RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive204

This is an archive page, last updated 14 July 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>, <191>, <192>, <193>, <194>, <195>, <196>, <197>, <198>, <199>, <200>, <201>, <202>, <203>, <205>, <206>, <207>, <208>, <209>, <210>, <211>, <212>, <213>, <214>, <215>, <216>, <217>, <218>, <219>, <220>, <221>, <222>, <223>, <224>, <224½>, <225>, <226>, <227>, <228>, <229>, <230>, <231>, <232>, <233>, <234>, <235>, <236>, <237>, <238>, <239>, <240>, <241>, <242>, <243>, <244>, <245>, <246>, <247>, <248>, <249>, <250>, <251>, <252>, <253>, <254>, <255>, <256>, <257>, <258>, <259>, <260>, <261>, <262>, <263>, <264>, <265>, <266>, <267>, <268>, <269>, <270>, <271>, <272>, <273>, <274>, <275>, <276>, <277>, <278>, <279>, <280>, <281>, <282>, <283>, <284>, <285>, <286>, <287>, <288>, <289>, <290>, <291>, <292>, <293>, <294>, <295>, <296>, <297>, <298>, <299>, <300>, <301>, <302>, <303>, <304>, <305>, <306>, <307>, <308>, <309>, <310>, <311>, <312>, <313>, <314>, <315>, <316>, <317>, <318>, <319>, <320>, <321>, <322>, <323>, <324>, <325>, <326>, <327>, <328>, <329>, <330>, <331>, <332>, <333>, <334>, <335>, <336>, <337>, <338>, <339>, <340>, <341>, <342>, <343>, <344>, <345>, <346>, <347>, <348>, <349>, <350>, <351>, <352>, <353>, <354>, <355>, <356>, <357>, <358>, <359>, <360>, <361>, <362>, <363>, <364>, <365>, <366>, <367>, <368>, <369>, <370>, <371>, <372>, <373>, <374>, <375>, <376>, <377>, <378>, <379>, <380>, <381>, <382>, <383>, <384>, <385>, <386>, <387>, <388>, <389>, <390>, <391>, <392>, <393>, <394>, <395>, <396>, <397>, <398>, <399>, <400>, <401>, <402>, <403>, <404>, <405>, <406>, <407>, <408>, <409>, <410>, <411>, <412>, <413>, <414>, <415>, <416>, <417>, <418>, <419>, <420>, <421>, <422>, <423>, <424>, <425>, <426>, <427>, <428>, <429>, <430>, <431>, <432>, <433>, <434>, <435>, <436>, <437>, <438>, <439>, <440>, <441>, <442>, <443>, <444>, <445>, <446>, <447>, <448>, <449>, <450>, <451>, <452>, <453>, <454>, <455>, <456>, <457>, <458>, <459>, <460>, <461>, <462>, <463>, <464>, <465>, <466>

, (new)(back)

Duplicate article

First cause and Cosmological argument seem to refer to the same thing. Any ideas on how to merge those? --Tweenk (talk) 01:08, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

You might want to move the discussion to their talk pages and see RationalWiki:Duplicate articles. ^talk 10:28, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Old Time Radio Dramas

So I downloaded a Fallout 3 mod that added "X minus one" as a radio station to the game, and... its a real shame Radio Dramas had to die out, these and the other ones ive spent today listening to are... pretty good. --^Mikal_lakiM 04:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Check out otrcat.com. Lots of radio dramas available for cheap. Or if you're into comedy, Bob and Ray is highly recommended. Doctor Dark (talk) 04:42, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, how are Radio Dramas different from listening to drama on the radio? Genuine question, I personally don't have much interest but I'm aware that BBC Radio 4 and 4 Extra carry a lot of drama, including the apparently very popular The Archers, Doctor Who (they do stories using past Doctors and their Assistants, with a far lower budget than the TV series), modified episodes of Yes Minister and numerous plays adapted to a non-visual medium. Are some of these Radio Dramas? If not what's special about a Radio Drama? Tialaramex (talk) 08:12, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I think they're the same thing, it's just that America doesn't make them any more while Britain does. That's what I've been told my an American chum, anyway. Balaam (talk) 11:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

The pictures are better on radio, that's what's so special. Sophie^Wilder 11:10, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

also, radio has to work harder than TV to hold your attention, and ad breaks interfere with that. Sophie^Wilder 11:12, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Here in the US, we dropped radio dramas in favor of talk radio. In hindsight, we chose poorly. --OverworldTheme (talk) 12:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Have you tried importing audio books from http://www.audible.co.uk/, however some of them are just narations of existing fiction, rather than specifically written as an audio work. (blatant plug; I don't work for them, nor have I bought any from them). CS Miller (talk) 12:30, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

If you want some Sherlock Holmes, here's a great location for them. http://www.archive.org/details/OTR_Sherlock_Holmes_smurfmeat --Revolverman (talk) 04:05, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Creeping Islamophobia

I’m really getting tired of the way this site seems to be growing increasingly tolerant of Islamophobia in regards to arbitration courts. I’ve had to correct the sharia page multiple times to even acknowledge that it is not legal in Britain to coerce people into an arbitration court (or, alternatively, delete weasel words about how it secretly isn’t being “enforced,” and attempts to make it sound as if this is a valid argument for banning it, rather than for properly enforcing laws against coercion). And I just noticed that someone vandalized the page for One Law For All to remove reference to the very fact that arbitration courts are private, continuing to spread the Islamophobic lie that the UK government has somehow allowed Muslims to live under a “parallel legal system.” The simple fact, that we need to acknowledge, is that arbitration courts are just private contracts that need to be honored, as long as they don’t violate any other laws. And attempts to ban Islamic arbitration specifically is nothing more than Islamophobia. Period.--Mustex (talk) 03:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Nuanced views of the place of religion in modern life is not something that Rationalwiki is excellent at. If I knew the way/I would take you home. 03:33, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that people here are going to oppose Islam as it is a religion, but of course Islamaphobes would love to hide behind such claims. I have noticed that this site does seem a bit harsh in its treatment of Islam. It might be best to avoid criticizing it unless necessary because of the Islamaphobia problem. I have a lot of problems with intolerance of the minority of Islamic extremists, but I don't publicize such thoughts because they'd be exploited by racist Islamaphobes. Bigotry Wiki is actually doing a series on Islamaphobia, when if gets back up if you're interested. –Александр(а) Ehrenstein (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 03:38, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• • • All very true. ^{— Unsigned, by: Mustex / talk / contribs} 05:10, 17 June 2013

You should check out this thread on the Islamophobia talkpage, wherein Muslims are quite literally worse than Hitler. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:05, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

@Weaseloid. Some Muslims, and some Christians, believe it to be just to torture me for ever, and also want it that I be tortured forever. Pretty sure that's worse than being in a concentration camp, starved for years, and then killed in a gas chamber. Just saying. Luckily, they either don't have enough political power to implement that, or there's a convenient little loophole where they can't implement this themselves, but they're more than happy enough to do it via proxy (e.g. Allah aka the Muslim god and the Christian god). So, as I said, if they actually believe that, then they are more morally abhorrent than the Nazis. At least as a Jew under Nazi Germany the torture would eventually end. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 20:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

"Pretty sure that's worse than being in a concentration camp, starved for years, and then killed in a gas chamber." im going to go with the idea that wanting me to be tortured in some afterlife that may or may not even exist is the lesser of two evils to actively torturing me here in this life before just outright killing me in a really terrible way. --^Mikal_lakiM 20:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

As I said in the above post, and in the post in the link provided above, if they really believe that, then they are morally worse than Nazi Germany. Thankfully, IMHO very few of them actually believe that. But that's what their religion preaches. I am thankful that they are only halfhearted followers of a moral philosophy that is morally worse than Nazi Germany. I am thankful that here is no such thing as an afterlife where they might be able to contribute to this horrible but thankfully fictional system of "justice". However, I see no reason why we should cut anyone any slack when they say that shit. What they say is more heinous than Nazism. Being tortured forever is worse than being tortured for a finite time. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 22:23, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, this conversation sure sank to the lowest common denominator in a hurry. If I knew the way/I would take you home. 22:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

@Mustex. You had me up to here: " And attempts to ban Islamic arbitration specifically is nothing more than Islamophobia. Period.". Let me try this: I want to curtail or limit binding arbitration courts of all kinds, not just Islamic ones. I also don't like the binding arbitration agreements in the US. In a great many software licenses, you purportedly give up a lot of your rights to sue. I don't think that should be allowed in such shrink-wrap agreements. I might be able to make a similar case for the Sharia courts, especially if the decisions are binding such as they would be if they were part of a legally enforceable contract. My view of morality and legality informs my views of contract theory, and, for example, I don't think you can contract yourself to be a slave, and I don't think it's right to be able to sign away such significant amounts of other rights as happens in these cases. The simple fact is that Sharia law is designed to enforce many malicious cultural trends which demonstrably hurt people, and are worse than the common government civil courts, and that is why we should try to demote them in whatever moral and sensible means we have. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 20:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Also, sometimes we must reluctantly choose between throwing a lot more resources at something or abandoning it. The Sharia courts are being abused to get people to legally "agree" to things no ordinary civil court would accept, I'm going to assume you don't deny that Mustex. So we either need to throw resources at identifying and actively prosecuting coercion or we could save that money and get rid of the whole system, both options will of course open us up to accusations that we're islamaphobic or racist. But the third option is in fact racist, that's where we do neither and it says "The people (mostly women) who are losing out here aren't white so who even cares?".

The UK's small boat fishing industry faces the same sort of ugly choice. Right now small boat fishing is ridiculously dangerous. You might have the idea that this is unavoidable. Truth is, it's not. Avoiding it would be expensive not difficult. The government doesn't want to pay for all the safety upgrades out of the public purse, and it doesn't want to drive small boat fishing out of existence. So nothing gets done, each successive government continues to kick the can down the road, and meanwhile men (for it is almost exclusively men on these boats) die needlessly. Tialaramex (talk) 10:17, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

@EnlightenmentLiberal: Ok, while I probably wouldn't agree with your ideals about arbitration, the fact remains that most of the anti-sharia groups don't even care about Jewish arbitration, let alone stopping abuses of secular arbitrators. As for the issue of throwing money to eliminate the corruption, yes I would prefer that over banning the entire system, because the latter seems mind-blowingly authoritarian. The analogy I've often used here is this: Two brothers have a large inheritance dispute. They decided to settle it with a winner-take-all poker game. Of course, we could take steps to prevent cheating, and even tell them that they're being incredibly stupid and should just go to court. But, do we REALLY have any right to stop them? I say no.--Mustex (talk) 17:04, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

the fact remains that most of the anti-sharia groups don't even care about Jewish arbitration *KWAAARK* first to bring Jews in - David Gerard (talk) 21:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Sure. It's just one of my little economic tinkerings. I think capitalism is awesome when it works, but I also know of plenty of cases where it does not. In cases like shrinkwrap agreements, there is unfair bargaining power. Also most people are just too goddamned stupid, and this is one of those very rare cases where I want the government to protect people from themselves. It's basically a collective action issue. Most people don't experience immediate penalties from accepting, and only by working together to boycott organizations that have the worst shrinkwrap agreements will they go away, which means the plan is doomed to failure. I agree to your poker game example, but that's precisely because it lacks this element of coercion. Admittingly, the shrinkwrap agreements have a much bigger collection action problem than Sharia courts, so I admit my own analogy is tenuous at best. There, it's mostly my humanism values coming out. Free speech is more about the right of the listener to hear than the speaker to speak. It's about throwing ideas out and criticizing them to arrive at truth. The Sharia courts are harmful, and thus they need to be criticized. I think we can all agree here. I really don't know what kind of policy I would want in this case. Still, it bothers me if we ever get to a situation where the defacto standard of civil resolution is not the civil courts but private arbitration courts, because then you defacto lose a great many legal protections in court. Meh, I'm just rambling now. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 19:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I can understand that people may wish to settle disputes outside of the legal framework for financial and time reasons but the problem with any extra-legal arbitration is whether there is any compulsion on any of the parties. It might be argued that some religious courts have inherent biases of some kind, perhaps against women and that a woman may feel compelled by familial/cultural pressure to submit to a scheme where she already starts at a disadvantage. There is a distinct difference between, say, industrial relations courts where an independent arbitrator is agreed by both unions and management and there is a balance of power, compared to a lone individual who is already in a weak position fighting against the religio-cultural traditions of their local community. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 00:13, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I won't claim that the issues being raised here are not troubling, and maybe my initial statement was a bit strong (I've spent far too much time arguing with people who don't understand the difference between a property dispute, and a beheading). I actually have mixed feelings about the shrink-wrap agreements, but I should mention that I would be fully in agreement with a requirement that both parties be able to withdraw from an arbitration up until a certain point (say, the final decision of the arbitrator), which would make shrink-wrap agreements void anyway. As for the issue of bias, however, I would question the idea that private groups can't be biased. Now, I know someone here is going to raise the example of non-discrimination legislation, but the key difference is that in those cases, the person being discriminated against did not consent to be discriminated against. If a black person feels that racist whites have a right to not hire him, he has every right to not work for racist white people. However, with opposition to these arbitration courts the opponents seem to be saying that these women can't consent to be discriminated against. Now, I'm fully behind the arbitrators being required to tell them "Yes, I will be biased as all fuck," but if they still agree to it, it seems to me that's on them. As for the issue of social pressure...well, it may be sad, but people, IMHO, have the right to be douchebags and peer pressure others into doing stupid things.--Mustex (talk) 21:24, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I think what you mean is "I was actually pretty much wrong to call socially-pressured arbitration 'just private contracts that need to be honoured', and also have a problem with Jews." HTH! - David Gerard (talk) 07:31, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the argument is that people can't consent to certain things, or rather, their consent is largely immaterial to a just outcome. The law is most concerned about unequal bargaining positions. When one enormous corporation sells a building to another enormous corporation for one dollar, the court is likely to deem this a fair exchange of value though it cannot, on the face of it, be clear how that is so. But if you argue that you, a huge global corporation, obtained the "consent" of a senile old lady to sell her home to you for the price of one dollar, expect the court to insist on hearing at length why you thought that was a fair exchange. The existence of a parallel "dispute resolution" mechanism that doesn't see things this way can be considered a threat to the rule of law. Tialaramex (talk) 13:54, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

@David Gerard: No, I didn't mean that. Firstly, to deal with the implication that I'm anti-semitic, let me clarify: I've run into multiple people who complain about the sharia courts, and when you point that Jews have had a similar system in England for hundreds of years, they'll pay lip-service to "I'm against that too!" but they never seem to make banning that arbitration system legal. As for the rest of it, no I was not wrong to say that. @Tialaramex: A senile old lady who d not understand what she was doing was obviously not giving INFORMED consent. If you want to say that we need to look at these arbitrations more closely, fine. But, unless there is some method through which a person can prove that they are informed and consenting, no matter how strange their consent may seem, then you're setting up a Catch-22 specifically to deny people the right to do something you don't like. If you want to make the process of proving that you're consenting to something biased against you long and rigorous, even to the point of intentionally trying to make it too much trouble for most people to bother with, I have no problem with this. But if you're just outright going to say "you can't consent to this, and there's no evidence you could present me with to disprove my assertion that you can't consent to it," then we have an issue.--Mustex (talk) 00:59, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Then I think we're going to have an issue. Informed consent is trickier than you seem to imagine, if you believe that the practice in medicine today is a "gold standard" then you'll be disappointed because the evidence shows that most people still don't actually understand what they're agreeing to even though they have sat in a room while a doctor explains it and asks them if they have any questions. But beyond that we end up having a bunch of rules that ignore your supposed consent. These are pretty wide-ranging, the go-to examples are things like slavery (you can't own people, even people who've signed something saying they "consent" to this arrangement) and various restrictions about children (you're not supposed to fuck them, sell them cigarettes, booze or lottery tickets, etc.) whatever they may say - but also for example employees aren't able to consent to unsafe work practices, the employer has a duty of care regardless of how the employees feel and this is important because individual humans are lousy at risk management and will quite happily put their lives at stake for small temporary gains.

Consent does have a role, it's an unavoidable problem in non-emergency medicine (hence the interest of medical ethicists in what patients actually understand and how we could fix that) but we should mostly be narrowing that role. I remember my mother filling out the paperwork consenting to being made homeless. She wanted to sell her house immediately and she hadn't yet sorted out the new one. The consent paperwork rendered her ineligible for government safety nets: no emergency housing, no benefits, etc. In her case this was OK, but I think I'd rather live in a society where if everything went wrong and she didn't have somewhere to go we could do better than say "It's your fault, you signed this piece of paper". Tialaramex (talk) 10:06, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

...ok, where do I even begin. Ok, 1) Citing the fact that laws exist does not make them right (ironically, you later complain about existing laws you don't like), however I find most of the cases you cite to be quite difference scenarios, 2) the issue with slavery is that it isn't a one-time-and-done thing, its a continuous process, and people certainly have the right to work for another human being without pay for a time, but they can decide to just leave whenever they want to (employment contracts might have some penalties for this, and if they were in the army it would be another story, but for the most part that's the case). Arbitration, on the other hand, is a process that ends at a certain point, and unless there's proof of some problem (ie unacknowledged bias, etc), it should stand 3) Children, for the most part, are not capable of making informed decisions (in this sense I regard children and people with severe mental illnesses similarly). Furthermore, its quite ironic that you point out that people often don't understand something, after I just got done telling you that if you want to make an extensive process to determine if they did, I'm fine with that. 4) The issue with safety regulations is actually something I've debated alot. (I originally posted something else here, figured I'd acknowledged that I changed it as I began thinking about it in somewhat different terms) The problem isn't just the individual having a right to be an idiot. If someone wants to go out and handle electrical lines without gloves on his free time, more power to him. Rather, the issue is that other people AREN'T willing to do that, but if the ones who are are allowed to work under such conditions, those who are not willing to take the risk either are forced into those jobs, or are unemployed (same with the minimum wage, even if you're willing to work for less, you drive down everyone else's wages). Arbitration does not have the same overall effect on the economy. 5) When did I say I was against a safety net? If some Muslim woman loses everything in an arbitration, I fully believe our society needs to help her back on her feet (ditto some lunatic who liquidated his bank account and burned it all). This brings me to another analogy actually: at one point it was illegal for Native Americans in the Northwest to practice potlatches or conspicuous consumption (long story short: either giving away or burning all your possessions to prove how awesome you are that you don't need them). Was it right for that to be outlawed?

Of course, this is all getting away from my original point: that people are systematically misrepresenting what sharia arbitration actually is. Do you feel that these misrepresentations are justified?--Mustex (talk) 18:04, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Revisiting the banking crisis

I got into an argument with a conservative who believes that despite Fannie Mae/Fannie Mac pulling out of the subprime market in the beginning of the millennium (and entering back before the crash), their insistence on lowering lending standards on lower-income individuals and minorities influenced the big banks to do all of the handywork. And they cite a NYT article from 1999 to prove it. Is that true? 99.235.129.26 (talk) 03:33, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I see what you're doing here. If I knew the way/I would take you home. 03:34, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

How would we know if your story is true, and why do you even ask? --Blunt Force Drama (talk) 10:37, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey, BoN, I found a citation in a 1891 issue of Scientific American that said you were illegitimate. Is that true? In other words, don't expect anyone to take you seriously or respectfully (although those are not guaranteed in any scenario) without you actually referencing the citation you mentioned. Ochotona princeps^{not a pokémon} 22:21, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Why all the hostility? Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Osaka is having a pissing match with Rob. If I knew the way/I would take you home. 23:10, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

It seems this is the article in particular. However, it doesn't explain why the GOP was so adamant for passing the CFMA. Osaka Sun (talk) 02:28, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

This is easily provable. Tell this conservative to find the percentage of defaulted mortgages that took advantage of the program. It's quite small.--^talk 04:26, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Prepare for facepalm

Sarah "Kill off Julian Assange" Palin is now defending Snowden.

I'm getting awfully sick of American politics right about now. Osaka Sun (talk) 19:11, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, political opportunism and hypocrisy are things. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:15, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I wish I had solutions, here. Pointing out the Tea Party is full of nasty hypocritical shrivs who helped cause these problems won't fix these problems. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 13:03, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The palm has successfully docked with the face once again. Sen (talk) 21:01, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Looks like the Teabaggers weren't alone after all.

[1] Not surprising at all.Ryantherebel (talk) 03:05, 25 June 2013 (UTC) Osaka Sun (talk) 03:10, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Whoops. Osaka Sun (talk) 03:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

The IRS goes where the money is. Why play favorites? --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 12:25, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's a relief. I'm sure the right-wing echo chamber totally won't continue beating that drum for months. Heywood (talk) 18:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Weaning someone off of InfoWars

I've been interacting with people online who insist Alex Jones is a valid source of information. I'm worried they're going to continue down that path, since it means another couple of conspiracy theorists. What do you suppose would be a slightly better-informed news source that they won't automatically dismiss as the work of the Spacelizardcommienazijew one-world government? --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 12:19, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I haven't looked at it for years, but is Indymedia stiil going? Sophie^Wilder 14:19, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Daily Kos? Democracy Now? Sophie^Wilder 14:20, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Indymedia sounds promising, thank you, Sophie! --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 14:34, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Indymedia seems to update once a month and has a headline that reads: "Did Beyonce flash an Illuminati sign?" I think you can do better. If I knew the way/I would take you home. 16:24, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

So are you looking for "alternative" news sources? I'm guessing the "respectable" outlets (BBC, NYT, etc.) will be dismissed as being in the grips of Big Reptoid. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:18, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Try Truthout, and Truthdig. If I knew the way/I would take you home. 22:49, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I'll take a look at all of these, thanks everyone. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 10:46, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

"Big Reptoid". I like that. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 10:47, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Shelby County v. Holder

Already hearing comparisons to Bush v. Gore. It makes you wonder what Anthony Kennedy will pull out of his hat for DOMA/Prop 8.

"Homos can't get married cuz I sez so. Suck this, faggots!" Justice A. Kennedy, June, 2013 MDB ^{(the MD is for Maryland, the B is for Bear)} 18:22, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Given Kennedy's opinion for Lawrence v. Texas, I doubt that will be his response. --Seth Peck (talk) 19:11, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

One thing I don't get is the impact of the Voting Rights Act on majority-minority districts. Can someone elaborate? Osaka Sun (talk) 19:38, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Do you understand how gerrymandering works? The states subjected to federal scrutiny will now be able to draw their own district lines. Republicans could in principle gerrymander a majority-minority district into two surrounding areas with low minority populations diluting the Democrat vote and thus winning both the new districts by a small margin, instead of losing the majority-minority district and easily winning a neighbouring district. Or indeed vice versa, to turn two losing districts into one huge loss and a close win.

I think FiveThirtyEight is probably bang on here, the self-segregation will produce the majority-minority effect without any gerrymandering. If you think self-segregation is itself a problem well, good luck with that. One thing I learned during this fiasco was about Texas' "Top 10" rule. That actually seems like sound policy, worth replicating elsewhere. There seems to be concern that it "only" works due to self-segregation, but I don't see any evidence that's true. The rule undoes much of the disparity in the regional quality of education, regardless of whether that disparity is racially motivated, or indeed even accidental. Tialaramex (talk) 10:13, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

DOMA just went fffttt

DOMA ruled unconstitutional 5-4 snd it looks like the court is going to rule that Prop 8 supporters didn't have standing to petition the courts which is a more controversial decision than I was expecting.-- ^{Jabba de Chops} 14:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and apparently it's worth googling 'gay' today.-- ^{Jabba de Chops} 14:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

My Facebook feed is going crazy. --Seth Peck (talk) 14:48, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Maybe it's just me, but I get the strange feeling that the WIGO Clogs page is going to be extra busy for the next few weeks. --OverworldTheme (talk) 15:25, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I have a question about what happens when a law like this is pronounced unconstitutional: does it effectively just mean the law is no longer in effect going forward (like when a law is repealed), or does it open for the door people to claim benefits, inheritance etc. retrospectively since the law preventing them was never valid? Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:43, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The law stays on the books, but is unenforceable. I believe that to claim benefits, etc., the ruling would have to explicitly state that the decision applies retroactively. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:09, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

That last part doesn't sound right. The way these things work is that courts decide specific actual cases. Here, the specific facts were that a woman died and her spouse had to pay the IRS full inheritance tax because DOMA meant their (same sex) marriage, though otherwise legal, wasn't acceptable for the purposes of federal law including inheritance tax rules. The effect of today's ruling is that she gets her money back. The only reason I can think of why other people with similar circumstances wouldn't also now be eligible for a refund would be a time limitation on such claims whereby if you don' moan quickly enough it's too late, like you can't realistically go back to a store and say "Hey, 15 years ago I bought a can of Coke here, and I gave the clerk a twenty but got change from a ten, where's my ten dollars?"

Now in the specific case of DOMA some of the fuss from the dissenting justices is about the legitimacy of the whole "appeal" that brought the case before them. Courts are not supposed to rule on hypotheticals. Do space aliens have to pay income tax if they land on US soil? The Supreme Court and every other US court will refuse to offer any opinion about that until you first produce some space aliens who aren't paying and a government official who says they ought to. No aliens? No court case. Today's issue was originally a proper case, where the woman wanted a refund and the IRS, played here by the Executive branch of the US government, didn't want to pay. But by the time it arrived at the Appeals Court the Obama government had decided that it didn't think DOMA was constitutional. It actively argued in lower courts that it should lose, and be ordered to pay her. But once that happened, it appealed to the Supreme Court even though it still wanted to lose. Scalia and others argue that this is an abuse of process, to get the court to offer its opinion on something that's not actually disputed. Only real disagreements are supposed to appear before the court, not make believe. Of course after saying that the majority shouldn't have offered an opinion these dissenting justices don't miss the opportunity to offer their own opinion, which could be summarised as "Gays bad, slippery slope. Grrr!". Tialaramex (talk) 00:25, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Ask Dr. RationalWiki

Because Dr. Google will probably tell me it's cancer, I wonder if RWers might know the answer to this. About a month ago, I hurt my knee while exercising (I tend to fuck things up a lot, because I ignore annoying aches until I exacerbate them in to full-blown injuries rather than just giving things a rest. I'm trying to reform, I really am. It's just hard.) It was a pretty trivial injury as these things go, compared to some of the more disabling can't walk for 2 weeks type sports injuries I've had. However, it just refused to go away. It was getting pretty annoying to the point where I was considering going to the doctor about it, and as a kind of "well, it can't hurt" thing, I decided to down a multivitamin tablet. Whether it's coincidence or not, this seems to have done the trick and two days later it seems to be on the right path to getting better. I would have guessed the healing time for this thing should have been about a week. Is it possible I'm actually deficient in some vitamin or mineral I don't know about? I mean, I think I eat pretty healthily, or as healthily as anyone who isn't a food obsessive does. Lots of fresh fruit and veg and suchlike, decent variety of foods. This was probably some sort of cartilage injury as best I can tell, what is needed for that to heal? --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

A bit off-topic, but why is there such an aversion to going to a doctor around here? Osaka Sun (talk) 20:41, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, I can't speak for everyone, but in my case it seemed like they'd have better things to do than look at my buggered knee. It was almost certainly going to be one of those things where the GP wouldn't be able to diagnose anything definite, they'd have to refer me to the hospital for a scan/x-ray, and there'd be a lot of buggering around for what was probably nothing. I have decent experience discerning what kind of injury gets better on its own and what needs medical intervention. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 20:44, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Paget's doesn't get better on its own. 21:04, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Duly noted, and filed under the heading "You have knee cancer." --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

"why is there such an aversion to going to a doctor around here?" 1. We're a predominantly male community. Guys suck at getting medical care. 2. as long as the doctor doesn't tell you otherwise, it's not officially cancer, or the warning signs of a stroke or a heart attack, so there's nothing to worry about If I knew the way/I would take you home. 21:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

(On #1) Oh FFS. Osaka Sun (talk) 21:40, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Yup. If I knew the way/I would take you home. 21:54, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm part of the sizable number of Americans who don't have health insurance -I haven't been to a doctor since college. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 14:18, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, when I was being treated for Hodgkins one of the other patients I met was a cop (have I told this story here previously?) and he'd actively ignored all the symptoms right up until he was physically unable to walk and was sent to hospital by his bosses to figure out why. He was in a really bad way, high probability he'd die and he was scared because he had a little kid. But he'd limped around for weeks rather than go see the staff doctor which wouldn't even have meant taking an hour off work. Men (as a group, individuals vary, yada yada) are fucking stupid about this. Tialaramex (talk) 00:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Go to the doctor. Don't fuck around with joint stuff, take it to a professional.--^talk 23:35, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

What he said. A few years back I was the dumbshit with a "sore shoulder" that wouldn't get better, and being a guy I didn't have it seen to until my wife insisted. Went to the doc, turned out it was a torn rotator cuff. A physical therapist showed me a few simple exercises, and I was OK in a fraction of the time that I'd been putting the whole thing off. So do it already. Doctor Dark (talk) 02:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Better yet, go to a PT. They got me back from tendonitis in a week and a half. Transitional Form^{Still Durbinating} 03:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like cancer, Jeeves. Ajkgordon (talk) 08:17, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Ah, knee cancer; what a joke. Mrs. K had a a pain in her upper arm and went to the doctor, she was seen by a locum rather than her usual GP and he diagnosed it as rotator cuff and suggested that she give it some rest. Three months later while lifting herself out of a chair at work she fractured her arm. I took her to the hospital and the X-ray showed a spiral fracture - but also, worryingly, some shadows. That was on a Friday afternoon; Monday morning she was back in for a full-body scan and they discovered a tumour growing within the bone which had weakened it thus precipitating a fracture when put under stress. Long story short, she was diagnosed with multiple myeloma. Bottom line is, always get to the doctor ASAP. You've got the NHS, make sensible use of it. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 15:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Apologies, mate. Foot in mouth. Second the point about seeing a doctor. No excuse with the NHS. Ajkgordon (talk) 16:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

No apologies needed; knee cancer might sound like a joke, but then so does arm cancer. I was just pointing out that cancer can strike pretty much anywhere; in my wife's case I believe it was at the site of a previous fracture 7 years earlier when she fell while taking the dog for a walk. Of course her initial diagnosis was 10 years ago and after radiotherapy, chemotherapy and a stem-cell transplant she's still going strong. (Bloody NHS.) Генгис^unbelieving 16:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, damn NHS. Treating people and all that. Who do they think they are? Commies, that's what. Ajkgordon (talk) 16:30, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, come on guys! Only those who love our Islamo-socalistic-commie president Barack HUSSEIN Obama would want people treated for their sicknesses! The NHS is like the worst thing evarz11!1!!one! EGKunz 16:38, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd been half hoping that one of them death-panels would have given her the thumbs down so I could have shacked up with an Asian babe; but no, they kept her in a private isolation room for a whole month without having to pay a thing and then put an expensive titanium prosthesis in her arm. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 16:44, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh man, i'd totally forgotten about the whole "death panel" analogy that got tied into "Obama-care" so often in the early debates. Haha, good times. EGKunz 17:16, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Go to the doctor, who will play with your kneecap and determine if you need an MRI to determine what you did to your knee ligaments or if you just bracing/pt. Hipocrite (talk) 17:14, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Doctors? What do they know? He should go to his local voodoo herbal supplement shop and get some nice homegrown cures! What do those with advanced schooling know over those who claim Native American roots? Answer me that you non-vegan nut-job! EGKunz 17:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Zo! Ze knee vas hurtin for a vile and zen you took ze multivitamins und later zee knee vas better. Clearly you haz ze multivitamin deficiency! Vat more evidence es needed?--Weirdstuff (talk) 19:33, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Invest in your joints now, because the alternative is a full knee replacement in 10 years, and that costs way more than seeing your doctor or a PT. ±KnightOfTL;DR^{free guybrush threepwood! no new taxes! down with porcelain!} 19:43, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

This really isn't the place for medical advice. –Meine Ehere heißt Toleranz (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 20:06, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

True as that may be, this topic spawned more discussion than the last five or ten so it ended up being perfect "bar talk". EGKunz 21:51, 27 June 2013

It is if the advice being given is "Go see a freaking doctor already!" Nowhere Man (talk) 01:53, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Your helps please, much appreciate and beer if you're in Chicago

My cofounder and I just got our startup idea into the Chicago Lean Startup Challenge. It's going to be an intense 10 weeks of mentorship and hard work.

I would be grateful if any of y'all who got married in the last 1 or 2 years and would be willing to talk to me on the phone for around 10 minutes about your experiences with wedding vendors. I don't care whate country you're in. Did you use online resources? Were they good? What hurt? Etc.

We're exploring some of our basic business assumptions and can't do it without help.

Beers if you're in Chicago! Holla,

15:18, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Wondering about conspiracies

I just got to thinking about the counter-argument to conspiracy theories, that it would be impossible to cover up, say, the moon landing hoax because of the number of people and amount of time involved. What it want to know is, how long has a real high-level conspiracy ever stayed a secret in a free society? eg Watergate was uncovered by a nightwatchman doing his job properly and being able to speak about it freely (whereas under Brezhnev he'd have been packed off to the gulag and nobody would be any the wiser). Sophie^Wilder 11:01, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

One might argue [2]. Hipocrite (talk) 12:09, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

The Wedge strategy is an example of a non-secret conspiracy that, somehow, is completely under the radar for many people. It's a public document, yet people still deny that ID is just a re-branding of creationism, and that Teach the controversy isn't about fairness at all. Apokalyps2547 (talk) 16:03, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

There have been many conspiracies which have been uncovered over time. Flying planes into the twin towers and Watergate were both conspiracies. Presumably there are currently existing conspiracies about which we as yet know nothing.

The real question is - has there ever been a "conspiracy theory" which turned out to be true. Something which was first uncovered by the tinfoil hat brigade and which was subsequently discovered be true.--Weirdstuff (talk) 18:08, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Depends on exactly what your standards are. Generally conspiracy theorists like to take a bunch of disparate facts which are not disputed, and then draw some ridiculous and unsubstantiated conclusions from them. So, who is a conspiracy theorist depends on whether you accept the argument as ridiculous, plausible, or substantiated, etc. My personal favorite (and AFAIK only) topic which I think is probably true which may be called a conspiracy theory is the OPV hypothesis of the origin of AIDS. I say maybe it's a conspiracy theory, because it only needs the concerted effect of maybe half a dozen people to keep it suppressed, which makes it far different than the moon landing, for example. -- Oh, and of course Richard Carrier's work which seems pretty plausible. You know, no historical Jesus at all. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 19:59, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Of course, the problem with conspiracy theories (or, rather, conspiract theorists) only really comes when you refuse to abandon the theory in the face of conflicting evidence -- instead, the conflicting evidence becomes part of the conspiracy, and that's when you know it's time to grab your parachute and bail, because you're on a one-way flight to crazytown. The other problem is the hindsight effect on piecing together clues after the fact. Confirmation bias takes being able to see the signs (of what's already happened) as a predictive power, and not a demonstration of the brain's post-event rationalization abilities. Ochotona princeps^{not a pokémon} 00:41, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

The Manhattan project proved that there can be huge conspiracies. The problem with the moon landing one is that its just plain ridiculous. (Basically every time I hear of that, I think this ). Sen (talk) 21:43, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

You're confusing secrecy with conspiracy. The Manhattan Project was not kept secret because they were trying to hoodwink the American public it was kept secret in order to keep the information out of the hands of an enemy. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 00:54, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

They didn't do a very good job of keeping it secret, either. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:51, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

They don't give up, do they?

"In uncovering the mysteries behind neuroactivity and brain-based diseases, we will find that the brain is far too integrated and functionally complex to be a product of Darwinian evolution. Instead, it will be shown to display the hallmarks of intelligent design. "[3] Scream!! (talk) 21:24, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

No, apparently they don't. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 21:28, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if it's going to get better and stay better. I hope so. Teach the kids to think for themselves, and show them the evidence. Then wait for the rest to die off. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 21:46, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Creationists deploy argument from incredulity. News at eleven. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:41, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Manufactroversy, we meet again

Both pro- and anti-gay marriage advocates have called the whambulance over the latest New Yorker cover. Osaka Sun (talk) 21:44, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

So a few people on Twitter have said they don't much like the choice of cover. That's not a "fierce backlash". That's not even "calling the whambulance". Manufactroversy all over. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:02, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

All things in balance: Mrs. Cogswell says, "Aww, that's sooo cute!" Does that count as enough fierce frontlash to put this one to bed? Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 22:31, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Other than when they killed DOMA, the ones who're being the Muppets here are the SCOTUS justices (or, some of them). Ochotona princeps^{not a pokémon} 00:45, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Would this work?

I have a feeling that it wouldn't be this simple, but I don't know either way.

If we imposed a 95% income tax on the 1% and removed the income tax on everyone else, would the government make at least as much money from income as it does now, and would the 1% still have a rich income?

Also, if we took 95% of the money from the 1% and gave it to everyone who isn't middle class, would the 1% still be rich and the poor be at a middle class level?

–Meine Ehere heißt Toleranz (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 19:53, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, the top 1% of earners is still a pretty large range of salaries that include people that could take that hit, and people who would actually wind up worse off than lower earners. I'd rather see some sort of return to the Eisenhower-Era tax system, with perhaps a few modifications. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 20:16, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

If someone made a million dollars per year, 95% would put them at $50,000. I'm not sure, but I think that's the low end of middle class. It's still not a lot. I'm not the idealistic like I used to be on this, when I thought it would work to make the taxes so everyone makes the same amount. You need the capitalist incentive for people to work hard and take the harder jobs though. One big thing I'd like to do away with is the fact that it's nearly impossible for people to move to a higher social class than they were born into. I have a solution if you don't mind totalitarian enforced equality. Warning! Sturmkrieg is for promoting personal agendas. –Meine Ehere heißt Toleranz (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 21:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

No it isn't; it's for wargame fancruft. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:33, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

This economic system would completely do away with any notion of gain or incentive that people feel (as mentioned previously) and would also do away with the illusion of the aforementioned incentive. It doesn't really matter in a Capitalistic society if someone can actually move up and down in the class system, it matters that people believe that they can. As long as people cling to a Horatio Alger Jr. type approach to wealth then the system can stand firm on false hope and faux-idealism. This sort of radical plan is also not supported by anyone, you'd alienate the entirety of the right wing, from libertarians to moderate conservatives, in a second, and even wealthy democrats would probably tell you to get your head examined. Your question of "would this work" is hard to answer because in theory, sure it might, but in our current society, not in a million years mate. EGKunz 21:55 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Income tax doesn't work like this. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 01:40, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Can't pay for kids, a house, car, and liquor on 50 grand a year. 01:55, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Up through the 1960s Britain had marginal tax rates for top earners of 90% or more (remember the Beatles' "Taxman", "there's one for you nineteen for me). Key here is marginal, i.e., someone with gross income of 1M and a marginal rate of 95% would be making well over 50,000/yr in total. At the time were lots of stories of wealthy people moving out of the country for tax reasons. I don't know how widespread that really was, as opposed to reporting of some celebrity cases. And there are still tax exiles even now when rates are much lower. Doctor Dark (talk) 02:03, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

The only conceivable way for this to work is for there to be an incentive for those who make over a certain margin to invest it instead of losing to taxes. THE reason that the 91% income tax on the wealthiest worked for Truman and Eisenhower is because there were huge deductions to be gained from re-investing the money into being an entrepreneur, i.e.: if you used your income to start a business, you could take a significant deduction every year just because you had employees. Without such a system of deductions, you will only create an environment where the wealthy don't have an incentive to make money and either A) move out of the country or B) cease making so much money and the bar is perpetually lowered to the point where the "wealthy 5%" mark could be $25 a year for all that that standard cares. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 08:44, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

As a 1% earner working at a 1% earner firm, I can promise you we'd move offshore faster than you can say "plane ticket to London?"

The 1% are rich enough to employ accountants that ensure that they pay no taxes. Innocent Bystander (talk) 10:54, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

That's just not true. Hipocrite (talk) 12:07, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

If I were in the top 1% and such a scheme were introduced then I would have my army of accountants get me down into the top 2% pretty damn quick.--Weirdstuff (talk) 18:01, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Why keep revenue at the same level? The deficit is already too small. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:50, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

It should be noted that the high income tax rates of the early-to-mid 1900s was still through progressive taxation and not just a flat tax. --Seth Peck (talk) 03:22, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Hypothetically, you'd prevent the 1% from leaving or relocating their money. –Meine Ehere heißt Toleranz (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 21:32, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Spam accounts.

I just want to give a shout-out to whomever designed and implemented whatever mechanisms we have in place to keep spammers at bay. They've been signing up like mad over the past couple of days, but apparently unable to make edits for the most part. That's awesome. If I knew the way/I would take you home. 13:43, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

That'll mostly be the abuse filters, I suspect - they work on the edits themselves - David Gerard (talk) 16:14, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I have attempted an adjustment that will hopefully curb the spam account creation. Tmtoulouse (talk) 16:21, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

This is a thrilling moment in RW history, on the cusp of a new growth spurt. (Sorry about the image macro.)Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 16:32, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry guys, I tried real hard to be a spam account, but I just couldn't pull that trigger. I'm sorry for anyone I may have let down. Semipenultimate 17:00, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Woohoo! We've had more unique users this month than since the founding of Sodom and Gomorrah. Goatspeed!-- ^{Jabba de Chops} 19:31, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I've always been aware of spammers and the fact that they don't reflect popularity, and how to detect their usernames. I once did get excited over the creation of several accounts that turned out to be troll sockpuppets. TBH I suspected that something was off about them quickly, and eventually suspected them of being the troll. Once I looked up their email addresses, I banned them. –Meine Ehere heißt Toleranz (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 21:24, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay. If I knew the way/I would take you home. 21:30, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Horrifying thought experiment

We've all seen fundie on fundie violence. There's something deliciously ironic those who press for theocracy blithely questioning others' faith while frivolously defending theirs and that of other fundies they view as allies as if they'd never heard of the No True Scotsman informal logical fallacy. I just saw something like is from that dishonest cunt, Rayment, where he made the familiar claim at atheists have no objective basis for moralitty, but Christians do and are generally honest. He then went on to basically say at such and such wasn't a Christian because of this or that, despite this person's profession of faith. We've seen how quickly Schlafly and Hurlbut excommunicate Christians based on single issues or even flat out making things up. I'm curious what people's thoughts are on what would happen were they to succeed in implementing some kind of Christian theocracy. It strikes me that atheists and evolution are hardly the difficult problems for them. They ought to be more concerned about finding themselves subject to the discrimination and hateful treatment they'd dole out if they were in power at the hand of anti-christian heretics. —WAnd then it strikes me that their readiness to reject reality, personalize disagreement, and express violent wishes ought to make Christian nationalism and Christian heritage nonsense an extremely dangerous fight I've never seen openly discussed. After all, fundies will never acknowledge that a separation of church and state and the old adage that "good fences make good neighbors" express the founder's wisdom in protecting zealots from each other. 16:12, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

We had a Christian theocracy/ies in Europe, which remained practically unchallenged for a whole lot of time and the majority of the population supposedly "believed it". During time Christians had able time to follow the ten commandments (thus no war occurred whatsoever), no unjust wealth was accumulated and certainly not under the watch of the church. And everything was a pastoral utopia. At least that's what I think happened but it might have been the dark ages instead. Can't quite remember. Sen (talk) 22:12, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

You are of course forgetting a key factor about said utopia. It was all run by dirty evil satanic catholics and not RealTrueMurican protestants and was thus no "true" christian utopia for a good portion of far right fundies. A better example would likely be Cromwellian england, the happiest and most peaceful state in human history ruled by benevolent protestant dictators. Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 23:03, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

You guys have some strange ideas about what theocracy means. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:58, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Best fucking quote of today

“”Has human history ever seen a bigger bunch of whiny pussies steeped in their own sense of victimhood than modern American conservatives? If you gave every wingnut in America a wooden cross and told them all to climb on up and nail themselves to it the next time they felt persecuted, huge swaths of the country would resemble Golgotha in about ten minutes.

[4]. -- ^{Jabba de Chops} 22:25, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Ironic considering the right's penchant for calling liberals a bunch of crybabies. Osaka Sun (talk) 23:09, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

And the funny thing is that when all is said and done, including gdp, gdp per capita, available services, available products, medicine, life expectancy, cultural production, number of tribal or world wars, number of plagues, ease of education, knowledge about the universe and so on, this is probably the best era of mankind that has ever existed, especially for a north America dweller. Sen (talk) 00:13, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing about that article I don't love. --Seth Peck (talk) 18:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

The general thrust of Sen's position seems OK but I question the equivalency between "tribal" and "world" wars. Prior wars had never achieved anything resembling the Blitz, let alone what happened in Dresden, Tokyo or Berlin and those are all still a world away from using an atom bomb to essentially instantaneously destroy an entire city with all its inhabitants.

If you want to say "WW2 wasn't this era" then you're talking about eras that last less than a human lifetime, and once you open that loophole then one of the things historians will tell you is that one reason some periods of distant history are poorly recorded is that "Nothing of significance happened all year. Harvest good." wasn't worth writing down. Peace and prosperity isn't an exception, it's just less newsworthy. Tialaramex (talk) 09:23, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

"Prior wars had never achieved anything resembling the Blitz, let alone what happened in Dresden, Tokyo or Berlin". Unfortunately the art of massive and nightmarish destruction of civilian populations is a very old art and hardly unique to WW2, with the Mongols being the most obvious example but others being found in the Assyrians, the Huns, various chinese warlords, the crusaders at jerusalem, and basically every time a large army conquered an enemy city. Judge Holden^{The Judge Smiles} 23:16, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Those things really aren't similar or equivalent at all. The bombings of London, Dresden, Tokyo et al were strategic operations intended to interfere with munitions, military installations, supplies, etc., not to decimate civilian populations for the sake of it. That's really not the same as a conquering army sacking a city & wantonly slaughtering its inhabitants, something that did still happen in the WW2 era (Nanjing, for example). Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:45, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I was actually thinking about the distance from the front. The advent of practical bomber aircraft, high explosives, and also rocketry meant it was possible to destroy a city (regardless of whether you want to argue that this was a legitimate tactic) far from the actual front. Tokyo was never invaded, the Japanese surrender was conducted without US troops even landing, Dresden was occupied only some time after the fire bombing, and by an entirely different force (the Red Army, whereas the bombings were done by American and British pilots). The scale involved would have been unimaginable centuries previously. Tialaramex (talk) 12:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

WWII killed 70 million people in 6 years (and one day), that's 1 person every 2.7 seconds. WWI, which was noted for its mechanised slaughter, killed 37 million in 4.28 years, or one person every 3.6 minutes. CS Miller (talk) 16:25, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say that "newer" is automatically better btw. Just that these last few decades have been particularly good. I find most of humanity before the 60's pretty terrible to be honest. Sen (talk) 21:07, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

CS Miller, seems to me at least one of your numbers is wrong. I'm too lazy to do arithmetic at this time in the morning, but you should probably work those out again. Tialaramex (talk) 08:17, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

The actual numbers (rounded) are: WW1, 16 people per minute or one death every 3.6 seconds; WW2, 22 people per minute or one death every 2.7 seconds. Results courtesy of Python and GNU units. So it seems that CS Miller got it right, except for the unit. --Tweenk (talk) 19:49, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

In 1914 the global population was ~1.8bn and in 1939 was ~2.3 bn, so in percentage terms the death rates are about the same. The Earth's ever-increasing human population means that any disaster (natural or man-made) is going to set new records for the absolute number of casualties. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 02:38, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that last sentence follows Genghis. By getting cleverer about disaster response we can cut the relative casualty figures and beat that trend. RMS Titanic cost over 1500 lives. Of the larger number of people aboard Costa Concordia only 34 died despite criminal negligence of an unbelievable nature. Extinction events would necessarily have a higher body count now of course, but mere disasters don't necessarily have to. Tialaramex (talk) 10:41, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Estonia would be a little fairer comparison, since at least it was moderately far away from shore and cold. BTW there's a lot of conspiracy theories surrounding the sinking. --81.175.227.88 (talk) 13:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

BTW there's a lot of conspiracy theories surrounding the sinking. - of course there is. There always bloody is these days. Sophie^Wilder 15:25, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, you can argue about which is a fairer comparison, Estonia was a very different kind of vessel (a RORO ferry, inherently risky because it trades away stability during an accident for convenience in normal operation) and considerably fewer passengers. Costa Concordia was more like Titanic as a vessel but it's true that it was eventually beached (more by luck than judgement if you ask the investigators) and so in some ways an easier rescue. Tialaramex (talk) 08:33, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

In fairness since it appears that victim status has a value in our current society their actions are pretty rational.Geni (talk) 10:48, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia.

Where did their Rational Wiki article get redirected to the conservapedia page? Oldusgitus (talk) 18:15, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I just checked and it was back in April. Apparently RW is not notable and should be regarded as CP instead??? Sometimes I understand what andy is on about with respect to wikipedia. And sorry if this has already been discussed here in the saloon. Oldusgitus (talk) 18:32, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Back in April? back in 2008. Have a gander at the talk page. There have been a few attempts by n00bs to resurrect it but no dice. No-one likes us, we don't care. Sophie^Wilder 18:38, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In Wikipedia's world, "notable" == "covered by reliable third-party sources". So if you want a Wikipedia article, get some "reliable source" to write about RW.--ZooGuard (talk) 18:39, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

{EC} Long day Sophie and too many home brewed ciders, missed the year ffs. Now I feel REALLY stopid. Oldusgitus (talk) 18:40, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Plenty of "notable" sites and publications have quoted us, but nobody's written about us per se, so we don't meet WP's criteria. (Cue gloating Ken in 3... 2...) --PsyGremlin^Khuluma! 18:53, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I was one of the noobs who tried to revive it, but now i see that in the end, nothing matters and we're all just meaningless atoms adrift in an apathetic universe, waiting to die alone. — ^{(talk to)} [æn əˈmɛɹɪkən ˈnaiːɪlɪst] 18:58, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there was a previous redirect, but I know RW did have its own for a while but got reverted back to being a redirect back when TK and RobS were doing their tag-team jerk act. That was a wee bit more recent than 2008, for certain. I believe this is the relevant discussion, which apparently came up with Keep, but they decided to go with Merge afterwards anyway. --Kels (talk) 19:33, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

If anybody really cares, the notability thing isn't that big a hurdle. All you need is a few mentions in non-obscure sources. David Gerard has press contacts and he may be able to suggest that they write a little something about us. It also helps to turn out to vote when the article goes up for deletion. Doctor Dark (talk) 20:54, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Maybe if somebody did more than just cite us, and wrote about us, that would be grounds for an article. --"Shut up, Brx." 20:55, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Why is this such a goal anyway? Getting noticed by a wider audience & taken seriously by media would be good, but you can't force something like that, & certainly not as a strategy for getting mentioned at Wikipedia. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:37, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

"Getting noticed by a wider audience & taken seriously by media would be good, but you can't force something like that..." Everyone I know who works in public relations/media relations just died a little. If I knew the way/I would take you home. 03:54, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Maybe if...

We spun ALL CP-related material off onto a distinct website, stopped being an answering service for CP members like Brenden and Markman, stopped making fun of mentally-ill CP editors, and wrote more and better mainspace articles that are missionable, then our esteemed foundation might be able to present something that isn't incredibly embarrassing to tech writers and bloggers and other such folks and get us recognized as something other than CPs smarter and better-looking little brother, which is pretty much all this website will ever be notable for, otherwise.Then maybe Wikipedia will think we're worth an article. If I knew the way/I would take you home. 22:05, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

"answering service for CP members like Brenden and Markman" Don't forget NKeaton, RobSmith and Patmac! - Vote Markman for a better tomorrow! (talk) 22:08, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

@Powder, interestingly, that is the same position that Conservapedia holds. Brenden (talk) 22:35, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

It should be noted that media outlets don't check recent changes, and as long as CP space and mainspace are segregated, CP-watching shouldn't pose a problem--"Shut up, Brx." 23:26, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

How do you know what media outlets do? And how about this, smart boy? Do you think they check the main page, which always features a link to WIGO:CP and sometimes features Andrew Schlafly's smiling face? Do they check the list of most popular pages? If I knew the way/I would take you home. 03:52, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is a non sequitur. Notability is not the same as quality - Wikipedia does have an article on Stormfront, for example.

• Even if the Conservapedia material got magically excised and RW turned into a regular skeptics' wiki, this won't guarantee mainstream media coverage - both websites and organized skepticism are niche topics.
• Removing Conservapedia won't magically increase the number of people who edit mainspace articles - it won't force Conservawatchers to write about things that they are not interested about, and it won't make existing mainly-mainspace editors to increase their efforts.--ZooGuard (talk) 07:01, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree that removing CP material will neither gain us more attention nor improve the quality of the mainspace. But as long as CP is a primary focus of the activity here, it will be very difficult for us to come off as anything other than a CP joke site. If I knew the way/I would take you home. 14:22, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Anyone looking to help improve mainspace is welcome to join the Dead Link Project -making sure our citations are up-to-date and accurate might not assure notability, but it's necessary if we wish to be taken seriously. The information is currently sticky'ed at the top of the Saloon Bar. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 18:38, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Leave it

As a Wikipedia cabalist, I strongly suggest we lift not a fucking finger towards or against being in Wikipedia, and just keep doing what we do until the world bothers to notice us - David Gerard (talk) 20:48, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:23, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

If you have to tell Wikipedia you exist so they'll make an article about you, you shouldn't have a Wikipedia article. That's sort of the #1 element of their notability standard. Ochotona princeps^{not a pokémon} 01:01, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

^ This. Hipocrite (talk) 12:05, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Feeding the troll fans

Do you remember this guy? Now there's a part II.--ZooGuard (talk) 06:38, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

A fantastic author. I've included him here. Others might find better quotes.--Weirdstuff (talk) 12:17, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Man, someone needs to teach that guy who to write. DickTurpis (talk) 18:10, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I've been looking at this Wikipedia rant of his. It's even more Time-Cube that his post on Rationalwiki.--Weirdstuff (talk) 18:23, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Someone should tell him that using too many capitalized words Doctor Dark (talk) 21:40, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

The moment I started reading those first two sentences, I read them in my head like the voiceover from a PSA-style commercial for a RationalWiki snark victims' support group. I couldn't take the next paragraph seriously because of it. Ochotona princeps^{not a pokémon} 01:05, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Poe; very committed though. Surely... Tielec01 (talk) 02:39, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Lunatic; surely should be committed though. Very ...--Weirdstuff (talk) 10:17, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

people who do not Islam as racists I accidentally all Arabs. Is this racist? This guy has problems. I've occasionally had issues with stuff here, and I don't go on stupid rants about the entire website. He left a very long post... –Meine Ehere heißt Toleranz (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 13:38, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

"The RationalWiki fools crusade never gets old. Their stupid and idiotic crusade has to stop otherwise it will kill us all." So should we send this to wikipedia as proof that we're notable and deserve more than a redirect? In all seriousness though when I read this sentence I giggled like a schoolgirl, I find it amusing how much of a threat we are percieved to be by this nutty fundie. EGKunz 17:49, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I like his use of all caps. –Meine Ehere heißt Toleranz (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 19:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Mod election

Am I just tech-illiterate or is it not possible yet to vote, even though voting should have started at the 29th of June?Th. Bernhard_{Das Leben ist ein Prozeß, den man verliert, was man auch tut und wer man auch ist.} 10:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Having similar problems, not just you... The Invisible Man^{I spoke to Him} 11:25, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

It's not automatic, someone has to get up and do it. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 15:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Trent has to turn it on and count the votes. 19:31, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Why are we prevented from exercising our rights to the franchise? Have the moderati initiated their dictatorship, now aware of the groundswell of support there is for Ciceronian movement? Do we now live in a police state? MarcusCicero (talk) 21:26, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

A really unfortunate line of dialogue in The Sopranos

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_peSCECc4I

Go to 4:14 and listen to Chrissy's retort. - Vote Markman for a better tomorrow! (talk) 19:37, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Taylor Caldwell

Has anyone read any of this author's stuff? Descriptions of her work makes her seem like a less-wordy, more-religious Ayn Rand. She's apparently written a lot of novels about great historical figures that are not accurate to history. I discovered her today because I saw a variation of this image, which after some skeptical research I discovered it to not be one of Cicero's many famous quotes (including "To each his own" and "Let the welfare of the people be the ultimate law") but rather a line from her novel, A Pillar Of Iron. --Seth Peck (talk) 22:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Snopes talked about it two months ago. Funny that the earliest (mis)uses of the quote was the late 60s/early 70s; the US was nowhere near "bankrupt" then. Osaka Sun (talk) 22:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Conservatives who use fiction to get their point across? What is the world coming to? Yeah, I was just curious if her conservative writings were bad, or what other people thought of her. WP says she wrote for white supremacy groups and the John Birch Society, and also believed in past life regression therapy. And for someone who was a religious conservative...was married four times and committed suicide. --Seth Peck (talk) 22:58, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Probably article-worthy. Osaka Sun (talk) 23:01, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Her FBI file is online, linked from her WP article. I found this document interesting. Starting with page 3, where a 1947 letter requested an investigation into a Palestinian resistance group Taylor Caldwell was involved with. The concern is if they're Communists -- no concern as to whether they're anti-Semitic. I think I understand why so many of 'the kids' went for drugs in the 60s and 70s. Never mind the effects of the drugs themselves, just something to blot out the constant Red panic. (Also check out page 10; I'm guessing that's right-wing paranoia talking.) Ochotona princeps^{not a pokémon} 00:35, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Alberta and da police

The Calgary floods forced the RCMP to seize guns in evacuated areas, causing Harper to interfere with a police operation. Flurry of "Look what the gun registry is doing!" (The gun registry is already dead) and "The NRA is right, our liberties are gone!" on Twitter. Osaka Sun (talk) 23:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Even I'm ok with this. I don't want unsecured weapons laying about any asshole breaking Evacuation can pick up. --Revolverman (talk) 00:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

It's gotta sting right now to be the RCMP. You're out there trying to keep Albertans safe during a massive natural disaster, and you grab guns that've been left out in the open to store them safely for their owners. What do you get? King Stevie breaking scope of duty and beaking off at you, and a bunch of right-wingers screaming about gun rights and the constitution. Haha fuck you, coppers. Signed, paranoid taxpayers who'll nevertheless call 911 the moment they think someone's in their cozy gated-community yard at 3am, even though it's just a deer. Ochotona princeps^{not a pokémon} 01:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

atheists so ready to surrender and start worshiping

I just saw this on FtB, and I figured it would be right to share it here. http://freethoughtblogs.com/amilliongods/2013/06/26/i-get-mail-science-and-correctness/comment-page-1/#comment-107351

• [...]if one can demonstrate to me empirically and scientifically that a god exists and that their personal god is Tlaloc then I am afraid I will have to revoke my atheism and start sacrificing babies to ensure the rains remain regular...

I see many atheists say this, and I feel it is right to repeat it here. Why are so many seemingly so quick to surrender to a powerful creature if we discovered its existence? If Stargate SG-1 has taught me anything, it is that the correct response to being presented with proof of an evil god is not "oh, that's great, time to start worshiping". The correct response is "Ok, that's horrible. Can we reason with it? Reform it? Do we have any good ideas on how to destroy it?". So, if you ever see this come up, raise consciousness. Don't surrender without a fight. Don't let this meme continue that might makes right. Don't give divine command theory a pass. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 01:37, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

If you're up against an omnipotent being, the coward's way out starts to look mighty appealing. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:40, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

How do you know it's omnipotent? Because it said so? I also recall a Star Trek TNG episode on this very concept. I wouldn't be so quick to accept "omnipotence" because the jackass-creature said so. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 01:46, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I think that'd fall under the "empirical" end of things. If the Moon suddenly turned into a giant ball of lava after we shouted our demands for proof to the Heavens, you might hust have a reason to fear the higher power that would be at work. All of this is predicated on incontrovertible evidence (as opposed to technology-assisted parlour tricks, which the mentioned TNG episode hinged on -- oh, and spoilers) of a "god" entity being demonstrated, of course. Ochotona princeps^{not a pokémon} 03:12, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Because in the grand scheme of things choosing to not go into suicidal rebellion against a demonstrably real god is not nearly as worthwhile as a fake god or a person on an ego Trip in most peoples mind.--^Mikal_lakiM 03:20, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

There may be some confusion here between "exceptionally powerful" or even "godlike" and "God". Given sufficient power an evil extraterrestrial could probably bend us to its will. But that would not mean that athiests had become theists.--Weirdstuff (talk) 07:07, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Conversations like this are why I love Rational Wiki. WeirdStuff's point is valid, you don't suddenly believe in a higher power just because you have no option but to subjugate yourself to someone more powerful. If an extra-terrestrial force with "godlike" powers had the earth in its grasp and you "worshipped" it in order to not be vaporized, that wouldn't make you a theist in the strictest sense of the word, for that entity doesn't fall into the typical strata of a "Big G" philosophical god. EGKunz 12:55, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

My understanding of this conversation was we were talking magic, not sufficiently advanced technology indistinguishable from magic. --^Mikal_lakiM 22:05, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

You speak as though there's a difference. There isn't. It's the same thing. "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." "Any sufficiently analyzed magic is indistinguishable from science!" EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 03:08, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

One is science, one isn't, one is just really cool tech and the others doing something tech cannot do. If the moon turns into a ball of blood and it isn't an optical trick/some fancy machine and was done via sheer willpower/whatever elsagod might do, im going to call that magic, not advanced technology. --^Mikal_lakiM 03:57, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

There are a couple of issues here. The first is that "indistinguishable from" is not the same as "the same as". Gravity and acceleration can be indistinguishable under certain circumstances - but they are different things.

Then there's magic - which as far we know doesn't exist. But if somebody could do magic would that make them God? If Tommy Cooper's tricks had worked would would he have been God? Just like that?--Weirdstuff (talk) 08:13, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

To properly answer this, we are going to need to agree on a definition of the physical (and metaphysical) characteristics of God. Put another way, we need God's character class requirements and a thorough description of class abilities and spells. We also will need Tommy Cooper's character sheet and stuff so we can see how he stacks up against the prerequisites to take a level in God. Or, put another way, we would have to agree on the limits (if any) to Tommy's hypothetical magic powers. If he could genuinely just will Pluto out of existence and then bring it back on the other side of its orbit like nothing happened two weeks later, and this was experimentally observed by our best instruments, I think he would have a certain justification for pronouncing himself a new God. If his magic powers allow him to reach into a truly empty space and pull out a white dove that can whistle God Save The Queen on command, and nothing more spectacular than what would be admittedly impressive parlour tricks (since they would actually be magic), less inclined to begin organizing systems of belief around him. Might buy him a beer, go to his show when he's in town.

TL;DR version: To properly sort out who's on whose side and begin to debate this in a serious manner, we're going to have to agree on acceptable assumptions for a number of unknown hypotheticals. Ochotona princeps^{not a pokémon} 14:23, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I think you are all over analysing such a glib remark. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:39, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that there are multiple definition of "God". There are certainly as many definitions of "God" as there are religions. At a detailed level there are probably as many definitions as there are believers.

You can define "God" as some kind of ultimate Deist god, some kind of Great Beard in the sky, the Smiting God of the OT, the All-Loving God of the NT, Allah, Zeus, Tommy Coper, an all-powerful Alien or whatever you personally like. For many believers the definition itself seems to vary depending on the question and the day of the week. This lack of agreement about what animal actually is, or what it's properties are, is one of the big problems when talking about it.--Weirdstuff (talk) 14:57, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Weirdstuff's earlier comment was probably closest to making sense. There is a significant difference between an omnipotent deity who created the universe and some gobsmackingly powerful entity which is a part of that universe. Cheap tricks like parting the Red Sea or walking on water just don't cut the mustard for the modern atheist. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 15:17, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

supernatural

Let me respond to a couple quotes. First:

• There are a couple of issues here. The first is that "indistinguishable from" is not the same as "the same as". Gravity and acceleration can be indistinguishable under certain circumstances - but they are different things. --Weirdstuff (talk) 08:13, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

First, I am going to argue for the position that "indistinguishable from" is exactly the same thing as "the same as". If there is no possible way to distinguish between two things, then any purported distinction is utterly untestable, utterly useless, and utterly detached from knowable, discoverable reality. Thus, these kinds of "distinctions" - if I can even grace the concept with that word - are completely vacuous. This kind of thinking allows for claims that are just completely made up. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 01:38, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

But we can distinguish between gravity and acceleration. They are simply undistinguishable under certain circumstances, and we know what those particular circumstances are and we know that they are different. "Undistinguishable under certain circumstances" - which is what I very carefully wrote - is not the same as "the same thing".

Same with the oft-quoted magic and technology one. The society with lower technological development may not be able to distinguish science and magic but the society with the higher level most certainly can distinguish them. They are not the same thing and under the proper circumstances they can be distinguished.

Clearly, if two things are undistinguishable under all and every circumstance and at all times then they simply are the same thing. But this does not apply to gravity and acceleration or technology and magic.--Weirdstuff (talk) 10:38, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I still want to know what you think "magic" is. It seems you are using it as a weasel word for observable phenomena which "defy" scientific analysis. Under that definition, can you agree that never can you be rationally justified to conclude that something is magic? Or maybe you're using some other sense or meaning of "magic". EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 21:55, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you are "still" asking me what my definition of "magic" is as, as far as I can tell, you have not asked me before. Nevertheless, I would say that magic would be some manipulation of the real world carried out with the assistance of (or directly by) supernatural entities such as demons or gods. Given that I am not convinced of the existence of said entities I am equally unconvinced about the existence of magic.--Weirdstuff (talk) 09:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Going in circles. Ok, what do you think "supernatural" means? EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 19:17, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I understand the word "technology" to roughly mean the application of knowledge of the rules of our shared reality to manipulate our shared reality, ex: the construction of machines, ex: the application of force in specific ways, etc. Thus, if we discover that mana is a real thing, and we can cast spells like Final Fantasy, then we can apply our knowledge of shared reality to cast spells in order to manipulate our shared reality. We would learn how to do so, and how to better our techniques, through the application of the scientific process. This sounds like technology to me. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 21:58, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

"Technology: a : the practical application of knowledge especially in a particular area : engineering 2 <medical technology>" Merriam-Webster EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 22:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

And this quote:

• One is science, one isn't, one is just really cool tech and the others doing something tech cannot do. If the moon turns into a ball of blood and it isn't an optical trick/some fancy machine and was done via sheer willpower/whatever elsagod might do, im going to call that magic, not advanced technology. --MikallakiM 03:57, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

How do you define science and non-science? I can move my arm through sheer willpower. Does that make it magic? If, tomorrow, someone discovered a certain specific sequence of Latin words, which, when spoken aloud and while holding a glass of water, always preceded the glass of water turning into a glass of wine, and anyone and everyone could replicate this personally, you better believe this would be in Nature and Science and every other respected journal. People would start making new careers out of studying this new phenomenon, to categorize it, to learn about it, to discover exactly how off your pronunciation could be before it stopped working, and so on. There is absolutely no difference between science and magic, except that if we label it as magic, it's taken as some people as a complete intellectual surrender. This is exactly like the ontological argument for god, which uses the concept of "necessary beings". That argument simply assumes that necessary is a useful description for reality, and similarly you simply assume that magic is a useful description for reality. Never could you actually conclude that something is magic, because the only acceptable method to conclude stuff about our shared observable reality is via science. To even allow the possibility that someone might be rationally justified in the conclusion that "it's magic, so we can't analyze it" is ridiculous in the extreme. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 01:38, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I can study it all i want but doing a scientific study of something doesnt turn that thing into science. Saying magic words that change whats in my glass isnt science, its magic. one doesnt require me to work on the power of a miracle or break the laws of reality to do, one does. --^Mikal_lakiM 08:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

What is, is. If you spontaneously transmute 125g of water into 125g of wine, by speaking some words, then you have not broken the laws of reality; you have merely provided evidence that the laws of reality - at least in your presence - are not what we thought they were. Having established that the laws of reality are probably not what we thought they were, then the room-temperature transmutation of matter by sound waves becomes a proper topic of scientific inquiry; of particular interest is whether anyone else can do this. 193.130.116.241 (talk) 13:48, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

"Else"?--Weirdstuff (talk) 14:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

"Else" makes perfect sense in the context of my comment: if someone can do this thing, then it is of considerable interest whether anyone else can. Obviously the Laconic Reply to Alexander applies throughout. 193.130.116.241 (talk) 15:40, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Ah! I thought you were making the absurd suggestion that somebody had, in fact, already done it! :-) --Weirdstuff (talk) 16:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

All of this hinges, of course, on the assumption that "magic" is predictable and analyzable. If "magic" cannot be analyzed, we're left with three options, as far as I see. One, we currently lack the knowledge or technological instruments to analyze the phenomenon; two, the phenomenon is analyzable but is entirely beyond individual or collective human cognitive capacity; three, the phenomenon is truly "magic." Of course, option 1 and then option 2 are preferable in that order to just saying "It's magic!" But option 3 can't be ruled out in principle -- much like Last Thursdayism defeats strong atheism, but is ridiculous to actually believe in. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:31, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

We've had this conversation before, and we didn't have a good conclusion. What do you think "true magic" means? How does it differ than ordinary, scientifically-analyzable physics? Are you simply defining "true magic" to be all observable phenomena which defy scientific analysis? Defy scientific analysis to what extent? Is quantum mechanics not scientific because we don't have a deterministic model for it? Can you even begin to describe what "true magic" might even look like? I don't think your concept is even coherent. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 19:22, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Michael Tellinger

This yahoo is a former musician (no, really) turned ancient astronauts theorist, who's published a couple of books - "Slave Species of God" (apparently based on a study of Zacharia Sitchin's work) and something called Adam's Calendar, wherein he claims a bunch of rocks in Mpumalanga are an early Stonehenge type-thing. Just wondering if he's known outside SA, and if he's worthy of an article? Here's his website. --PsyGremlin^Tal! 20:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Mind how you use that "theory" word. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 07:24, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Why can't the "bunch of rocks" be a stone circle? Africa has others. Any conclusions drawn via Sitchin are highly suspect, though. Sophie^Wilder 16:18, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Cute yet profound

Russian monument to rats used in genetic research --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 15:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

thats very nice , yay rats Hamster (talk) 17:04, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Libertarian Librerapedia

A new website has turned up The Charles Koch Institute with a URL that's similar to Liberapedia. According to Wikipedia Charles G. Koch is a Libertarian. Should I be worried. Does this give me a chance to show a great many Libertarians why they're wrong? Proxima Centauri (talk) 12:45, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

No. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:51, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Charles Koch is not a Libertarian, he's a "Libertarian", just in the same way that, say, Ron Paul, Rand Paul and Glenn Beck are all "Libertarians". --Seth Peck (talk) 13:37, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

What's the difference? According to our articles those people are libertarians, which doesn't require either capitalisation or scare quotes. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 15:31, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Libertarianism calls for individual liberty; none of those guys care about other people's liberties, only their own. --Seth Peck (talk) 16:03, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Could we call them corporatist libertarians? — ^{(talk to)} [æn əˈmɛɹɪkən ˈnaiːɪlɪst] 00:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

No true Libertarian would do such a thing. --OverworldTheme (talk) 15:39, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Proxima, nobody cares about your wiki anymore. Give it up. Osaka Sun (talk) 23:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh my, you are so embarrassing, Proxima. You still edit here? I would have thought by now you would have at least learned to put a thought together without breaking two ideas and throwing out a third. Please, learn how to write. And when it comes down to it, please stop spamming this site with your poorly formed ideas. ħuman 10:37 pm, 30 June 2013, last Sunday (2 days ago) (UTC−5)

For the moment The server at www.liberapedia.org is taking too long to respond. Still they may be back later. Proxima Centauri (talk) 18:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

It's amazing that nobody but you cares--^Mikal_lakiM 18:26, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

The website is still there at www.charleskochinstitute.org. Liberapedia.org seems to have been a mirror site. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

That mirror, if it returns will mean opportunities to show Libertarians why they're wrong when they mistake Liberapedia for Charles Kochin. It will also mean problems when they try to persuade us to their viewpoint. Well, let's see what happens. Proxima Centauri (talk) 14:26, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

... will mean opportunities to show Libertarians why they're wrong... - Oh, Prox! Someone is Wrong On The Internet! Innocent Bystander (talk) 15:23, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Well they haven't come back on the liberapedia URL yet. Perhaps they're scared of a possible confrontation, perhaps they just found out that Liberapedia got the name first and respect property rights. Is the Koch Institute worth researching in its own right even if they keep away from Liberapedia? Proxima Centauri (talk) 11:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Ugh, where to start? We have an article on Koch Industries which mentions that the Koch brothers run various foundations. If you want to add the Charles Koch Institute to the list, go ahead. But unless you find out anything significant about it, it's probably not worth giving undue attention to. As for the mirror site, it's not clear why (or if) the Institute would set this up themselves with an unrelated domain name. Maybe somebody else created the mirror for whatever reason & it got shut down? Frankly, who cares? As for the wikia Liberapedia site, it's irrelevant in every sense of the word. There's a close-to-zero chance of anyone mistaking it for part of the Koch empire, or vice versa. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:55, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll check out that article. I don't expect anyone to mix up those two different websites with liberapedia in the URL, what I expect is that Libertarians looking for Koch will come across Liberapedia and start arguing with us. Proxima Centauri (talk) 14:43, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I expect otherwise. Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:04, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't expect the mirror site to affect Liberapedia unless it comes back online. Proxima Centauri (talk) 18:08, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

They love us! [cn]

[5] Someone posts about RW to Reddit /r/skeptic. MRAs start whining. Regulars dissect them like good skeptics smelling blood. /r/skeptic can be a bit dumb and blokey at times, but my opinion of it just went up - David Gerard (talk) 19:33, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Your blogging has got to be a big part of reaching new audiences. 20:08, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I invited one vocal critic to come over and discuss what they saw as failings in the Atheism+ article. They copped out by stating they knew they wouldn't be able to change our minds, and then attempted to make me defend the article after I clearly stated I wasn't interested. I tried. Reddit: Predictable if nothing else. Ochotona princeps^{not a pokémon} 03:47, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

@DGerard: The conspiracy theory you're looking for is not "gender Marxism," but cultural Marxism. And that's a whole 'nother source of amusement. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Naturally, all the skeptics calling out bullshit and asking for evidence have been downvoted into oblivion by the... what do you redditors call it? Invading? Flooding? ^sshole 18:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I think the term on Reddit is "brigading". There ought to be a glossary. (Well, there are, just not very complete ones.) EVDebs (talk) 23:40, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Reddit's MensRights thinks we're run by radfems, while Cathy Brennan thinks we're a "manarchist bro space". DOES NOT COMPUTE. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Maybe they're just full of themselves. "Does not compute" always makes me think of this episode of Star Trek... --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 23:15, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

If the extremes on both sides of the debate hate us, we're probably doing it right. Osaka Sun (talk) 00:01, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The extremes on both sides think we're flooded by extremes of their respective opposite sides. MRAs think we're overrun with radical feminists, the radical feminists think we're a manarchist brospace. Hilarity ensues. ^bomination 18:59, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

So, this happened, after several false starts with MRAs with read-only minds. I'm not sure how well it's going to work in practice, but that depends on people being able to communicate without being wildly and gratuitiously offensive. Here's hoping, though. Ochotona princeps^{not a pokémon} 01:47, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

When a phishing email can't be bothered

I'm used to some fairly crap ones turning up in my Junkbox, but this one takes not bothering to a whole new level of derp.-- ^{Jabba de Chops} 16:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Christ, Royal Bank of Scotland must be in serious trouble if they are trying to get Paypal accounts. --Revolverman (talk) 19:33, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

"phishig@rbs.com"? Worst forgery ever. --Tweenk (talk) 00:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Email on port 80. –Александр(а) (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 20:36, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The single most frightening sentence I've read this year.

"More than a dozen states have some form of legal protection for parents who use prayer healing." If I knew the way/I would take you home. 02:12, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

It's incredible what you can get away with in the US if you preface with "Jesus". --Revolverman (talk) 02:42, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

There is at least this: http://www.examiner.com/article/oregon-faith-healing-parents-get-90-days-jail-3-years-probation –Александр(а) (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 05:11, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

FYI, be prepared for a bit of a disturbing picture if you click that link --Revolverman (talk) 08:52, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

LIKE?

Abortion?

What's up with Examiner.com? (Isn't that where Chuckarse used to post his drivel?) I found these disturbing juxtapositions. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 12:52, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Trash DIY blogs under the visual guise of a traditional "news" website? It's not particularly new. Yahoo, Forbes, HuffPo, Fox News, Breitbart, DailyKos, Pajamas Media... Osaka Sun (talk) 13:25, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

We actually have Examiner.com.--ZooGuard (talk) 19:24, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Life after Google Reader.

So months ago, when the Borg announced that they were killing Google Reader, I moved all of my feeds to The Old Reader, and have been really happy with it. Until yesterday, when it spontaneously deleted hundreds of articles and comic strips I was saving, many of which were research and teaching related. Good times. If I knew the way/I would take you home. 15:47, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Should have gone with feedly. --81.175.227.88 (talk) 17:01, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Google Reader was great. Feedly is nicely typeset and much more versatile. Give it a shot, ToP. I hope you'll be pleased. 19:15, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Fourth of July

Nice ad in today's NYT by Freedom From Religion Foundation. Генгис^unbelieving 18:53, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Telling fortune

So I'm talking to a friend of mine about magic and it seems that she believes in a lot of it especially in crystal ball readers and tarot card readers. Seems she goes to them sometimes. So I ask her if they are all rich people. No, she tells me, all of them (or most of them) are poor.

So I ask, why - if they can read the future - aren't they out speculating on the stock market or buying lottery tickets or whatever. Why aren't they rich?

Ah, she tells me, it's because they are gypsies - and all gypsies are poor.--Weirdstuff (talk) 20:33, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

If there were more gypsies in Wall St, maybe that whole financial crisis thing wouldn't have happened. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:47, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

ElBaradei set to become the next Prime Minister of Egypt

If he is able to claw back the military post-coup, the implications could be gigantic. Osaka Sun (talk) 00:08, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't this be more appropriate at WIGO World? - Vote Markman for a better tomorrow! (talk) 00:10, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, it hasn't happened yet. Osaka Sun (talk) 00:11, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if this might provoke some movement in Turkey by the Military there with the uprising. --Revolverman (talk) 03:36, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

That would be the worst-case scenario. You can argue that the reason Erdoğan is still in power is that he's successfully framed the debate to "secularists support military coups while Islamists love democracy." Osaka Sun (talk) 03:45, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

But Turkey has an active history of that, and thats never really bothered anyone in Turkey. --Revolverman (talk) 03:48, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

GO VOTE!

For me, preferably. The Invisible Man^{I spoke to Him} 23:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I would vote for you, but your name is invisible. — ^{(talk to)} [æn əˈmɛɹɪkən ˈnaiːɪlɪst] 03:11, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

On the other hand, if what you desire is a shake up of the established order; bringing the moderati to account for their actions; a fairer distribution of power and the cessation of the endless war between CP and RW then might I humbly suggest a vote for Marcus Cicero or Markman. They may not be the platonic ideal of a hero, but they are the heroes that we need in these troubled times. Tielec01 (talk) 03:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

"Moderator" comes to English from the French cognate, not the Latin one. If you nonsensically insisted on Latinizing the plural, though, it would be "moderatores."--^talk 13:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

To hel.l with your latin! Superior Latin looks COOLER!--^Mikal_lakiM 15:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

A typical response from the moderatores iniustum, perhaps you are correct, my pedantic comrade. I have spent too much time studying the relationship between the powerful and the disenfranchised on this wiki to bother myself with Latin word games. Our time will come. Tielec01 (talk) 00:40, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

At what point does it become too tiring to continue on? — ^{(talk to)} [æn əˈmɛɹɪkən ˈnaiːɪlɪst] 07:55, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I think some people have a mistaken idea of what moderators do. They're really only arbitrators or peacekeepers; they don't formulate policy. If you want to change the structure or the direction of RationalWiki then you need to implement a referendum outlining your proposed changes. The role of moderators is to apply the laws not make them. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 17:02, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Maybe if you highlight it or click on it Nihilist. (Not sure if you're being sarcastic or not...) The Invisible Man^{I spoke to Him} 04:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

"Highlight"? "Click"? Sorry, i'm not a computer person — could you explain what you mean in non-technical terms? — ^{(talk to)} [æn əˈmɛɹɪkən ˈnaiːɪlɪst] 05:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Select with the mouse. Генгис^evolving 07:23, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I get ya. The Invisible Man^{I spoke to Him} 05:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

How transparent is the voting process? MarcusCicero (talk) 18:20, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Probably corrupt to the core. Toulouse is a despot and I hear the board has been meeting in secret sessions to have its way with the proles. 19:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Just as I feared, like Trevelyn laughing at the starving peasants of Ireland during the famine. Justice will come to Rationalwiki, freedom will reign once again, the mobocracy restored and Human declared King. MarcusCicero (talk) 23:14, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Amusing link

Logical fallacy bingo. Perhaps a link somewhere here? Pashley (talk) 16:56, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

We have these, but apparently not one on logical fallacies, so maybe link to it from Logical fallacy? Ochotona princeps^{not a pokémon} 18:56, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Goats!

In the LA airport, preventing fires --Andy^{not Schlafly} 00:45, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

And just like that...

...The parties over. Now if you'll excuse me, I think I'll go back to vandalizing some articles and eating goat faces.

Oh, and incase you didn't realize, Windows 8 is a enormous pile of garbage.--Token Conservative (talk) 01:18, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Windows 8 isn't perfect, but neither are its predecessors. The traditional Windows startmenu is very mediocre and Metro (or 'Modern' now, i think) isn't that bad, and with the 8.1 update it'll be better. Besides that, there isn't a whole lot different. — ^{(talk to)} [æn əˈmɛɹɪkən ˈnaiːɪlɪst] 01:47, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I think a lot of the issue is that by around the mid-2000s personal computers did pretty much everything that most people wanted them for -- add, subtract, multiply, divide, write the occasional letter or school paper, send email andbrowse the web, all that stuff. Now software companies have to dream up new things to get people to upgrade. And people quite reasonably resist learning a whole new way of doing things when what they have now works just fine. Doctor Dark (talk) 02:07, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

The metro page is fine (a pretty good idea, actually), the real issue I'm having is that over the years I've learned where to go to find what utility/program I wanted. But with Windows 8 I have no idea where the fuck to find any goddamn thing. I had to use google to figure out where the disk defrag is, for crying out loud. And for some reason my touchpad scrollbar is backwards (scrolling down sends you up the page, wtf?).--Token Conservative (talk) 02:18, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

It's been in 'Administrative Tools' in the Control Panel since at least Vista — you could have also just searched for it in Metro — and you need to change the settings in your touchpad drivers, which isn't hard. — ^{(talk to)} [æn əˈmɛɹɪkən ˈnaiːɪlɪst] 02:22, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I had to find the admin tools. I also don't like having to rely on the search feature to find utilities I use with some regularity. I know I have to dick around with my touchpad drivers, and a bunch of other crap. I'm just not bothering right now. --Token Conservative (talk) 02:26, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

That's just normal readjustment to new software; it doesn't point to Windows 8 being an enormous pile of garbage. If having to Google where something is (which you really didn't have to do) and tinker around with touchpad drivers (which you usually have to do anyways) are your biggest problems, count yourself lucky.

@Doctor Dark: Sure, the core functionality may not be that different, but there have been massive usability upgrades since then. Try actually using a decade-and-a-half OS and software, and see how long it takes before you want to pull your hair out from the clunky interfaces, slowness and lack of features. — ^{(talk to)} [æn əˈmɛɹɪkən ˈnaiːɪlɪst] 02:32, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I didn't have this kind of issue when I upgraded from Vista to Windows 7, or from XP to Vista, for that matter. Things moved around, sure, but they were still basically in the same place, or in an obvious place. Seriously, putting "restart" in the "settings" section of the charm toolbar makes no sense. --Token Conservative (talk) 02:43, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

@Nihilist, I've got a bunch of computers running everything from Windows XP with Office 2003 up to the latest-and-greatest. I don't pull my hair out with the former (not quite decade and a half old, but getting there). For the most part none is better or worse than the others, just different. Which was my original point. Doctor Dark (talk) 02:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Eating goat faces? Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 06:50, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes?

Also, my 4GB AMD processor has taken up attempts at ritual suicide whenever I use GoogleDrive. WTF?--Token Conservative (talk) 07:21, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

The down-touchpad = scroll up is because, if you think of a touchscreen, dragging down the page will intuitively scroll the page up because you're dragging the "surface" of the page, but it's not what people use touchpads for, conventionally. Windows 8's touch controls were designed for a touchscreen. Ochotona princeps^{not a pokémon} 08:20, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

That would make perfect sense if my computer had a touchscreen. I mean I get what you're saying, but since my computer doesn't have a touchscreen,and since my touchpad isn't a part of the touch pad anyways, it just makes it another weird and irritating feature.--Token Conservative (talk) 14:29, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Article about 16th Century Medicinal Herbs...

...And the comments are about what you would expect. "Big Pharma" and all that. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 13:46, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

I love Henry Rollins....

And this is why. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 17:51, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Good old Henry Rollins. I have to say that because he's built like a brick shithouse and might hunt me down and kill me if I said anything bad about him. Go watch his live shows on the youtubes, they're awesome. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:28, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Don't forget this!! Polite Timesplitter ^{Let's move on to some other area of sodomy!} 09:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Evolution vs. God

Bananaman's new "documentary" is available to download from tomorrow (9th). Hands up who's going to put themselves through 30 minutes of lies, strawmen, dumbassry and general wtfery? --PsyGremlin^Runāt! 21:25, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like a good drinking game. What's the betting that he still pushes the same old misinterpretation of evolution despite having it explained to him many times in debates? Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 21:40, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Can I get it for free? Then I might submit myself to it. EnlightenmentLiberal (talk) 21:43, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure it'll be up on the pirate bay--"Shut up, Brx." 21:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Someone would need to bother - David Gerard (talk) 21:47, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Can download from the official site. Or YouTube probably - that's where I subjected myself to the horror that was "Genius." --PsyGremlin^{말하십시오} 21:52, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah ... Pirate Bay is for things people might actually want - David Gerard (talk) 22:14, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

That's why we shouldn't put Conservapedia on there! (Look at the above section for context. If this and the above section get put in different archives, this will be confusing for future readers.) — ^{(talk to)} [æn əˈmɛɹɪkən ˈnaiːɪlɪst] 23:14, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Main page

Is it just me or is the front page "Random Featured Article" stuck on Andrew Schlafly? Shome mishtake shurely? Scream!! (talk) 22:00, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

This website was created basically to stalk the man, what makes you think it was a mistake?--Token Conservative (talk) 00:16, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Correction: to stalk Conservapedia.

As for the "stuck" part, the culprit most probably is caching. You can try complaining on the tech support page.--ZooGuard (talk) 06:32, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I realised that when l loaded RW on my tablet and it was different. Should it (Schlafly) be there ever though? Scream!! (talk) 06:42, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Considering RW refers to CP as "Schlafy's blog" I'm not sure there's a distinction to be had in "obsessively stalking Schlafy" and "obsessively stalking CP".--Token Conservative (talk) 08:52, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

What stalking? We redacted his bank details when we uploaded his school funding application forms! Our hands are clean! Sophie^Wilder 08:58, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Looks fine to me, I keep getting different articles. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 17:49, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I just checked and for me the random featured article was ... Andrew Layton Schlafly! However it did change when I refreshed the page. I had been considering that it was just another instance of Andy refusing to back down from an entrenched position but obviously RationalWiki is still beyond his control. Pongo^{Orangutans are sceptical} 06:16, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Or IS IT? (Dun dunn DUNNNNN) Ochotona princeps^{not a pokémon} 02:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Richard Littlejohn plumbs new meanings of fucked up lows

Apparently it is now perfectly acceptable to summarily execute without trial anybody who the police believe to be criminals. It probably helps if the suspect is of a duskier hue than whoever is pulling the trigger.-- ^{Jabba de Chops} 11:45, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

If you value your humanity, do NOT read the bottom half of that page. Ajkgordon (talk) 15:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Isn't that the entire argument about Anwar al-Awlaki's death...or the entire hypocrisy in Rand Paul's droning filibuster on drones? --Seth Peck (talk) 15:52, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Bosnian pyramids

I was following up on an edit to our Bosnian pyramids article and came across this interesting hidden history woo fest. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 14:36, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Should I be concerned?

Just got this in my gmail:

   5:14 PM
   Application/device sign-in attempt (prevented)
   Algeria
   Jul 5
   Application/device sign-in attempt (prevented)
   Ecuador
   Jul 3
   Application/device sign-in attempt (prevented)
   Paraguay

Seems like an international criminal syndicate desperately want to access my email account? MarcusCicero (talk) 21:22, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, you're going to be a great moderator. Osaka Sun (talk) 21:25, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Would I be wrong to assume this is a co-ordinated strategy in order to subvert the revolution? First, try to prevent MC from becoming a sysop, then attempt to break in to his email account for nefarious reasons, finally, a gulag where he can be treated as an enemy of the people. Would I be wrong to assume this? MarcusCicero (talk) 21:36, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

These are merely the places that will offer you assylum when its all said and done. Tmtoulouse (talk) 21:50, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Question

Do these nitwits merit an article, or would that be giving them undeserved attention? A quick web search shows even the AGW denialists like Watts and Monckton think they're nuts. Doctor Dark (talk) 00:52, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

...or would that be giving them undeserved attention

Um, you know that the only traffic that CP ever gets is their few editors, and us, right? Giving idiots attention that they wouldn't be getting otherwise is a huge chunk of what we do.--Token Conservative (talk) 01:26, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, CP should be mentioned in every discussion, even when people try to talk about something else. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Seems relevant to me that when someone asks "would we be giving some random idiot attention from this" to mention that we're the majority of the traffic at CP as an example of us giving attention to random idiots all the time.--Token Conservative (talk) 01:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I remember considering contributing to Conservapedia, and then I realized that they are very conservative. –Александр(а) (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 02:02, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Mod election results posted

RationalWiki:Moderator elections/Results Tmtoulouse (talk) 17:38, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, but no. Later! Hipocrite (talk) 17:50, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Except for a math error. Later has happened. Hipocrite (talk) 19:28, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

A big thank you to everyone who voted for me, and congratulations to the winners. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock ) 18:24, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

-insert statement of victory here- Alright, when do i get my decoder ring and helicopter to the executive bathroom island? --^Mikal_lakiM 20:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for running and tabulating the elections, Trent.--^talk 15:18, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to thank all people who voted for me, I gather that there were 22 such fellas, I really appreciate it. Congratulation to the all the mods and alternates. Special congrats to the candidates I was definitely going to vote for before having found out I was ineligible to vote (can't vote but can still run, how about that?) - brxbrx, Genghis Khant, MarcusCicero and Mikal. - ConservapediaMarkman (talk) 20:07, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, I've the boasting out of my system now

Thanks for everyone who voted for me. I genuinely didn't think that would work. MarcusCicero (talk) 20:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

You've got friends in low places who Get Shit Done. 21:04, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I for one welcome our new vaguely ironic overlords. Blue (pester) 21:23, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad we were able to work out who would win at the last board meeting. Just in time! 21:31, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

First order of moderator business, the banning of MarcusCicero. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 21:39, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Ha. Good luck! Its like gay marriage, once the wheel is in motion history doesn't reverse itself. MarcusCicero (talk) 21:42, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I only voted for you, CPM, and Brx because you motherfuckers need to be banned, and barring that, put in a position to completely destroy this place. You can continue to eat shit and die.--Token Conservative (talk) 22:00, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I really wanna ask why you still visit this place O.o --^Mikal_lakiM 17:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

If you knew the world was gonna end and there is nothing you could do to stop it, would you kill yourself or decide to get drunk and enjoy the show?--Token Conservative (talk) 19:06, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd travel to Pennsylvania. --^Mikal_lakiM 21:10, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

No need for any such drastic measures on my part. I have a fiddle and bow within reach. Well, maybe get a little tipsy. I think I sound better that way. Not sure I want to watch Hamilton dance, though. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 21:35, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be a very angry person - do you have erectile dysfunction by any chance? Anger, erectile dysfunction and 'conservatism' in somebody under 25 tend to go hand in hand. MarcusCicero (talk) 22:04, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

RationalWiki sure is a classy joint. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:07, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

There are moments when I think I should only edit mainspace articles, and just stay the hell away from the Saloon Bar as well anything having to do with project governance. In fact I think I'll do just that, at least for a while. Doctor Dark (talk) 00:34, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

That's pretty much what I do. Having said that, MC getting access to the (quote) "huge amounts of power wielded by mods behind the scenes" should be good for a giggle. VOX^HUMANA 08:18, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Any fitness nuts in the house?

If you have any formal training in/practical knowledge about fitness, how does this look as a starting plan for a totally out of shape, way overweight guy in his forties who wants to run a 10 k before 2013 runs out? (Since I don't really identify as an atheist anymore, it is, of course, incumbent upon me to give up obesity...). Thanks in advance for any advice.... If I knew the way/I would take you home. 02:32, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Looks fine to me, you could probably train a bit harder than that schedule if you wanted to push yourself. One technique I found particularly effective is interval training: alternating sprints and jogging. I used to sprint between one lamp post and jog for two - although this can wait until the latter part of your training as it will exhaust you quickly. Don't forget to watch what you eat as any weight that comes off will boost your power to weight ratio significantly (especially important if you are running in hilly areas). Consider riding a bike to work for a little extra boost as well. Good luck! Tielec01 (talk) 03:32, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Hanson's method is very well respected for doing exactly what it says it will do, which is exactly what you said you wanted to do. One note though, go see a doctor and get a physical. The last thing you want is to find out you have some heart condition after starting a workout program. I'm not sure how much Hanson gets into weight loss, but it all ultimately comes down to one thing: Calories in, Calories out. If you consume more Calories than you use, you gain weight, and the opposite is also true. The difference between Calories in/Calories out can come from cutting Calories from your diet or increasing how many you burn, such as starting a 10k training program. One pound of body fat has 3,500 Calories in it, and you don't want to lose more than 1-2 pounds a day. So, if you cut 500 Calories from your diet, you'll lose a pound a week. Blah blah blah, other things I've said in the low carb diet page, etc etc etc.--Token Conservative (talk) 03:40, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I did something similar about this time last year. I don't run so much any more because I play squash and referee rugby but I'll get back into it hardcore over the summer again. Nothing better than jogging. I always did it with my dog, and if you have a pooch I recommend it. If you don't have a dog; well, borrow one. They are the ideal training partner because they always want to run. Damo^Hi 04:01, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

"Don't forget to watch what you eat as any weight" Just to delve further on that, we're not talking about "starvation diets" that have entered popular culture. Just slightly, gradually reduce the size of your portions and wean yourself from junk food (to only have on occasion). Osaka Sun (talk) 04:02, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree with ConservativeCantWaitForRWToFail. That's a good program. You could finish a 10k drunk with a donut in your mouth unless you're about to have an MI. If your goal is to lose weight, stop drinking. 04:10, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

It's not that I cannot wait, it's that I expect it, and since no one is interested in fixing it, I might as well enjoy the bloodbath. I mean honestly, if you were in Rome circa 400CE and knew that none one was going to listen, you'd probably pop some popcorn and enjoy the show too.--Token Conservative (talk) 15:21, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

When can I start ridiculing you for backing down from your fatheism? 04:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

the first week is what they suggest for cardiac rehab. Any shortness of breath, chest pains etc and you slow down or do less time. Take a resting pulse rate and add 50 to get a working target rate during exercise. (it should be around 110-120) If you are tired, sweating after a 30 minute walk dont move to the next stage. Hamster (talk) 04:47, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. I run 10k on an average day. On a Saturday I run about 15k. I'm training for a marathon. Running is seriously addictive, and it really boosts your libido too (true fact!) Like natural viagra. I started running in a serious way about 4 months ago. I did it years before as well, but not to the same extent.

When you run, you really develop your leg muscles (obviously) but also your core muscle groups, the 'stabilisers'. Most of these 'core' muscles aren't exercised in day to day activity so obviously you're going to be fairly fucked for a couple of weeks before you exercise them. Providing you're not too overweight (as in, +30 BMI) you should just start running some day. Start out with a basic 2 to 3k run and try to work your way up to 10k. Eventually. When you start out in the beginning, just maintain a running pace. DON'T WALK! Believe me, you can run if you want to. Go obscenely slow if necessary but don't ever WALK. Walk is the enemy, it fucks up your mentality. Take it at small steps. See a stop sign, use that as your end goal. Eventually you WILL run at it, but you will have to endure two weeks of hell in order to get up to that point. When you reach that stage, nothing will hold you back. Oh yeah, never exceed your daily run by 10% of your max run in a given day, that's a recipe for runners knee and of course the excruciating 'runners nipple'. Get yourself some Vaseline, its a godsend. If you have any health issues, particularly anything even close to a heart problem, consult a doctor before you undertake this. Best of luck. Marcus Cicero SPQR 22:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Wow. Thanks for the feedback, and the encouragement. I know the plan is on the weak side, so I'll probably start with Week 2, at least -- I've already been waling more than that half hour to and from work most days this summer. and I had a physical in the spring, so I'm good to go. @ Nutty -- drinking is not an issue: I only have a couple of pints a week. What I need, though, is a strain of ganja that doesn't give me the munchies, causing me to inhale way too many late-night snacks. Also, Nutty, good-natured ribbing and/or serious and open-minded inquiries about my spiritual orientation are always welcome.

Powder, a more reasonable alternative might be Couch to 5K (Google it) just to get started. Also, I find Fitocracy a good app for tracking workouts/progress/increasing skill with a little nerdy touch to it (we have our own group, too). --Seth Peck (talk)