RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive278

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 16 October 2017. 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>, <204>, <205>, <206>, <207>, <208>, <209>, <210>, <211>, <212>, <213>, <214>, <215>, <216>, <217>, <218>, <219>, <220>, <221>, <222>, <223>, <224>, <224½>, <225>, <226>, <227>, <228>, <229>, <230>, <231>, <232>, <233>, <234>, <235>, <236>, <237>, <238>, <239>, <240>, <241>, <242>, <243>, <244>, <245>, <246>, <247>, <248>, <249>, <250>, <251>, <252>, <253>, <254>, <255>, <256>, <257>, <258>, <259>, <260>, <261>, <262>, <263>, <264>, <265>, <266>, <267>, <268>, <269>, <270>, <271>, <272>, <273>, <274>, <275>, <276>, <277>, <279>, <280>, <281>, (new)(back)

Contents

Existence of God[edit]

As an agnostic, I don't know whether They exist. Also, I'm bored. Okay, it's mostly out of boredom. So just go here to debate it with strangers over the internet. —(((вιgℓʝвιgℓ))) (ᴛᴀʟᴋ/sᴛᴀʟᴋ) 21:48, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I moved the whole debate off the saloon bar. Keep all arguments on the debate page! —(((вιgℓʝвιgℓ))) (ᴛᴀʟᴋ/sᴛᴀʟᴋ) 23:31, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Alternative cosmological models[edit]

I've been thinking to bring here alternative cosmological theories as Penrose's Conformal cyclic cosmologyWikipedia's W.svg, and similar others that appear at the other Wiki. Unlike the ones at the Alternative cosmology page, those agree there was a Big Bang and differ on some details (mostly that there was no cosmic inflation and that the Universe, instead of expanding forever as currently seems more likely, will contract again in a Big Crunch, to re-expand again. Penrose's theory suggests the Universe expands until everything fades away as photons, moment in which it goes Big Bang again, and others as the epkyrotic Universe (whatever is called) want to get rid of a Multiverse). Where do you suggest to put them (Universe article maybe)? Panzerfaust (talk) 07:25, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Could one say there is a multiverse of alternative 'universe possibilities'? Anna Livia (talk) 10:32, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
I think some scientists dislike the Multiverse hypothesis because science's predictive power is ruined there, as no matter how weird a theory is, it will somewhere be the state of things. Panzerfaust (talk) 13:46, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
The cosmological theories describe a sufficiently diverse range of 'possible universes' between them for the latter to be called a multiverse; what is the collective name for cosmological theories? Anna Livia (talk) 14:19, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Before starting any of those articles you should remember that we are not an encyclopedia. Any new articles should follow the objectives of our mission. You might also want to read: RationalWiki:What is a RationalWiki article?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:35, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Nope, I'm not going to start articles for each one of those models. My idea was just to put them on a section on the Alternative Cosmology article (I think it's the best place, with a very brief description of some of them) showing non-woo alternative ideas. As for talk, I don't know (pancosmology maybe?). Anyway, Tegmark's Multiverse Level IV is the one where all that stuff could be possible (plus batshit crazy stuff as TimeCube and the like). It's also the most unfalsifiable of all types of Multiverse. Panzerfaust (talk) 21:35, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

☪️oe✡️is✝️[edit]

Coexist.jpg

We must either manage this or face destruction. —(((вιgℓʝвιgℓ))) (ᴛᴀʟᴋ/sᴛᴀʟᴋ) 21:08, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Or, and I think we can all agree on this, we could just kill everyone who isn't us!
<gets elected> Nog Bogmire (talk) 21:43, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't think Bigjl... Bigle... Big was talking about the literal act of differing beliefs coexisting in the same place. I think they were talking about the prevalence of that hideous signage spreading across the world like so many ANDRE THE GIANT HAS A POSSE stickers. Please correct me if I'm wrong, Big. Semipenultimate (talk) 22:52, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Bi-gl-jay-bi-gl (bi as in bill). —(((вιgℓʝвιgℓ))) (ᴛᴀʟᴋ/sᴛᴀʟᴋ) 23:08, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zm6na9tz4-s Evil Zionist (talk) 00:08, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Goat[edit]

This is a massive running gag throughout RationalWiki, but where does it come from? There must be some reason we do this. —LJL (ᴛᴀʟᴋ/sᴛᴀʟᴋ) 02:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

It was an old joke from the first days, from before my time. Among the first animals humans domesticated, they provided early humans with the first source of stable year-round food, and are thus the reason civilization began, so of course we would venerate them as the chief of all animals. CorruptUser (talk) 03:44, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Veneration of the Goat comes from the deepest realisation that all is goat, and that is goat. Blessed be the rational horns of Goat, who sorts us from the sheep. 85.234.65.51 (talk) 14:02, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Super Mecha Death Goat[edit]

Super Mecha Death Goat is God! All hail Super Mecha Death Goat! --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 14:40, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Who needs a mech when you have this? Rekt by --Goat--.gif Rimuru Da Ninja 15:09, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

All hail[edit]

FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 16:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

WTF[edit]

WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?! —LJL (ᴛᴀʟᴋ/sᴛᴀʟᴋ) 21:14, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

What the hell isn't wrong with us? RoninMacbeth (talk) 21:55, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
NOTHING! — Unsigned, by: Bigljbigl / talk / contribs 22:01, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Do you blaspheme against the Holy Goat? Christopher (talk) 13:39, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
I have been insane for years, nothing new. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 20:14, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, because you are all here, you are not all there, I guess.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:27, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Heresy!!![edit]

Ignore the vile utterances of the ungodly goat worshipers and bow before Mighty Lord Jerboa, the One Twue God. LongLostLegend (talk) 14:39, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Super Mecha Death Goat is GOD!!!!!!!!! If you turn your back on the Holy Goat Scriptures then you get an eternity getting eaten by a goat. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 19:23, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Read the scriptures (Fun:Holy Goat Scriptures) --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 19:49, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Where'd the divine grass come from then? —вιgℓʝвιgℓ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ/sᴛᴀʟᴋ) 00:40, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Super Mecha Death Goat is not God[edit]

I have concluded that Toriel from Undertale is. Who's with me?! —вιgℓʝвιgℓ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ/sᴛᴀʟᴋ) 10:06, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Then you will be eaten by a goat in the afterlife. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 12:26, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Your name seems to discredit that. —вιgℓʝвιgℓ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ/sᴛᴀʟᴋ) 00:42, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
What about poor old Asgore? The Rational Gamer, WonderKirby577Let's chat! 02:37, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

New Orthodox Goatism[edit]

You will all see!вιgℓʝвιgℓ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ/sᴛᴀʟᴋ) 01:14, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Heresy! the Ferret Overlords will hear of this. and you don't want to rouse their squeaky wrath. 85.234.65.51 (talk) 13:08, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Are you even a goatist? —вιgℓʝвιgℓ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ/sᴛᴀʟᴋ) 18:39, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm just gonna reset, see ya!-DiamondDisc1(talk) 23:23, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Charity goat[edit]

Can be found here [1]. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 15:36, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Does the Iran Deal keep Iran from getting the bomb?[edit]

I am not sure, it does. If so, how does it do that? Evil Zionist (talk) 01:00, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

According to this it seems to be slowing Iran's nuclear plans quite a lot, but not necessarily halting them altogether. "What the deal has done, at least for the next decade, is remove any realistic threat of a near-term Iranian nuclear weapon," it says towards the end, which is heartening, but the deal is neither perfect nor a failure. And nothing better is on the table. Nudescendant (talk) 11:37, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
from what i read, trump is actively looking for ways to get out of the deal so it may not last. Trump has shown iran that Us's word means nothing and taken together with his 'tough' talk to North korea, he shows the world why N. Korea and Iran need nuclear weapons. Get used to a nuclear armed North korea. Get used to iran getting a nuke, maybe from north korea. No amount of hypocritical hand wringing from already nuclear armed countries will change this. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:17, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Quite frankly, I am more worried by North Korea acquiring a ICBM capable of reaching my place of residence than I am of Trump. And Iran acquiring nukes may quite likely result in a chain reaction. It might lead to a Saudi nuke (courtesy of Pakistan) which might then lead to an Egyptian nuke, which might then make Turkey wish to acquire the bomb as well and then there'd be several states either already governed by religious nutcases or under the very realistic threat of soon being governed by religious nutcases that have the bomb. I would not like that. And what's your solution to the "hypocrisy"? Should the US unilaterally disarm? Should the US unilaterally get rid of its nukes? Or do you think there is a realistic way of making China, Russia, Pakistan, India, France, Great Britain and the possible, somewhat or undeclared nuclear powers give up their nukes? Because a world in which Russia and China have nukes but the US doesn't is not a good one. And I don't think it would be all that swell if India had nukes and Pakistan didn't or the other way round. And what do you do if any one of the countries in question only disarms a few nukes but hides the others somewhere? Evil Zionist (talk) 21:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
i am well aware that the current nuclear powers have no intention of giving up nukes. it just makes their hypocrisy even starker. you ask for my solution? diplomacy might be a good bet? whats your solution? tough, but hopefully, empty talk from a us president, that alienates all the players that he needs on side? tough talk that ever became actions would mean the deaths of millions asians? there arnt any happy solutionsAMassiveGay (talk) 22:06, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Do all that is possible to ensure the Iranian regime collapses before it acquires the capability of nuclear warfare. And as I pointed out above, it is not "hypocrisy" for the US and others to not give up their nukes while trying to limit further proliferation. It's just how states have always dealt with one another. I mean who could even hope to force a state to abandon its nukes? And what would anybody gain from unilateral de-nukification? Evil Zionist (talk) 22:29, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
its complete hypocrisy. whats more the US, a country that has unrivalled conventional military power and wage war on most countries in the world with the knowledge it can devastate its foes without a single us citizen even inconvenienced, threatens a country with annilhilation for seeking the security that a nuke would provide? that is rank hypocrisy. you keep talking about unilateral disarmament, as if thats something i am suggesting. all nuclear states should be making an effort if they are really against proliferation. they are not because they are hypocrites. they dont even pay lip service to the idea. they instead upgrade their own stockpiles. as Iran, yes they are unpleasant. n. korea is unpleasant. you want them to improve, you want them not to get nukes? you need to talk them. convince them that you are not out to destroy. maybe then they wont feel they need nukes. statements like 'Do all that is possible to ensure the Iranian regime collapses' does the opposite AMassiveGay (talk) 23:17, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
See, I think there is a fundamental disagreement here. You think Iran can be reasoned with. I do not think so. I think the Iranian regime wants to acquire nukes. And their statements as to their aspirations in the Middle East are crystal clear to me. They want to install their puppets in Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq and elsewhere and they want to wipe Israel off the map. We also know that a very large part of the Iranian population does not want the regime in place. Unfortunately the regime having nukes will make it harder for the opposition to do anything against the regime. And I strongly believe that a truly democratic Iran would not want nukes and might be a potential ally of the US. The current Iranian regime should be contained and combated, not reasoned with. It should be an international pariah on the level of Apartheid South Africa. Both because of its foreign policy and because of its domestic opposition. Evil Zionist (talk) 23:24, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
and in the meantime, iran looks over the border to iraq and sees what happens when the us can invade with impunity. its a small wonder they want nukes. your plan changes nothing for population of iran. the lack of democracy and treatment of its population doesnt seem like a consideration the us usually has about its potential allies. they are still best buds with the saudis which probably doesnt make iran any less fearful of the US. AMassiveGay (talk) 00:17, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

How do you think nuclear disarmament works?[edit]

If I understand you correctly, you deem the US hypocrites as long as they have any number of nukes. If that is wrong, please state a rough amount of nukes that you think are "okay" for the US to have. If you indeed call for the US to get rid of its nuclear capabilities, please tell me how. Should the US just get rid of them and hope it will all turn out fine? Or should there be one giant kumba-yah summit where the major nuclear powers sit together and decide to dump their nukes on the moon? And who controls that really every last nuke is put beyond use? Or do you think a world where the US were the only of the current nuclear powers to become a former nuclear power would be desirable? Evil Zionist (talk) 23:27, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

i'm not really sure how you have come to the conclusion that i think it is just us who hypocrite when it comes to nuclear proliferation, nor am i sure where you get idea that i am for unilateral disarmament. it is a facile suggestion. i talked about the US because they are the key player in recent events with Nkorea and with iran. it is the US attitude to these states that is the key driver for their nuclear ambitions. i have no allusions as to disarmament being an easy thing or even possible, but when nations wring their hands about the nuclear capabilities n korea while doing next to nothing about their own or anyone elses, hypocrisy is the only word for it. AMassiveGay (talk) 00:08, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
this AMassiveGay (talk) 12:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Is it desirable - independent of whether the US or Russia have nukes - for countries like North Korea or Iran to develop nuclear capabilities? And you know, there are ways to ensure they don't. They may not be pleasant or practicable, but they exist. Evil Zionist (talk) 21:20, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
at no point due this conversation have i said or even hinted that it is desirable for nk, iran or anyone else should have nukes. what have said is that the hypocrisy of nuclear powers have pushed these state to seek nuclear weapons and is now inevitable they will, if they havent already. 'not pleasant or practical' - yes the death of millions in a needless war is that. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:26, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
How does the "hypocrisy" of the nuclear powers "make" North Korea or Iran want to acquire nuclear weapons? There are roughly two hundred states on earth, at least a quarter of them could have nukes if they wanted. Why aren't there more that actively pursue them? And I find it interesting that you are making excuses for Iran to have nuclear weapons when the supposed goal of the nuclear deal (like the supposed goal of an earlier nuclear deal with North Korea) was for that country not to acquire nuclear weapons. And there is one relatively safe way to ensure a country cannot acquire nuclear weapons: Don't allow that country to use nuclear power in any way. If you don't have enrichment facilities or plutonium, how are you going to build a nuclear device? Evil Zionist (talk) 00:54, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
i have made my position more than clear. at this point i am repeating myself. if you havent grasped my point by now you are either being deliberating thick or really are so. AMassiveGay (talk) 08:39, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Get rid of the hardware & stockpiles is easy. Getting rid of the knowhow is impossible, unless you burnt every physics book and executed every physics teacher from the high-school level on up. nobsAloha Snackbar 10:58, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Hey guys![edit]

I just made my hundredth edit to the wiki! It's been such a wild and fun ride here. Thank you all. Music to celebrate!This is also good.The Rational Gamer, WonderKirby577Let's chat!box 00:32, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Rekt by --Goat--.gif(((CheeseburgerFace))) (talkstalk) 00:51, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you so much for contributing to RationalWiki! Also, great choices of music! 🎶 CJ-Moki (talk) 05:44, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Nice, hope you have fun. Happy gaming too. :P --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 01:21, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

2016 election and race turnout[edit]

Having trouble finding the data on this. Someone is telling me that more blacks voted for Trump than whites...—(((CheeseburgerFace))) (talkstalk) 15:24, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

That's crazy talk. Try here or hereAriel31459 (talk) 16:33, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Whoever is telling you that is leaving off an important detail. Leuders (talk) 19:24, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Nice photo on that article with "Michael the Black Man" right in the middle. Yes, there are crazy black people (or any other ethnic minority), who will happily support Trump. Look no further than Ben Carson. Bongolian (talk) 03:07, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you all for the data. I knew the person was full of shit, but couldn't find the data.—(((CheeseburgerFace))) (talkstalk) 03:12, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

DeviantArt[edit]

New article on DeviantArt could use some expansion. —(((вιgℓʝвιgℓ))) (ᴛᴀʟᴋ/sᴛᴀʟᴋ) 22:48, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I prefer deleting that article. ClickerClock (talk) 08:23, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Population[edit]

Over 7% of all the humans who have ever lived are alive today. —(((вιgℓʝвιgℓ))) (ᴛᴀʟᴋ/sᴛᴀʟᴋ) 23:07, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm surprised it's that big - so source? But I guess we are still left with the fact that most people are dead.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 20:15, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
I found a BBC article from 2012 stating approximatly 7% (technically 6.6 but that's not important) Vorarchivist (talk) 20:36, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Curzan's Law[edit]

This is based off of something I learned on Adam Ruins Everything. This law is quite similar Godwin's Law, but instead of being about Nazism, it's about grammar Nazism. "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of one member claiming they have won an argument and/or are leaving due to another member making a minor grammar error, real or imagined, approaches one." —(((вιgℓʝвιgℓ))) (ᴛᴀʟᴋ/sᴛᴀʟᴋ) 23:42, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

You mean Style over substance?--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 16:14, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Also compare Muphry's lawWikipedia's W.svg. --91.7.2.73 (talk) 16:23, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

American internet is terrible[edit]

As the internet is becoming vital to daily life, we need to force companies to compete and if we don't soon upgrade America to fiber optic, we're screwed. —вιgℓʝвιgℓ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ/sᴛᴀʟᴋ) 21:16, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Damn Liberal party screwed up the Australian NBN, fortunately I think we were able to get fibre. (And I assume by "America" you mean "the USA") —Kazitor, pending 05:49, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
As a recent subscriber to google fiber, let me say "nyeh nyeh nyeh" ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:28, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
My Australian internet would like to have a word with you. In person of course because it would take 10 years to reach you by email The Rational Gamer, WonderKirby577Let's chat! 02:41, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Kazitor, Kirby, I added that to the list of things I'd do with a time machine. ikanreed, I didn't know you were a narcissistic skeleton. I hear Canada also has crappy internet. —(((вιgℓʝвιgℓ))) (ᴛᴀʟᴋ/sᴛᴀʟᴋ) 18:23, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Deep cover conservative[edit]

I've been thinking, if deep cover liberals inhabit Conservapedia, are there deep cover conservatives on RationalWiki? —вιgℓʝвιgℓ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ/sᴛᴀʟᴋ) 18:41, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

There's no particular need, we put up with smerdis and nobs just fine. Conservapedia's need for ideological purity is not mirroed here. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:16, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
There is nothing so pointless such that a devoted ideologue won't commit their entire existence to it. That being said, I hope their reaction to what they find here somewhat mirrors my own once I started looking outside the dark, airless room that is American Evangelicalism - a dawning understanding that what they've been told by people they trust is wrong, and that the 'enemy' are, somehow, human beings. Semipenultimate (talk) 20:04, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Wait, Smerdis is conservative? He always seemed to be a cynical and misanthropic liberal. RoninMacbeth (talk) 21:54, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
I've considered going deep cover on Conservapedia before. —вιgℓʝвιgℓ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ/sᴛᴀʟᴋ) 02:39, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
You'd have some big shoes to fill. LongLostLegend (talk) 15:46, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm a 13W and I'm turning 14 on the 12th. I can probably manage it (no I can't). —(((вιgℓʝвιgℓ))) (ᴛᴀʟᴋ/sᴛᴀʟᴋ) 21:52, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
I must say that while I consider myself a 'cultural libertarian' and Old Right conservative, I'm hardly a typical example of a US movement conservative. Right now the nation could use a stiff dose of collectivism, and you don't have to accept the claims of egalitarian utopias to see that. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 03:06, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
You know, I'm a bit scared that what you say sometimes makes sense to me. RoninMacbeth (talk) 03:21, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
If you guys consider Smerdis to be a deep-cover conservative, can I be one too? My political leanings are so all over the place I defy an easy label, but I sure don't fit in with the typical American conservative movement either; I'd be quite the conservative who walks around with an upside-down cross necklace (among others) and alternating Rush and Death Angel shirts, from that bastion of conservatism known as New England no less. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:45, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Sure, why not? Welcome aboard the deep-cover conservative train. Maybe we can make you guys a banner like we did for User:Aneris...RoninMacbeth (talk) 03:59, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Hey, I have much more serious existential crises on my mind now than what happens to me here. And I say that with a very thorough (too thorough for my own good, to be frank) grounding in exactly what that means. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:41, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
What? No, I mean something like this, but more good-spirited:
Clouseau.png Never fear — Aneris ✻ is on the case!
He will not rest until the guilty parties have been
assumed and melodramatically whined about
identified and brought to social justice.

If you seriously think we're going to ban you guys for being good contributors with right-wing tendencies, then I'm a little bit hurt. RoninMacbeth (talk) 12:51, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I was being facetious myself, honestly; didn't come out right. Love the box. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:21, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
It's an odd flaw of mine. I'm facetious and snarky most of the time, but I fail to recognize when others do the same. RoninMacbeth (talk) 13:29, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Can I be an American conservative too? I support state anti-theism and penalizing taxes on the super rich. If I was in charge of USA I would seize the assets of the oligarchs on Wall Street and use them to pay off the national debt. Other fun ideas would be taxing companies with offshore money (like the 2 trillion USD Apple has in China) at 100% of the offshore total if they didn't bring it back themselves. Does that prevent me from being an American conservative? I like how Pinochet dealt with Marxists, does that redeem my socialist pan-Arabist soul? Lord Aeonian (talk) 17:43, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

No can do, m'lord. Too socialist, not racist enough. Also, you don't insert "God" or "Jesus" or "Christ" into every third sentence. Quick test, what's your favorite book? RoninMacbeth (talk) 19:28, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Aneris never was a conservative, especially not a 'deep cover' one. Aneris' pet peeve has been postmodernist theory, which is by now also a controversy in academia again, and hotly debated in the columns of higher education. The pioneers of this type of critique are also not conservatives, but card-carrying leftists, Norman Levitt, Noam Chomsky or Alan Sokal. The latter two should be known, the former also engaged against ID where you find an overlap of critique in characters such as Steve Fuller (i.e. "Academic Left", so-called, plus Creationism, which is not as rare as you might think). My request is simple. Don't lie about other people, especially not when you are such obviously clueless, and especially not when you try to nail down in a very definitive way on a Wiki what they allegedly believe. Discordian (talk) 22:55, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Your request is fair and reasonable. Unfortunately, I did not claim Aneris was a conservative. On the contrary, I know him to be a very progressive individual (in perhaps a different sense of the word than is more common today, but still). Conservative is one of the last things I would call him. What I did say (facetiously) is that we should create a banner similar to the one created for Aneris during his time there. If my intent was muddled, then I apologize. What I ask of you is not to jump to conclusions too hastily (a fault that I share, admittedly, but one I attempt to correct). RoninMacbeth (talk) 03:27, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Why was Aneris perma-banned? It said something about calling people pedos. —(((вιgℓʝвιgℓ))) (ᴛᴀʟᴋ/sᴛᴀʟᴋ) 18:19, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

"The Left/Liberals support Pedophiles." says the extremely biased lady[edit]

https://youtu.be/5Q6pDGNQw3I ShiningSwordofThoughts (talk) 02:28, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I noticed she had the comments section disabled. Honestly, what she said is so crazy that it's like if I had said "the Religious Right is trying to legalize genocide". Also, I checked her account, and nearly all the videos are either about New Age woo or complete wingnuttery. —(((вιgℓʝвιgℓ))) (ᴛᴀʟᴋ/sᴛᴀʟᴋ) 02:59, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Plenty of counter examples of the far right supporting pedophiles here. ClickerClock (talk) 03:17, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
I have a feeling that if we call her out for being offensive, rightfully so, she's going to whine about political correctness. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 18:40, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

@RationalWiki retweeted an image from /r/FULLCOMMUNISM[edit]

Fishhook Theory ≠ real.png

See that image included in the bottom-right of this tweet? Googling "fish hook theory", at the second result down, reveals that it is from /r/FULLCOMMUNISM, a communist subreddit and echo chamber. I just find it kind of odd that whoever's running @RationalWiki (seemingly unironically) retweeted a tweet containing literal communist propaganda.

Also, I'm highly skeptical of "fish hook theory". I've noticed that extremists on both sides of the political spectrum tend to have multiple traits in common (at very least behaviorally). CJ-Moki (talk) 05:43, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Your concern is showing. touching. Why do you find it odd that someone from RationalWiki, a website that exposes and refutes bad science and bad politics, should follow a pro-authoritarian subreddit? Perhaps whoever runs the twitter account follows that group on a "know your enemy" basis, or to see what laughable/sinister nonsense they'll poop out next? Or did you think there was some other factor at work? Nudescendant (talk) 08:54, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Well, I say that retweeting memes based from a Stalinist subreddit is a horrible idea just like its a horrible idea to retweet memes from r/the_donald. Gross, someone contact whoever is running the twitter account. Our social media reflects on us. If we retweeted something from an anti vaxxer, that's bad. We do not need to give those asshats attention. ClickerClock (talk) 06:29, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
I believe it's @David Gerard. Christopher (talk) 09:43, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
This is the dumbest reasoning. [phrase] has [origin] on [reddit] therefor retweeting someone using it indicates complicity with one of history's greatest tyrants. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:13, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
It is indeed too dumb to live - David Gerard (talk) 20:47, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Of course, not everyone who likes that meme is pro Stalin; that's too much of an over-generalization. Take a look at that meme. It positions the "far left" as the most reasonable position, just like the horseshoe theory positions "liberalism" as the most reasonable choice.The issue with both these "theories" is that the assumption that your political views are the most correct, right and morally superior. I have came across communists who truly believe that the only people who care about the world's problems and the most reasonable, the most moral are in fact communists. I guess the same can be said for all political views. The center in American politics is right wing in my country. Your American view of "far left" is simply left center in my country; seriously Obama is not far left. But America's warped political spectrum is not what this meme is referring to. It is referring to what communists';specifically r/FULLCOMMUNISM's brand of communism; perceive as "far right", "centrist" and "far left" and that's very different to what America's and my country's political spectrum is. ClickerClock (talk) 22:55, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

More proof that the bourgeois Gerardian dictatorship over @RationalWiki should be deposed and replaced with a direct vote. Viva la capralucion! Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 01:58, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

As I keep saying, including to you, probably the very first thing to do is demonstrate you have any idea how to do social media. And as it turns out, we have an official Facebook page with no active contributors. So send me your Facebook name, I'll add you as an editor there ... - David Gerard (talk) 21:17, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
David's inability to detect sarcasm is more proof that the Gerardian dictatorship should be deposed! :P Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 22:45, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
It's not sarcasm if it works, and you're an editor on it now. HEY EVERYONE THE FACEBOOK PAGE WILL GET STUFF POSTED TO IT AGAIN - David Gerard (talk) 00:01, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Why do we Not have an article on:[edit]

The coveted Ex-Muslim that the republicans love to parade around to fit their own agenda? ShiningSwordofThoughts (talk) 13:21, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Go start it. ClickerClock (talk) 06:30, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Wouldn't know where to start and Trust me the only article that's ever amounted out of me was Kraut and Tea ShiningSwordofThoughts (talk)
Start with a summary: Name, birth, political views, job. Next: elaborate on political views/ debunk. Some links:
ClickerClock (talk) 03:12, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
To be fair to those ex-Muslims, it's incredibly tempting, when one sheds oneself of a kinda oppressive ideology, to go seek allies who want the destruction of that ideology, no matter how shitty their reasoning is or how savage their methods. To become reformist instead can feel like taking everything bad that happened to you and forgiving it. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:18, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Good point. ClickerClock (talk) 23:00, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Why, exactly, are people who are often atheists expected to become "reformists" within a religion simply to often offending Orientalist fetishization of Islam? Also I find it funny you made sure to add the "kinda" qualifier. Lord Aeonian (talk) 23:59, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
In social justice circles, ex Muslims are viewed as just anti sjws to be ignored. Even the Southern Poverty Law Center has added ex muslims to their hate group database. Maajid Nawaz, he's not even ex muslim, researches ways to counter ISIS and he somehow got on the list. ClickerClock (talk) 00:26, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Because favoring eradication instead tends to be A. Reducitonist, B. Totalitarian, C. Impossible, and D. Really fucking stupid. The escape the false dilemma you're presenting is to not care about the continuity of your previous belief system at all. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:03, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Why people accepted the horrific regime in Nazi Germany[edit]

A teacher back in '67 did a somewhat unethical experiment which shows how terrifyingly easy people are manipulated into that kind of thing. —(((вιgℓʝвιgℓ))) (ᴛᴀʟᴋ/sᴛᴀʟᴋ) 17:58, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

It's worth it's own page if you want to start it. See also existing pages: Milgram's obedience study and Stanford prison experiment. Bongolian (talk) 21:21, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Done.(((вιgℓʝвιgℓ))) (ᴛᴀʟᴋ/sᴛᴀʟᴋ) 01:55, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
I mainly know it for having been made into an ABC Afterschool Special called The Wave, which got adapted into a YA novel by Todd Strasser. It was also remade in Germany as Die Welle about ten years ago. I still have the book. KevinR1990 (talk) 06:20, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Having read the piece, I find myself less than horrified by the experiment. "Strength through discipline, community, action, pride, understanding" coupled by relatively innocuous stances and a shared salute does not introduce any racial ideologies or violent othering. You could read the whole thing as a potential solution for What's Wrong with Kids Today as much as a prelude to fascism. To prove that this drive to conformity in adolescents is something awful, more 'red flag' aspects to the experiment needed to be there. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 18:45, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
It took only 4 days before he was able to convince children to exile each other and restrain their movements.Vorarchivist (talk) 02:28, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm not seeing any hint of people being "exiled" from anything or having their movements restrained. And children don't need to be convinced to do that, there are peer groups that operate in exactly the same way. Haven't you ever wanted to be one of the cool kids, or known you'd be beaten up if you went behind the bike sheds where the big kids go to smoke? Nog Bogmire (talk) 03:15, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
You guys mind moving this to the talk page? —вιgℓʝвιgℓ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ/sᴛᴀʟᴋ) 03:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Change Username[edit]

How do I change my username? MythBusterAnonymous 20:09, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

@RationalRex What do you want it changed to? MythBusterAnonymous?Christopher (talk) 21:01, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
MythBusterAnonymous if you please... MythBusterAnonymous 00:59, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
And done!ClickerClock (talk) 03:07, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Obsessed with this scene[edit]

(((вιgℓʝвιgℓ))) (ᴛᴀʟᴋ/sᴛᴀʟᴋ) 22:07, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Well if you want some messed up sci fic recs, there's Awful Hospital, Hollow Fields manga, and Frankenstein, MD. ClickerClock (talk) 00:20, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
That whole episode was extraordinarily poignant commentary about a whole host of injustices that exist in the world, and how we'll trick ourselves into foisting them on people who are not just similar to us, but literally the same person. Showing the dead(who died in various ways) as ejected into space and ignored was a capstone on everything immoral that happened during the episode, and how life will continue afterwards without acknowledging it. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:08, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
His campaign reminds me of Trump's: a bunch of pseudo-emotional bullshit. Though his early purges reminds me of a lot of people. —вιgℓʝвιgℓ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ/sᴛᴀʟᴋ) 23:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
I'd have to say it probably only reminds you of trump because they're both kinda vile people. The campaign rhetoric of fascist morty was substantially more urbane and less classist, less racist, less xenophobic, less pretty much everything I personally associate with Trump. In fact the fascism is pretty much the only thing they seem to have in common. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Are the guys who claims to have ruled the Citadel since before the Council of Ricks supposed to represent lobbies ? 92.90.21.49 (talk) 12:02, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
(They represent the rich who generally control more than they should in every nation) ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
So, I don't watch Rick and Morty, so can someone give context to that clip? RoninMacbeth (talk) 00:03, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
http://rickandmorty.wikia.com/wiki/The_Ricklantis_Mixupвιgℓʝвιgℓ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ/sᴛᴀʟᴋ) 01:39, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't think a wikia page is going to help much. The context of the series helps sell all the obvious social parallels. They'd be reading about the crooked-cop Morty new-recruit Rick segment without having the intuitive understanding that morty is usually the moral center of the pair and rick can usually justify anything he wants through the absence of universal morality and the de facto complexities of any given situation that morty doesn't grasp. So if you just read a summary of the episode's plot, you might intuit that the corrupt cop kinda just deserved to die. Whereas with greater context you'd see it as just one more corpse that the millstone of society ground out, uncaringly. Someone who, under different circumstances, would have cared. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:31, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

What is with the uniquely American obsession with free speech?[edit]

Ok. Crashcourse for Americans, there are first world countries without free speech. Heck, I live in a country without free speech. It's fine and no one really cares. Living without free speech rights is not a totalitarian nightmare.

  1. Americans usually assume Free Speech is international law. See people thinking that free speech applies for some Swedish youtuber.
  2. Free Speech is a right that Americans made up. It is not inherent.
  3. Humans rights are made up by a smaller subset of humans to apply to a larger group of humans.


ClickerClock (talk) 00:09, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Wait, where do you live? —(((вιgℓʝвιgℓ))) (ᴛᴀʟᴋ/sᴛᴀʟᴋ) 00:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Not America. Commonwealth of Nations! ClickerClock (talk) 01:03, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Not living in America does not prove that where you live has no freedom of speech. Many other countries have some sort of guarantee in their charters of rights, but it may not be as strong as the USA's. What it does establish is that "freedom of speech" is not the same as "First Amendment law", which is a point I seem to have to make every time it comes up. And on the Internet, everything comes through in pipes owned by corporations, so to the extent that the Internet is the biggest public forum, First Amendment law is increasingly irrelevant. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 03:01, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
The guarantee of free speech only extends as far as political speech where I live. Free speech rights are implied but not in law. And yes free speech ≠ First Amendment ClickerClock (talk) 03:05, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
It depends on how closely you define "freedom of speech". I don't think the the right to absolute freedom of speech is guaranteed anywhere. Consider slander, confidential government information, perjury , incitement to violence etc.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:09, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm referring to the American definition of free speech. ClickerClock (talk) 08:42, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
So - you are saying that the uniquely American definition of Free Speech is uniquely American?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 13:43, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Though with regard to whether or not free speech in general is a universal human right, article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:19, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
You do realize that countries are free to not implement UN's human right suggestions? It's pretty normal for UN member countries to straight up ignore the UN? It's so common that the Onion is parodying it. ClickerClock (talk) 08:42, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 08:44, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
I believe you said it wasn't international law, not that it was but nobody followed it. All countries that ratified the declaration (and the follow-on International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, an actual treaty) agreed that free speech was a fundamental human right, some just decided that didn't mean they needed to give it to their citizens. Nog Bogmire (talk) 09:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Pretty much. ClickerClock (talk) 09:17, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

It is false that Americans are an exception with regard to freedom of speech. Pew Research Center polled 38 countries in 2015 and the regional aggregate percentages favoring the idea that people should be able to say what they want were: US---71%, Latin America---69%, Europe---65%, Asia/Pacific---50%, Africa---46%, Middle East---43%. Don't expect Mexicans to be more circumspect in speaking than US citizens.Ariel31459 (talk) 13:02, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I'd say my opinion on freedom of speech is pretty summed up by Judge Holmes: "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." —вιgℓʝвιgℓ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ/sᴛᴀʟᴋ) 13:36, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Consider the opinion in which Justice Holmes' claim concerning talk about fire in theaters first appeared."Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919), is a United States Supreme Court case concerning enforcement of the Espionage Act of 1917 during World War I. A unanimous Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., concluded that defendants who distributed fliers to draft-age men, urging resistance to induction, could be convicted of an attempt to obstruct the draft, a criminal offense." The case was wrongly decided, in my opinion. The constitution should have afforded those men that freedom.Ariel31459 (talk) 16:06, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Schenck was considerably narrowed if not overruled entirely by Brandenburg v, Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), which established the inciting "imminent lawless action" test. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 17:47, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
@Smerdis of Tlön are you talking to me or Ariel? —вιgℓʝвιgℓ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ/sᴛᴀʟᴋ) 18:04, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Commenting generally in reply to Ariel. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 18:24, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

American free speech is exceptional. Many European countries do not have specific free speech laws but instead are covered by "unreasonable intrusion laws" or such. For the most part the everyday norm is, you can mostly sa what you like. But americans can get away with saying the most vile, hostile and verbaly-violent things and even, to some degree, get away with some forms of hate speech. If the westboro baptist church went to a soldiers funeral in Canada, the UK, Spain, Belgium etc and held signs saying "god killed this soldier because of faggots getting married" they would be arrested...and almost nobody would consider that reaction extreme. There are no clear movements in continental Europe to open the door to the kind of radical free speech America has. People say "send the mexicans back" in the US every day and get away with it. They may pay some social price for that. If Belgians said "Send all the morrocans back" they could be charged by the police and also pay a severe social price (mass ostracism for starters). One political party was broken up and banned because of making such comments. Americans can also get away with menacing language: "Trump should just die" is unlikely to get you arrested (though it has happened) while saying in Italy "The only Berlisconi I want to see is a dead Berlesconi" can get you arrested quickly...your words are taken very literally. In Spain you cannot film or take pictures of the police never ever for any reason (in some cases not even their cars or police stations)...and this law is supported by a majority of the people. personal mini-cams? Forget it. Having said that...interestingly there are laws in America (also Germany) that allow police to arrest people for using rather tame abusive language like "fuck you pig" which would be met with incredible patience in other countries. Ironically you pay a price for insulting a policeman in the US, where free speech is extreme...than in other countries where you can be arrested for insulting the King but can get away with screaming nasty insults to a policeman's face for five minutes. "Are you done"? 209.95.56.221 (talk) 10:24, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

"American free speech is exceptional." Well, that's pretty much the most blatant example of American exceptionalism I've ever encountered. Well done? —Kazitor, pending 11:38, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
There is free speech - and 'being able to wander across the road wherever we want (and annoy the car drivers) - and there is 'free speech with agreed constraints (politeness/courtesy, no incitement to violence/hatred/distress/causing panic etc, and maximising cooperation) and 'pedestrians have the freedom of the pavements without vehicles and vehicles have the freedom of the tarmac (or whatever material is used) without pedestrians apart from agreed crossing points (and where otherwise convenient)' - which in practice maximises the freedom of both. A slightly convoluted comparison, but readily understandable.
And each country will have its own version of 'particular legal exclusions/what is considered bad taste/bad manners. Anna Livia (talk) 12:10, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
i am always amused that in the land of the free, permission is required to cross the road. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:37, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
You forgot to put quotation marks around "free". —Kazitor, pending 05:53, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
As I have said over and over again, 'free speech' is not the same as 'First Amendment law', and the First Amendment only applies in the United States. It does not follow from this that other countries do not value free speech. What does follow is that the legal contours of free speech will vary from country to country. This should not immunize repressive countries from criticism, either, especially if their fundamental laws claim to recognize the right and it is not honored in practice. And merely legal protections for free speech that restrain only governments are increasingly irrelevant in a world where the chief public forum of the age is owned by corporate interests, who as private actors are axiomatically immune to free-speech concerns under the crack-headed theories of some individuals. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 17:03, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Many lulz to be had with this one[edit]

Just gonna leave this here'Legionwhat do you want from me 04:54, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Where's the funny part? Nudescendant (talk) 08:59, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
He liked a porn account or so something. Christopher (talk) 15:35, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Considering that this is a man who once proposed a law to ban dildos, I think this counts as hypocrisy enough to mock. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:09, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
It was less the 'banning dildos' aspect of the case than the 'attempting to convince a judge that masturbation isn't constitutionally protected' part (from Mother Jones: "The brief insisted that Texas, in order to protect “public morals,” had “police-power interests” in “discouraging prurient interests in sexual gratification, combating the commercial sale of sex, and protecting minors.” There was a “government” interest, it maintained, in “discouraging…autonomous sex.” The brief compared the use of sex toys to “hiring a willing prostitute or engaging in consensual bigamy,” and it equated advertising these products with the commercial promotion of prostitution. In perhaps the most noticeable line of the brief, Cruz’s office declared, “There is no substantive-due-process right to stimulate one’s genitals for non-medical purposes unrelated to procreation or outside of an interpersonal relationship.”"). Calling this man a pile of shit is an insult to manure heaps the world over. Semipenultimate (talk) 22:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Whole article link[[2]. Semipenultimate (talk) 22:42, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank God he lost. —вιgℓʝвιgℓ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ/sᴛᴀʟᴋ) 23:04, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Oh I see. That wasn't apparent from the "footballguy" tweet. Nudescendant (talk) 12:00, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
It's most likely not him but entertaining nevertheless. I'm doubtful he even knows how to use Twitter. -Xbony2 (talk) 00:19, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

The lesson of 1984 is that we must rely on leaders and the press to avoid authoritarianism[edit]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DJiUwtbXcAASIwl.jpg

Am I reading this wrong ??? Diacelium (talk) 16:58, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Is this Hillary's nonsense? She's as whiny as Milo. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 17:06, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Sure, it's an admittedly overemotional way of drawing a parallel between Trump's attacks on the Non-Fox Press/Obama/McCain, etc. and the authoritarian methods described in the novel 1984. Leuders (talk) 17:50, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
All societies attempt to define reality - and the world according to the Racing Post will be different to that of The Economist. Anna Livia (talk) 18:43, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
MiniTru, it's right there in the name. True. Obviously they will stand up with Big Brother and stop the torture. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:54, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

What The Health: Probably Propaganda[edit]

My teacher has shown us What The Health. It seems like Forks Over Knives, but with even more Woo and Pesudoscience. Is it really as bad as I thought? The Rational Gamer, WonderKirby577Let's chat!box 02:55, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Back in 6th grade I saw several anti-GMO videos in one elective that I now recognize as bullshit, so maybe. —вιgℓʝвιgℓ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ/sᴛᴀʟᴋ) 02:58, 14 September 2017 (UTC)


Did Isreal Become a country because a corrupt vote and do a shitty job of nogotion between other countries in the Middle East?[edit]

ShiningSwordofThoughts (talk) 04:32, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

The original mandate seemed fair, but both sides immediately lost it. —вιgℓʝвιgℓ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ/sᴛᴀʟᴋ) 10:39, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

The Mods of R/pcgaming locked this[edit]

https://www.reddit.com/r/pcgaming/comments/6zp2zr/bungie_removing_a_destiny_2_gauntlet_for_looking/

Also apprently people can't tell why they would want to remove a kekistain flag but not a Nazi one. A: From a business prospective you can be seen as supporting a hate group. B: A Nazi flag is a historical symbol that can be used historically ShiningSwordofThoughts (talk)

Does the usual suspect apply here? 109.148.225.211 (talk) 11:50, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Not really. If you model a flag on the nazi flag, it's gonna get associated with Nazism, completely fairly. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:42, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Poe's Law is again at work. I still like Charlie ChaplinAriel31459 (talk) 13:45, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

You know they're desperate if they have to PHOTOSHOP (poorly) to make Trump look good[edit]

http://static.snopes.com/app/uploads/2017/09/man-saves-cats.jpgвιgℓʝвιgℓ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ/sᴛᴀʟᴋ) 22:10, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

The pest control officials are being restrained from doing their jobs (which includes staring at the food tins until they are opened). Anna Livia (talk) 14:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Username[edit]

I've considered having my username changed to "TehEvulLeebral". Should I do it? —вιgℓʝвιgℓ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ/sᴛᴀʟᴋ) 22:41, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

It is more pronounceable. Christopher (talk) 14:48, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Stupidiest idia evah. :p –Mad physicist (talk) 14:51, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't like it. 2004-era internet irony, doesn't hold up well. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:25, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
@Ikanreed Instead, they should use 2016-era irony: "(((CuckedLibtard420)))" oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 17:45, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, the internet idiots can spell these days, even as their ideas have degraded rapidly. Amazing how that one happened. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:47, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Pizzagate as a front page article[edit]

See the main article on this topic: Talk:Pizzagate § Cover story .28sticky.29

Make it happen.—(((CheeseburgerFace))) (talkstalk) 22:47, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I second the motion. —вιgℓʝвιgℓ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ/sᴛᴀʟᴋ) 23:54, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Saturn ignition[edit]

Judging for some comments on Youtube, it seems the Jupiter ignition BS is back but this time with Saturn and Cassini, that will plunge into its atmosphere tomorrow to end her mission, instead. Panzerfaust (talk) 16:09, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Links? Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 17:43, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
I'd have to dig in the video about Cassini's Grand Finale posted on the JPL channel. Some idiot was talking about a "Project Lucifer" (PS: Amazing the BS you can find on NASA's Youtube comments, as well as in their social network sites, with cranks and similar idiots (EDIT who, for example, cannot grasp a given video is a CGI, because there's no way to picture a lone probe more than a billion kilometers away) pretty much in numbers) Panzerfaust (talk) 20:45, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
It's totally possible, since astrophysics is obviously an evil conspiracy by the lizard people in order to propagate the NWO. —вιgℓʝвιgℓ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ/sᴛᴀʟᴋ) 02:00, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Certainly. The funny part is not only this. It's, paraphrasing Ben Kenobi, who's the more sheepish, the sheepie or the sheepie who follows them?. Panzerfaust (talk) 09:55, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
The Lucifer stuff is something Arthur C Clarke came up with while he was ruining the 2001 series by making the Monoliths into extremely stupid faulty computers. The one on Europa decided it would be a great idea to ignite Jupiter into a quasi-star called Lucifer. Spoilers: it wasn't. Nog Bogmire (talk) 15:05, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Well, 2010 was not so bad. Do not remember very much of 2061 (whatever), and 3001 had some interesting ideas. The point is, at least Clarke knew in order to make Jupiter a star you need far more than a nuclear-powered space probe. Panzerfaust (talk) 15:52, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

RationalForums[edit]

Back in August, the Forums were blown away, thus leaving the Saloon Bar (alongside /r/rationalwiki) the closest we have to a forum. I had an idea for setting up a MyBB forum, known as the RationalForums, with a bridge between the main site and RationalForums. CJ-Moki (talk) 06:23, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Given that the forums that were hosted on the actual wiki died from an overdose of dust and disuse, why would another forum on a totally different site be any more successful? LongLostLegend (talk) 09:49, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
We have the bar, talk pages, and a subreddit. We don't need a forum. —вιgℓʝвιgℓ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ/sᴛᴀʟᴋ) 13:52, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Why do we need it? Christopher (talk) 14:10, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into it, but it's probably not worth the time. We already have a "slow conversation" forum -- the Saloon. If you want a "fast conversation", RationalWiki has a Discord server. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 15:08, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

What's the code? —вιgℓʝвιgℓ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ/sᴛᴀʟᴋ) 17:42, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
https://discord.gg/vWRxA9 Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 01:25, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Cat[edit]

Should we move the cat page to funspace? —вιgℓʝвιgℓ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ/sᴛᴀʟᴋ) 14:03, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

It's not that bad as mainspace, and the funspace link redirects there. Like the topic of the recent winner of the Ig Nobel Prize in physics ("Can a Cat Be Both a Solid and a Liquid?"),[3] it exists in two states at once. Bongolian (talk) 18:09, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
So it's sort of a non-Newtonian fluid? —вιgℓʝвιgℓ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ/sᴛᴀʟᴋ) 04:11, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Universe's End[edit]

The following are listed from most to least optimistic:

  • Big Bounce
  • Big Freeze if random quantum tunneling/fluctuations will cause a new Big Bang around 10101056 CE
  • Big Slurp if a new Big Bang happens following the Slurp
  • Big Freeze without a new Big Bang
  • Big Crunch without Big Bounce
  • Big Slurp without a new Big Bang
  • Big Rip

So, personally I hope that the universe is in a true vacuum state and follows the Big Bounce. I also hope that eternal inflation is real. —вιgℓʝвιgℓ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ/sᴛᴀʟᴋ) 05:40, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately we are unlikely to find out 'personally in person.' Anna Livia (talk) 09:06, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
My choice is the second one. The fifth one could produce an inflation-like event (messing with infinities has that issue), so things would begin again, and there's no way to know what would be the result of the last one (as everything would collapse back to a singularity, maybe a Big Bounce). Not to mention: 1) the possibility of a multiverse, 2) Sure that someone has thought on a nastier end, buried somewhere in an obscure paper (or, at least, that will happen). What quite likely will not occur are what's described at the end of certain book. Panzerfaust (talk) 09:50, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Two thoughts strike me:
  • For the sake of consistency, any and all scenarios centered around heat death (e.g., point 2 and 3 in OP's list) belong under the title of "Big freeze".
  • What would a so-called "Big slurp"-scenario involve?
Thanks is advance. Th hug.gif Reverend Black Percy (talk) 06:01, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps [4]? Anna Livia (talk) 12:11, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
The "Big Slurp" is here. At least we'd not feel anything. Panzerfaust (talk) 13:44, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

In a nutshell[edit]

Oh, and since the fun is in the speculating — please, enjoy this 'bonus scenario'. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 06:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

False vacuum = Big Slurp. And there's this, even if other scientists -including the author- have shown the calculations there to be wrong. Panzerfaust (talk) 13:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Does empathy exist?[edit]

I personally think that what most call empathy is just your imagination and not an actual phenomenon of sharing experiences and emotions. Without an actual mind link technology, you cannot know or understand the emotions of someone else, even if they had a similar situation to you. Machina (talk) 17:50, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Empathy exists because the human mind is designed for networking in human societies. This means that we try to figure out what motivates our fellow humans, in order to enlist their help in furthering our own desires by offering them something they want in return. This means that we assume that other humans have minds like our own, and that we try to figure out what's going on in their heads. And that's what 'empathy' means. It doesn't require a psychic link. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 18:22, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
@MachinaI'm 99% sure that somewhere on this wiki we have an article called something like "nihilist retreat" or something similar that documents the idea of being able to reject any idea by falling back on the fact that there's a host of things you cannot know for certain, as a last-ditch escape hatch on protecting shitty ideas. You have done this with the feelings of others. Of course you cannot be certain, and of course you cannot experience the full scope and scale of another in perfect detail. That's, in no way, shape, or form, the same as saying you cannot experience those things. Don't be daft. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:55, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Empathy doesn't exist if you're a sociopath.—(((CheeseburgerFace))) (talkstalk) 22:48, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

That is not what empathy means. The definition goes: the ability to understand and share the feelings of another. This is impossible, for the simple fact that you aren't them. You don't have their history and upbringing so you can't know what they are feeling nor can you share it. Your imagination kicks in and you end up fooling yourself into thinking you are sharing something with them. This has nothing to do with "nihilist retreat", this is simply accepting reality. I'm not saying you can't experience emotions, I'm saying that if you want to be honest and truthful, you cannot claim empathy exists. Sympathy sure, but not empathy. This has nothing to do with accuracy, but with the simple fact that YOUR AREN'T THEM. So saying you understand their feelings and share them is a lie. Well intention-ed, but a lie all the same. It is you who are daft. Smerdis that isn't what empathy is, nor does it prove the existence of it. It truly does require some psychic link.Machina (talk) 00:34, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

If you look again at any definition of empathy, you will at once realize, I hope, that the word "psychic" is not used. Here is a list of 539 synonyms for the word "empathy." It seems to me that you are operating under an entirely Platonic epistemology. Words are rough approximations meant to name objects, describe their relations to other objects, and suggest states of being. They are often not so definite as you seem to imagine.Ariel31459 (talk) 03:07, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
That thesaurus doesn't define empathy as it is used in public discourse. If your trying to change the definition in order to win then you have lost.Machina (talk) 15:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Are you playing a game? We have all shown how you are wrong in various ways. Does that make you feel like a loser?Ariel31459 (talk) 23:29, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Philosophically, 'empathy' relates to the concept of 'qualia'. Qualia are things like your perception of redness. Assuming baseline human vision, you can see and identify things that are red. On the other hand, you have no way of knowing whether your experience of 'redness' resembles what other people see when they see the color. Likewise, we have no direct way of experiencing anyone else's emotions. If you are going to define 'empathy' idiosyncratically that way, then no. But that redefinition is your own. Most of us are familiar enough of our own emotions like love and anger and disappointment, enough so that when other people speak of their own experiences we understand what they're talking about. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 18:54, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm not redefining it, I'm using the definition that appears in most dictionaries. You guys are the ones trying to redefine the term in order to have any chance of making sense. Nor is your follow up statement relevant at all. It's doesn't matter how familiar you are with your emotions, the fact is that you aren't with others. They can say angry but do you know how they feel? The answer is no, without any sort of psychic link we cannot honestly claim empathy. We can only imagine it, which makes it not real.Machina (talk) 15:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Why exactly do we need to experience the same exact emotions down to the most granular detail? Do you believe the ruler on my desk is useless because it can't accurately measure down to the nearest picometer? 174.200.5.55 (talk) 14:11, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Different boat, much different boat. Machina (talk) 15:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Empathy is part of a concept called "theory of mind" whereby you develop the idea that other people are people like you, possessing their own minds with their own thoughts and feelings. Sure, you can't directly access these thoughts and feelings, but you can consider them to be analogs to your own, since you and they are both human and have brains that function similarly. So yes, empathy is technically a feeling that is based on a model of a person that exists in your head, but as long as that model is an accurate simulation of the real person (as in ballpark, not 1:1 exact), there is little functional difference: you are sharing a feeling that is an accurate simulation of what they are feeling. For example, if you hit your hand on something, I can have empathy because I have hit my hand on things and know what that feels like. I don't need to know your entire life's story to judge exactly how painful it might be for you, I just need to be able to roughly compare.

Something being "your imagination" does not automatically mean it is complete fiction: all planned actions are imaginary until performed, but that does not mean the planned actions of "running a bath" and "casting a magic spell" are exactly equal in terms of applicability to reality. Nog Bogmire (talk) 14:48, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Except it isn't a ballpark, it's a true shot in the dark. If I hit my hand, you don't have empathy. You have sympathy. I could feel no pain, but you just assume I do because you do. That's not accurate, that's just you projecting yourself into the situation. It's not empathy, it's narcissism. You cannot compare your experience to theirs unless you are them. Unless you have access to all the details (because unlike rulers, the little things ins life do have big impacts in people). It's "theory of mind" not even in the scientific sense of the word. It being your imagination makes it by definition complete fiction. Machina (talk) 15:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
My money is on mirror neurons. Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 15:43, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
But mirror neurons aren't really capable of producing <insert idiosyncratic definition of empathy here> so IT'S NOT REAL HOW MANY TIMES MUST I TELL YOU? 90.219.119.106 (talk) 20:39, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Saturn ignition (bonus track)[edit]

Looks like the Cassini igniting Saturn thing was more than a comment at Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzccJMP1HLU

After watching Saturn last Saturday with a telescope in memory of said probe, (EDIT. Sarcasm Mode On) I can confirm Saturn has gone "Lucifer" (EDIT. Sarcasm Mode Off). Hell, you don't even need a telescope if you know where to find said planet)[Citation NOT needed]. I'll add later this to the Saturn article Panzerfaust (talk) 20:07, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Please, like you could recognize a giant ball of fusing hydrogen. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:05, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Revelation 12[edit]

The end is nigh (again!) Revelation 12 Sign. Panzerfaust (talk) 20:35, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh noes ! 82.231.157.133 (talk) 20:46, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Can someone develop the Apocalypse version of the RationalWiki drinking game? (See Talk:List of predictions of the end of the world) Anna Livia (talk) 21:31, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
No because we'd all die. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:32, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
It gets better when you consider Nibiru is said to come back again that day (see here.) Panzerfaust (talk) 21:41, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
The new cabal totally caused this! It's not a coincidence AT ALL. JOIN US OR DIE! —вιgℓʝвιgℓ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ/sᴛᴀʟᴋ) 22:18, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Everyone knows the world ends in October. I mark October 28th on my calendar every year. See Donnie Darko. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 13:10, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
The worst is that I can picture some of the Fundies behind that telling the Mexico earthquake and the hurricane Maria are signs of the End Times. Never mind God's omnibenevolence then goes out of the window. Panzerfaust (talk) 13:19, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Obviously god hates Puerto Rico because of all the money it hasn't paid back to the United States for the privilege of being a colonial port whose citizens have no rights. And Mexico is just a given. They're brown. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 13:54, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
I have dozens of extended family living in Puerto Rico. This is the first I have heard that they have no rights. They are deceived?Ariel31459 (talk) 16:38, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Either give Puerto Rico statehood or independence. —вιgℓʝвιgℓ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ/sᴛᴀʟᴋ) 19:40, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Mods[edit]

Came up with a name for them: "elected" janitorial oligarchs. —вιgℓʝвιgℓ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ/sᴛᴀʟᴋ) 04:27, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

No. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 22:43, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
No. Christopher (talk) 07:18, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes. 71.208.176.156 (talk) 00:31, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Some of my professors use Myers-Briggs.[edit]

While there is some information regarding the test on the site, can anybody link me more studies that can refute its validity? I want solid stuff I can show my professors.Teurastaja (talk) 15:04, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

The reliability seems to be an issue: between 39% and 76% of respondents obtain different type classifications when retaking the indicator after only five weeks.Ariel31459 (talk) 16:52, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
To me the big thing on Myers-Briggs is not that it's unreliable, though evidence says it is at least a little unreliable. The big thing is that it was devised, marketed, and became popular without having gone through any peer-reviewed or experimentally controlled empirical research. Its foundations do not have a place centered in scientific research, but human intuition, and should be treated with extra suspicion. LAKES/Big Five personality indexes have more grounded backing, but if they're used the way Myers-Briggs is(i.e. big categorical "types") most of their predictive utility evaporates. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:04, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
вιgℓʝвιgℓ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ/sᴛᴀʟᴋ) 15:47, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Colorado Springs: for me to poop on![edit]

A Colorado runner keeps pooping in on the sidewalk in front of someone's house in Colorado Springs. It's a libertarian town and the sidewalk is public property, so what's their problem? If the home owners don't like it, they should just buy the sidewalk![5] Bongolian (talk) 17:37, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Just so long as the the reason is insanity and not necessity, Bongolian. A homeless person doing this would've immediately been beaten half to death and held without bond for 6+ months. Semipenultimate (talk) 19:59, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
i started on medication awhiles back that had a side effect of 'loosening of the stool'. day to day, i had no problem. however, when i went for a run, the stools did loosen some 10 mins in. the upshot was i make it home sweating bullets some 30 mins short of my planned run. this happened 3 or 4 times before it was sorted. perhaps this runner has been less fortunate? i mean, you'd think you'd try to find a discreet corner or something if there were time or no ulterior motive. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:16, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
i also remember photos of paula radcliffe taking in a shit by the side of the road during the london marathon. your prep and jiggling about when run does make it happen. if you keep doing it, you might need to reconsider your routine. AMassiveGay (talk) 20:23, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
This woman has done it at the same spot 3 times, so it's probably one of timing, revenge, or a political statement. Bongolian (talk) 03:21, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
"taking in a shit" Sometimes you just have to stop and take in the shits when you're in London, even in the middle of a marathon. It's all poo easy to get too wrapped up in what you're doing toilet yourself relax and see the city as a tourist would. 90.193.140.17 (talk) 13:40, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Poe's Law[edit]

I found this comment on a Facebook post criticizing sanctuary cities:

...And the liberals who are perpetrating it want nothing but chaos, anarchy, and free votes to further their perversion and twisted attempt at stealing the souls of American children through public schools. Teaching atheism, gender "fluidity" and brainwashing them into thinking evil white people are the reason for their failures and sorrows!

Is this real or a parody? —вιgℓʝвιgℓ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ/sᴛᴀʟᴋ) 10:01, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

By "real" I assume you mean this person believes the given statement to be true. Since we know it is not true, we can conclude that in this case the poster is either being dishonest, exposing their own ignorance about liberals, or both. Liberals generally support sanctuary cities but, like most Americans, are not anarchists, nor are they atheists; they are generally unaware of impractical gender fluidity concepts, and tend to be quite accepting of their ethnic circumstances. I'm surprised they left out molestation in the string of accusations, though "stealing souls" may be equivalent.Ariel31459 (talk) 15:19, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
They aren't all atheists, but they're a lot more likely to be than conservatives. Christopher (talk) 15:35, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes, but the percentage of democrats who claim to be atheists has been measured to be about 13%Ariel31459 (talk) 16:06, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

This video is absolutely horrifying![edit]

вιgℓʝвιgℓ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ/sᴛᴀʟᴋ) 23:29, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Horrifying? Life without Internet sounds better but with a few drawbacks.—(((CheeseburgerFace))) (talkstalk) 00:28, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
What of this wiki? For example, I find Conservapedia's existence worth it if it means we exist. —вιgℓʝвιgℓ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ/sᴛᴀʟᴋ) 00:43, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Things would have turned out better if we had stayed at the FTP/Usenet/BBS level. Allowing commercial activity on the Internet was the worst mistake we have a society have made since we decided to tolerate automobiles on public highways. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 14:16, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Allowing automobiles on public highways was a mistake? I'm not saying you're wrong, I just don't know why you say that. RoninMacbeth (talk) 15:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
If we did not tolerate the automobile, people would still use such things as trolleys and trains to get around. This in turn would be highly electrified and otherwise much more environmentally friendly. And while accidents would still happen, we wouldn't have the random carnage of constant car accidents. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 16:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
For freaks of Science as me, if the FTP/Usenet/BBS level you mention allowed to vist stuff as NASA sites and databases as NED or SIMBAD among others, little would have been lost (Hell, I remember to have ever used Lynx). Nonetheless, commercial activity I think that allowed it to blossom for the good, the bad, and the worse. It would have gone there sooner or later. Panzerfaust (talk) 23:21, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

i would probably be be dead without the internet. or living in essex. the horror, the horror AMassiveGay (talk) 09:06, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I would have never existed. My parents met on a chat room in '97. Surprisingly, it worked out well. —вιgℓʝвιgℓ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ/sᴛᴀʟᴋ) 18:22, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
In Texas, I got TWO WHOLE HOURS of sex education, by a really nervous gym teacher. Without the internet, I wouldn't have known how babies were made til I was 17 or 18. And without the internet, I'd be much less knowledgeable about anything, really. But the science I can learn for free makes the hate and the trolls worth it to me.Asaac Isimov (talk) 00:36, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
First, odd that this conversation has moved from if the internet never existed to sex ed. Second, how much of it was "Gawd will get mad if you aren't abstinent! No condoms! People who oppose us r da Satan! We do this to avoid paying for actual sex ed!"? —вιgℓʝвιgℓ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ/sᴛᴀʟᴋ) 18:50, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Well, if the internet never existed, I wouldn't have had ANY sex education. And the class was completely focused on how dangerous and scary sex is, so don't ever do it unless you're married. Nothing about condoms or safe sex, just gross pictures of STD's. So, if I never had any internet to teach me otherwise, I'd probably be clueless about it. And obviously it's not just sex ed. I thought the earth was only 6000 years old til I was 11, because a woman I loved and trusted taught me that. We'd all be far more ignorant if there was no internet, and people are really fucking ignorant already, so it could be far far worse.Asaac Isimov (talk) 22:59, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

This video is totally mindblowing[edit]

https://aaathats3as.com/files/commercial.webm—(((CheeseburgerFace))) (talkstalk) 00:28, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

404. Christopher (talk) 16:45, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Did you try removing the em dash, i.e. https://aaathats3as.com/files/commercial.webm ? —Kazitor, pending 23:33, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Simulation theory[edit]

One possibility is that they wouldn't have to program everything. All they'd have to program are the things observed by the conscious beings inside, as well as their consciousnesses. Assuming that there are no P-zombies, this would still be probable for a civilization advanced enough. Maybe nothing exists unless observed which would make this fully possible. Maybe the expansion of the universe is the simulation still loading everything. Beings invisible to the naked eye may only exist when seen. Maybe things only exist when viewed by a conscious being. And maybe everyone was programmed with a consciousness, and maybe only one of us was. —вιgℓʝвιgℓ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ/sᴛᴀʟᴋ) 15:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Simulation theory? Facepalm.png Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:40, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Yep, I'm opening up that discussion again. —вιgℓʝвιgℓ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ/sᴛᴀʟᴋ) 15:41, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough. Just make sure you get the garage door as well, while you're at it. Th hug.gif Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:47, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

In a nutshell[edit]

вιgℓʝвιgℓ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ/sᴛᴀʟᴋ) 15:43, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Ooh! A Kurzgesagt video always warrants discussion. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:47, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
The argument in the video is specious: there is no way to estimate the total number of simulated universes in a fixed real universe or, comparably, the number of real universes (which may be transfinite), existing in disjoint realities. Therefore, even in the event that all five unlikely assumptions were true, the conclusion that our reality is most likely simulated does not follow. Then there is the bait and switch fallacy in the argument: start by supposing some series of assumptions Y that if not impossible have very low probability of being true. Suppose that they are true. Now look at the remarkable logical consequences: it is now likely that X is true! Isn't that great! X is likely true! But, it is not likely if it depends upon unlikely antecedents. This very argument can also be used to show that existence is possible for dragons, ghosts, and even gods.Ariel31459 (talk) 18:02, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
It is in fact, a nerdy shutin version of teleological arguments for god(s)'s existence, in that it's very believable until you rigorously analyze the assumptions. Then you realize that the conclusion adds nothing but an unneeded layer of complexity and unnecessary assumptions to the null hypothesis. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:48, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Occam's Razor is of course the obvious answer to simulationism. There isn't any reason to accept it until it's needed to explain something that can't be otherwise explained. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 16:06, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Evangelicals are nerds[edit]

вιgℓʝвιgℓ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ/sᴛᴀʟᴋ) 18:26, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Um... that's long been a stereotype? And I don't much care for old stereotypes being trotted out as a clever "burn" on groups you don't like the opinions of. (Even though evangelicals are really fucking shitty) ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:12, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Rename[edit]

I feel like we should rename RationalWiki Atheism FAQ for the Newly Deconverted to "FAQ for the Newly Deconverted". Obviously a redirected would be left behind. What do you guys think? —вιgℓʝвιgℓ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ/sᴛᴀʟᴋ) 18:57, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Could you give your reasoning?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 20:19, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
This has been discussed before. As before, I suggest "FAQ for the Newly Deconverted" or "Atheism FAQ". Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 22:16, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
@FuzzyCatPotato That's the same reason I relocated it. The old title was just too long. —вιgℓʝвιgℓ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ/sᴛᴀʟᴋ) 23:06, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
There was no consensus for the change you were proposing in that previous discussion. Which is why it didn't happen then. What has changed?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 06:42, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I also support a rename. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 06:59, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

New RationalWiki Discord server[edit]

I've gone ahead and created a new Discord server (link also in sidebar). Apologies to @TheMyon. The server is set up such that users initially can only post in #lobby until they are added to @Sysop by another Sysop. (Since the link is public and this site is controversial, I went for the "authenticate before post" type of Discord.) Stay goaty! Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 16:01, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I'll bite. Zero (talk - contributions) 17:15, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Surge in Discord Activity[edit]

A noticeable increase in our activity on Discord has happened over the past few days. Why'd this happen? —вιgℓʝвιgℓ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ/sᴛᴀʟᴋ) 22:28, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Which Discord? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 22:40, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Mostly the second one. Why did a surge in interest that led to an official Discord server happen? —вιgℓʝвιgℓ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ/sᴛᴀʟᴋ) 22:42, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Conservapedia Domain[edit]

I had an idea on Discord. To show their "patriotism", should Conservapedia relocate to .us?

relocate to .us2Vote
stay at .com3Vote
give them all RationalMedia property and donations18Vote
let their domain registration expire3Vote

вιgℓʝвιgℓ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ/sᴛᴀʟᴋ) 02:53, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Update: I now support the idea of letting their domain registration expire. —вιgℓʝвιgℓ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ/sᴛᴀʟᴋ) 03:16, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Plagiarism? —Kazitor, pending 03:52, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Made a strawpoll: http://www.strawpoll.me/13997315👌︎♓︎♑︎●︎&︎♌︎♓︎♑︎●︎ (⧫︎♋︎●︎&︎/⬧︎⧫︎♋︎●︎&︎) 04:47, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I definitely did not (subversively) add another item to this poll. —Kazitor, pending 12:04, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Puerto Rico[edit]

Should Puerto Rico choose statehood, independence, or the status quo? —вιgℓʝвιgℓ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ/sᴛᴀʟᴋ) 22:36, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

The 2012 referendum (the 2017 one was bullshit) seems to indicate most puertorriqueños would like statehood. From what I've heard it would help them a lot economically, but I am in no means an expert. -Xbony2 (talk) 00:21, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Personally, I support them becoming their own independent country because there exists a substantial cultural and historical difference, not to mention the language barrier. It's true the majority of them support statehood, but that's mainly because they stand to benefit, but wouldn't most other Caribbean nations jump at that opportunity if presented with it? I would rather keep the USA how it is in terms of statehood, except for DC which needs to become a state already. PB3 (talk) 19:12, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Remember the world ends tomorrow.[edit]

As reported in multiple reliable sites, planet Nibiru (AKA planet X) will destroy the Earth tomorrow. I hope that everyone is out partying tonight.

I have sent the last few days paying off all my creditors with rubber cheques so that at least they will die happy. Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 19:53, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, this is undoubtedly a by-product of NASA's unholy intervention in the astrological zodiac, the August eclipse, which was a Satanic omen, and Cassini's plunge, which angered the floater civilization of Saturn which led them to declare war on Earth and fling Nibiru at us. REPENT SINNERS!!! THE END IS NEAR!!!!!!!!!1@!&! --TeslaK20 (talk) 19:58, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
This is just silly. Everyone knows that the Earth is flat and that the planets are just tiny things. There is nothing to worry about.193.152.32.194 (talk) 20:26, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Nope, this is Cassini's revenge. She has merged with Saturn becoming a sort of space goddess (damn, I was expecting she'd become something far more friendly and small) and is coming here to teach us a lesson after over-exploiting her those twenty years plus that fiery death of last Friday.Panzerfaust (talk) 21:42, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
You forgot to mention those who claim the Rapture will too happen tomorrow (See post above. I wonder what was about Jesus' commenting that God only knows when that will happen, as well as the nasty fate that awaits that kind of prophets). Shit, shit, shit, and I have not given him the good smack a bastard I know well deserves. Maybe in the afterlife. Panzerfaust (talk) 20:51, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
"The world may end tomorrow, but I wasn't born yesterday." - Peppermint Patty Cms13ca (talk) 21:23, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Not mentioned here - and will 'Now' be sent to the 'Apocalypse Retirement Home.'
I warned you all of the new cabal's might! Join us or be destroyed! —вιgℓʝвιgℓ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ/sᴛᴀʟᴋ) 22:06, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Might as well celebrate Bilbo and Frodo Baggins' joint birthday instead. Anna Livia (talk) 21:26, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm volunteering at a mental-health-hospital fundraiser run tomorrow. D'you think that dying while doing charity work will boost my chances of getting into the Great saloon in the sky? 74.12.59.224 (talk) 02:03, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Since I appear to still be alive, it must a a last-Saturdayism conspiracy! Bongolian (talk) 18:47, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Damn it! Just as I figure out how to become a lich, the world decides to end? I was, like, halfway done with my phylactery too! RoninMacbeth (talk) 18:54, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Still hasn't ended. (Who was it who said that the world had ended but nobody had noticed?)
Remember, dear children, every time someone utters an 'end of the world prediction' some part of the multiverse dies - usually inhabited by 'sweet little creatures' rather than 'the ravening hordes of dimensional-hopping vampire-zombie-shapechanger-sheeples' Anna Livia (talk) 21:39, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Now that even in US is September 24, is everything fine there?. You know how, according to the movies, those things happen just in US -the rest of the world does not exist, except as a source of bad guys or a pretty much alien place-. This sucks: no Nibiru -just a beautiful crescent moon- or Cassini transformed in space goddess looking for revenge, and no Rapture -most likely nobody passed the cut, being up there sick of fake prophets and their BS-. Panzerfaust (talk) 08:11, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Maybe the rapture did happen - but there were so few True Christians that nobody has noticed yet.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 12:55, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Here are the traits to being a True Christian™
Of course, the Conservapedia sysops weren't raptured because we will need them in order to survive the apocalypse. —👌︎♓︎♑︎●︎&︎♌︎♓︎♑︎●︎ (⧫︎♋︎●︎&︎/⬧︎⧫︎♋︎●︎&︎) 15:26, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Having sex with many people[edit]

If you can have sex with whoever you want, and you can do it safely, what would be stopping it? Is there any hazard of porking as much as you want from the rational or scientific basis, aside from the moral ones? Also, is the answer here same with every genders? Dogeatsdog (talk) 05:17, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Assuming you could, you could. But I wouldn't assume all that. I mean, ever heard of an STD? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 06:32, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
If the other partner can give and has given informed consent and you've be upfront about STDs you know or suspect you might have and you are reasonably protected...then no...why would there be a limit? Is there a limit to how many times you can go for a jog with someone or play twister with someone or share a milkshake with someone? The only barriers to doing so safely are consent, protection and information about STD risk. 87.218.199.59 (talk) 08:41, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
i am always amused by such questions. they are nearly always posed by heteros. if you are gay, you can, and you do. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:25, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
We know what is stopping the MGTOWs :)
There is a distinction between 'sleeping with many people' and 'sleeping with as many people #as you want to#' (and preferring quality/following one particular route to quantity). 14:40, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Personal and social expectations do not always reflect reality in the merest detail. Some of the consequences of sex are the perceived consequences in sex. You cannot anesthetize something so culturally important of its cultural implications just by saying we should. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:10, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

What I had in my mind was kind of peculiar situation, sure...there's this girl I've heard of, she is sort of twitter famous in where I live (not the US). She is anonymous on twitter, but declares herself all available for fucking with anybody from top five universities in the country, who approach her through personal connections. She fucks a lot with them, and tweets every detail about sex. Almost all the university students here who are informed of subculture know her for this. Why she does this I don't know. She maintains that it's her fetish to sleep with smart persons. But regarding the dangers of diseases, I guess she made conscious decision to pick people from higher-end universities, as I'd assume it's not stretch to think, statistically people from top-ranked universities are less undisciplined in regard to this matter. And then she markets herself as a forerunner of some sort of norm entrepreneur for the women of new generations who don't give a damn about social expectations (in regards to sex). I can totally see what you guys are saying, it may be unreasonable to assume "perfect" scenario without dangers of STDs or concerns of social implications is possible for everybody, yet for this girl, it seems she somehow managed to actualize that. Dogeatsdog (talk) 16:03, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

im not entirely sure what your point is here. if she were a man, he'd be getting high fives. if she were gay man, it would be 'meh'. it seems rather obvious and non controversial to assume that the more partners you have the higher your risk of STDs. I dont know your locale, but in the western world, non of this is remarkable, except maybe believing uni students are 'less undisciplined' with their sexual health. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:05, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
No I completely agree with you. My point was me asking myself, if I was her would I do it? Would I sleep with unspecified numbers of large people? Initially I was thinking, why not. It's super inconsequential little thing that now I feel embarrassed I made you confused and somebody bashes me. My bad :/ Dogeatsdog (talk) 03:17, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
STDs are overstated in their overall risk, they are almost 100% stigma. Most people have some kinda of herpes but genital herpes is this awful incurable disease you can't live down*? If I could universally change a behavior regarding disease risk in young women "for their own good", I'd probably choose universal handwashing over increased chastity. High promiscuity is not a public health concern.
*please don't take this as excusing anyone who'd knowingly expose another person to a specific disease they don't know they have ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:08, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Can I get a source for this? I might use...one day...Dogeatsdog (talk) 03:20, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
ikanreed understates the risks. i will agree the risks are overstasted, they are not to the degree that they make out, nor are all STDs as relatively innocuous as herpes. the clap, syphilis, hepatitis, HIV - these are not things you want or can easilty laugh off. the risk will vary depending on your location, demographics, sexual behaviour, sexual preferences, etc. if you are sexually active it is advisable to checked out every 6 months. fortunately, all of these are curable these days (unless you are unlucky and get a drug resistant strain) except for HIV and even that is no longer a death sentence. these are all avoidable with vaccines, prep, and condoms. AMassiveGay (talk) 23:05, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
You know what else can fucking kill you? Salmonella or typhoid. Wash your goddamn hands. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 01:02, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
they can but i thought we were discussing STDs and the relative risks of promiscuity. i am a big believer in if you are going to do something, you should know the risks. the amount of people i know with salmonella or typhoid? 0. the amount of people i know with HIV? far, far too many. i got my own diagnosis last year. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:41, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Well, I gotta admit, as far as arguments from personal experience go, that's a pretty difficult one to answer in any way that isn't completely unempathetic and tone deaf. So I have to acknowledge your point's underlying validity. There are real risks. They exist and can be devastating.
On the other hand, I still say no, really wash your hands ~500,000 children under 5 die every year from insufficient hand sanitation ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:08, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
i shouldnt worry too much, i am fortunate enough to have access to medication via the NHS. i wont get ill, i wont get AIDS, and i'm not infectious. its not really that big a deal. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:28, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Poe's Law Again[edit]

Is Trump's rant against the kneelers of the NFL and NBA an example of Poe's Law or just stupidity? Trump and the Trumpettes have whined about Political Correctness for years, but it seems it was only the PC of the left that concerned them. PC of the right seems to be not only approved but encouraged viz. Colin Kapernik and the call to sack anyone in the NFL who doesn't worship the Amurcan flag. Wodenoz (talk) 01:43, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Trump doesn't seem to understand that the NFL can't legally enforce patriotism. —ѕυρяємє ℓєα∂єя вιgℓʝвιgℓ σf gσαтιѕтαи (ωσя∂ѕ σf ωιѕ∂σм/α¢нιєνємєитѕ) 02:05, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
I think they genuinely believe in this double standard. We have an entire article called Right-wing political correctness. Or, Trump is just an attention-seeking Neo-Nazi apologist, there's always that. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 02:06, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Thoughts on Star Trek: Discovery[edit]

Can I talk about Star Trek here? Who cares, I will anyways. So I decided that I would take a look at the latest installment of Star Trek. I consider myself a huge fan of the original series and Next Generation. Therefore, I wanted to see what they would do with a new tv adaptation. I was disappointed by the recent film reboots (especially Into Darkness), but I thought that a tv show would probably not have as much action. With that in mind, I was looking forward to discovery. That was until I saw the Klingon redesign, after which I became very pessimistic. I wanted to keep an open mind though, so I watched the reboot as soon as I could, and I have to say that I don't hate it. I don't necessarily love it either; the script was clearly written by someone who understood Star Trek, but I couldn't shake the sense that it felt like an above average fan fiction. I noticed a few things that slightly contradicted previously established canon apart from the aforementioned change to the Klingons, but none of it was severe enough to significantly impact my enjoyment. Visually, it looked very modern, heavy CGI and very sharp image quality, personally I would prefer a more "retro" look, but I can't complain. Overall, I'm a bit dismayed to say that I don't really know what to think about it. To some degree, the pilot episode has to serve a very different purpose from the rest of the show. I'm curious to see what they will do with the mid-season episodes, and how those will play out compared to prior series. Samstr (talk) 03:18, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I wanted to like it. The production values were high. Initially the captain and the commander (Martin and Yeoh) presented tedious dialog and lackluster performances in the desert scenes and wan moods on the ship's bridge. The Klingons are presented artlessly, as rigid, hand-carved and wooden characters. The character, Lt. Saru, appeared to be an emotional wreck. Still, I want to keep watching. I hope they all can do better.Ariel31459 (talk) 14:43, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
I watched it and so far, I frankly prefer The Orville, the Seth MacFarlane parody. The Orville has a much more interesting premise: what would life be like in the Trek utopia for people who are ordinary messed-up schlubs rather than omnicompetent paragons. But it looks like ST:D will be an ordinary space war story with Klingons, whose redesign does not impress me. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 16:25, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Are those things Klingons? (and where and when does it take place? -alternate timeline, post-Picard era...) Panzerfaust (talk) 21:44, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
It's supposed to take place before TOS. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 21:51, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Ten years before TOS, specifically. RoninMacbeth (talk) 21:53, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
I see. Did not even know of its existence until it was brought here. I hope at least the ship designs will be TOS era-like (Klingon D7s, Constitution-class...) and that Romulans will be respected too. Panzerfaust (talk) 22:17, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Squirrels rule the world![edit]

ѕυρяємє ℓєα∂єя вιgℓʝвιgℓ σf gσαтιѕтαи (ωσя∂ѕ σf ωιѕ∂σм/α¢нιєνємєитѕ) 03:28, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

ok, we get it. you watch rick and morty. knock it on the head now. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:32, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Also, I tend to fall behind, since it comes on at 11:30PM before Monday. I'd appreciate not scrolling across the spoilers.Teurastaja (talk) 15:16, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Can you help me classify this?[edit]

I want to put some information into the biblical contradictions page but I'm not sure if they A) qualify as contradictions and B) where to put them. For instance, the Bible says that Jesus went alone into the garden of Gethsemane to pray, and that the disciples fell asleep. But if the disciples were asleep and Jesus was alone, how can the Bible have recorded Jesus's words? It couldn't have. In Mark, the author tells us that the women found an empty tomb and, "Being afraid, the women ran away from the place and told no one of what they had seen". Clearly though, for Mark to be able to tell us this, the women had to have told someone.

Thanks. Koi "dammit Koi stop making such long sigs!" development 13:30, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

So, you have discovered third person story telling? It has been known and discussed for some time now. No one was there when God created the universe. How do we know that he/she/it did that? Maybe it was Xenu.Ariel31459 (talk) 14:47, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
In point of fact all the New Testament is full of this problem. And the OT as well obviously, but people tend to believe that Jesus is really quoted in the NT.
But in fact every time we are told that "Jesus said X" it's an obvious invention. Nobody was taking notes. His "words" are just what some anonymous author thought would go well with the story they were selling. Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 17:23, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Just like the part where Jesus is with Pilatus and none of his disciples are with him. Panzerfaust (talk) 22:21, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

North Korea[edit]

I'm tired of that sociopathic manboy ruling over that gigantic cult of personality masquerading as a country. —вιgℓʝвιgℓ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ/sᴛᴀʟᴋ) 20:38, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

yeh, hes almost as bad as that kim fella, boom tish AMassiveGay (talk) 20:55, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
If you're trying to compare Trump to Kim, that ain't funny. —вιgℓʝвιgℓ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ/sᴛᴀʟᴋ) 23:09, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
yeh it is. in a corny and obvious fashion. AMassiveGay (talk) 01:45, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm just hoping the US doesn't fuck it up even more, and install somebody worse.'Legionwhat do you want from me 23:53, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
its probably not helping that everyword out of trumps mouth ramps up the tension. its as if continually threatening a country with annihilation doesnt make a country feel secure. and it certainly doesnt help that diplomatic avenues are hamstrung by the us showing cannot trusted to keep its own word. what a cunt. AMassiveGay (talk) 01:45, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
If we overthrow Kim, nobody will be installed. That's because it's so unstable that nobody can be installed as leader. The entire country will probably just descend into a massive civil war. Also, China will be really mad at us. —вιgℓʝвιgℓ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ/sᴛᴀʟᴋ) 09:47, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Schumer figured out all Trump really wants is a homeboy to hang with and (pretend to) think he's cool. Why can't Trump figure out what Kim wants? Seriously. There must be something other than mass destruction that would satisfy the little dude. Leuders (talk) 13:09, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Another complaint is that if Kim is overthrown and unified with South Korea, the latter would have to face a whole lot of refugees fleeing to it, plus the rebuilding/upgrading of North Korean infrastructures. Not to mention that even if all the NK echelons were purged of symphatizers of the old regime (dubious, since it's quite likely guerrilla/terrorist groups and the like would pop up) would remain, and I suspect that not few. Panzerfaust (talk) 13:36, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Trump and Kim despite being the pinnacles of insanity understand that the consequences of using the military option. They both know what will happen if either country uses its nukes. It is destruction on an unimaginable scale, which would be much then the destruction of Kim's regime and the lives of millions of people. S.H. DeLong (talk) 22:14, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Do they though? i am sure Kim knows North Korea would be annihilated. I am sure Trump knows this. But the US? it would not even be mildly inconvenienced. My fear is that millions of dead asians would be an acceptable price to pay so trump can look tough. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:12, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
The issue is not that contest between Trump and Kim to see who is the most macho. The issue are the consequences if they went beyond that -China and Russia would not like at all it, even if Kim was the one who started it and the US reaction was self-defence- (EDIT. Both more than likely know that the one to blame would be the first to push the nuclear button and know the reaction of the one at the receiving end would be just self-defence. That probably plays an important part, even if it depends of Kim believing all that Juche BS -Trump... well-). Panzerfaust (talk) 13:35, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Kim wouldn't start anything, that's my view. I don't know if I share this perception with anybody here but I'm seeing Kim as basically a proxy of China, albeit a berserk one. Obviously China doesn't want nuclear war that annihilates its buffer zone between US military influence. Long story short, it mostly comes down to Trump and his temperament. Dogeatsdog (talk) 17:10, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
i dont think the risk is anyone starting anything, its the risk that all bluster will be mkistaken for an imminent attack AMassiveGay (talk) 18:14, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Mattis has a blank check. They keep flying the B-2s closer and closer to the border. Looks like they're trying to set up an "incident." South Korean Special Ops would handle all the ground troop infiltration on Chinooks in a 'de-capitation' exercise. Here's the thing: After extensive training and moving forces in place, there's a limit to the time you can keep those same forces at peak readiness. nobsAloha Snackbar 03:52, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Alien bases of Titan, where the Huygens probe landed.[edit]

Have fun, as well as with other entries there. The Titan article was lacking in woo, so you can guess where will go this. Panzerfaust (talk) 21:08, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Enlighten my ignorance - is it merely pixilated? Anna Livia (talk) 22:21, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
According to them those boxy pixels -very probably the result of overblowing a picture- are the alien buildings, and as for the image where they appear they misinterpret them -it's an image of Titan taken with Cassini's cameras using an infrared filter to penetrate the haze that covers its surface, with the expanded inset showing where the Huygens probe would later land-. The thing is, the "alien bases" should be quite huge (kilometers, maybe), and I don't know of any picture of Titan taken by Cassini where shadows appear, pobably due to the effects of its atmosphere.
Cassini studied also in later flybys said area with the help of its radar, and said radar images show nothing. Panzerfaust (talk) 22:42, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
OMG. The Man In The Moon is loaded with alien bases! Leuders (talk) 17:27, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Assuming 'Titivillus shuffling the pixels' is always more likely than aliensdidit. And given how long the Cassini mission was running around Saturn and its moons any Titanics capable of constructing buildings would have found some means of making initial contact/showing that they were there. Anna Livia (talk) 16:25, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Looking for patterns that match whatever you want and/or simply photoshopping the picture (as I suspect of Hoagland), as hopefully for them nobody will go to any NASA site looking for the original one to compare both. Also many years ago, I remember how in a science forum someone was claiming -as usual- that NASA was hiding stuff found on the Moon, using as proof a mosaic of the Moon's near side taken by the Clementine probe, I think, that had some black squares in some areas. The quirk is the black squares occupied an area of hundreds of km2 and anyone with an amateur telescope could see what was there -scale is pretty much ignored-. And it's not the worst I've ever seen. Panzerfaust (talk) 22:15, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
People have been observing the Moon and its surrounding areas for 'about 10 000 years' (and using astrolabes, telescopes and other sky-observing devices for several hundred years) and have not observed 'weird black square shapes (whether or not monoliths waiting to communicate with something/someone unknown in order to summon a star child) - therefore the commentators are 'somewhat pixilated'.
Titanics is the most obvious name for inhabitants. Anna Livia (talk) 09:39, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Long history short, people who claim that BS of alien bases and whatever hidden on space images, from NASA or not, either have no sense of scale or have not looked at the sky in their lives (and when "looking at the sky", I'm referring not only to look through a telescope). Same for those of "Planet X/Nibiru/whatever is coming".
Never mind, they'll say telescope manufacturers, amateur astronomers, whatever are conspiring with NASA and/or governs to hide the truth, even if you can build a telescope from scratch (now, knowing where to point it is another topic. Nah, they'll say astronomical books/programs/whatever are hiding the truth too) Panzerfaust (talk) 13:23, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
But all these people can't be wrong/hiding the truth/mindwarped.
There is a saying that military actions always occur on the boundaries between two (or even several) maps: to what extent are the most interesting bits of astronomical research always found on the most pixilated/blurred areas?
And to what extent is there a direct relationship between 'wrongness of the idea' and the more fixed the proponent is to them? (This will include some of the 'overtaken by developments' concepts') Anna Livia (talk) 15:55, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
To the first: very little, if any, and the stuff found in the equivalent is either ignored or comes with large error bars in the papers. As for the second, looks that there's a correlation -see Fundies-. Panzerfaust (talk) 23:21, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

1000 RU articles[edit]

I just checked it, and the Russian RationalWiki has 1000 articles. So yay for them. -Xbony2 (talk) 01:53, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Поздравляю? (Yes, I used Google Translate) —ѕυρяємє ℓєα∂єя вιgℓʝвιgℓ σf gσαтιѕтαи (ωσя∂ѕ σf ωιѕ∂σм/α¢нιєνємєитѕ) 02:09, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
ROCK AND ROLL RUSSIAN BROTHERS!!! ShabiDOO 21:39, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Say, that is impressive. Does anyone know about how many editors work on those pages? Are the pages mostly based on translations of English RW articles? Bongolian (talk) 17:33, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Puerto Rico Disaster.[edit]

This is a general call to all American readers: Please call your Federal representatives and urge them to expedite Federal Disaster aid to Puerto Rico. PR has the same rights to FEMA assistance as do Florida and Texas. The Commonwealth status of PR does weaken their ability to obtain sufficient Federal disaster aid.Ariel31459 (talk) 20:01, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

General call to Trump. If you piss off Puerto Rico, they WILL try to secede from the US, and you WILL be remembered as the first president in history to ever lose a chunk of American territory. No, the Phillipines doesn't count, we never annexed it nor gave its people automatic citizenship. CorruptUser (talk) 06:34, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
i can see it now - trump, the first president to get rid of that debt ridden rock. truly the greatest of statesman. and his golf course there tanked. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:19, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
It is disturbing to consider that the total disaster in PR may well cause the real estate market there to collapse. This would be a delight to the real-estate moguls.Ariel31459 (talk) 23:32, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia letting women drive[edit]

I'm not really sure how to react to this, or rather how people as a whole should be reacting. Don't get me wrong, it's good that they're finally at least opening up to the idea that women actually are people too, but how should they be treated for doing so? On one hand there's the "heyyyy, well done Saudi Arabia, good on you for doing such a good thing!" reaction that some people seem to be having, but I just can't feel that or express that. The rights they deny are so basic that them instituting them should be seen as "fucking finally, you prick". If you'll forgive the stupid analogy, if someone kicks their dog in the face every morning as they leave for work, then one day make an announcement that they're going to stop doing that, you wouldn't congratulate them for finally behaving like a decent human being. On the OTHER hand, if you don't react with SOME positiveness to the news, they might become jaded and resentful and reluctant to continue doing so on the future. So what should the international community's overall response be? X Stickman (talk) 01:11, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

A mix of both, I guess. Applaud them for this first step, while reminding everyone that it's still only a first step. RoninMacbeth (talk) 01:14, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Welcome to the 20th century! —ѕυρяємє ℓєα∂єя вιgℓʝвιgℓ σf gσαтιѕтαи (ωσя∂ѕ σf ωιѕ∂σм/α¢нιєνємєитѕ) 01:44, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Arabic twitter has been hilarious/cringe (depending on your perspective) since this was announced. Common themes were: "The country is giving into Western influences and shirk," "[Shias/Jews/Desis] are responsible," "Allah will punish us for allowing what is wrong," and "This is a slippery slope to homosexuality/secularism/shirk/etc." Shirk literally means polytheism but it is used to mean un-Islamic religious beliefs and practices in general, hard to translate so I left it there. Lord Aeonian (talk) 04:01, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

WOMEN DRIVING?!?!!1!!!1! How dare they, when it's clear that women are subordinate to men?!? Once you let women drive, soon, everyone's gay! Am I the only one able to see this for what it is? —Kazitor, pending 05:35, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
my mother drives. my father, despite manyh a failed attempt, did not. i like cock. coincidence? AMassiveGay (talk) 17:21, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Or maybe we should butt out of Saudi Arabia's internal affairs? And that constantly mocking the Saudis about these things only causes them to get defensive about what even they subconsciously know are backwards practices but are their practices and so mockery is counterproductive? CorruptUser (talk) 05:32, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Saying that what they've done is only a start is not the same thing as mockery. RoninMacbeth (talk) 05:35, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Re-read half the comments on this thread, a lot of it is quite condescending. CorruptUser (talk) 05:38, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
we could maybe butt out of their affairs but that might mean less arms deals. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:16, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia outlawed slavery a cool 99 years after Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation (1863). Whatever you say about those guys, say it from a safe distance.Ariel31459 (talk) 18:36, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Without a doubt, this is an absolute earth quake in terms of Saudi attitudes to women and modernization. Hopefully they can keep their foot in the door. Gulf countries are known to backslide and quietly revoke progressive laws. I think everyone should be happy for women, the tiny but meaningful amount of autonomy they have gained...as well as hope. ShabiDOO 22:39, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

What is the general cenusus on support of women driving on Arabic Twitter? (Sorry for no reply I'm on mobile) ShiningSwordofThoughts (talk)

The Opposition[edit]

Jordan Klepper has made a really funny parody of the alt-right media. Chat about it here. Personally, I think he does a pretty good job. —ѕυρяємє ℓєα∂єя вιgℓʝвιgℓ σf gσαтιѕтαи (ωσя∂ѕ σf ωιѕ∂σм/α¢нιєνємєитѕ) 03:45, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

A link would help. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 18:25, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Just a thought about the term "alt-right." It refers to a new movement on the American Right that strongly interacts with fringe and digital media. Many long years of liberal and progressive campaigning against "far-right" ideas has led to the general disapproval of the so-called right wing. It seems to me that "alt-right" is just a substitute for "new-and-improved-right." It is just a conman's buzzword for the same old far-right, a term I prefer to use.Ariel31459 (talk) 19:42, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

In a few ways, I can't help but feel like this decade is some sick parody of the '00s. Now the right-wing is seen as the scrappy undergog and we are the "establishment." The hell happened? RoninMacbeth (talk) 22:46, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
@Smerdis of Tlön http://www.cc.com/episodes/by4a8d/the-opposition-with-jordan-klepper-september-25--2017---kurt-andersen-season-1-ep-1001ѕυρяємє ℓєα∂єя вιgℓʝвιgℓ σf gσαтιѕтαи (ωσя∂ѕ σf ωιѕ∂σм/α¢нιєνємєитѕ) 23:18, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 16:14, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Got a Praguer U ad on YouTube[edit]

It was about how Isreal doesn't practice segregation. I skipped it after 3 seconds,but want to hear it masterfully debunked. ShiningSwordofThoughts (talk)

Please for the love of god no more fucking Zionism arguments I think we've had enough.'Legionwhat do you want from me 18:36, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
I have an alternate solution to your predicament ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:16, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
AdBlocker. Learn it. Love it. KevinR1990 (talk) 16:54, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
My statement was more at legion being tired of people rightly pointing out that Israel is an apartheid state, then that kinda obvious point devolving rapidly into semantics where neither side is right. Don't look at those conversations. But yes, adblock everything, fifth avenue should burn. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:12, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm not at all tired of people pointing out this fact, I support BDS, and am vehemently pro-Palestine, I just have an issue with people talking about it here, because I don't want the site to descend into more articles about Israel, leading to more drama, coops, and bans.'Legionwhat do you want from me 19:36, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Roy Moore wins GOP Alabama primary!![edit]

Well this country is becoming more insane by the day, now that a openly theocratic politician will be serving in the US Senate!! S.H. DeLong (talk) 17:57, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Also If you think I am wrong, look at the recent polls! Moore is ahead by nearly 16 points, the Democrats don't have a chance to win in Alabama. S.H. DeLong (talk) 18:06, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Hey, at some point the cancer that is republican ideology will metastasize and the conservative ideology will utterly destroy america's ability to maintain empire no matter what percentage of our GDP goes into military. Then we can complete the decay into a feudal state while laying the groundwork that will eventually allow a revolution into a less shitty country. Too bad about all the nazis we'll vote in who'll scapegoat minorities in more direct and destructive ways first. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:39, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
I, for one, eagerly look forward to the revolution that makes USA a Marxist state so it can become the latest in a long line of failures. It will mean they can no longer pour money to the theocrats you dogs love to defend when they're in other countries, but don't seem to like when they get elected in your own. And best of all, perhaps a Marxist America will...take care of antifa and the other leftists, like the Bolsheviks did after the civil war ;) Lord Aeonian (talk) 16:24, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes, yes, Aeonian remains a fucking moron whose ideology is directly responsible for the rapid deterioration we're seeing right fucking now, while smugly blaming entirely hypothetical future communists for the completely retarded course he's still dead-set on, despite copious evidence. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:48, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
What is the point of your sarcasm Lord Aeonian? None of us shall live long enough to see a Marxist state in North America. Also, what good does it do to suppose everyone reading your rant apologizes for theocrats? I, for one, do not. Additionally, those freaking out about Moore should remember he was elected in Alabama. The people down there have not changed. They have always really liked this guy. South Alabama is called the Redneck Riviera. If you didn't know, The Supreme Court Chief Justice (his old job) is elected in Alabama.Ariel31459 (talk) 00:00, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
I agree with both you and Ikanreed, in that a Marxist revolution is a laughable thought. My point was it isn't desirable at all, not that it will happen. Now, what would be desirable for places like Alabama would be a state which explicitly disavows religious belief and does its best to combat it through simple things like better education and taxing religious institutions to make their existences harder. I'd say a good 30 years of solid critical thinking education with some obvious nudges to religious applications would make your "Bible Belt" a much better place. But, you see, people like Ikanreed are strictly opposed to state anti-theism, for reasons such as it is "authoritarian" (poor excuse for a leftist, I agree) and I forgot the others they listed. So I'm just reminding certain people that they shouldn't be upset when theists do as theists will do if they find any attempts to stop them deplorable. :) Lord Aeonian (talk) 05:17, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

How did this go from "bigoted GOPer wins seat" to "revolution now / you're all communists" so quickly? Find out today on Internet Forum Daily! αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 04:25, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I didn't say "revolution now" I said that this shit will eventually deteriorate until the united states is nothing. Fuck your accidental apologia for Aeonian being such a goddamn worthless shithead by pretending I provoked him. And I know I shouldn't be rude to you just because you're trying to be civil, but fuck that; don't buy into his schtick. Fuzzy, you're not this dumb. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:26, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
@Ikanreed Are you doing alright, more generally? 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 01:47, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Someone who knows psychology look this over[edit]

Someone made an edit on the page "Jordan B. Peterson". They added a bunch of citations on how gender differences are true.

ClickerClock (talk) 07:29, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

There is a very strong case that significant differences are detectable, e.g., in mathematics women are better at calculation while men tend to be better at word problems. The Elizabeth Spelke, Steven Pinker debate is instructive if you have a couple of hours to review it. Certainly there is no reason to conclude that men are superior to women in intellectual abilities. They do seem to be somewhat different.Ariel31459 (talk) 14:40, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
We have need an equivalent to racialism for gender differences for some time now. In this case, unlike racialism, there's pretty good evidence for gender differences but not superiority. That said, in turn, these differences are usually not so large or so important as our reactionary friends would have us believe. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 15:07, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
So here's why the instant revert by CB was okay: there are measurable gender differences in a number of areas, but the biological determinism aspects that Peterson ascribes them to have never, ever been validated in any sort of remotely scientific way, and the citations provided don't even begin to properly support it. Magical thinking underlies a lot of sexist ideology. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:29, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
At the end of the day, all valid psychological generalizations are a result of statistical studies, not ideology. When similar statistical differences appear over many different cultures, the weaker argument is nurture. Statistics can not tell us what is true, only what is likely.Ariel31459 (talk) 16:31, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Unemployment rate[edit]

Doesn’t count a huge portion that most people would consider unemployed. Adam Ruins Everything - Why the "Unemployment Rate" is Flawedℓσωℓу ѕуѕσρ вιgℓʝвιgℓ σf gσαтιѕтαи (ωσя∂ѕ σf ωιѕ∂σм/α¢нιєνємєитѕ) 16:50, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Let me preface this with: I am a tremendous partisan. That's relevant, because the line you've regurgitated is one that has been in use for decades every time an out-of-power party wants to criticize a recovering economy. take a look at this wikipedia graph. It pretty clearly shows how well the various measures track to each other, including the green "official" number. If we have a long-term economic problem, it's not really unemployment, it's conservative ideology. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:28, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
@Ikanreed: He's not entirely wrong. Unemployment is a somewhat flawed method of tracking economic health. However, it is still a very useful method of tracking economic health. Every economic model is flawed, but more often than not the flaws do not outweigh the benefits the models serve. RoninMacbeth (talk) 00:10, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Not to mention the fact that the only type of unemployment that is considered bad per se is cyclical unemployment. RoninMacbeth (talk) 00:12, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

ObamaCare Repeal Failed[edit]

The "last resort" failed...again. So yeah, prepare for the "last resort but it's really the last resort unless we decide to do this a fourth time" bill. #Medicare4All —ѕυρяємє ℓєα∂єя вιgℓʝвιgℓ σf gσαтιѕтαи (ωσя∂ѕ σf ωιѕ∂σм/α¢нιєνємєитѕ) 03:03, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

So, the Trump Republicans fail. Oh, yeah! That's good! -- Bryan See (talk) 08:10, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
What we need is for Bernie Sanders to call his bill "T.R.U.M.P. care", just to see if it works - David Gerard (talk) 09:49, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes, the acronym could be Try Repeal Unless Millions Protest. Leuders (talk) 15:15, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
it strikes me as pretty disgusting that, not that they want to get rid of obamacare, but they want get rid of it with absolutely NOTHING to replace it or in fact, any idea of what to replace it with. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:14, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
We should replace ObamaCare with the United States National Health Care Act. —ѕυρяємє ℓєα∂єя вιgℓʝвιgℓ σf gσαтιѕтαи (ωσя∂ѕ σf ωιѕ∂σм/α¢нιєνємєитѕ) 20:24, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Universal healthcare is never a bad thing, despite all libertarian and the like BS. Panzerfaust (talk) 13:12, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

'Cuba Syndrome'[edit]

Should there be a RW article on this affliction of US persons there? Anna Livia (talk) 17:29, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

It may be hard to address at this point due to there not being much consensus about what's going on & the diversity of symptoms. However, there is some indication that it could be infrasound, and our page covers the infrasound-as-weapon idea. The page could be expanded with what is known from Cuba. Bongolian (talk) 23:48, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
As it is 'a proclaimed phenomenon' (which is not the same as 'an actual phenomenon') perhaps there could be a passing mention on the infrasound page by 'the proverbial someone who knows more about the subject.' Anna Livia (talk) 09:26, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Waco Mini-series[edit]

So apparently the Paramount Network is set to release a mini-series on the Waco siege in 2018. Thoughts? RoninMacbeth (talk) 15:27, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Wait and see if it's any good or not is my first thought. Any news on who is writing and directing it? You might get an idea what it could be like if you look at their other work. Nudescendant (talk) 17:21, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
It's created by the same people who directed Devil and As Above, So Below. Not looking too good so far. RoninMacbeth (talk) 20:00, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
As Above, So Below gets a bit of a kicking on metactritic.[6] "It's clear from the start that Dowdle isn't taking any of this seriously. The same cannot be said for the game and luckless cast of young actors, who are so whiny and hysterical right from the start of their plunge into the tombs that they win hearty unintentional laughs throughout." The prospects don't look great, do they? Nudescendant (talk) 08:14, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

HIV/AIDS death rates in the us[edit]

A jolly topic, i know.

To put it bluntly, i am a fantastically lucky chap, even if this is not immediately apparent to the casual observer. by all rights, all, the many poor life choices that i have made and continue to make, i should have been dead in a ditch years ago. ive been lucky to have loving supportive parents. ive never been rich, but ive never been hungry. ive always had clothes on my back. ive been lucky enough to have the opportunity of education (squandered, but i still had the opportunity). ive been lucky enough to have friends and family who have kept me from sleeping rough and starving when things have gone tits up. ive been lucky enough to be born in the uk so i have access to a state safety net when things go wrong (its not great,i am sure other places do better, but i get by). and finally, i have been blessed with rude health. i have never been ill. the most ill i been was my appendix bursting. that lasted less than a week, and i was lucky enough to have access to the NHS. (later i was lucky enough to get to know the nurse who looked after me, but thats another story). i mentioned elsewhere that i was diagnosed with HIV last year. this exemplifies my good luck. not too long ago this would be a death sentence. at the least it would mean years of poor health and stigma. i have a friend who buried 2 boyfriends. but not me. i am lucky. i am lucky to be born in a time where effective medication, with no unpleasant side effects, will prevent me ever getting ill, stop me being infectious so i wont infect my loved ones, and i wont ever die of AIDS. and i am lucky enough to have access to the NHS so i dont have to worry about any aspect of my treatment. i am aware that in many parts of the world people are not so lucky. in many parts of the world, generally more impoverished parts, HIV has been an apocalypse. but what of the US? a rich country. how does someone with HIV manage? is it covered by insurance? is it a pre existing condition? what if you dont have insurance? do you get access to live saving medication or are you kicked to the kerb and left to rot? i am paricularly interested in death rates. No one need die from AIDS these days, but ive not been able to get clear picture, clear comparisons from location to location, or personal stories. thoughtss anyone? AMassiveGay (talk) 16:35, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Pre-existing conditions haven't had any impact on ability to acquire healthcare in, like, a decade now. Yes, it's covered by insurance. Most of healthcare is covered by government, though; the dirty little secret about the US is that literally 2/3 of healthcare spending passes through government hands first, government employees, Medicare (elderly), Medicaid (poor), other state programs, and so on. The problem with healthcare in the US, the biggest one anyway, is the ability of mega-corps to bribe the US government into preventing the US from negotiating better prices unlike any other country in the world. And it isn't like it's the US government is effectively transferring money from, say, Texas to a company in Connecticut, oh no, it's the US government transferring money to Merck Medco and other foreign companies, in countries that routinely mock the US for having terrible healthcare in spite of being part of the reason the US has terrible healthcare. CorruptUser (talk) 19:13, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
i have always imagined drug companies must be laughing at the US. they must get so more cash oh you. and its the only place i have heard where you get adverts for prescripition drugs.
re: my original point, i read an account from a lady in NY. she had hiv but had no insurance. she didnt qualify for medicaid until she gets really ill then she qualifies and goes on medication. she gets better, stops qualifying, cant get medication agin until the next time she gets really ill. this cannot be good for her long term health. how common is this situation? how does this effect infections rates? in UK, rates have dropped significantly since they started giving medication early infection. how does this go in with a US healthcare model? AMassiveGay (talk) 20:00, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
It doesn't that's how, you're either rich and you live, or you're poor and you die.'Legionwhat do you want from me 20:08, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Monday Morning Dumpster Dive: The Raw Story[edit]

The Raw Story needs more content and more citations. It's a stub. It has 0 references.

The site itself is ranked in the top 4000 globally [7][8], giving it about 25 million monthly views.

The site has a section at Fake_news#RawStory.

oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 01:33, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Infinity[edit]

Do not fear death. Fear that time being infinite means that everything will happen to you at some point. —ℓσωℓу ѕуѕσρ вιgℓʝвιgℓ σf gσαтιѕтαи (ωσя∂ѕ σf ωιѕ∂σм/α¢нιєνємєитѕ) 18:36, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Or do fear death. Dying sucks. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:50, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Goodpost.gif Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 19:16, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
This whole "afraid of death" deal is way overdone. Nothing actually happens when you are dead. Nothing actually happens before you are born. But nobody is afraid of the billions of years of non-existence which occurred before they were born. So why be afraid of the billions which will pass afterward. (Though the actual "dying" process could be a bit of a downer though.) Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 20:02, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I'm not afraid of being dead, just of the bit leading up to it. Nudescendant (talk) 20:08, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Mmm. That is not a given (everything will happen to you at some point). The universe may see a limited number of phenomena recycled one after another in no discernable pattern or the universe dies by entropy and the rest of time is a dull boring bath of inaction. When my brain dies...I have no special reason to believe I will pop up again in an alternate reality or will thrive again and again in a bang/cruch cycle, or some other incredible manifestation of me. It might be a nice thought (assuming my other versions are not suffering terribly or whole heartedly believe in God) but it is speculative wishful thinking at this point. I'm relaxed about death because I know I've left some worthy footprints.87.218.196.90 (talk) 03:56, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
"But nobody is afraid of the billions of years of non-existence which occurred before they were born." But that's false equivalence, you weren't conscious before you gained consciousness to be consciously afraid of not being conscious yet. But as you are conscious now and can consciously fear the non-existence that's bound to happen then it's sensible to be afraid of it. Also that's probably a weird place to make my first appearance. --NoJohYouAreTheDemons (talk) 08:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
(also I want to point out that the tautology above is wrong, because it equivocates all kinds of infinity. You will not, given an infinite time, experience every possible rational number of arbitrary selected single values one at a time). ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:04, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Frankly, I don't understand it anyway. No matter how you define "infinite time" how does that affect this personal me? Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 20:51, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
If you take the view that someone identical to you in every way is you, then given infinite time an infinite number of yous will exist. I assume that's what Bigljbgl means. Christopher (talk) 20:54, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Beware alarming/alerting the Basilisk. Anna Livia (talk) 21:55, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Infinity means your consciousness will be reborn an infinite amount of times. —ℓσωℓу ѕуѕσρ вιgℓʝвιgℓ σf gσαтιѕтαи (ωσя∂ѕ σf ωιѕ∂σм/α¢нιєνємєитѕ) 23:22, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
No, it doesn't. This is like ideas of reincarnation. It's not "me" if I have no memory or consciousness of the fact.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 07:12, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
As more or less Asimov said (don't remember exactly his quote), it's the transition between life and death what is troublesome (I really hope the end will be painless and fast, no NDEs of any kind and just going black. That's the thing that scares me).
Alas, Bigljbigl idea is much better defined as a stream of consciousness -you die here and things restart again somewhere and/or sometime in the future, the process from your POV being instantaneous but your old self (memories included) would be gone forever. Other stuff are the ramifications of that when you consider cosmological theories (the Universe being infinite, it restarting again in a Big Bang/Crunch/Rip (maybe)/Slurp (maybe), multiverses...), and are quite food for thought. Panzerfaust (talk) 12:49, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

with regards to priority[edit]

So we're supposed to remove the template from every page here? —Kazitor, pending 10:39, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I removed most of them before realising that blanking the template had the same effect. Remove them when you see them but it's probably not worth getting a bot to do it or removing them all manually. Christopher (talk) 15:15, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Right, so there's no reason why I shouldn't since I'm such a dull person? —Kazitor, pending 23:45, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Other than it being a waste of your time, no. Christopher (talk) 15:36, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

The current poll[edit]

Why would so few people vote for the BoNs? They are highly worthy of everyone's vote. —Kazitor, pending 01:06, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

You sneaky bastard. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 01:45, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't get it, what'd I do? :P —Kazitor, pending 02:04, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
@Kazitor Fak u, and what poll? —ℓσωℓу ѕуѕσρ вιgℓʝвιgℓ σf gσαтιѕтαи (ωσя∂ѕ σf ωιѕ∂σм/α¢нιєνємєитѕ) 02:17, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Last option of the top poll. —Kazitor, pending 02:26, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
There is a poll about me?? {surprised looking face} –Mad physicist (talk) 13:12, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
What The F***?! (surprised too) Panzerfaust (talk) 22:24, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Why are there still only two votes for the BoNs? Come on, guys! <evilface />Kazitor, pending 23:37, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

The thing is I hate that guy... -Xbony2 (talk) 01:45, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Good. You should. Castaigne2 (talk) 22:07, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
I gave you sysop and I can take it away! :P —ℓσωℓу ѕуѕσρ вιgℓʝвιgℓ σf gσαтιѕтαи (ωσя∂ѕ σf ωιѕ∂σм/α¢нιєνємєитѕ) 18:46, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Seriously America[edit]

It's taken the US 15 months to record their newest worst mass shooting ever, and at the same time Congress are debating a law that would allow people to buy silencers. What the actual cunting fuck is wrong with you people? LongLostLegend (talk) 12:59, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

They didn't do anything when someone killed a load of little children - why would they do anything now? 109.147.90.91 (talk) 21:55, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
58 dead (who, sadly, will likely be more) + >500 wounded -just by a single man-. This is begging for an article here, and mark my words conspiracy teories may already be blossoming around this shooting. Panzerfaust (talk) 22:30, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

1,516 mass shootings in 1,735 days AMassiveGay (talk) 22:45, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I made a userbox, {{User Antiseptic}}, if you want that on your userpage. —Kazitor, pending 23:35, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
you know its funny, guns arnt banned in the us but you know what is banned? kinder eggs. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Figured we could use a laugh[edit]

The ED article on RationalWiki is hot garbage, but they have me listed as admin. Plutoniumboss (talk) 23:39, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Man, once they lost to fucking KnowYourMeme, they really fell off from trolling into "let's just be nazis, that's antagonistic right?" level unfunny. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 02:51, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

From watching some of this guys videos what would you say this guys opinions on the political spectrum are?[edit]

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC1DTYW241WD64ah5BFWn4JA/videos

I have no idea. His Twitter is your classic apolitically-centrist-but-has-racist-memes pablum [9][10][11][12][13][14][15]; his discord appears to attract young meme-friendly edgelords. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 03:17, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Agreed It was either Sargonite Liberal for me or Centrist to me. I just needed to some conformation ShiningSwordofThoughts (talk) 03:22, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Fuzzy, you just described every YouTuber’s Discord server. —ℓσωℓу ѕуѕσρ вιgℓʝвιgℓ σf gσαтιѕтαи (ωσя∂ѕ σf ωιѕ∂σм/α¢нιєνємєитѕ) 00:32, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Lulz[edit]

Spot on accuracy about trolling here: http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/HowTo:Play_RationalTrollℓσωℓу ѕуѕσρ вιgℓʝвιgℓ σf gσαтιѕтαи (ωσя∂ѕ σf ωιѕ∂σм/α¢нιєνємєитѕ) 20:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Do not forget for the opposite: http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/HowTo:Play_Conservatroll ROFL. Panzerfaust (talk) 21:21, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Hypocrisy[edit]

If this is kinda late, then sorry. I just realized that people are saying that the NFL players should be proud of their rights to free speech by not exercising them. —ℓσωℓу ѕуѕσρ вιgℓʝвιgℓ σf gσαтιѕтαи (ωσя∂ѕ σf ωιѕ∂σм/α¢нιєνємєитѕ) 23:27, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Got a question[edit]

Hey guys, I'm new, I have a little complication, what's the bias/logical fallacy that's defined as "the tendency to think that one is the main character of the universe, and other people are just extras"?

MrEpic (talk) 00:13, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Not a logical fallacy, but are you referring to solipsism? —Kazitor, pending 00:30, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Narcissism, more likely. Nobody else would hold such beliefs seriously. 5.165.61.67 (talk) 14:46, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
While maybe no one holds them "seriously" in that they'd say it's literally a true statement, many people feel that way. A majority at least. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 14:57, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
If you are going there, you, probs, should extend it to "majority of animals", just for the sake of severity of telepathic claim (nice chance to be correct too). Also, in delusions intensity quite matters, I guess. 5.165.61.67 (talk) 15:13, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Holy christ, no. Animals do not generate self-narratives. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:22, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Why are you so sure about it? It seems to be evolutionary in origin. I mean, possession of a language or developed frontal lobes are good guesses at threshold, but I would not call them rock-solid. 5.165.61.67 (talk) 15:37, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Animals: well noted for the complex rationalizations and complex ideological framings of their own actions. Come the fuck on with this. I feel no need to justify your unsupported ad hoc hypothesis. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
<3 Hey, we just have different attention drift. MrEpic started with example that reeks of very specific individual pathology, you offered normalized humanity-wide case (which I misunderstood at the moment), and I continued sliding to a more general, non-anthropocentric case. We, absolutely, need to ask dolphins how they rationalize their bullshit tho. 5.165.61.67 (talk) 16:32, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm okay with this experimental test. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:34, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

i am the main character in my world. is this not true for everyone? AMassiveGay (talk) 16:08, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, the important part is "my world", variants and interpretations are possible here. 5.165.61.67 (talk) 16:32, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
nope. same world as everyone elses. surprisingly from where i stand i'm pretty central to all i deem important in it. everything and everyone else are secondary concerns. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:30, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Actually, I was going for more of a slightly narcissistic, but nevertheless human and natural idea, for example "Hey, this girl just looked at me. That means she's into me" That's why I said it could be a bias.

186.109.172.241 (talk) 23:26, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

n00b question[edit]

How do the vote polls work? Am I supposed to downvote things on WIGO Clogosphere when they're stupid or upvote them for being stupid, the point of the section? LynnR (talk) 13:19, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

No one has figured that out yet. It's probably clearest on the 'Blogs' section, where people tend to vote up opinion pieces they agree with and vice versa. With the 'Clogs' I usually go by entertainment value. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 14:07, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
The polls exist purely as a skinner box. Push button, watch vote totals change. Other sites hide this fact a bit better by attaching ordering or karma or other stupid systems to votes. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:10, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Goodpost.gif Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 15:17, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
as far as i can tell, the vote is meaningless anyhow. nothing having happens if it the votes go up or down AMassiveGay (talk) 15:56, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
oh wait, i see the they go to a best of what seemed was interesting at the time page. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:59, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
[EC] Plus if something gets loads of downvotes it usually gets removed. Christopher (talk) 16:02, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Not quite Wikipedia, eh? LynnR (talk) 01:07, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
When you add something and it gets a large amount of votes, you get to feel good about yourself in a way that you could never reveal to another person. —Kazitor, pending 01:10, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Why do some editors here support state atheism?[edit]

I know the ones that do also support leaving freedom of religion be, but I still oppose this. Could the editors who support this present their arguments here? —ℓσωℓу ѕуѕσρ вιgℓʝвιgℓ σf gσαтιѕтαи (ωσя∂ѕ σf ωιѕ∂σм/α¢нιєνємєитѕ) 20:41, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

What about those who don't - or who support 'state indifferentism' and other positions? Anna Livia (talk) 21:29, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
I’m talking about the specific editors who support state atheism. —ℓσωℓу ѕуѕσρ вιgℓʝвιgℓ σf gσαтιѕтαи (ωσя∂ѕ σf ωιѕ∂σм/α¢нιєνємєитѕ) 22:25, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
What is "state atheism", actually outlawing religion and punishing those who practice it, or having the state's official position be that god doesn't exist and basing all decisions on that, but letting the public believe what they want? X Stickman (talk) 23:33, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
@X Stickman I mean the second thing. Personally, I support state indifference. —ℓσωℓу ѕуѕσρ вιgℓʝвιgℓ σf gσαтιѕтαи (ωσя∂ѕ σf ωιѕ∂σм/α¢нιєνємєитѕ) 00:30, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I support state anti-theism, the fundamental reason being that religion is a cultural element and is never a personal thing. Even in the best case scenario where someone kept their religious views entirely quiet, they will still vote for those values at the polls, with predictable and recurring results. In realistic scenarios the religious group together and try to control those in their community's area of influence to conform to their personal beliefs, and when religious majorities are involved those areas of influence often mean the whole country. Practically, I don't support Marxist style violence against the religious, but rather targeted education campaigns and so on. The religious would be allowed to continue as they please in my ideal state, provided they endure or ignore the torrent of information directed against them. Lord Aeonian (talk) 06:43, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

people are entitled to vote how ever they please. thats kind of the point of voting. state anti-theist sounds just as repugnant any theocratic society - they both involve the state trying to control how you think. you dont like the hold religion has on people? the only answer to that is to allow people the freedom to question their beliefs and come to their own conclusions. this is what is lacking in more theocratic societies and this is why religious belief is in terminal decline in the west. AMassiveGay (talk) 16:21, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Before modern media, information about the world came to the illiterate through their civil and religious leaders. If, as often happens, one could not trust the state, then one could turn to religious authorities for comforting truth. If clergy work in conjunction with the state, decline in faith often follows. Today, the American president is only arguably literate. The source of his opinions flows from the depravities of men such as Alex Jones and the editors of Breitbart News. This befuddled willingness to believe corrupt information confirming the worst kinds of fears, largely because it isn't from the government, remains a constant even without religion.Ariel31459 (talk) 04:30, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I do not[edit]

Here's a slightly different take. I'm fairly strongly anti-theist, in that I feel it's not actually good for most people to follow a religion, but neither trust nor want a government to make meaningful progress in that area outside providing free, universal education. Trying to limit religion's existence through laws is like taking potassium cyanide as chemotherapy for a benign tumor. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Being "pro state atheism" will probs make atheists look bad. "Let's make our views on religion into law," thing just sounds shady behavior to me. ClickerClock (talk) 08:13, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Back from my trip.[edit]

I'm back from my 2 week vacation in the Aloha region, and can I ask who nominated me for United States Presidency 2020?

Might as well start a Corsola protection program. The Rational Gamer, WonderKirby577Let's chat!box 00:17, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Down the very bottom of the list? That... might have been me >:) —Kazitor, pending 00:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Come on man, I just wanna protect Corsola! (Also, would that be worthy of it's own Funspace article?) The Rational Gamer, WonderKirby577Let's chat!box 00:50, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Huntails are far more endangered. When's the last time you've seen a Huntail? Never! --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 02:23, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Huntails don't have predators that leave bits of them scattered across the ocean. And I see plenty of them up for trade. The Rational Gamer, WonderKirby577Let's chat!box 03:23, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Kazitor actually nominated Anonymous user for the 2020 presidency, I see "Christopher", Anonymous user would see Anonymous user etc. Christopher (talk) 16:07, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
And successfully caused a large amount of chaos in the meantime :) —Kazitor, pending 22:20, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Hmmmm... I smell a new meme in the making, and it's about Corsola. The Rational Gamer, WonderKirby577Let's chat!box 02:30, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Catalonia[edit]

You know what this is about. The referendum that Spain refuses to acknowledge and ended in Spain essentially invading its own territory. —ℓσωℓу ѕуѕσρ вιgℓʝвιgℓ σf gσαтιѕтαи (ωσя∂ѕ σf ωιѕ∂σм/α¢нιєνємєитѕ) 01:44, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I put Catalonia in the TODO list a while back. I'm willing to bet we're getting a new European country, but how pretty it is going to be on the way to that point is debatable. -Xbony2 (talk) 01:49, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm from Spain. It's a very complex story, going on or the last 50 years. Much of Europe has been paying attention to this and outside many don't realise how grave and important the topic is. Catalonia has been asking for a referendum for two decades and the central government never budged. It's unconstitutional...end of story. The President went to war with any notion of Catalonian independence some years ago and has pretty much said every possible provocative stupidity he could, infuriating and enraging most Catalonians who were never independistas before. The Catalonians decided to go ahead and do the referendum without Madrid' approval. The central government decided to stop it by force. First by confiscating voting equiptment and pressing charges against 700 local mayors and arresting Catalan cabinet ministers. This made Catalonians seethingly angry. Then on voting day, the police broke into Schools where voting was happened, dragged women out by their hair, threw old people down stairs, billy clubbed hundreds of people in peaceful protest and bloodied the faces of hundreds of people including Catalonian firefighters trying to protect peaceul protesters from the National police. "Hey, let's send thousands of outside police to Catalonia and have them stop the voting by any means necessary...WHAT COULD POSSIBLY GO WRONG"? And of course the vote went for independence. The President of Spain virtually guaranteed that through his imbecilic behaviour.
It's hurtful that they want to leave and I think it is extremely misguided...but they should have been allowed the vote. The EU is about further integration...not creating new borders and they have a level of autonomy that no other region in Europe could expect to get. It will be politically and financially catastrophic. But they should be allowed to choose...constitution or not. What hurts the most though is...the Spanish media is not showing the violence. It is so hard core biased (shamefully so) that its ignoring it and focusing on totally irrelevant side distractions. I had to read the BBC, NYTimes and the CBC to see the worst of the violence from police and translate Catalonian news sites to know what the Catalonian president was saying. The second...which is much worse, is the total silence coming from the EU. I am a massive supporter of the EU (I think it is the greatest political project we have ever seen) but every few years they spectacularly fail at something that should be a no brainer (like with Ukraine or Cyprus). They really haven't said anything beyond mumbling words...despite the horrid violence. It's grotesque...and my Spanish friends are oblivious to any of this and angry. It's like I'm living in a twilight zone. ShabiDOO 09:48, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
I agree very much with the above comment, especially how Rajoy's (Prime Minister (not President)) stupidity screwed up things so much. I was going to add something on those lines, but I see other has arrived before. You forgot to mention that workers of TVE -the Spanish public broadcast television service- protested 'cause they were ordered to downplay what happened there (I guess no mention of policial brutality and the like. It would not have been the first time that happens).
Plus this is a recent idea. Catalonia was never, as far as I know, an independent country or at the very least as is conceived now by independentistas. The region was also on the wrong side during the War of the Spanish Succession, on the XVIII century, and Philip V -the ancestor of the current King of Spain- punished that.Panzerfaust (talk) 13:18, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
I also live in Spain - and I can tell you that this story has a lot more sides to it than may immediately be apparent. Not the least being that it's by no means clear that there is a majority in favour of independence in Catalonia - but the local government is seemingly planning to declare independence anyway.
But I certainly agree that the Spanish governments have been incredibly incompetent in their handling of this matter over the last few years and especially over the last few days. By acting in ways that pleased their core voters they have managed to push Catalonia close to departure. If they had deliberately looked for the worst way to proceed on this one they couldn't have done a better job.
And, yes, the international and Spanish press seem to be reporting from different planets. Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:29, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
I wonder if Puigdemont and others who support independence have thought on the economic issues it would bring, just to begin with (no Spain means also no EU). Panzerfaust (talk) 21:44, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
I doubt it. Brexit - which has a least a framework in which to negotiate - is chaotic. How much worse would it be for a new state which has no legal basis whatsoever? The may well have a good moral or political case - but with zero legal case it's going to tough. Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 18:16, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
The United Kingdom has a currency quite strong as well and that plays on their favor. Catalonia would have to start from scratch everything, down to currency and laws (labor law, etc). According to economists, anything could happen. Plus you can mark my words that was said independent region to attempt to enter into the EU, even if it was in Norwegian fashion, Spain would difficult that (especially if the current goverment was in charge by then).
A funny consequence would be sports. Imagine the Catalonian football (soccer) league with FC Barcelona outshining all other teams. Panzerfaust (talk) 08:34, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
My understanding is that current Catalonia roughly coincides with the old Kingdom of Aragon. From a linguistic perspective it's something to regret that Castile was the dominant partner in the union, because written Catalan is not far from the language of the troubadors, and could have served as a written norm (with widely varying local dialects, of course) from Lisbon to Venice. - Smerdis of Tlön, LOAD "*", 8, 1. 00:27, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Here's what what the other Wiki has to sayWikipedia's W.svg. The Crown of Aragon was located to the west (modern AragonWikipedia's W.svg). Panzerfaust (talk) 07:28, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
If you want the language of Aragon then you want AragoneseWikipedia's W.svg. In fact Spain, is surprisingly well blessed with local languages.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 19:03, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
All I know is that Aragon controlled territories were light blue in the 1992 video game, Castles II, siege and conquest. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:38, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I think both the EU and Spain are bluffing. If Catalonia declares independence, it does not instantly leave the EU. To start with, initially at least, Madrid won't even recognise Catalonian independence, and so from the viewpoint of Spanish (and hence EU law), Catalonia remains in the EU even after declaring independence. Even if Catalonia wins some sort of de facto independence after a unilateral declaration–maybe even recognition from a handful of countries such as Venezuela–as long as the EU recognises it as part of Spain it is still part of the EU as far as the EU is concerned. Now, suppose Catalonia eventually convinces Madrid to agree to recognise them as independent. Obviously that would involve negotiation of some sort of formal agreement on independence between Madrid and Barcelona. But, if Catalonia is definitely going to be independent, it is not in Madrid's interest for them to be cast out of the EU (or its various aspects such as the Euro, Schengen, single market, customs area, etc.) So, in a negotiated independence, Madrid would I expect agree to support Catalonia remaining (in some form) in the EU. I think the most likely scenario is that there would be some sort of transitional period, during which Catalonia would not be an EU member, but EU law would continue to be applied in Catalonia, and during this period Catalonia would apply for EU membership, and Spain would support the application. Madrid and the EU want to frighten Catalans away from independence, but if independence became definite, it would not be in either Madrid's or the EU's long-term interest for an independent Catalonia to be outside of the EU. The EU treaties have no provisions to handle that case, but the EU member states could always agree a new treaty specific to Catalonia's situation, or they could just make something up without a treaty (justifiable on the grounds that the international law of how treaties are applied in cases of independence is very unclear, which means that legally the EU institutions could justify whatever position they needed to.) (((Zack Martin))) 13:15, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Fundraiser: Spread the word![edit]

We need the money. Hit that social media! Here's the Facebook page post, please share widely - David Gerard (talk) 11:06, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Why don't we have a Patreon?Wikipedia's W.svg(((CheeseburgerFace))) (talkstalk) 14:38, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Because we're old boffins who don't understand the youth these days. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 15:38, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
We do need a Patreon. —ℓσωℓу ѕуѕσρ вιgℓʝвιgℓ σf gσαтιѕтαи (ωσя∂ѕ σf ωιѕ∂σм/α¢нιєνємєитѕ) 18:18, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, we do. Christopher (talk) 21:09, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
@David Gerard make a Patreon. ClickerClock (talk) 07:17, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Apparently, we stand with Putin[edit]

Dismissing Phobosgate.png

CJ-Moki (talk) 16:19, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

The scare quotes around "obsession" are really what sell the whole thing. It reads so much like "Oh yes, just because I spent days of my life doing nothing but following her around and collecting every piece of trash she discards, I'm an 'obsessed stalker'" ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:38, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
First things first - who the fuck is this, and is there any reason why I should give a shit about what they're saying? Semipenultimate (talk) 16:57, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Good news: they're nobody and you don't have to care at all. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:59, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
It's Bryan See. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 17:18, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Well, OK. RoninMacbeth (talk) 03:01, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
The clarity is appreciated. Semipenultimate (talk) 14:41, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
I think it's ready for mainspace.
Yes 1
No1
ℓσωℓу ѕуѕσρ вιgℓʝвιgℓ σf gσαтιѕтαи (ᴡᴏʀᴅs ᴏғ ᴡɪsᴅᴏᴍ/ᴀᴄʜɪᴇᴠᴇᴍᴇɴᴛs) 04:31, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
What is it with you and polls? Especially yes/no ones, why not use a single vote if you have to? —Kazitor, pending 04:36, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Irony?[edit]

Is this irony? Cuz I wanna add it to the examples if it is. —ℓσωℓу ѕуѕσρ вιgℓʝвιgℓ σf gσαтιѕтαи (ωσя∂ѕ σf ωιѕ∂σм/α¢нιєνємєитѕ) 01:07, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Sure! @Bigljbigl ClickerClock (talk) 07:57, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Is Atheism a Morally Bankrupt Ideology[edit]

look at the degeneracy that has emerged from atheism in the last few centuries, communism, socialism, solipsism, nihilism, narcissism, etc. What does atheism have to offer for moral values and or humanity? Or is it just more edgelord grandiloquence from arrogant SJW leftist fairies? 66.65.75.21 (talk) 23:03, 4 October 2017 (UTC) (-TheAmazingSkeptic)

Just want to put this here, because Kazitor says we are havng a good time..
Banana.gif

This conversation is about to go badly downhill,
inevitably ending in comparisons to Hitler,
and hurt feelings all round.
CONTINUE. IT IS EVEN MORE AMUSING THAN THAT DANCING BANANA.

The Rational Gamer, WonderKirby577Let's chat!box 02:32, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
You're literally hitler for posting this LynnR (talk) 13:52, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't think there's any chance of anything getting out of control. We're all (as far as I can tell) having fun because the "question" is so stupid. —Kazitor, pending 04:07, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Definitely the latter, 100%. —Kazitor, pending 23:20, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
No. It is a category error to regard atheism as ideology. Any system of ideas not referring to a deity, directly or indirectly, is implicitly atheistic. e.g., Pierre Laplace's Mécanique Céleste, and Albert Einstein's General Relativity. Ariel31459 (talk) 23:40, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
"edgelord" -- you. The irony. Anyway, as an arrogant SJW leftist fairy who is somewhat religious, we are partially responsible for this "grandiloquence" (nice vocabulary word! Are you preparing for the middle-school spelling bee?), but there are plenty of examples of anti-"SJW" atheists, so your argument falls apart there if it didn't the second you said "degeneracy." LynnR (talk) 01:17, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
I guess he doesn't know that Descartes was a devout catholic who's evil demon thought experiment was one of the founding ideas of solipsism and that people were narcissists far before the rise of atheism.Also atheism is no more a morally based philosophy than capitalism, maybe you should look at secular based moral philosophies like secular humanism it you want a response to that type of question.Vorarchivist (talk) 02:32, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Seriously though, 66.65.75.21. Please don't Troll. CJ-Moki (talk) 05:33, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
You mention: "communism, socialism, solipsism, nihilism, narcissism" and maintain they have "emerged from atheism" . But I feel your list is incomplete. I think you forgot earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, fascism, The Spice Girls, Obama, Trump and Hurricane Katrina.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 06:04, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Religion is not much better, either, and examples are more than plentiful. Of course the Boss has not come to give the more than deserved smack -fortunately, given the asshole YHWH was in the OT-.
Remember one of the reasons why (at least some of) us became skeptics. Panzerfaust (talk) 08:25, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
I consider myself to be a skeptic, after all it's part of my account name, but I contend that true skepticism leads to theism: simply because atheism is logically and morally indefensible. For logic, an atheist asserts that we evolved from fish into primates and then to humans. Morally, secular ethnics are largely arbitrary and subjective. This is why me and many of my friends have become Christians, and left atheism. Communism and feminism are inherent and nearly inevitable results of atheism. As an incel I blame neo-Marxist, cultural bolshevism and (((feminiazis))) for my inability to obtain a suitably meek and obedient mate indeed. I am simply confused on what to do what my fedora, considering I have left the religion of atheism which relies on faith and embraced the truth of Christianity. 66.65.75.21 (talk) 15:55, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Oh, so you're a troll. That makes a lot more sense. LynnR (talk) 16:47, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Oh, well, thanks for saving me time not having to prepare a reply for him (tags: Crusades, DAESH, Inquisition... the list goes on). Panzerfaust (talk) 21:38, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Morals are useless and make for bad people, ethical frameworks make good people. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:25, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

As it says somewhere in Dreigroschenoper - first food and then morals.

What sort of fairies - and what about Christian Socialism (and there is at least one joke with the punchline along the lines 'but I am a (one faith) atheist and you are (another faith) atheist.'

Is there such a thing as an immorally bankrupt ideology? Anna Livia (talk) 21:42, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I'd say New Atheism was somewhat corrupted by individuals with racist, sexist, and alt-right sympathies like Sam Harris, Chris Hitchens Richard Dawkins in order to to try to market far-right politics to an "atheist" audience instead of a traditionally conservative or Christian audience, but that's not the problem with "atheism" itself, that's just a problem with some corrupt white males calling themselves atheists.--24.89.35.17 (talk) 02:55, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
I wouldn't classify those 3 as either sexist or Alt-Right at all. Well, ok, maybe a bit sexist with Hitchens' "why women aren't funny" speech. As for racist, well no, it's more Islamophobic than racist. The problem with shutting down debate with the "racist" card is that, while Islamophobia usually has its roots in various forms of xenophobia, many times the Islamophobes do have a point with grains of truth in the pile of bullshit, and if you scare off the people who are only 1 bullshit to 9 grains, well, you are going to have a bad time. CorruptUser (talk) 12:50, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
For those unfamiliar with the configuration of Manifest Destiny with Islamic perspectives I recommend Dirilis: Ertugrul. It is a Turkish-made melodrama that provides some background mythos for Islamic expansionism. There are over 200 hour episodes in three seasons so far. I have to say I have enjoyed it, despite the poor English subtitles. It is like the tale of Robin Hood with monotheism substituted for whatever Robin was fighting for.Ariel31459 (talk) 15:39, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't have 200 hours to kill. Summary? Is it fundamentally different to Christianity's goal of converting everyone to Jesus? StickySock (talk) 21:03, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
You would get the idea from watching one or two episodes. And yes, it is different. They don't try to convert anyone. Just swordplay. After all those episodes I think I am suffering from Stockholm Syndrome.Ariel31459 (talk) 23:55, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Actually[edit]

Atheism is just going through a moral debt restructuring program. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:17, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

SO[edit]

@66.65.75.21 I banhammered you cuz you wouldn’t stop trolling. Please...stop. I can’t permaban BoNs, unfortunately, because IP addresses are eventually reassigned. —ℓσωℓу ѕуѕσρ вιgℓʝвιgℓ σf gσαтιѕтαи (ωσя∂ѕ σf ωιѕ∂σм/α¢нιєνємєитѕ) 18:31, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
CJ-Moki (talk) 20:56, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Stop the presses![edit]

Ken made another bullshit essay!ℓσωℓу ѕуѕσρ вιgℓʝвιgℓ σf gσαтιѕтαи (ωσя∂ѕ σf ωιѕ∂σм/α¢нιєνємєитѕ) 20:31, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

If he is an atheist: duh, of course, as always conservapedia predicts the future. If he isn't an atheist, duh, he's a false Christian because he was bad and thus an atheist. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:55, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
That was painful to read >.> honestly I don't find Conservapedia that fun to read, just discomforting. -Xbony2 (talk) 22:20, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
As time has gone by, Conservapedia has gone from mildly amusing reading to what the Tropers call "So Bad, It's Horrible". CJ-Moki (talk) 02:24, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
He was a white male, which seems to be a much more common theme in mass shooters than being an atheist, Christian, or whatever. The problem seems to be rooted in white supremacist culture and its history of violence and invasion if anything. 24.89.35.17 (talk) 03:14, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
I came here much after Conservapedia ceased to be one of the focal points of this site, but I would really like to see RW surviving the former.Panzerfaust (talk) 11:46, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm amazed that anyone would actually read one of Ken's essays. I thought he just shouted randomly into the void. (Maybe "shouted" is the wrong verb.)Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 14:34, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Would 'Howling into the void' (many hits on the websearch) be appropriate? Anna Livia (talk) 14:52, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Actually that sounds very poetic - but I was honestly trying to avoid using the far more descriptive biological function which first occurred to me.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 15:37, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Reading Ken's dribblings - ExaminingAtheism in particular - is like reading the journals of someone with both retrograde and anterograde amnesia, as if Clive Wearing were doing his writing. Pages of repeated entries, the same information regurgitated endlessly, without awareness of past or context. He has no concept of 'shouting into the void' because each time he does it is, for him, the first time these amazing truths are going out into the world - no matter how many times he's repeated them. Semipenultimate (talk) 16:41, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Also the technical term for void howling in the political sense is 'scream-crapping'. Semipenultimate (talk) 16:42, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
According to a simple google search, white people make up 56% of mass shootings from 1982 to 2017. But white people are also 77% of the population. So no, it's not a "white theme".StickySock (talk) 17:30, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
I guess those weird (and marginally darker skinned) ISIS butchers are some different kind of atheist. Or does his logic only hold up for white mass-murderers in the US? Or maybe things are more complicated?Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 20:34, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Nothing is complicated, murder and obesity are both caused by not being exactly the right kind of Christian. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:42, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Which according to Jesus is NazareneWikipedia's W.svg secularist Christian socialism Independent Baptist dominionist laissez-faire. —ℓσωℓу ѕуѕσρ вιgℓʝвιgℓ σf gσαтιѕтαи (ᴡᴏʀᴅs ᴏғ ᴡɪsᴅᴏᴍ/ᴀᴄʜɪᴇᴠᴇᴍᴇɴᴛs) 20:56, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
You forgot to mention hypocrite. I really hate pro-lifers because they -those I know at least- care just about the not born. Once you left your mothers' womb, GFY if your parents cannot afford, say, that special healthcare that you may need (and I'm really fed about the BS of "one abort every five minutes. That's one hundred thousand killings per year", in a place with a population of more than forty-five million people).I would not surprised at all if Conservapedia had that. Panzerfaust (talk) 07:51, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Why would anyone pay attention to this imbecile? Just checking the reference to one of his claims selected at random, "lack of belief in God is positively associated with psychopathy." The footnote link brings up the reference abstract containing, "In addition, psychopathic traits were positively associated with political conservatism, lack of belief in God, and living in Europe as opposed to the United States, although the magnitudes of these statistical effects were generally small in magnitude." The guy's a moron.Ariel31459 (talk) 00:11, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

@Ariel31459 Cuz we have no lives. —ℓσωℓу ѕуѕσρ вιgℓʝвιgℓ σf gσαтιѕтαи (ᴡᴏʀᴅs ᴏғ ᴡɪsᴅᴏᴍ/ᴀᴄʜɪᴇᴠᴇᴍᴇɴᴛs) 01:47, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Anyone else[edit]

Read 'Goat $5000'? Anna Livia (talk) 21:55, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Mod elections[edit]

As of the elections this December, should we do the elections every six months instead of annually?

Yes2
No5

ℓσωℓу ѕуѕσρ вιgℓʝвιgℓ σf gσαтιѕтαи (ᴡᴏʀᴅs ᴏғ ᴡɪsᴅᴏᴍ/ᴀᴄʜɪᴇᴠᴇᴍᴇɴᴛs) 22:47, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't think the Saloon is where policy changes are proposed. RoninMacbeth (talk) 03:38, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Policy changes are organic -- but this is not a good way to change policy. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 04:05, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Heaven for Biblical literalists[edit]

ℓσωℓу ѕуѕσρ вιgℓʝвιgℓ σf gσαтιѕтαи (ᴡᴏʀᴅs ᴏғ ᴡɪsᴅᴏᴍ/ᴀᴄʜɪᴇᴠᴇᴍᴇɴᴛs) 23:51, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
And it would essentially be forever, Pascal ideas apart. At the end fading out and the ideas of "Infinity" above does not seem so bad. EDIT. The Borg Cube fits quite nicely as the analogy is unavoidable, plus the Salvation War series offers an interesting POV on this. Panzerfaust (talk) 07:44, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
heaven is real. i have been there. its on villiers street and full of gays. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:10, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
So the options are eternal torture and eternal North Korea? —ℓσωℓу ѕуѕσρ вιgℓʝвιgℓ σf gσαтιѕтαи (ᴡᴏʀᴅs ᴏғ ᴡɪsᴅᴏᴍ/ᴀᴄʜɪᴇᴠᴇᴍᴇɴᴛs) 13:27, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

This is important[edit]

This is the Special:RecentChanges page but with all the patrolled edits hidden. As you can see there is a lot of edits that need to be checked.

How to help.

  1. Someone please please remember to patrol vandalism after you undo it.
  2. Someone with expertise, put all the articles within your area of expertise in your watchlist.
  3. More people need to volunteer to go the RecentChanges but with all the patrolled edits hidden.

ClickerClock (talk) 08:43, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

If you go to our Patrol log guess who is actually patrolling??? ClickerClock (talk) 08:50, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Darn, you've been doing a lot, far more than me! I sometimes occasionally leave an edit unpatrolled if I'm not certain it's accurate, though. Wasn't aware of the option to hide patrolled edits, so I'll be sure to do that from now on. —Kazitor, pending 10:25, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
I have a couple more articles in my watchlist now. I have all the articles in the Autism Woo category in my watchlist. Remember to add articles in your area of expertise in your watchlist. Actually do it. Thank you. ClickerClock (talk) 10:45, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Don't forgot[edit]

@Kazitor to check unpatrolled edits for plagiarism. They may look innocent. ClickerClock (talk) 11:19, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Good point. It certainly is a process, eh? Guess that's why it's important to have more people doing it. Tragedy of the commons and all. —Kazitor, pending 12:10, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Laird Shaw[edit]

This discussion has been moved to Laird Shaw's talk page.

Remember archiving timestamps. Christopher (talk) 10:56, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

More of my ramblings when I'm high on caffeine[edit]

If God created us and the Universe, why we do not see His mark (YHWH) in, say, our crotch, somewhere in our DNA, or in maps of the cosmic microwave background to name just a few places?. Being as YHWH was in the OT, it's more than likely He would have done that to show His power. Panzerfaust (talk) 12:05, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

When I create art, there is usually a watermark. ClickerClock (talk) 12:21, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Maybe he's the type of artist that relies on having a unique style that noone else does. Any other gods are looking at us thinking "This is clearly God's work, look at how those bipedal creatures' spines fail." Vorarchivist (talk) 14:18, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Or others as the vertebrate eyes or these. I had not thought on that possibility. Fundies and the like have to explain a lot of things in that case, as just any decent writer could have created something far better than the Bible a real designer could have made a better work. Panzerfaust (talk) 15:15, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
He does show His mark, it's just on bird droppings, clouds, toast, on walls of cupboards, and maybe the insides of your pancreas if you squint your eyes hard enough. He does not have very efficient or reliable ways of marking things despite being a mighty being, probably because He works in mysterious ways.
On a related note, why isn't God depicted as some hi-tech super computer cyborg from the future compared to some old man in robes? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 00:00, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Anyone want to help me write an article on Mister Metokur?[edit]

I need to find things to make a construtive article on the guy. Here is my sandbox: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/User:ShiningSwordofThoughts/sandbox ShiningSwordofThoughts (talk)

I don't like giving this guy views, so you should probably summarize some of his videos a little better. If there is no other resource, especially videos that do a good job challenging his views, then provide more resources. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 18:50, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
It's the Amount of arguments I'm having trouble finding or even things to criticize him on other than this Toxic Fanbase. ShiningSwordofThoughts (talk) 21:11, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
So, can you even summarize any of his arguments, not even one bullet point? Just put everything out there and we can sort. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:26, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Is my Summarization ok? — Unsigned, by: ShiningSwordofThoughts / talk / contribs
It doesn't sound like enough for an entire article. You probably need to find more arguments to beef up the page. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 23:57, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

What Similarities do Carl and Hitchens have?[edit]

I almost think Carl looked/looks to Hitchens as an inspiration to his beliefs. ShiningSwordofThoughts (talk) 21:18, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

They could just be arguing the same thing except Carl is much less respected than Hitchens and Carl is much more sexist. You can at least forgive Hitchens for how the thinks women are "less funny" than men or women shouldn't be "coarsened" from the labor market. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 00:05, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Edgy teen atheist blasphemy zone[edit]

Let's see how many religions we can blaspheme with our words and actions. Warning, everything below is super-edgy.


Wake up from a nice rest on a comfy bed and then have a cup of coffee. Drive to work, chat with female boss about today's goals. Work a little while. But not too hard. Go grab a ham sandwich for lunch, and see a red cross truck. Donate blood. Head back to work. Head home, have a steak dinner. Have pre-marital sex with my significant other. Get a shower. Go to bed. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:13, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Dinner begins with a statement in support of the oppositional figures of Ahriman, Satan, God, Shaitan, and Kali. Appetizers are a vast selection of cheeses and charcuterie offal with escargot in butter and fresh oysters. During appetizers, a brief reading of L. Ron Hubbard's Operating Thetan VII writings are read whilst a sacred image of a Stupa is burned and a Eucharist is crushed underfoot. Participants then convert sequentially from faith to faith, each time vehemently denying the validity of the previous faith, while cocktails (Bloody Mary with a shrimp-and-bacon garnish) are served. During soup (your choice of mushroom-onion in beef stock with grated cheese or rich turtle) a copy of each of the world's holy texts will be destroyed. During dinner (veal bourginon with mother's milk herb butter) the apocrypha of all the major faiths will be read and praised as the true text(s). Over dessert (Goat milk cheesecake with a coffee reduction) each person then self-ordains as a Catholic priest, followed by Pope, followed by Anti-Pope. Cigars and brandy to follow.
All plates are, of course, richly detailed with images of the prophet Muhammad. Semipenultimate (talk) 17:56, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Isn't self-ordaining as pope exactly the same as regular ordaining as anti-pope? ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:49, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Shhh, give their tradition some respect. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 19:08, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

You want edgy blasphemy? You got it. Firefly was cancelled because it was crap. Nudescendant (talk) 20:03, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Insultin' Firefly? That's a paddlin'. RoninMacbeth (talk) 22:18, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
No way man, them's fighting words...(aside): get my axe!Ariel31459 (talk) 22:33, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't have anything witty to say here. Sorry. —Kazitor, pending 02:28, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

And Mock Turtle soup for those of a more vegetarian persuasion, with pasta in the shape of turtles in honour of His Noodleness.
Non-teenagers to use 'cool' language and wear clothes from the 'in' designers (thus rendering them totally 'non-in'). Anna Livia (talk) 09:24, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Goats suck and so does the in-joke.-DiamondDisc1(talk) 06:39, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
It's supposed to be "blasphemy", not "dull and obvious truths"... though then again, I guess any statement against a religion usually fits into the latter category as well. —Kazitor, pending 09:19, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Jar Jar Binks is the greatest Star Wars character. Period. LongLostLegend (talk) 08:36, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Probably close to Darth Vader in terms of "number of words written about him" or "emotional reaction created in audience". Going by Time's person of the year rules, you're not wrong. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:55, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Indiana Jones movies were terrible until they had shia lebouf, as he'd be a far better Indy. And Greedo shot first. And Picard was the worst captain star trek ever had. The Beatles are an awful, worthless band, except when they had Pete best. Finally, final fantasy seven was a shit game compared to six. (The last two aren't jokes, except the bit about Pete, obviously the Beatles were always terrible) :-D Asaac Isimov (talk) 22:02, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
You want some blasphemy? Cheerleading is not a sport, it's a stupid porno activity invented to get guys to watch boring American sports, because Americans can't cut it at real sports like hockey or futbal. Hockey Stick From Hell (talk) 12:38, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Let's generalize a group people by aquaiting the killer to the majority by calling this distrubed individual (So therefore that must be everyone) bundle of stickss! /s[edit]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFRArJmAedA&t=5s Also the comments are Cancerous as well as the suggestions. Don't mistake this though for supporting him it was really fucked up what was done. When I first watched the video I couldn't help but feel a feeling of dred because this could have been prevented. ShiningSwordofThoughts (talk)

@ShiningSwordofThoughts The vid was taken down. —ℓσωℓу ѕуѕσρ вιgℓʝвιgℓ σf gσαтιѕтαи (ᴡᴏʀᴅs ᴏғ ᴡɪsᴅᴏᴍ/ᴀᴄʜɪᴇᴠᴇᴍᴇɴᴛs) 03:17, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Weird still exist for me? ShiningSwordofThoughts (talk)

i watched a couple of minutes of that video. there is no way i am watching the full 41 minutes. from the little i saw, no it it is not an insult to grieving families to make fun of the killer. people have been doing that for years. look at all the stuff ripping the piss out of hitler. what is problematic is how they make fun of the killer - namely claiming he is gay or transsexual, basically saying they less than a man because they are these things. you do not malign an individual by maligning a completely unrelated group, particularly a group already the focus of a lot of hatred. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:08, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree 100%. Though I don't find that EGS shit he made that funny instead I find it sad it's a reminder this could have been prevented and an utter loss of sanity.ShiningSwordofThoughts (talk) 14:48, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
seeing how you've amended the title for the section, i would have preferred it without 'bundle of sticks'. its always quite jarring to see at the best of times. as it is here, its quite prominent, and i would rather not have read the whole thread just make to sure it was in jest. id rather not see it used in such casual jest. lets not normalise such an ugly word. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:45, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

AFD[edit]

I just nominated RationalWiki:Duplicate articles to AFD, to discuss if the former should be merged into the latter (the archives would remain intact). Discuss it here. —ℓσωℓу ѕуѕσρ вιgℓʝвιgℓ σf gσαтιѕтαи (ᴡᴏʀᴅs ᴏғ ᴡɪsᴅᴏᴍ/ᴀᴄʜɪᴇᴠᴇᴍᴇɴᴛs) 04:11, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

So get people to use it instead of deleting everything that's too slow for you caffeine addled brain. Nudescendant (talk) 09:45, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
This world is too slow for my caffeine ADD-led brain. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:21, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

A crank claiming to be an admin on RW[edit]

Hi, I recently created an article on a known cold fusion proponent/pseudoscience promoter Abd ul-Rahman Lomax. On the web he claims "I am an admin on RW, which is about as useful as being a pig in a pigsty or, or, worse, in a pigsty attached to a slaughterhouse." [16]. I find it doubtful a pseudoscience proponent like this would be an admin on Rationalwiki, can anyone confirm this? Or is this guy making things up? Is he really an admin here? I looked through his RW account and he appears to have been arguing with users about cold fusion in the past but I see no evidence he is an admin. Marky (talk) 18:25, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

This is the user in question [17] Marky (talk) 18:43, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Abd is a sysop, but everyone who's been here a few weeks and hasn't pissed anyone off too much is a sysop. The closest we've got to "admins" are moderators (or techs, who technically have more power (although moderators can make themselves techs) but are unelected and listened to even less than moderators). Christopher (talk) 18:58, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Technically. Lol. (Please don’t kill meh) —ℓσωℓу ѕуѕσρ вιgℓʝвιgℓ σf gσαтιѕтαи (ωσя∂ѕ σf ωιѕ∂σм/α¢нιєνємєитѕ) 19:16, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
I've been here a few weeks and haven't pissed anyone off (afaik) and I'm not a sysop! What gives? Foot, meet mouth. LynnR (talk) 19:45, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
We are, collectively, very lazy people. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:02, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for clearing that up. So he is a sysop like many users are, not an admin. Interestingly Abd does not appear to be a fan of RW. One issue that I have seen a number of people complain about is Abd's online screeching. He will write walls and walls of text on even the smallest thing, and spew out things that have nothing to do with the topic at hand. Another user complained at RW about this [18]. When Abd next logs in be prepared, he may write 10, 000 words about his article. Marky (talk) 20:18, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Speak of the devil. I discovered a blizzard of socks on Wikipedia, impersonating Ben Steigmann, creating an angry-bull response from a clueless (i.e, ordinary) WP admin, requesting on Wikiversity that Steigmann be blocked and his primary working resource be deleted. Yes, on Parapsychology -- shocking as it is, there are people who like to study such things. (Wikiversity is neutral by inclusion, not by exclusion like Wikiepdia, it avoids almost all revert warring. The alleged Wikipedia socking was so outrageous that this was done.

So ... I went to meta, filing a global checkuser request. It was granted, and a large family of socks were identified and ultimately locked. Steigmann was unblocked and the resource undeleted.

I have connected the impersonation activity with the sock family Wikipedia-tagged as Anglo Pyramidologist, apparently the Smith brothers, and it includes some well known "skeptical" editors. (These trolls are not true skeptics, they are fanatics.) The pattern is obvious for many of these: an SPA appears and dives immediately into an obscure issue, with high interest. Like Marky here. I was threatened with endless retribution for what I was doing. Starting with a downpour of socks -- and more. So now I have an RW article! Yay! Who knew I could obtain such benefit by whacking an impersonating troll! -- who has pulled this trick with many enemies. --Abd (talk) 19:05, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry bro no idea what you are talking about, have you taken your meds today :0 (!), as I said above you have a history of talking nonsense. I am not your 'enemy' or who you might think I am. I came across your peer-reviewed paper in Current Science, claiming cold fusion has been scientifically demonstrated, that is how I found out about you. It is rare to find peer-reviews on cold fusion these days, most journals would not publish what you wrote. I dug into your background and discovered (no surprise) you are a big time pseudoscience promoter and also religious. You claim parapsychology is a science etc. This website is known for "Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement", so an article on you is entirely suitable, nothing personal. Your article is also well sourced. Regards! Marky (talk) 20:10, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Ad hominem attacks are bad. "have you taken your meds today" really? ClickerClock (talk) 01:21, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
It's just a fact that lying liars lie, and arguing with trolls is useless. There are some possibly interesting issues brought up above as rationalizations for the obvious obvious, but they are irrelevant to the topic here. If someone wants to discuss "cold fusion" (a possibly misleading name) or parapsychology, and whether they are science or not, instead of just parroting opinions -- or even parroting them --, the Wikiversity Parapsychology resource and the one on cold fusion are open, and so are the Parapsychology and Cold fusion articles here, and as well, unless it's deleted, the Talk page for the article on me. I'm a real person, with a real reputation at stake (and actual science relies on "real persons"), whereas anonymous trolls are small pieces of dried-up shit stuck to the asshole of wikis and other internet cesspools. If I've failed to offend anyone, please be specific, I'll respond. This was truly hilarious. --Abd (talk) 17:35, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Actual science relies on scientists you clown. You're not a scientist. You have no degree; you said you dropped out of university and you've never worked as a scientist. What "reputation"? Your RW article just exposes you as a crank - you spend your time pushing a fringe/pseudo-science theory, when you have no scientific background whatsoever. MrOrganic (talk) 01:12, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
I told you to stop it with the Ad hominem attacks "you clown". The rest of your comment is fine. Abd has already been blocked for blanking article content. ClickerClock (talk) 01:21, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, ClickerClock. MrOrganic repeats pseudoskeptical word salad, very distinct from genuine skepticism, it's really Cargo Cult Science. The real agenda is personal attack, not the mission of RationalWiki, and he pretends to be a skeptic to gain support. I do not claim to be a "scientist," rather I am a journalist, even though I routinely trust the scientific method; however, I have actually been published under peer review, in Current Science. What theory do I push that is not falsifiable (i.e., that is "pseudoscientific")? This is all made-up. I aim to report fact, and to distinguish that from interpretation (which theory is, and my general stand is that no cold fusion theory is ready to be verified, except the simplest: deuterium is being converted to helium in the Fleischmann-Pons experiment, mechanism unknown). "No scientific background" is hogwash, though, for I sat with Richard P. Feynman for two years at Cal Tech, was self-educated and worked as an electronics designer for many decades, routinely using aspects of physics, and when I discovered abusive administration on Wikipedia (having no idea about cold fusion itself -- other than thinking "wasn't that debunked years ago?" -- only seeing a wiki policy problem, confirmed by ArbComm), I began to research cold fusion and discovered that "common knowledge" about it was out-of-date, and based largely in early errors and misinformation. I read all the skeptical books, to be sure. But the heat effect called "cold fusion" is probably insufficiently reliable to be practical in the near future, and there has been poor research in addition to some very solid research, and in addition, fraud, which I have extensively documented. The socks here are throwing a tantrum not about anything related to cold fusion, but because I exposed a sock puppet impersonation scheme of "theirs" on Wikipedia and Wikiversity and then the meta wiki. "They" are pissed and threatened revenge. That's pretty simple. "They" gave up, at least temporarily, on the WMF wikis, because it was causing collateral damage, i.e., socks not involved in the harassment were being identified by checkuser. The last thing "they" want is routine checkuser! So "they" came here, imagining that I'd be intimidated by an article. But, frankly, I DGAF, and any publicity is good publicity, for someone who now depends on eyeballs as a measure of success. --Abd (talk) 19:16, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Abd is on a mission[edit]

Moved to the coop. Wing Street (talk) 20:42, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Why is Death not the "answer"?[edit]

A recurring theme in existential philosophy I've seen is that suicide isn't the answer to life, that it's just negating the issue instead of dealing with it. But to me it does seem like a solution and it means one doesn't have to deal with the issue anymore. Their response to the matter is rather weak to me. I think it's because death is such a taboo topic that people don't want to answer the question about what if people want to die and there isn't anything medically wrong with them?

There is a lot to say about life being worth living. But if you choose to die then you wouldn't have to worry about what to fill your life with to make it worthwhile. All that work and effort required to exist is taken away. No worries, no joy, no anger, quite literally nothing. It just seems to me that when looking at it from cold logic, it doesn't make sense to continue living. I get some people say there is stuff they want to do, but that seems to fit in with the "worrying" about what you are going to fill your life with. With death there is no need for any of that. There isn't anything you need to do or want. No body to upkeep either.

That whole "life is worth living" bit doesn't make sense anymore, in fact it doesn't seem philosophically defensible. Antinatalism may have been right about this matter. Machina (talk) 06:10, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I dunno. Probably the same reason erasing a math problem on a chalkboard doesn't mean you've solved the problem.70.192.69.126 (talk) 09:09, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
life is too brief as it is and you are along time dead. Why rush it? have you considered counselling of some kind? AMassiveGay (talk) 09:54, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
There are some cases where some people may decide that suicide may be the better or best option - 'particularly unpleasant (end of life) ill health' or 'to save the lives of others' being examples. Anna Livia (talk) 10:40, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
there are many obvious cases where this would be true, but this is not the situation presented. Machina, suicide ideation is generally seen as a red flag, and taken with your other posts, please seek professional help. AMassiveGay (talk) 15:18, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Isn't that the problem though, that one cannot talk about it without thinking there is something wrong with the person. It's such a taboo subject that it's easy to label someone sick than actually think about it. So far no one has addressed the points I made.Machina (talk) 05:40, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
well, no. not really. ou've asked pretty much the same thing over and over again. we've answered over and over again. you've been unwilling to accept any answers have given. as i have mentioned before, it does not seem likely that you would want to accept any possible answer we give. you just want us to validate your own point of view. there comes a point when where your questioning ceases to to be about genuine inquiry and be a cause of concern. it seems to me to be the latter. i hope i am mistaken, if not, i urge you to please seek help. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:32, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
@AmassiveGay As someone who comes fro mthe same place as Machina: You did't answer you just wrote "life is too brief as it is and you are along time dead. Why rush it? have you considered counselling of some kind? " Thats a matter of perspective. I feel like Life is too long (dear lord another 30-50 Years of THIS Bullshit?).
Anyway @MAchina I feel ya if they'd legalize Euthanasia I'd be happy to take up on that. To answer your question: Death is inevetable. There is no inherent purpose in life (maybe the biological imperative of "make babies" :P ) and Suicide is indeed an valid logical option. However and here i join AMassiveGay: We are pre-programmed to value life and a loss of survival instinct is a distinct sign of Depression and/or Trauma. the BON formerly known as Benaresh 156.67.139.140 (talk) 21:01, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Well, the BON fka Beraresh, we don't usually offer counseling services, but can recognize when someone might be in a crisis, emotionally. People sometimes "think too much" in such a way that their emotions get shunted internally and getting out of that is simple, if you know how and darned near impossible if you don't. 23:14, 7 September 2017 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

Because simply responding that life is worth living isn't answering the question so much as dodging it. Some people say life is too long and others say there is t enough time in the world. But too many are scared to talk about death as a logical option because it would upturn everything our society stands for and what life means overall. Machina (talk) 04:47, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

It may sound flippant but i get a lot of mileage out of "'I'm living in the simulation that finally proves evolution by replicating (roughly) how our designers, (stay with me...), set things up...exactly how it is in the REAL WORLD." The notion that this all is "practice" to attain heaven or nirvana or some-such is just silly. All the chaos in the world now? Yes, this is what a "glitch" would look like if you were in a "machine"; somebody'll along to reboot us anytime now. Call it "the Rapture" if you want. 06:40, 9 September 2017 (UTC) C®ackeЯ
@machina 'Because simply responding that life is worth living isn't answering the question' maybe not, but you've not really explained bwhy life isnt worth living. it strikes me that for death tlo ever be a solution, you require quite an extreme problem. if you are constant unbearable pain, then maybe. if your death means that others may live, maybe. because life is inherently meaningless. not so much. thats more a lack of imagination. death seems like an extreme option because you cant come up with your own purpose for life AMassiveGay (talk) 10:53, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
'It just seems to me that when looking at it from cold logic, it doesn't make sense to continue living.' i am yet to see this cold logic. the only suggestion you have is that it is too much effort. the finality of death would suggest to me its only something to considered when all other options are out. you negate the possibility of ever experiencing joy or purpose. you negate experiencing anything ever again. and for what? its 'too much effort'. i have to ask, what is going on your life that makes it 'too much effort'? suicide due to laziness seems a somewhat facile notion. make the effort. seek counselling if need be. catch a flick. read a good book. hang with friends. get laid. whatever floats your boat. AMassiveGay (talk) 12:12, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
death is an end to the cycle of boredom and the relief of boredom. It seems that life is just an endless cycle of relieving negatives. You speak of experiencing joy or purpose but those aren't reasons to stick around. After all, when you are dead you don't have to worry about joy or purpose. You don't need to concern yourself with the pursuit of either. The cold logic to me seems that without any inherent purpose to life there isn't a reason to exist. Sure we have the biological processes of evolution and such but those aren't really reasons to stick around. After all, it doesn't answer the question as to why one should continue to have the species persist, it just does. Your counter points don't answer or address the main issue. You assume life is worth sticking around and that we must do so. But we don't "have" to anything. Life is hard, and there isn't a reason tos stick around just because others are offput by the prospect of you choosing death. Death is an end to the drama and endless seeking that life is full of. It has always been an option to the problems of life but we instinctually take it off the table because the notion of it scares us. If death is a valid opinion to life and when it brings, then our society wouldn't be able to handle it. I say life is pain coming from privilege and having what most don't. If those with less feel like life isn't worth going on for, then what does it say to someone who has had everything available and would still choose the alternative? It's clear you aren't interested in a serious discussion about death, you in the same camp as the rest of the population that is scared to talk about it and consider it a "last resort". Machina (talk) 16:48, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
what better reason than joy is there to exist? Why do you 'need' a reason to exist? you say life is pain, coming from a world of privilege? what possible can you have that is neither physical nor insurmountable? yes i consider death a last resort. its very nature makes it so. death is not an option for the problems of life, it is a way of avoiding those problems, of not having ro deal with them. ive no time for the opinion that suicide is a cowards way out, but is it an apt one for your situation. as scared to talk about death - are we not doing that now? its not my fault that your idea of cold logic is lacking. 'someone who had everything and would still choose the alternativer' that my friend is what counselling is all about. i personally have no problem with lifes inherent meaninglessness. i am not so arrogant that it fractures my psyche to think i am neither special nor serve some great purpose. if anything it is liberating. i am master of my own destiny. nor do i fear death. it is inevitable. it is all around. i have a lover whose buried two boyfriends. my grandfather shot himself. a friend is riddled with cancer. life is brief. im not giving it it up because i'm bored or its to much effort. it'll come soon enough without having to look for it. i have a serious drug problem and ive an incurable disease. every weekend i face up to death and literally fuck him in the arse. i have no fear of death but you seem to have a fear of life. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:33, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
It's clear you don't have any comprehension of the subject and cannot have a serious discussion without defaulting to the same failed metrics everyone else uses. You are afraid to acknowledge it, that's why you suggest it being a cowards way out (but there is no reward for facing life's problems except more of the same). Suicide is one of the hardest things to do as it involves overcoming the drives that keep us alive. You are afraid that someone who doesn't have troubles seeks to die when you tell yourself that you are brave for overcoming so much, even though you aren't. No one is. The most such actions could be called is foolish. Calling suicide the coward's way out speaks to your fear and not about the subject. The whole "master of your fate" isn't true either. Only the lucky ones with money and access can say that. The majority of people are victims to circumstances out of our control. You clearly aren't arguing from logic but from emotion. The way it stands, we don't "have" to be alive so why do it? Joy isn't a reason to live, it's just a symptom of being alive. But when you're dead you need not concern yourself with it ever again, or anything else really. No matter how I try to slice it, choosing life seems irrational considering what a raw deal it is overall and how death offers a release from it all. You also barely scratch what I mean by life being meaningless, thinking I refer only to myself. All your fighting a protest ultimately amounts to the same thing as someone who killed themselves, a hole in the ground. I don't fear life, I'm just not looking forward to living the cyclical nature of it when I don't have to. Not looking forward to having to always have to do something to make it feel "worth it", if life was worth living then we wouldn't need to do anything to make it so.Machina (talk) 21:03, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
your logic seems to be all baseless assertions. you've made up your mind and rationalising to justify your assertions, to make them seem noble in your mind. its clear to me that you dont want discussion or dialogue you just want sycophantic agreement. tough. it is also clear that the reason you dont get anything from life is that you dont want to put in any effort. too bad. let me ask you this, what would be a reason to live if joy and happiness and pleasure isnt your thing? AMassiveGay (talk) 22:15, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
I have stated my logic, all you have are appeals to emotion. That is why talking to you is fruitless. I don't want this to be right, but you frankly aren't learned enough on the matter to throw any sort of wrench in it. I don't get anything from life because life gives nothing. It simply exists and multiplies without any logical reason behind it. It's cyclical only until the end of said cycle, and then another takes it's place. It seems to be existing simply to exist, and struggling when there is no need to. Why should one put effort into life? There isn't anything saying we need to do so? If life where worth living then effort would not need to be put to make it so. Joy and happiness are only a concern for the living, and the pursuit of them isn't a reason to live but one to die actually. The fact that we have to seek goodness and pleasure lest we suffer boredom. We do the things that give us joy until they no longer do, and then we seek more. It's a never ending hunger. In a sense it is the denial of the state of human nature, boredom. Without a constant stream of good times or distractions we see life for what it actually is. It's a concern that disappears with death. We struggle to survive only to do the same thing again the next day, and when survival isn't a concern we seek something to stave off boredom or to give meaning. So we craft this civilization where we believe all these things have meaning and that they matter, but they don't. We just fool ourselves and distract our minds to avoid seeing that a diamond is a rock, baseball is just a game, gold is just a metal, and that job you have doesn't really change anything. Life is just a relief of the negatives that it brings, and when you get rid of one then more come until you die (or one of the negatives gets you). TO me the phrase that "life is worth living" is terribly ignorant, just a mantra that if we repeat long enough then maybe we'll believe it. If anything, your logic is but baseless assertions.Machina (talk) 22:45, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
'If life where worth living then effort would not need to be put to make it so' this is just arse. we are not children. we do not expect things to just happen. why do you think anything of worth would or should require no effort? you say joy is a symptom? so what? its pretty good symptom. i would say its more than that. i would say thats the point. after all, why do we do anything if not for the hope that it will in some way enable us to experience joy, pleasure, love, happiness or what have you. you say this is denial of human nature. this is false. this is human nature. why is this a bad thing? yes a diamond is just a rock. yes baseball is just a game. they have no inherent worth. so what? its not the inherent worth that matters its the worth that people place on them that does. it is an artificial construct but so what? that there is no inherent worth in life? so what? it does not follow that we are better of dead. i have long since recognised the absurdity of the things of life, of its ultimate meaningless. so what? why should it have? why should that make me not want to continue? i get enough pleasure out such meaningless distractions. you say the phrase 'life is worth living' is terribly ignorant. that it is a mantra. it may well be a mantra, but it is far from ignorant. you make the effort to get what gives you joy, pleasure, love, happiness, then you make it worthwhile. you make no effort, and get nothing from life. it is your failing not life's if you do not. its not going to be handed to you to on a plate. oh, and do try to be less of a prick. your arrogance probably doesnt help. AMassiveGay (talk) 01:14, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
It's not my failing but that of life that it isn't inherently worth living and that it is rather cruel that humans have to struggle to make it so. We struggle hard to find joy and happiness only to wake up and do it all again the next day? It's simply not logical at all, it seems like an exercise in futility or just madness. We try hard each day so that we can wake up tomorrow and try hard each day. It's either stupidity or cruelty. And once again you haven't negated my point that through death we avoid having to do any of that. We don't have to worry about joy, love, pain, friendship, nothing at all. You never feel anything ever again, but all you have is the foolishness you and everyone else spouts at me instead of addressing the main points. This seems to show me that we are deluding ourselves into thinking life is great when it isn't and that death is the preferable option. It may as well be fact. With death the concerns and joys of life aren't an issue any more. One doesn't have to worry about finding joy, or hunger, or illness, or love. It seems like the antinatalists are right on this one, if given full information about what life was like we would choose not to be born. So far there hasn't been any convincing logic as to choosing life over the peace of death.Machina (talk) 04:09, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
this is getting awfully repetitive. it false to suggest that the search for joy and happiness is a constant struggle. i am sure for some folk it may be, but it that is far from universal, and does preclude people from being happy. it suggests a false dilemma that if you are not experiencing some kind of euphoric joy you are experincing some kind of unbearable pain or misery. this is just false. think of it more of a spectrum where you can achieve a kind of base level happiness pretty much constantly. yes some effort is required. it is far the herculean task you make it out to be. plenty will say the effort, the journey, is as good as the pay off. you say death would mean not having to worry about joy. this is true, but its a curious statement. why wouldnt you want to experience joy or happiness? why wouldnt you want to do all to keep experiencing joy and happiness? why is is it foolish to want this? perhaps this is true for you. perhaps you do not experience enough joy and happiness to make it worth while for you (and as i and have others have repeated said before, seek counselling. the comment below could help there). but lets not pretend this is the case for all. lets not pretend that everyone else is deluded and only you are the seeing some of kind universal truth. lets not pretend everyone is secretly miserable because yourself might be. its an easy thing to blame ones failings or misery on the unfairness of life or when people dont share your low opinion that they must be doing stupid or deluded, but ultimately, they are happy and you are not. it it is a trap of your own making. it makes it so much harder to experience the positives of life. if i am deluded or foolish, so be it. it seems like the logical course rather than griping and insulting all who disagree with your own subjective view. i'll ask again, because you havent answered this, what would make life worth while? what would bring you enough joy and happiness to make any effort worthwhile? you keep asking us what these would be (you ask why death is the answer, it amounts to the same thing). only you can that answer it. there are no universal truths here 12:09, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

I have four responses:

  1. First: If you are considering suicidal, please call 1-800-273-8255 or visit https://suicidepreventionlifeline.org/ -- the vast majority of suicide survivors regret attempting it. Please don't.
  2. Second: Epistemic humility: You think you know what's true, but you don't really. Your brain is limited; your experience is limited; and our knowledge (our science, our philosophy) is limited. Don't stake your entire ability to learn about and change the world -- your life -- on a belief that you don't know to be true. If there's even a chance that you're wrong, it's not worth it.
  3. Third: Moral nihilism: If nothing matters, then there's no reason to keep on living. There's also no reason to commit suicide. If nothing is meaningful, then you can impose your own meaning on the universe. And that meaning probably requires you to be alive -- present in the universe -- in order to enact it.
  4. Fourth: Moral possibilism: A la Pascal's Wager, it's possible that there's moral meaning in the universe. Unless you can positively prove that nothing is moral in the universe, there's always a chance that something is. And if morality exists (and if it involves humans), then there is purpose to life. If you are alive, there's a nonzero chance that you could discover (or help discover) the correct morality. If you are not alive, there is a zero chance that you can discover the correct morality. Think of it via Pascal's Wager: If you aren't sure which God exists, or if none exists, it doesn't make sense to end your life on the off chance you got the answer correct. Instead, it makes sense to never, ever stop reading and thinking and researching about the issue. Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 07:04, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
your replies are negated by stating that life is optional. We don't have to do any of that at all. So if it isn't mandatory then why bother? Why not just simply die and no longer be concerned or involved with any of it? No more seeking or concerns about joy. No needing to read or learn, no need to see movies, or get a job. One would not be concerned about any of that. Especially not having to deal with morality or how to live. When life is optional, why not choose death? There isn't anything that we need to live for that won't be dust at some point. When you're dead you don't have to think about the "joy and journey of life". The dead have no concern or involvement with such things. All your responses are negated by simply stating that they are optional. One can just choose death and ignore all of that. As much as I don't want to admit it, it seems like the better deal. Machina (talk) 03:49, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
While technically optional, life is bittersweet and short. Everybody is effected by other people, and someone else's suicide tends to have a negative impact on many. Try to avoid focusing on all the negatives on life. Life is short, so don't make it even shorter. Sure, all the bad times may go away, but so will all the good times that make life worth living. —вιgℓʝвιgℓ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ/sᴛᴀʟᴋ) 21:48, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
@Machina You can't reject logic by calling it "optional". For example, #4 can be (oversimpifiedly) expressed such:
1: Premise: Humans should always attempt to perform morality-increasing actions.
2: Conclusion (from 1): Humans should never attempt to perform non-morality-increasing actions.
3: Premise: Suicide prevents a human from performing morality-increasing actions.
4: Premise: An action that prevents a human from performing morality-increasing action is a non-morality-increasing action.
5: Conclusion (from 3,4): Suicide is a non-morality-increasing action.
6: Conclusion (from 2,5): Humans should never attempt to perform suicide.
You can deny premise 1 -- you can say that humans don't have an obligation to perform morality-increasing actions. But that is not an uncontroversial claim. Premise 1 is merely the idea that "if morality exists, you should perform moral actions". And so long as it is possible that morality exists, it is possible that this premise holds true. For you to disprove the logic, you must disprove the existence of all possibly moralities.
TLDR: Saying "optional" is a cheap way out. There are reams upon reams of philosophy articles probing this question. FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 22:41, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

It might be cheap but it's something you don't have an answer for, something that philosophy tends to sufffer with. It can't deal with simple answers. Machina (talk) 14:53, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

You complain that respondents aren't using logic in their answers. When presented with logic, you reject it without presenting logic to that end. This is a sign of bias, not rationality. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 17:54, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
'Why not just simply die and no longer be concerned or involved with any of it? No more seeking or concerns about joy. No needing to read or learn, no need to see movies' because i want these things and the many ills of life are not yet sufficient to discount this. i am not at a point where pain and despair make suicide seem an attractive option or worth the pain it would cause those loved ones left behind. because a little effort to get the things i desire is worth that effort. you will note that while general, these are personal reasons, perhaps emotional reasons. the specifics of what these things are will vary from person to person, their own personal emotional reasons. you want to know what makes life worth living? i have repeatedly told you to look to yourself. your 'cold logic' tells you life is meaningless. i would agree. so is death. this is however, where any useful logic on the matter ends. it cannot tell us why life is worth it. it cannot tell us why death is the answer. these are personal, emotional questions with personal emotional answers. one persons answer may not be your answer but it isnt less valid than your own. sure life is optional. sure death is an option. if i stub my toe, death is an option. its an extreme option. a final one. it closes all other options. for it to be a valid option it requires an extreme and very personal problem. you say life is worth it, death is the answer. i say the opposite. both answers are valid to ourselves. they both require value judgements. both subjective views based our own life experiences, perception, emotions, our own situations. despite your insistence, there is no cold logic here. we are not machines. we are human beings. emotional creatures. any answers about the questions you are asking that discount our emotions are invalid, dare i say, not logical. we are not purchasing car insurance. the questions you are asking have deeply personal and emotional answers. my answers will differ to yours. they may take a lifetime to answer. death prevents any hope of finding an answer. at the very least, you can still enjoy the ride AMassiveGay (talk) 10:32, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Except there is cold logic. The thing that "make life worth it" only apply if you are alive. Failing to do those things are in a sense what causes suffering, which can be said to be the truth behind existence. If you die there wouldn't be a need to make life worthwhile, or anything really. The logic that applies to staying alive because life is worth living is flawed, because it only works if we have no choice but to live. If there was a painless out for life it would render all the talk about struggle and reward moot, because there would be no reason to do it all. Machina (talk) 16:36, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
'the things that "make life worthwhile" only apply if you are alive' guess what? i am alive. all those things that make life worth living all apply. Why would i choose oblivion over that? where is the logic there? sure, i wouldnt need to worry about things if dead, but why would i choose to turn my back things that i want?
'The logic that applies to staying alive because life is worth living is flawed, because it only works if we have no choice but to live.' but i thought your whole crux of your argument was that 'life is optional'. i can certainly choose to die. But why would i? where is the logic that says death is the better option? Choosing to live or die is a subjective personal choice. the worries in my world do not out weigh the pleasures of my world. If you are taking the worldwide emo position of 'didnt choose to be born', well, true but this is where we are. lets not discuss the pro and cons of a fantasy.
'Failing to do those things are in a sense what causes suffering, which can be said to be the truth behind existence.' possibly, but so what? i'm not failing to get the things i desire. I am not suffering. i dont suffer when i dont get something i want either. my happiness is not dependent on one thing.
'If there was a painless out for life it would render all the talk about struggle and reward moot, because there would be no reason to do it all.' there are plenty of painless outs. there are plenty of suicide chat rooms to get pointers, if you are so inclined. i am not so inclined. still no cold logic as to why i should. you keep saying that there. you keep saying there is no reason to live. ive given you plenty. joy, happiness, love etc. take your pick. you've given no no reasons not to live, beyond its not worth it. this might be true for you. it might be true for others. but its not true for me. its not true for most people. its all subjective choice.
Death is final. it is oblivion. we would have no worries, no nothing. this is banal in its obviousness. but we are not dead. we live and we breathe. and while we do we can experiences all the pleasures life has to offer. you are going need more than a subjective assertion that all the pleasures of life arnt worth it for oblivion to be a good option. you have provided no logic as to why this is preferable. only subjective opinion. please stop pretending you've stumbled across some universal truth, because this is a lie.AMassiveGay (talk) 18:08, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Actually joy, happiness, and love aren't guarantees. But sufffering is, just look at what happens when you do nothing. Not to mention the longer you live the higher you chances of encountering greater suffering. People don't die peacefully in their sleep. As ciorian wrote: "pleasure prepares pain". In death you have no wants, nothing to pursue. You are taken out of the turbulent chaos of life. You don't need to live, but everything must die eventually. It's doesn't matter if it happens sooner. There are no regrets when you are dead. Thoughts of all the things you wanted to do vanish. Logically speaking, there is no real reason to stay alive. If you don't need to. Technically nothing needs to live, more like wants. Life itself just multiplies without reason. To stick around is just to struggle a bit longer, but the end is the same. It doesn't matter what the journey was like if it isn't remembered. Soon all of humanity will be dust, no difference from the ones who took their lives and the ones who choose to keep going.Machina (talk) 06:15, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
1. who said anything about guarantees? i said you got to work at it to get anything out it. if you do nothing its all on you.
2. i am sure the longer you live there greater chance of experience suffering. this too is banal in its obviousness. So what? you maybe guaranteed suffering, chances are you will live a life time before you have to endure something so terrible it cancels out all the good things. and thats really key here - it has to be sufficient to make all the pleasures not worth it, it has be such that there is no likihood of getting through. until such a time death is an over reaction. you think i gonna kill myself because 20 years from now i might have cancer? its a facile suggestion.
3. yes logically, nothing 'needs' live. so what? we do live. we are alive. we are not in a fantastical world we are neither dead or alive and we get to choose? we live now. deal with that. all arguments about death having no worries, no joy, no nothing come from this fantasy land. they hold no merit because we are alive. we have worries and we have joy. you give no logical reason why anyone should give up them beyond we might at some point feel pain. top yourself then, not before.
4. yes we all will die. all too soon. another banal point. it certainly no reason to seek it out. why would you need to? one day all life will be dust. what of it? how does that in way impact the here and now? it does not. does it impact the living? it does not.
5. there is no 'reason' to live. yet we do. is it a requirement of life that it needs some grandiose purpose? it is not. similarly there is no 'reason' to die. since we are already alive, a strong, definite reason is required. not a nebulous 'its not worth it'
what we are left with is again, not cold logic, but subjective opinion of the worth of living. if you have concluded 'death is the answer', a facile answer to a facile question, then it is your own personal, subjective answer. face up to that rather than trying rationalise it as any kind of logical or reasoned argument. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:08, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
oh, one more thing. people DO die their sleep. all the fucking time AMassiveGay (talk) 17:16, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
But there is a reason to die. It frees one from wants and desires. In life an unmet desire is a source of suffering as long as it's unmet, yet once you meet it the satisfaction is far too brief. To be free of the chasing of your wants and desires seems logical. When one is dead there is no need to experience anything good, no work to do. So long as one is alive, one "must" experience such things lest they face a certain kind of hell. Wants and desires are, ironically, reasons to die. Saying there isn't a logical reason to die (apart from being incorrect) doesn't negate that there isn't one to live. That without any logical reason to live, death would be the correct choice. You are also spared any pain in the future, pain that is far more likely to occur than pleasure, which I have stated only matters to the living. In death you avoid pain and don't need pleasure. It is the logical choice. Machina (talk) 20:08, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
holy christ this is some repetitive shit.
1. 'But there is a reason to die. It frees one from wants and desires. In life an unmet desire is a source of suffering as long as it's unmet, yet once you meet it the satisfaction is far too brief.' this is both a piss poor reason to die and simply false. you do not suffer if a desire is not met. it is rarely an either/or situation. we are not children who throw a fit if they cant have a toy. we have more than one want or desire. they dont all need to be met. and once they are met, when the satisfaction, just as easily longer lasting or enduring than you suggest, fades and we are left with happy memories. our wants and desires are not the painful ravenous hunger of starvation. it is not an unpleasant experience to have them. they can provide our own personal purpose. they make the realisation of them even sweeter. wants and desires are part of what makes us human.
2. 'That without any logical reason to live, death would be the correct choice.' false, false, false. this is idiotic. aside from the reasons for living i have all ready given, you are your emotion, the sensations you feel. you cannot negate these with a 'logical' contrivance. this what we as human beings are. you cannot deny yours or my humanity. all attempts result in failure. no matter how hard you might try. you will always be these things. they will colour all you do. until such a time there can be no joy until such a time as pain is all you can feel death is not a correct choice. a 'logical' reason to live is redundant. it is not required. we are alive. it is the baseline state. to say 'then death is the correct choice' is not only not true, its the answer to a different question entirely - 'should you end your life'. without unenduring pain, there is no convincing reason that isnt steeped in your own neurosis.
3. 'You are also spared any pain in the future, pain that is far more likely to occur than pleasure, which I have stated only matters to the living.' i feel i have already answered these. repeatedly. we are alive. so they do matter. to us. to everyone living. it is far from true that you are likely to experience pain than pleasure. anyone alive can tell you that. it need not be euphoric rapturous joy. people get pleasure from millions of tiny thing everyday. satisfaction from the most mundane things. pain? awful, unendurable, pain? not as common you suggest. i am sure there are people whose life is one of unending misery. probably lots. but that would be changing the scope of the discussion. in the future, i might get cancer, but the key word here is 'future'. if it isnt immediate, i not going to live in fear of it. im not going to fear it to the extent that i will end it all because years from now i might be in pain. this is just facile. or are you talking more general pain? i was a little bit sad when my niece and nephew went home today. i might be a little bit sad when i part ways with a friend someday. should i end it? or just get laid instead? shit, people with cancer can often still get enough pleasure and joy in their lives that that pain isnt enough for em not to carry on until the inevitable.
so, again, we are faced with the same subjective opinions on the worth of live, presented as if they were a logical argument. this is your delusion. AMassiveGay (talk) 23:35, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
You don't get it. Life just seems far too long, too much time and not enough things to entertain oneself until they die. It’s like we have to fill the time with something, in that sense life seems more like a prison than an opportunity. Especially even more so given the meaningless nature of the universe and the crippling sense of nihilism that surrounds one upon the realization of that. There is no ultimate goal to life, we are just meat sacks wandering until we expire. What kind of existence is that? Why prolong such a cosmic joke?Machina (talk) 06:06, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
i get it completely. i have already made clear it clear why i believe this is nonsense and there is no point in repeating myself here. this is nothing nearing a logical argument. it is an argument based on subjective personal perspective. if this is genuinely your view, you should consider that no one who is happy has this view. this is a view of someone who very much needs counselling of some kind to tackle whatever underlying issues caused a such existential angst and reengage with life to be happy. if this is you, please seek help. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:17, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
You don't, you have not refuted any of my points made and just insist that it's worth living. My argument has solid logic and all you have is emotion. I would think no one who is happy shares this, because they never stop to think about it. They just push it out of their minds. You don't get it, there is no help for someone who has thought this through and seen the truth. Not my fault that people either deny it or ignore it to be happy. But then that's how everyone gets through life.Machina (talk) 05:33, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
i am at a loss for words. the statement 'you have not refuted any of my points' is at best disingenuous or even a bare faced lie. look at this page. look at the discussion i thought we were having. each argument you have made i have attempted to thoroughly and clearly explain why believe them to be false. i did this for multiple points over multiple posts. your replies made no attempt to answer these points. your replies instead chose to ignore my points, insist 'i dont get it' and restate your argument in slightly different terms. i answered each, as thoroughly and clearly as i could after which you responded as before. i repeat - you ignored all my points. now, without any attempt at answering them, with out any attempt to show me why you think i might be wrong, you now dismiss all the points all the argument i have made. you have in fact ignored, misrepresented, misunderstood and finally dismissed at that said throughout this conversation. its like you havent even read what i have written. its all there, for all who care to see it. i have done you the courtesy of addressing your points, clearly and thoroughly. you have made no attempt to address mine. your logic makes huge leaps from the most banal of facts. it denies the subjective nature of the questions posed. you do this with a certainty that borders on blind faith. you do this with a self deceiving arrogance that you cannot even comprehend that others might have a different view, that if they have 'seen the truth' they must see it as you do, else they are in denial. these are grandiose claims, revelatory claims made over the most banal points and unjustified logical leaps. this is not 'solid logic', this is religion. and now you do this with a dishonesty that makes furthering the discussion futile. AMassiveGay (talk) 11:57, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Well that's not entirely true, someone who's currently living is a sentient entity. megalodon (talk) 03:53, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

To put it so even Mechina could understand:
Witchi-tie-to, gimee rah,
Whoa rah neeko, whoa rah neeko
Hey ney, hey ney, no way
Witchi-tie-to, gimee rah
Whoa rah neeko, whoa rah neeko
Hey ney, hey ney, no way
Water spirit feelin'
Springin' round my head
Makes me feel glad
That I'm not dead
Witchi-tie-tie, gimee rah
Whoa rah neeko, whoa rah neeko
Hey ney, hey ney, no way
Witchi-tie-tie, gimee rah
Whoa rah neeko, whoa rah neeko
Hey ney, hey ney, no way
no flying monkeys please

Dear illiterate BON: No one argued that suicide is never the best option. The general arguments favor the conclusion that it usually is not a good choice. Which it is not.Ariel31459 (talk) 02:30, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
FYI BoN there are suicidal minors who honestly believe they are pedophiles. (They aren't pedophiles.) That's a legit mental illness that exists. They truly believe that they are evil people who need to be erased from existence. Bye, jackass. ClickerClock (talk) 12:35, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Suicide: why not? I think the answer is going to be different for different people. Obviously if a person kills themselves, there are going to be people in their life who hurt a lot as a result, family, friends, etc. I've had people in my life kill themselves (my cousin and my stepsister), and so I've experienced and seen some of the hurt it causes. But, thinking back to times when I've been really depressed and contemplating suicide, I know it is possible to get into a state in which you are just so consumed with your own hurt, you lose the ability to care about the harm you would do to others; or even, you think for various reasons that they deserve the hurt you are considering inflicting on them. For me, personally, right now, the biggest reason not to kill myself is I couldn't do that to my kids–of course it would hurt my wife, siblings, parents, other family, friends, but the harm I'd do to my kids is the thing that dissuades me the most–if I killed myself I'd really screw them up for life. So, I think the odds of suicide for me at the moment are pretty low, even though every now and again I find my thoughts returning to the topic of my own suicide, but when that happens it feels like something distant, an unlikely possibility, rather than something concrete and approaching. But, that reason not to kill myself is really pragmatic rather than philosophical–it is in part moral, in that I feel that hurting my kids in that way would be wrong; but, even a moral nihilist can feel bad about hurting their own children, so long as they interpret "bad" as a purely emotional (as opposed to moral) term. And, I feel that reason quite strongly now, but there have been times in my life (when I was single and childless and feeling estranged from family and friends) when it has felt a lot weaker to me. So, do I have any more philosophical reasons not to kill myself? Well, I believe in an objective moral law, I believe in a deity, I believe in an afterlife; I believe that killing myself would contravene the objective moral law, displease the deity, and that would be a big problem for me to deal with in the afterlife–so suicide wouldn't be escaping my problems, just incurring a new and big one. But, a lot of people say I shouldn't believe those things; that I'm wrong, even that I'm irrational, to hold those beliefs. Yet they are actually a significant part of the psychological infrastructure I use to prevent my own suicide, and back in the dark old days of my early twenties, when I didn't have a partner or kids, they had a much bigger role to play than they do now. I actually think, if I had been philosophically committed to naturalism/atheism at that time in my life, I would have been much more likely to kill myself. None of the purely philosophical–as opposed to pragmatic–reasons against committing suicide that atheists/naturalists propose have ever convinced me. So, I know some religious folks claim "atheism causes suicide", and I know most atheists consider that idea to be ridiculous, even offensive, but looking at myself I see an element of truth in it–if my religious beliefs help to prevent my own suicide, then were I to remove them I'd make my own suicide more likely, and if I was then to actually kill myself you could say my adoption of atheism/naturalism would be one of the causes of my suicide. Of course, there are plenty of atheists/naturalists out there who will never kill themselves, and there are also some theists/non-naturalists who commit suicide–but, maybe there is a certain type of person, of whom I am one, who has some disposition towards suicide which religious beliefs effectively reduce, and in that type of person atheism/naturalism may actually increase the risk of suicide, even as in other persons with a different psychological makeup it makes no difference. (((Zack Martin))) 15:02, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

The concerns of your family isn't something to stop you. After all, you can't feel pain and regret in death.Machina (talk) 05:33, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
You are wrong. And it is not a close call: family concerns do prevent self immolation. One feels the pain and inhibitions before hand, and these cease when one resolves to live on. Furthermore, the anticipation of the value of future pleasure far outweighs the advantage of the painlessness of death. If this is not true in your case, you should see your GP for a physical. I would have that checked.Ariel31459 (talk) 16:32, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Let me put it this way: a lot of people buy life insurance for their family. They want to ensure that if they die unexpectedly, their partner and children are provided for. Now, some of those people believe in a life after death; but many of them believe that death is extinction. Yet, even though they believe they cease to exist at death, they still want to make sure that their family is provided for after they cease to exist, so they still buy life insurance. This is true even of suicidal people. In fact, some suicidal people find life insurance so attractive, that life insurers invariably either exclude suicide totally, or subject it to multi-year waiting periods, to stop suicidal people from sending them broke (and also to avoid encouraging suicide). But, if you care enough about your family to take out life insurance before killing yourself, maybe you'd realise that they rather you alive than getting the money. So, the harm one will cause to one's family by killing one's self is a good reason not to kill one's self, and that is a good reason even if death is extinction. (It could be a good reason in a moral sense, if harming one's family is morally wrong; but, even a moral nihilist who denies there is any morality might still decide that they don't want to hurt their family.) Of course, some people either don't have any family, or they don't care about hurting them, or they even feel the deserve to be hurt, so this reason doesn't work for everyone–but believing that death is extinction is not a reason for it to not work. (((Zack Martin))) 09:31, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Because Hawkins Cheezies exist, Machina. PearOfSalamanca talk