo (which currently just points to the category) and doing that properly will make the pseudophysics one look easy - David Gerard (talk) 08:17, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

First one up. See? This isn't hard - David Gerard (talk) 08:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, just busy. Weekend? sterile^{sporadic heavy hitter} 11:59, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Why do I do this to myself??

So, I turned to Google to see if those damn gays had owned up to causing the latest earthquake... and I found this clusterfuck.

Seems to be an insane mix of scripture, bullshit and numerology. Also, by somebody calling themselves "Humanity777." Didn't somebody else we know use socks with the "777" ending? --PsyGremlin^Parlez! 13:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

As if you need reminding on who that is. What is the fundie significance of 777; is it just being better than 666? Генгис^evolving 13:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Meth. Not even once. Ochotonaprinceps^{not a pokémon} 13:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

777 is supposed to be the number of God isn't it? PsyGremlin^Tala! 13:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

because 5-ever is greater than 4-ever, duh!±KnightOfTL;DR^{sufficiently advanced argument still distinguishable from magic} 13:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I often look forward to what threemorrow will bring. --Seth Peck (talk) 16:04, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

A lot of internet laws are being satisfied right now. ^sshole 16:04, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

No quite as satisfied as Victor Borge. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 17:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd forgotten about that skit (I also like the one where he verbalizes punctuation marks). I guess I should have said, "I ofeleven look fiveward three what threemorrow will bring." --Seth Peck (talk) 17:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

There is no Biblical mention of 777 at all. It usually stems from the fact that the number 7 corresponds to the Hebrew letter Zayin, which is said to also mean sword, and thus 777 sometimes represents the flaming sword used by an angel to bar humans from re-entering the Garden of Eden. As it is also the next number up from six, it is occasionally viewed as the holy counter to the more known '666'.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 20:38, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Lamech lived 777 years (Gen. 5:21); see also Gen. 4:23. Burnum (talk) 23:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

True, but he's a (relatively) minor figure. Sophie^Wilder 23:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Here, knock yourself out. For example, here's results when you put in "777" ("King of King Lord of Lords"), and here's when you put in "PsyGremlin" ("Beelzebub/Barack Hussein Obama Clone"). nobs^{Say hello to my leetle friend} 02:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Happy anniversary to me!

I just noticed I've been at RW for a year. Woot!--Token Conservative (talk) 23:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

• Fires a confetti gun* --Revolverman (talk) 23:24, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Your parents must be so proud. Sophie^Wilder 23:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

At two years your allowed to have a party. --^Mikal_lakiM 23:26, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I am shocked, shocked, to learn that Hamilton is married. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 23:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

My parents don't know I'm here. I doubt I'll even notice my two year mark, it's just dumb luck I even noticed I've been here this long.--Token Conservative (talk) 23:33, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm just a little shy of 5 years now. Aceⁱ⁹ 20:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I often skip it too, it's a bit of a slow start to the album. Sophie^Wilder 20:50, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Words I would never use to describe Ace: "A little shy." Yeah, real fuckin' shrinking violet, you are. Theory of Practice "...and we do love you madly." 20:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Huh? Aceⁱ⁹ 20:54, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Side one, track one Sophie^Wilder 21:00, 7 February 2013 (UTC)