RationalWiki:Saloon bar/Archive283

This is an archive page, last updated 2 March 2018. 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>, <278>, <279>, <280>, <281>, <282>, <284>, <285>, <286>, <287>, <288>, <289>, <290>, <291>, <292>, <293>, <294>, <295>, <296>, <297>, <298>, <299>, <300>, <301>, <302>, <303>, <304>, <305>, <306>, <307>, <308>, <309>, <310>, <311>, <312>, <313>, <314>, <315>, <316>, <317>, <318>, <319>, <320>, <321>, <322>, <323>, <324>, <325>, <326>, <327>, <328>, <329>, <330>, <331>, <332>, <333>, <334>, <335>, <336>, <337>, <338>, <339>, <340>, <341>, <342>, <343>, <344>, <345>, <346>, <347>, <348>, <349>, <350>, <351>, <352>, <353>, <354>, <355>, <356>, <357>, <358>, <359>, <360>, <361>, <362>, <363>, <364>, <365>, <366>, <367>, <368>, <369>, <370>, <371>, <372>, <373>, <374>, <375>, <376>, <377>, <378>, <379>, <380>, <381>, <382>, <383>, <384>, <385>, <386>, <387>, <388>, <389>, <390>, <391>, <392>, <393>, <394>, <395>, <396>, <397>, <398>, <399>, <400>, <401>, <402>, <403>, <404>, <405>, <406>, <407>, <408>, <409>, <410>, <411>, <412>, <413>, <414>, <415>, <416>, <417>, <418>, <419>, <420>, <421>, <422>, <423>, <424>, <425>, <426>, <427>, <428>, <429>, <430>, <431>, <432>, <433>, <434>, <435>, <436>, <437>, <438>, <439>, <440>, <441>, <442>, <443>, <444>, <445>, <446>, <447>, <448>, <449>, <450>, <451>, <452>, <453>, <454>, <455>, <456>, <457>, <458>, <459>, <460>, <461>, <462>, <463>, <464>, <465>, <466>, <467>, <468>

, (new)(back)

Revival of In Search of...

The history channel (sigh) is rebooting the classic pseudoscience series with another reboot's spock as host.While I hope the it'll be scientific I think that won't be the case so its times like these I'll wonder how we don't have an article on the original.03:32, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

@Vorarchivist I think you accidentally signed with five tildes. CowHouse (talk) 04:41, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Oops Vorarchivist (talk) 16:18, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

The "Reality" of "Truth"

New pseudoscience documentary from Zappy "I like the letter Z" Zappalin has it all - illuminati conspiracy theories, appeals to ancient knowledege, and random non-sequiturs saying that everyone getting high on Ayahuasca (DMT) is the answer to all of our "modern problems". Oh, and of course there's a cameo from intolerable shit eater knowledgeable thought leader Deepak Chopra. https://youtu.be/RvC8LckZczg Threadnaught (talk) 12:51, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

What a bunch of bullshit, oh except for the drug part, me gusta. Darthmaul (talk) 20:31, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

The wisdom of the search box

Typing in 'd' get, as the first three entries:

• Didit falicy
• Donald Trump
• Don't feed the Troll

There are other such pareidolia-insights/amusements to be found. Anna Livia (talk) 23:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I feel like I've seen this pointed out before... —Kazitor, ^pending 01:02, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Yep. Thought so. —Kazitor, ^pending 07:11, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

To amuse newcomers since then - and following how the search box suggestions change is a guide to how RW is developing/used. A variant is linking up program titles on the TV guide (often much better than the actual several programs). Anna Livia (talk) 13:07, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Legalization of Psilocybin

Now that weed has been decriminalized, Psilocybin appears to be the next drug to be legalized. I honestly support any drug that can cure depression. Do you all think it will happen? In California, there's a petition that requires 365,000 signatures. I encourage any Californians to sign it.—(((CheeseburgerFace)))  (talk • stalk) 03:33, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

It's not gonna happen. There's a vast difference in the number of users. Most people don't even know what psilocybin is. Bongolian (talk) 05:47, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I've never heard of it. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 16:21, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

It's the main psychoactive chemical in magic mushrooms (Psilocybe spp.). Bongolian (talk) 20:52, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Just be careful. There is no "cure" for depression, just treatment. Psilocybin can probably help more often than harm, but there's still risk. EIat10s (talk) 18:40, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

—(((CheeseburgerFace)))  (talk • stalk) 19:06, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

You know, this is a good time to ask a question that I've had burning in my mind for a long while. The question is, how harmful are psychedelic drugs to the human brain and/or body? PearOfSalamanca (talk)

“” You cannot say that LSD fries your brain because we've shown that if anything it makes your brain work better.

—interview with neuropsychopharmacologist David Nutt (52-insights.com)

—(((CheeseburgerFace)))  (talk • stalk) 05:53, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

See the LSD page. Another neuroscientist, David Nichols, thinks that it can push people in to schizophrenia if they're predisposed to it. Bongolian (talk) 08:08, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Are there any actual studies that suggest this or is this just the opinion of one scientist? Christopher (talk) 12:09, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

"Is LSD about to return to polite society? — For 40 years, Amanda Feilding, Countess of Wemyss and March, has believed psychedelics are an effective treatment for depression and anxiety. Now a growing number of scientists agree"—(((CheeseburgerFace)))  (talk • stalk) 15:38, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

The linked article doesn’t appear to mention any specific studies. Actual studies (only based on five minutes of searching through Pubmed) appear to lend tentative support to the idea that shrooms can be used to treat depression, though. Christopher (talk) 16:54, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

RationalWiki has my compiled research on Psilocybin. There's not much I could find on LSD, likely because its infamy from the Beat movement.—(((CheeseburgerFace)))  (talk • stalk) 17:01, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Can we get weed legal first everywhere else before moving on to the next thing? TheCheat^{I run on alcohol} 03:57, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

$1-2/3=1/3$

It's not $0.3$ because $0.3$'s fraction equivalent is $3/10$. I sure hope the respondants are not serious about their choice of $0.3$ as the poll's answer.—(((CheeseburgerFace)))  (talk • stalk) 04:51, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I chose Jesus, but I don't think 1 - 2/3 is actually Jesus. I'm sure it's a joke. Spriggina (thảo luận) (đóng góp) @ 05:05, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

According to the Bible, Jesus = pi = 3.14 = pie = holy sacrament, right? Bongolian (talk) 05:49, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

$0.3$ is not an option in the poll; $0.{\dot {3}}$ is. The difference is a dot. The reason I included 0.33333333333333337 (and the reason I even made the poll) is because, due to floating-point errors, Python claims that 1-2/3 is 0.33333333333333337. —Kazitor, ^pending 06:27, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Does a dot show that it's non-terminating? If so, then there's two correct answers.—(((CheeseburgerFace)))  (talk • stalk) 18:46, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I believe I've seen that denoted by $0.3333...$ or $0.{\overline {33}}$, but I could be wrong. I've never seen a dot above a decimal, so I thought it was just a speck on my screen. Spriggina (thảo luận) (đóng góp) @ 19:34, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I’ve seen 0.3... and the dot thing but not the one with s line on top. Christopher (talk) 21:05, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I've seen an ellipsis, dots and overlines all used to denote repeating decimals. —Kazitor, ^pending 23:45, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Once again, we are reminded why endless resistance to creeping decimalism is necessary. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 03:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps more interestingly is the question: is 0.9999 repeating the same as 1? People tell me that is is, but it somehow feels wr0ng. But I am no mathematician. Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 18:04, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

0.999... is 1. Proofs support this, and yes, it is counter-intuitive.—(((CheeseburgerFace)))  (talk • stalk) 19:40, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

It's not that counter-intuitive. As you go further along the digits, it gets closer and closer to one. It does this infinitely, hence so the difference between .99... and 1 is 0.0000000...[infinite 0s]1. That one is infinitely small. More formally:

${\begin{aligned}x&=0.999\dots \\10x&=9.999\dots \\10x-x&=9.999\dots -0.999\dots \\9x&=9\\x&=1\end{aligned}}$

Note how x is both .999 and 1. —Kazitor, ^pending 21:31, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, it's like an asymptote, however, I was speaking more for the people who don't actually understand math. According to Wikipedia:

math students can find the equality sufficiently counterintuitive that they question or reject it.

—(((CheeseburgerFace)))  (talk • stalk) 21:53, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

So if 0.9 recurring is the same as 1.0, is 0.8 recurring the same as 0.9 recurring?Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 06:29, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

No, 0.8... is ${\tfrac {8}{9}}$. —Kazitor, ^pending 06:41, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

The non-uniqueness of decimal expansions is a somewhat interesting artifact of how we express numbers in decimal. As Kazitor hinted at in his demonstration that .999...=1, the decimal expansion of .999... can be thought of as a infinite geometric series that converges to 1. In general, we write the following to express a number in decimal notation where each $\$a_{i}\$$ satisfies $0leqa_{i}\leq b-1$ where $b$ is the base we are expressing our number in (in this case 10):

${\begin{aligned}x&=(a_{n})(a_{n-1})\dots (a_{0}).(b_{1})(b_{2})\dots \\&=\sum _{i=0}^{n}a_{i}(10^{i})+\sum _{j=1}^{\infty }{\frac {b_{j}}{10^{j}}}\end{aligned}}$

Thus, we can write that,

${\begin{aligned}0.999&=\sum _{i=0}^{1}0(10^{i})+\sum _{j=1}^{\infty }{\frac {9}{10^{j}}}\\&=9\sum _{j=1}^{\infty }{\frac {1}{10^{j}}}\\&=9\cdot \lim _{n\to \infty }\sum _{j=1}^{n}{\frac {1}{10^{j}}}\\&=9\cdot (\lim _{n\to \infty }{\frac {0.1-0.1^{n+1}}{1-0.1}})\\&=9\cdot (\lim _{n\to \infty }{\frac {0.1}{0.9}})=9/9=1\end{aligned}}$

Where we have used the formula for the partial sum of a geometric series above. We can show that the formula, $\sum _{i=1}^{n}a^{i}={\frac {a-a^{n+1}}{1-a}}$, holds for any $a\neq 1$ through induction. First we observe that $\sum _{i=1}^{1}a^{i}=a={\frac {a-a^{2}}{1-a}}={\frac {a(1-a)}{1-a}}$. Thus, our formula holds in the base case. Next for our inductive step we assume that the formula holds up to some finite $n\in \mathbb {N}$. Adding $a^{n+1}$ yields,

${\begin{aligned}a^{n+1}+\sum _{i=1}^{n}a^{i}&=\sum _{i=1}^{n+1}a^{i}\\&={\frac {a-a^{n+1}}{1-a}}+a^{n+1}\\&={\frac {a-a^{n+1}}{1-a}}+{\frac {a^{n+1}-a^{n+2}}{1-a}}\\&={\frac {a-a^{n+2}}{1-a}}\end{aligned}}$

This is the result we expected, so our formula must hold for n+1 if it holds for n. Since our formula holds for n=1, we know it must also hold for n=2 and n=3 and so on in accordance with weak induction. With a formula for the partial sums in hand, we can proceed to find the limit as n approaches infinity, which is what is meant in the expression 0.999... If we assume that $a<1$, then $(a^{n+1})\to 0$. Thus, by the algebraic limit theorem, $({\frac {a-a^{n+1}}{1-a}})\to {\frac {a}{1-a}}$. For $a=0.1$, this gives us $({\frac {0.1-0.1^{n+1}}{1-a}})\to 0.1/0.9=1/9$. With all of this in hand we obtain a proof that our series of partial sums indicated by 0.999... converges to 1. Samstr (talk) 20:58, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

We can also more intuitively show that the sum of an infinite geometric series takes the form shown above. Let $S=a+a^{2}+a^{3}+...$. Thus, $aS=a^{2}+a^{3}+a^{4}+...$ so $S-aS=(1-a)S=a+a^{2}-a^{2}+a^{3}-a^{3}+...$ giving $S={\frac {a}{1-a}}$. Samstr (talk) 21:12, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

You realize that all of this gibberish is witchcraft. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 18:58, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I took number systems and real analysis and I'm gonna use it goshdarnit! Samstr (talk) 19:01, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Math is for nerds. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓^(T|C) 06:44, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

True. That's why I use maths.—Kazitor, ^pending 07:06, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

No, but 0.88888... is 1 in base 9. It only works if it’s one less than the base number. Christopher (talk) 14:26, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

To clarify, Christopher means 0.888... as a base 9 number (which is different to 0.8888 in base 10). —Kazitor, ^pending 04:38, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

• flashbacks to Algebra II and Pre-Calculus (and maybe some calculus, idk)*-💎📀1️⃣ (talk) 03:28, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Left Behind is F**king Sadist

Looking back at the series of my questionable childhood I have come to realize just how deep this sadism goes. Left Behind's vision of the future in a nutshell is this: a messanic dictator will bring down his eternal city to planet earth, where he will rule over mindless, utterly brainwashed, genderless and neutered, radical psychopaths, who actually advocate throwing millions of people into a literal lake of fire. While the inhabitants of this city bask in pleasure, millions of people will experience searing pain in every part of their body for an eternity.

This is a work of pure hatred and malice against society by a man who claims to be a minister. Instead of looking into the doubtful authorship of Revelations and its dubious place in the Christian canon, Tim takes this symbolic apocalypse, the Book of Revelations, and interprets it as only a hater of mankind would.

Tim LaHay's New Jerusalem and its god are comparable to George Orwell's 1984 and its Big Brother. Both are a place where the traditional family unit, composed of husband, wife, and child, have been destroyed and replaced by a dictator and a servant relationship. Both are a place where the orgasm is obliterated, where all memory of the past is gone, where humans possess no more free will.

I hate it so much that I have decided to write an antithesis to Left Behind as well Revelations. This work will portray the New Jerusalem for the Hellish nightmare it is. I just need some support and any ideas you guys have to offer. Darthmaul (talk) 19:51, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Man, I haven't thought about Left Behind style fundamentalism in years. What prompted this examination? ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 20:45, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I made this examination after trying to read the Left Behind series online where I left off years ago. Before this I had read 1984 and researched religious maniacs of all creeds. After reading I noticed the similarity between Tim Lahayes twisted vision of the future and Airstrip 1, the Inquisition, repressive regimes in general. Left Behind talks about the glorified bodies of the saints, not subject to any of the limitations and temptations of a natural human body.

I reasoned that changing a humans brain to make it incapable of thinking about or desiring to commit actions that are called sin, is a crime in itself. The action would require the mutilation of the brain, yet Tim LaHay thinks this is some type of beautiful dream.

I asked myself would I allow a scientist to perform a surgery to my brain which would eliminate the ability to do certain actions. The answer is an obvious no, then after considering just how unnatural and cruel such a thing would be, I wondered how it would be any different if God tried to do the same thing. Tim LaHay probably wouldn't allow scientists to do this to him (if it was even possible), why the hell would he let a god do it.Darthmaul (talk) 21:38, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Congrats on finding out why I left Christianity ages ago. That and I read the Bible. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 21:46, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

If you've readen said book, that's to be expected. The supposedly good guys are the ones who send all plagues and disasters to the world, not to mention what happens with Abel Sephiroth his son there (and the less I talk about other nonsense, the better). And then there are the issues brought by stuff as the one commented above. It's easy to see why thinking people is so much disliked by Fundies and the like.

The most interesting part is to see what has become of what originally was either Anti-Roman propaganda or the result of... well, or both, knowing it seemingly was incorporated in extremis into the canon and that supposedly Luther was going to leave it outside of it.

As for ideas, how does end the series?. Is the entire Universe destroyed and Jesus is now in charge as in the source for that thing? Panzerfaust (talk) 23:34, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

The Left Behind series pretty much ends like this: After the battle of Armageddon, Jesus is ruling in his temple with resurrected King David. A group called the Other Light rises up against him with an army even bigger than the army that showed up in Armageddon, then they lose, and go down screaming. LA FIN Darthmaul (talk) 00:35, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Its nothing but snuff porn for American evangelists, some kind of twisted fanatical dream where all unbelievers are subjected to the most horrific tortures imaginable. The authors took a book that’s rejected by several non-American Christian denominations, and bred a monster. It was the last book accepted into the Christian biblical canon. The Church of the East rejects it, it was considered tainted because the heretical sect of the Montanists relied on it and doubts were raised over its Jewishness and authorship. Eusebius (c. 330 AD), one of the church fathers, also rejected Revelation, as well as Cyril of Jerusalem (348 AD), the Council of Laodicea (363), and Codex Vaticanus, which is the oldest copy of the Greek bible. How much proof do Revelation porn addicts need, Revelation is not part of the New Testament. As if the Bible didn't already have contradictions, Revelations heaps up a fuckton more, hallelyah! Whereas as the Gospels name one unforgivable sin, Revelations says there is two more unforgivable sins, taking the mark and adding or taking away from the words of the book itself. Why the fuck would I burn in Hell for adding one syllable to a book? What do fundies have to say about this?

Revelations 2: 22,23 says that Jesus Christ is gonna kill some children just because their mother is, immoral? I thought the children aren't punished for the fathers sins. Where the fuck did that promise run off to? Are they punished for their mother’s sins instead?

Its like fundamentalists just ignore the bulging body of facts and let it all go out the other ear, they've got their faces stuck up their asses for eternity. I once was in a similar situation, dumb enough to eat all the fundamentalist shit I was fed and savour every particle of it. I'm so lucky I made it out sane. Darthmaul (talk) 03:02, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

This shit is why I am a Pagan. I have read about it. Ba'al and Asherah, both Godly beings in Mythology are now demons in this distortion of their own Bible and Middle Eastern mythology. By the way, wine is the cure for Anthrax is this bullshit story. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:07, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Most Christians don't know shit about the Bible anyway, 90 percent of them don't know what Asherah is, or the fact that Genesis never says God created the world. The word for create in Hebrew, bara, actually means to seperate. To read more for those who still cling to the idea of world creators, read these These sources do not lead to Wikipedia by the way. The question is, does this mean that Genesis is atheistic in the sense that, while a powerful being is posited to exist, he isn't the creator, nor is he omniscient (Jeremiah 17:10) or omnipotent (Genesis 11), he has a physical body and has wrestling matches (Genesis 32:22-30), and needs a friend to calm him down when he rage quits (Exodus 32:12-23). Does this even qualify as belief in a god or simply belief in El, which means a variety of things. I found out that אֵל is a shortened form of אַיִל, ayil, which can mean ram, pillar, door post, jambs, pilaster, strong man, leader, chief, mighty tree, and terebinth. http://lexiconcordance.com/hebrew/0352.html The root word refers to strength. Thus the definition of God according to Hebrew is simply an ultra strong guy. Is Genesis atheistic all along? Darthmaul (talk) 03:08, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

As for the Baal and Asherah thing, when I heard preachers they present always them as demons, such as the Jezebel part when supposedly hundreds of priests are practicing rituals to have them coming for hours to no avail. When Yahweh ones go for the same, fire from the sky appears at the moment or something alike. I guess they're practicing cognitive dissonance or they may say that was Canaanite religion, not Israel's one (I've seen that at the other Wiki, biblical scholars going one way and non-ones the other). I guess the same will happen with the examples given above about Genesis, but that's to be expected when you base everything in a book, cherry-pick the parts you're interested into (omnipotence, etc), ignore things as the Trinity that were imported and have weak justification, and get into lots of trouble when you put it against what we know about the world (evolution, Big Bang, etc. are not necessary just that everything turns about a small part of the world, even if you include the Roman Empire, and beyond there is pretty much as if it did not exist at all).

As for Revelation (better said, Left Behind) the sad part is that a literal reading of the book gives that impression. I wonder if that brain washing includes not to feel pity for those who will forever be tormented, and if not if mentioning it would give you an one-way trip there -and presumably the prospects for science there (science as in astronomy, etc) look bleak, plus I'm seeing that dominated by Christian economics-. Not to mention that eternity is a very long time and the 'Verse a very big thing if it's still existing as we know (according to Slacktivist or at the very least people who comments on his section at Patheos it's not even brought into question). It could be redeemable if it served for good worldbuilding (the way Christianity works in a RPG game, where everything is a scam built around a sort of artificial deity, comes to mind), but I doubt that it will be the case.

As an aside, why the "good guys" let that other group pop up and why they attempt a frontal assault instead of resorting to the way the Devil acts according to Evangelicals (the equivalent of guerrilla warfare, moving underground, etc)?. That's not the Salvation War series.

EDIT. Another thing that bugs me: Why other gods, etc. could not exist there having somehow survived hidden, contact with the rebels, and organize a resistance movement?. Oh well, I forgot what stuff is this.

Panzerfaust (talk) 10:36, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Good question, why would Left Behind's Satan march right up to his enemies when the book never depicted him as a stupid brute. In Left Behind this characters shows surprising intelligence. Did he lose all that while he was in prison?

Seriously though Panzerfaust, do you think the Yahweh of the J Source counts as a god (in the modern Christian sense) at all. Cutting out the 6 day creation of the Elohist source we don't even have an account of creation. If not a creator, what did the ancient Yahweh cult think their god was? Darthmaul (talk) 20:17, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Good question. If he was the war deity of the pantheon, little can be created that way. Panzerfaust (talk) 14:18, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

References

I can't believe the author(s) of the Left Behind series didn't want to ripoff Warhammer 40,000, minus the Spess Mehreens! Still, the mass genocide of unbelievers sounds good enough to satisfy Khorne. K0rnsbl0d^{Let the galaxy burn!"Kill!Maim!Burn!"} 19:37, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

The "falling star(s)" thing could very well fit the description of an Exterminatus. The rest looks as if written from the Imperial perspective. Panzerfaust (talk) 14:18, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

What about all the people who say 'OK I believe Jesus Christ is my saviour - now I will go back to pursuing the sect of choice.' (or similar phrase)? And, as with the Flood, what about children 'and all other living entities' not able to make the declaration? Anna Livia (talk) 16:37, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Respect to the Flood, you'd better not look for any real meaning on it as it has nothing. Just a Bronze Age text for Bronze Age people, that falls apart as the rest of the Bible when you consider the sheer size of this planet -just to begin with-. Panzerfaust (talk) 21:55, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Most people accept that 'the Flood' is a tale multiply told which started off as 'We've been flooded once too often, let's put everything into coracles and float to the nearest ground that is obviously above the floodplain' via 'what is being discussed [http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1750698016667453 here' and then went via 'Send three and fourpence...' (look it up) to the "global flood" meme we have in the Bible. Anna Livia (talk) 15:11, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Interesting link. I'm still wondering who'll be the worst: if those who simple accept it as truth and carry away the problems using Goddidit, or those who attempt to rationalize it using baraminology. Panzerfaust (talk) 12:04, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax‎‎ banned from Wikiversity

Abd ul-Rahman Lomax‎‎ who was at one time a trouble-maker on RW has been banned from Wikiversity, they even removed his talk-page access today [1]. Is that a bit of karma or what? 5.134.119.220 (talk) 15:46, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Well he was a bit of an asshole so I could say yeah karma. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓^(T|C) 20:56, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Hahahaha! That asshat generated more lulz again!K0rnsbl0d^{Let the galaxy burn!"Kill!Maim!Burn!"} 19:26, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Can we please unban Elvis is King?

This guy is fucking hilarious:[2] (formatting exaggerated)

There are even so-called "Christian" women who belong to Roman Catholic or mainline Protestant or even weak sauce "Evangelical" groups such as the Southern Baptist Convention who go about this pursuit of immense and unmitigated vanity!!!!!!!! WHERE ARE THE REAL CHRISTIAN WOMEN GOING AND PROTESTING OUTSIDE OF VAIN AND SICKENING DISPLAYS OF VANITY LIKE ALL OF THESE SEPHORA OUTLETS POPPING UP IN MALLS ALL ACROSS THIS NATION WHILE GOD FEARING CHRISTIANS IN AFRICA ARE STARVING?! WHERE IS THE LOVING AND TOLERANT LEFT ON THIS ONE? OH, BUYING THEIR LIBERAL IPHONES AND IPADS AND IMACS AND IPODS INSTEAD OF GOING AND PROTESTING THESE JEWELERS AND MAKEUP AND PERFUME AND EXPENSIVE IMMODEST GARMENTS LIKE THESE LEGGINGS AND CARDIGANS AND CROP TOPS AND ALL OF THIS OTHER SATANIC TREACHERY! GET A SPINE, YOU MEN! YOUR^[sic] SO-CALLED "CHRISTIAN" WOMEN ARE TOO WEAK TO TAKE A STAND! WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!
LET'S ALL MAKE SURE THAT WE PUT AN END TO THIS MADNESS!!!! NO MORE!! God's people said AMEN!

I want to see more gold nuggets like this.—(((CheeseburgerFace)))  (talk • stalk) 21:29, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

This shouldn't be an excuse for you to slack off. :P On the other hand, I don't think we banned LogicMaster777 or RightwingRationalWiki (whatever that name is). --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 21:35, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

William Grimes, clearly his sock, isn’t banned. I honestly wouldn’t put it past him to come back in 2046 if it were possible. Christopher (talk) 21:42, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I mean, this guy claims he's retired yet he's still active enough here to spew shit on his talk page. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓^(T|C) 21:55, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Nah. The Elvoid himself requested a permaban (see the coop case)[3] + he retired. If he wants to Poupon our peaner-butter-nanner-bacon samwiches,[4] he can go do it through his sock! Bongolian (talk) 03:08, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I really like your progressively bigger font edit of Evil Elvis' rant! The slob and his multiple sock puppets should be relegated to his user page, though. Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 04:32, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

@Bongolian why do you keep encouraging sockpuppeting? --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 21:01, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it's so much encouraging sockpuppeting, but recognizing that these people already (likely) have socks, @LeftyGreenMario. In the case of banned users coming back as socks, it actually makes them do the work to demonstrate that they could be good actors rather than just begging to be unbanned. Bongolian (talk) 07:40, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm feeding off of this drama, guys. Do you have some more? Khorne is still hungry for this potential flamewar K0rnsbl0d^{Let the galaxy burn!"Kill!Maim!Burn!"} 19:32, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Socks aren’t against the rules as long as you don’t vote twice, although it’s obviously different if you’re banned. Christopher (talk) 21:26, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

New RationalWiki political party

G’day folks! I have an announcement: I have started a new RationalWiki political party - Conservatives and Right-wingers Alliance! Please feel free to join if you want to help rebuild the credibility of this Wiki by ending the liberal bias here!

Brought to you by Right-wing RationalWiki, President of the Conservatives and Right-wingers Alliance

Well this is the most pointless and hopeless thing I've seen all week. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 17:47, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

RW political parties have been defunct for years, IIRC. Spriggina (thảo luận) (đóng góp) @ 18:28, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

We should all join as a joke. Samstr (talk) 18:59, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Meh. Wilder^Bicycle 19:21, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I have joined up, declared the role of president strictly honorary and I invite anyone to join and help shape the party. All welcome, regardless of political views! Wilder^Bicycle 19:31, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

As noted in my reply my office, the President, still holds overall control of the project and only those with conservative beliefs may join. --Right-wing RationalWiki (talk) 20:05, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Your position is purely honorary, and you have been suspended by the Membership Secretary for acting outside of the role of President. Wilder^Bicycle 21:06, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Not true, I remain in my position. You on the other hand have been stripped of your (so called) powers in the Party. --Right-wing RationalWiki (talk) 21:09, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

As Membership Secretary II have the final say over membership. You are hereby expelled for continually flouting Party structure. Wilder^Bicycle 21:11, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

@Readymade Ignore this fellow's petty dictatorship and join my new political party!! ^{— Unsigned, by: GrammarCommie / talk / contribs 22:49, 7 February 2018 (UTC)}

All I can say is I welcome the competition of another party. —Right-wing RationalWiki (talk) 23:19, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I will not be responding to any more of your messages. You’re banned indefinitely from the Party. Others are welcome to join providing they follow the party rules. —Right-wing RationalWiki (talk) 21:14, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

but you don't have any listed rules...Vorarchivist (talk) 22:45, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Aww, that was the most fun I've had here in ages! Wilder^Bicycle 21:17, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Eww we'll be conservapedia and even less Rational ShiningSwordofThoughts (talk) 22:38, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Events on the Discord

Two mods have left in one night. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 06:01, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually left, or just LANCB? Wilder^Bicycle 13:42, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Who? Crap, this means Pbfreespace3 becomes a mod. Spriggina (thảo luận) (đóng góp) @ 14:07, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity @Bigs who left? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 14:30, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Me and SpacePrius. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 14:31, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Ohhh, I thought you meant wiki mods. Spriggina (thảo luận) (đóng góp) @ 14:34, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Man, I muted the discord because as soon as I saw electing mods there I knew it would be more drama than anything useful. Drama on the internet adds nothing to your life, I promise. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 23:32, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Drama on the internet and in real life adds very little to your life. Samstr (talk) 15:32, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Drama in real life often, though not always, centers on real needs of people in your life being in conflict. "I hate drama" as a generic statements tends to reflect a kind of dismissive attitude to that fact that itself creates drama. But stay away from internet drama, it's a rapid current caused by water flowing from the tank to the bowl. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 17:03, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

My drama in real life... I'd rather not talk through it, but it isn't something I can easily avoid. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 19:29, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

@Ikanreed mostly we just needed some people who were active most of the time to kick spammers/trolls. anything more is an inflated ego Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 21:09, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

@FuzzyCatPotato FuzzyCat if you guys need an acting mod, I would volunteer for it. I would also suggest asking Malaclypse, he would also seem to be a good moderator.S.H. DeLong (talk) 15:01, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Trinity analogy

I thought of a way to explain the trinity (yes I am still agnostic, and while I came up with it myself, a ton of people have already come up with it). It is similar to quantum superposition in that He is in three states simultaneously, but collapses into one when observed. (Probably negative) Thoughts? 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 17:41, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Sometimes I wonder if the god El/Anu was later seen by the Proto-Israelites as tyrannical, and so maybe they replaced him with his son Enki/Baal Hadad. After all El did try to get Yamm to drive Baal away in the Ugaritic text. Note that both Baal Hadad and Enki were fertility gods, had wives who are free and independent women, and were connected with semen, which is I never quite saw the whole Hadad&Enlil thing. So the Israelites ended up worshipping not the supreme God of the Pantheons, El, but his son – ISH.KUR, Baal, Hadad, El-Shaddai, an entity who was in open revolt against his father El, and ultimately aided in this revolt by his wife Anat.

What confuses me about the Gospels is that Jesus always refers to what I presuppose to be El as father, leaving the identity of this god unclear. Is Jesus suppose to be Yahweh son of El with reconciled dad/son issues, or a son of Yahweh? Darthmaul (talk) 18:11, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I doubt the people who wrote the Bible thought that far. Christopher (talk) 18:39, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

It does say that basic math is wrong. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 18:43, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I am continually surprised why people try to prove/disprove the bible with science. something goes against science - is that not the point of miracles? trying to prove the bible is correct by using science to explain a miracle? it surely must be a sin of some kind to reduce the works of god to the mundane. AMassiveGay (talk) 18:52, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

AMassiveGay I recall you saying something like this before. I don't see a single comment here which tries to disprove/prove the Bible with science, and that's not even the topic. Just sayen. Darthmaul (talk) 19:31, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

@Darthmaul 1. look above my comment. see the link to biblical scientific errors? theres a whole page dedicated to this and its directly referenced here, 2. what other reason is there pointing out inconsistencies, contradictions, and assorted nonsense in the bible? its kind of implicit that when people do its questioning the validity of the bible as a moral guide/historical text/or what have you. look at any page on the bible on this site and you will see that this is the entire point of picking holes in the bible. the only reason to do this is remove the justification various fundementalist types dictating what you can and cannot do. in my opinion a fruitless endeavour as its unlikely to convince a true believer. as i said elsewhere, arguing the toss about what is meant by some vague and esoteric bible verse is pointless when non believers should not be bound by bible rules regardless of their relative merits in the first place. any other reason for picking holes in a thousands year old work of fiction is kind of pointless when its hardly going to be a surprise that its sciencey stuff is less sophisticated than our current knowledge. and without these reasons, explicitly or implicitly stated, its no different discussing plot holes in star wars or shoehorning whatever random idea you had while off your face the previous to explain just how obi wan became more powerful when vader killed him. i have even less time for such people. and dont get me started on the extended universe. you will see rage. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:07, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Why not overextend this metaphor further and just do a generically quantum theology? You have to be a deontologist if christian because sin is quantized and jumps energy levels. You need to face mecca even if on the other side of the planet because prayers are carried by tachyons. Reincarnation is just barrier tunneling. Jesus is gluons(okay that one's real, but still). ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 20:57, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Here's another possibility: the Trinity is BS and any justification is post-hoc rationalisation. —Kazitor, ^pending 22:02, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

• gasp* no, theology as a field being like trying to build a concrete second floor extension on a house of cards? No way! ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 22:17, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

The trinity, if inspected without BS lenses, is obviously some sort of polytheism. But now ive said enough as it is and must shut up before i'm (*whispers) put to sleep. Oh wait i'm on rationalwiki not in church. Darthmaul (talk) 22:23, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

The reason I say "BS" is because, despite obvious polytheism, people insist that it's not. That's the BS. —Kazitor, ^pending 23:42, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

as i understand it, unspeakable things were done to those dissenting whatever the acceptable interpretation of the trinity at the time. AMassiveGay (talk) 14:07, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Scramble for Africa

I can't figure out whether the effects were ultimately good or bad. I know the Scramble caused some good and bad things, but I don't know which one outweighs the other. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 16:44, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

look at much of africa today. look at the effects of colonalism and the continual outside interference since. look at the resultant governmental corruption, coups, counter coups, civil wars. look at the abduction and slavery of huge amounts of people. and how thats effected much of todays racial strife, in the us particularly. look at the genocides perpetrated by colonial powers. look at how african nations have never been free of outside forces manipulating, blackmailing, and exploiting the whole continent. it was fantastic for europe. for africa? we 'civilised the savages'. its really a no brainer. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:05, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Colonialism is generally morally gray. And now, Communist China has joined the game. The world never seems to run out of ignorant, gullible, and vulnerable people. Nerd (talk) 17:11, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

that may be a positive thing. the influx of cash and development might be whats needed. or it might be more of the same. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:19, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd say more of the same. China's shady money lending practices are most inviting to a poor and backwards country. Also look up the "One Road, One Belt" initiative. Yes, they are coming to your doorstep, mate! Nerd (talk) 17:34, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

im still not sure its all bad. if it can provide the stability and time needed to develop systems, precedents, traditions away from the blueprint of kleptocracy and repression set by the colonials. its a little beyond my wit to say how things will pan out. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:56, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Is this a topic asking whether or not African colonialism was bad? The answer is: it was. Africans were perfectly fine. They had spoken language and knew how to farm, cook, and domesticate animals. Nothing is "uncivilized" about this. I'm more surprised this is an actual topic on RationalWiki. Go read our articles.—(((CheeseburgerFace)))  (talk • stalk) 18:16, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

It's not just africa but North and South America as well. How many people had to die in order for them to appreciate the benefits of western civilisation? And in any case the whole idea of cololonism was to make things better for the colonial country - not the colonised people.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 21:07, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Pretty much all of the wars and stuff today ultimately stemmed from the repressive regimes the colonialists instilled for their own benefit. So I'm just going to agree what everyone else is saying. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓^(T|C) 21:44, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

When I see people debating whether colonialism was good for the colonies concerned, I look at the now-independent countries of the world and check how many of them, no matter how badly things have gone for them, have decided that independence was a failure and asked to go back to being colonies. That number stands at zero. Wilder^Bicycle 22:17, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

There is (at least) one exception: Hong Kong. Some people there think that being under British rule is preferable to being "free" under Communist China. I agree with them. Nerd (talk) 03:29, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

True, but that's not independence. I have no idea why Maggie didn't give it to Taiwan instead. In fact I have no idea why everyone sucks up to Beijing. Wilder^Bicycle 10:52, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

@Readymade Indeed, independence is the most popular and probably the best choice. But it simply was not an option available to Hong Kong. It is indeed a rather depressing episode in world history when so many free countries kowtowed to Communist China by putting them in the UN and kicking Taiwan out. Nerd (talk) 15:24, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

It's complicated. Imagine for a second you live medieval europe as a serf, half your family died of plague and the rest of you are infected with schistosomiasis or some other old-timey horror that made you piss blood, and are starving because the nobles stole half your food and raped your family in front of you. Then foreigners invade, exterminate both the nobles and the parasites, declare themselves the new nobles, and your life does improve. Slightly. The foreigners claim to be there to uplift you, but in reality your life has only been upgraded from serf to peasant, and the foreigners prevent you from learning more advanced trades. You are routinely mocked for being backwards, so you make up some story about how the old nobles were anything other than just worse versions of the current crop of nobles.

Eventually some stuff happens in the foreign lands and the foreign nobles can't maintain their grip on you, so you revolt and kick them out. But in doing so, you end up kicking out the only people who know how to operate the machinery that actually made society work, because the foreigners had refused to let you learn anything, so the infrastructure soon crumbles. A few of your people learn how to operate the machinery, but they keep emigrating to those foreign lands because they can make more money there than in your own country, and so you start to adopt a horrible defeatist attitude of not bothering to invest too much in education because all your top students are just going to leave the first chance they get, which only keeps the problems going further. Also during this time, there was a fight between some foreign guy named "So-Shall" and some guy named "Cappy-Tal", and their fanatical followers who adhere to "So-Shall-ism" and "Cappy-Tal-ism" keep interfering with your country, sometimes through assassinations and suppression, sometimes through money, but rarely to your benefit.

So it really comes down to asking, if you see someone that's locked in a basement and horribly abused as a slave, so you kill the master and kidnap the slaves and treat them better but still keep them as slaves, can you really say you made the world a better place? Sort of, but not really. CorruptUser (talk) 04:18, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

It should also be noted that the “colonial experience” varied hugely across Africa with some truly atrocious examples, such as Belgian king Leopold’s Congo (where rule was so barbaric that an international movement and campaign led to the transfer of the colony to the Belgian state), or the Herero and Namaqua genocide in German South West Africa (today’s Namibia), or the way colonial era “divide and conquer” tactics lay the foundations for future conflicts, such as the Rwandan Genocide. What is more to the point is the remark attributed to British Whig Prime Minister Henry Campbell-Bannerman that “self-government is better than good government.“

The idea that some “more advanced” society should take over the running of its “less fortunate” brethren might sound appealing at first, but who gets to decide the degree and scale of advancement? Remember that the victors of WWI took over the German Empire’s colonies as “mandates” and were to steward and guide them to eventual autonomy and independence under the gaze of the League of Nations, yet curiously, not one of these former German colonies were judged any more ready for independence after decades as mandates (even more curious, was that not a single area of the former empires in Europe were turned into mandates, but instead received, at least notionally, Woodrow Wilson’s “right of self determination”).

The notion seems to be that if you introduce Western/modern medicine, a couple of schools and some version of a European legal code, then this somehow balances out the fact that you relied on the good old maxim, sorry, Maxim to do it (“Whatever happens we have got; the Maxim gun, and they have not”) and ran the colonies according to the wishes and whims of imperial governments half a world away.

Imagine (and here I deliberately ignore the practicalities of it) that one or more European states decided to “civilise” the US, and justified ruling the US from, say, Amsterdam by citing the introduction of universal healthcare, the improvement of educational standards, the repression of religious fundamentalism(!) and booting out of power an entrenched, corrupt elite as justification. Would that turn a violent takeover, some more or less harsh variant of authoritarian rule ultimately responsible to Amsterdam, not Washington, and, most likely, an economy geared towards the interest of the imperial power into a verdict of an “ultimately good” regime? ScepticWombat (talk) 07:13, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

It is the perceived results that matter. Many societies of old reached an equilibrium; they will keep doing what they were doing, both good and bad, without contact to the outside world. Nerd (talk) 15:24, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

On the other hand, the breaking up of empires has often led to tragedy. Whatever you say about the British rule in India, they at least got rid of thuggee and suttee, and kept the Hindus and Muslims under the same roof in peace. The collapse of Austria-Hungary led to major tragedies, as did the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and Yugoslavia. The world would probably have turned out better if Islam was still nominally led by the Ottoman Caliph, surrounded as he was by a longstanding bureaucracy and a traditional court. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 18:46, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

that kind of glosses over all the wars and tragedies in building those empires in the first place, not to mention the tragedies that occurred as the result of empires collapsing wouldnt have happened if there was no empire to collapse. i sure, with people being people and all, a whole different set of tragedies and mistakes would go on, but you know what? they their mistakes to make not ours. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:37, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

plus it is false to suggest that british raj kept the peace between hindu and muslim. there were plenty of of outbreaks of religiously inspired violence throughout the whole period, and partition was a direct result of empire. suttee was already on the way out - the mughuls were certainly trying to end it. without the british, it would be gone anyway (though there are instances of it still happening). the same with the thugee - theres no doubt that they would have been extingushed without the british, they just happened to be in charge at the time. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:53, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

it is also worth mentioning that pretty much every war in the history of the world is the result of imperialist ambitions. AMassiveGay (talk) 21:52, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ That ignores all the wars fought over plunder, and to stop plundering.CorruptUser (talk) 06:03, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Requiem for a dream

Nerd (talk) 03:15, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Coffee

In case you missed it, I've brought the mainspace coffee article back. It was previously removed and changed to a redirect because of non-missionality. I've made a brand-new missional article. Bongolian (talk) 08:15, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Great work! Very interesting article. Christopher (talk) 14:59, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

An excellent article. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 15:25, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Aw shucks. Thanks, @Christopher & @GrammarCommie! Bongolian (talk) 01:29, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Very good stuff. I need a coffee now, even if it's time here to go to sleep. Panzerfaust (talk) 23:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Souls in the Bible

Weeks ago I remember how one of those preachers I know well was talking 'bout souls being something imported from Platonism and that souls are not mentioned at all in the Bible, throwing in the mix those versicles that mention we're basically equals to animals, etc, and that when those things they're waiting for will finally happen everyone will be resurrected on his/her body (which brings a whole lot of issues, especially in the cases of those where there's no body to speak of for whatever reasons not dependent of them (ie: having been devoured by animals). Oh, well, D&D has high-level spells to fix that).

Any ideas?. I know something of the Catholic Church disliking cremation, at least by those who decide that instead of being buried to defy Christ, but that's all. One wonders also how many of those cherry-pickings will exist, since a whole lot of things in Christianism, even "by the book" were taken more or less transformed from other sources (supposedly the Trinity is one). Panzerfaust (talk) 12:39, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

A number of words in the Hebrew Bible are rendered 'soul' in English, including nefesh (lit. 'living thing') and ruach ('breath, wind'). Breath and soul are linked both in Hebrew and in Latin (spiritus), and "...the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." (Gen. 2:7). On the other hand, the idea of Heaven being a place populated by disembodied spirits is a popular fantasy; the book is clear that we will have bodies of some sort in the afterlife. Now, if preservation of the body is required for resurrection, many of us will be screwed; all the bodies buried at sea have been entirely scattered, as are most bodies buried in the earth. With the permission if not approval of the Roman Catholic Church, commoners' bodies were often disinterred from cemeteries with limited space, and any skeletal remains housed in a charnel house or ossuary. Then there are those monastic churches in Czechia, Poland, Austria, and elsewhere that are decorated with the bones of monks who lived there, all disarticulated and mixed up. If God is going to raise the dead, He can also sort all of that out. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 18:09, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Be wary when someone tells that the Bible is clear that there is an afterlife, because the truth it is anything but clear on that subject. Sure, the New Testament and later parts of the Tanakh maybe, but the Torah implies that we simply roll over and die like the dogs we are. No mention of going to heaven is made, and Yahweh says from the dust you came to the dust you will return, the natural order things, very hard to accept. Its not like the writer of the J Source believed that Yahweh told adam that in vain, and that adam would fucking rise from his grave and say, Im still ok. Read Ecclesiastes, the most rational book in the whole bible, it speculates that man possibly dies just like beast. Also note that the word chay in nishmat chayim can translate to animal, or living thing. The only difference that the Torah's authors saw between man and beast is simply the likeness man had to God and man's dominion. Other than that, man = animal according to this unique point of view.Darthmaul (talk) 21:48, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks both of you. I knew about the latter thing on no afterlife in the OT -I suppose that at best you were sent to Sheol, that was their equivalent of Sumerian Underworld/Greek Hades (read the part of Homer's Odyssey when Odysseus goes there and meets Achilles)-. As for the former, you forgot to mention the bodies of those eaten by animals, but in any case I see said preacher was not PIDOOMA-ing something this time, as other times when he mentions angels with a height of 4 meters (I can think of the Nephilim at best when talking about sizes) and talking about God's works he gave a number of known (emphasis on that) galaxies a whole lot of times larger than those in the known Universe.

I guess the Ecclesiastes part about nothing when the time's over will be ignored in favor of, you know. Panzerfaust (talk) 23:04, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Going from the memory, any real Biblical backup for Christian doctrine in respect either Heaven or Hell is pretty sparse. Which is kinda odd given how much importance it is given nowadays. But, on the other, hand it has given the multiple Christian sects a free hand to invent what they like, which is convenient for them.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 11:41, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Jesus mentions Heaven and Hell, or sort of the former at least, and that's enough for them. Factor in the stuff mentioned after the Gospels, especially the Holy City (whatever it's called) and the Lake of Fire, and you've all that you need. Panzerfaust (talk) 22:46, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I've been thinking about war recently...

...about how much it costs in lives and money. And then it dawned on me, why don't world leaders fight wars via an electronic simulation? I mean it makes sense, after all the production of most video games costs less than what most countries spend on their military budgets. Thoughts? ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 14:47, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

(Edited)I'm sure they play war games all the time, either the old-fashioned way (military drills) or via computer simulations. Nerd (talk) 16:33, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

There's several problems with that. What's to stop someone from massively underplaying their hand so they can attack when the other side is confident in their victory. On the opposite side what's to stop them from overstating their armies? Are there going to be people who check up on military assets to make sure they're not lying because I don't think countries would want to disclose research projects or weapons of mass destruction that they're keeping in reserve.Vorarchivist (talk) 16:18, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

when your country (or more likely south korea) dominates the world via video games, i will invade and destroy you all armed with only a broken bottle. Sorrhy but it is a ridiculous idea. what country in their right mind is going to give up land and resources because they were crap at mario? if you could get all the nations of the world to give up arms in favour of video games, i'm pretty sure your diplomacy is at such a level you could avoid conflict in the first place AMassiveGay (talk) 16:30, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

I think that the idea is that a sufficiently advanced simulation would be able to show how a war would turn out so even though you could just attack in real life after you already know from losing at the simulation that you'll just get your soldiers killed.Vorarchivist (talk) 18:57, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

thats not what is suggested in the original post. and as nerd states, we already do that. AMassiveGay (talk) 19:12, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

@Vorarchivist Allow me to clarify myself and my position. What I was asking is why don't countries use a simulation instead of an actual flesh, blood, and steel military. In essence, all war becomes a digital version of what we see here and now, with no real world militaries for sore losers to turn to. And yes in hindsight such an idea does seem quite naive and unrealistic. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 19:24, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Real life has real stakes. When people die and get injured in war, lives and families get irreparably torn apart. Simulation isn't going to happen when these factors, including real life resources that have actual benefits, are at stake. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓^(T|C) 20:22, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

This would not work. For example, consider genocidal regimes. Those who want, and have the capability, to commit genocide would not be interested in simulating it. If they did attempt to commit a genocide in the real world, how would a simulation prevent this from happening? CowHouse (talk) 06:13, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Countries lose wars not because they don't object to the outcome, but because they are unable to object to the outcome whether that's because they are unwilling or incapable of objecting. When your soldiers and dead and your infrastructure is in shambles, you can't really object. When you lose a video game, your armies are still right there, all ready to dispute the results... CorruptUser (talk) 17:02, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Let's not forget that a simulation is not the same thing as reality. No matter how realistic, there will always be certain aspects of the real world that are not accounted for in a simulation. Computational power is always finite, after all. @GrammarCommie Perhaps a better suggestion would be investments in clones and droids, rather like Star Wars. Robotics advances steadily as we speak, while genetic technology continues to march forward. You probably have heard by now that a team of Chinese scientists have successfully cloned two monkeys. Nerd (talk) 00:03, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I think the use of clones cause a huge load of ethical questions, since, clones already technically exist, through identical twins. We already know that twins have their own sentience and personality. You're talking to a biological clone right now, TwinB. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓^(T|C) 00:22, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Good point. But I was talking about manufactured humans. Besides, do you think the Communist Party cares about "ethics"? Nerd (talk) 00:26, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

@Nerd War is brutal, that being said there is a a rather ahem, moral dubiousness about breeding humans solely to kill them. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 00:39, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie Sending someone to war is not necessarily sending them to their deaths. Genetic manipulations, among many other factors, can increase survivability. Clones are valuable after all. Nerd (talk) 02:16, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Governments don't really need simulations when you look at the alternatives. Countries have always fought proxy wars, by getting less powerful allies to do the killing and dying for them. The use of mercenaries, which was very common in the late middle ages/early modern Europe is similar (someone mentioned clones above). Today we have drones and there are experiments with autonomous vehicles and even robot soldiers. And there's the doctrine of limited nuclear war which suggests that rather than fight a total, all-encompassing war, you can just fire a few weapons and then your enemy will realise what way things are going and give up. --Gospatric (talk) 09:35, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

@Gospatric Limited war may not always work, however. Look at Korea or Vietnam. Also, never underestimate the power of propaganda. Speaking of propaganda, this year is the 50th anniversary of the Tet Offensive, a tactical victory for the Allies but also a propaganda victory for the Communists. Things went downhill after that. Nerd (talk) 02:16, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Humans. Always looking for a way to make things less bloody...

Nothing ever beats the thrill of close quarters combat. Still, electronic warfare is certainly more honorable than using magic, one way or another. At least electronic sims give one the idea of battle. I still personally wish for WW3 to happen so Khorne can be satisfied. I do need to watch some WarGames (The 1983 movie). K0rnsbl0d^{Let the galaxy burn!"Kill!Maim!Burn!"} 02:39, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

its interesting that the original post was a flawed idea to make war less awful and then devolved into making war more awful through robots and clones. lovely. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:31, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Check this out

On my page is a pointless poll. Members of Rational wiki can determine what city my dystopian novel takes place in. By all means submit your vote. Darthmaul (talk) 04:46, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

>not even including Tirana

Shplëb. Spriggina (thảo luận) (đóng góp) @ 00:34, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Shreveport seems to have topped the list, I wonder why.Darthmaul (talk) 17:58, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Shreveport's a semi-tropical Southern city among cotton fields and wetlands, close to Arkansas and Texas. Seems a fine place for a dystopia. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 20:12, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

if you dont know the city how are you going to produce a realistic description of it? AMassiveGay (talk) 21:58, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Yo I live in Shreveport, I know this city like the back of my hand. Seriously though I do live in Shreveport. I never thought anyone would want to see my city as the setting of a dystopian novel. Darthmaul (talk) 22:43, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Unban FA

Do It^{— Unsigned, by: FA still lurking / talk / contribs}

Your request has been filed and will be given all due consideration by the Cabal. Have a Great Day! RoninMacbeth (talk) 18:47, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

This would be funny if it weren't so sad. Spriggina (thảo luận) (đóng góp) @ 01:04, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

* dons Mod Hat * 

No more unban request on the Saloon bar. I know I started this, but doing so will result in a ban.—(((CheeseburgerFace)))  (talk • stalk) 02:21, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

but i'll be good --FA still lurking (talk) 11:11, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Bongolian (talk) 07:44, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Somebody must be falling out of favor with the Chaos Gods... Maim!Kill!Burn! (talk) 02:38, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
If you can get Tmtoulouse himself to pardon you, I'll unban you. Otherwise go fuck yourself. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 13:57, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

A kind message from your resident gem

Happy Singles Awareness Day!-💎📀1️⃣ (talk) 03:36, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Happy Singles Awareness Day to you as well, buddy! RoninMacbeth (talk) 03:46, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

@DiamondDisc1 @RoninMacbeth Likewise. Some of us are introverts and would normally prefer to be alone. Sometimes I wish more people understood that. Speaking of Singles' Day, please check this gem out if you haven't done so already. Nerd (talk) 02:43, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm a proud introvert who will likely die a bachelor, and I'm perfectly fine with that. It's my life and my decision whether to date or not, no one else gets to make that choice. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 03:48, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie More power to you! -💎📀1️⃣ (talk) 06:57, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie Not even the Gods of Communism? Nerd (talk) 14:21, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Our own constructed world

http://www.spiritualteachers.org/jed-mckenna/ http://www.wisefoolpress.com/recipe-for-failure/

the above links got me thinking, is our entire world just a "construct" in our own heads. I mean many of the things that we assign value to and aspire to be are things that we created and defined ourselves, they don't exist objectively. We have ideas about being smart, strong, wise, quick, these are concepts to understand the world. But is all of this an illusion though? Would stripping away our constructed world give us an unvarnished view of reality? Or would that just be another trap? I know that from the start our senses don't pick up objective reality.Machina (talk) 03:37, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Please dont make the same mistake I did. For two and a half years I saw most human constructs as meaningless, and became very detached as result. This screwed up my life, I thought being non-materialistic would help me. Instead, it made me distant, clumsy, and do some hillarously stupid things on accident. My advice is this, stick to the human realm as much as possible, some constructs are stupid, others you should probably adhere to. Dont try to view an unvarnished reailty, theres really no point. In other words, be worldly and not too spiritual. Spirituality makes you detached to a dangerous level. Darthmaul (talk) 03:57, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

But would it not be considered to be living a lie? What about the links and what they say?Machina (talk) 18:55, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Just because the world is made of constructions doesn't mean its false. Just because there's no universal measurement for things like strong or quick dosen't mean they're not useful ideas.Vorarchivist (talk) 04:52, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Concepts like strong and quick help you survive, that is if your trying to become strong or quick. If you strip your brain of all mental constructs, your left with a brain void of all thought. Darthmaul (talk) 06:21, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Too often people confuse 'social construct' with 'mental figment'. The U.S. Army is a social construction; it was called into being by people who agreed that it would be a 'thing'. You still want to stay out of its way. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 17:36, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Adminship

I wish to respectfully put myself forward for adminship. There's a large number of Shy conservatives on this wiki and they need a senior voice to represent them. Yours Truly, --Right-wing RationalWiki (talk) 17:10, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

You have no idea how sysopship works here, do you. Go to the basement for admin requests. RoninMacbeth (talk) 18:54, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Very well. —Right-wing RationalWiki (talk) 19:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Atheist vs Christian double standard

I found a video commenting on it.

𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 22:38, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I've watched that video before and I will admit it does shine a rather harsh light on how Christians "spreading the good word" are blatantly favored over atheists pointing out the problems in said "good word" or even outright existing. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 22:46, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

This video goes hard, and I don't think a Christian could handle watching it. Darthmaul (talk) 00:45, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm a Christian, and I had no issues with it. The notion that Christians ought to be favored in a social order, or that they will be rewarded by God in this life, is unscriptural. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 02:28, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

DarkMatter2525 (the video creator) makes mostly very good videos.-💎📀1️⃣ (talk) 04:48, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Anyone else notice...

...our least favorite Harry Potter character has more or less disappeared since a few weeks before Parkland, and the IPs he was supposedly using geolocated to Broward County? I'm sure it's just a coincidence, or maybe even the event made him realize he needed to knock it off, but what if the Harry Potter character was Nick Cruz or one of Nick Cruz's victims? I don't suppose it even matters at this point; in case of the former he's in custody, and in case of the latter he or she won't be messing with the site anymore not that I would wish that on anyone, even a troll. Cat Lover (talk) 21:54, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

what are you talking about? AMassiveGay (talk) 22:28, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I think he's talking about that one troll (the Harry Potter bit im guessing being Haggard-related). Also, can we not fantasize about deaths of other people, even if they are pissants? БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓^(T|C) 22:51, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

really? that is just fucking ridiculous. do not feed the troll especially with idiotic musings about a mass killer AMassiveGay (talk) 23:12, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

BabyLuigi, are you seriously calling the victims of MSDHS "pissants"? That's not very nice if you are. One of them looks a lot like my older sister and every time I think about it I want to give my sister a hug because I realize it could happen to any of us. Cat Lover (talk) 23:17, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I was referring to the "least favorite Harry Potter character" bit, not the actual victims of the shooting, which the troll has a 99% chance of not being involved in. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓^(T|C) 23:20, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

at any rate, isnt harry potter our least favourite harry potter character? what a godawful prick he was. AMassiveGay (talk) 23:43, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

* dons Mod Hat * 

This conversation is done now. Any further discussion will result in a brief block.—(((CheeseburgerFace)))  (talk • stalk) 23:59, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

New Project

As stated before I've decided to write an antithesis to Left Behind and Revelation, in the form of a dystopian fiction. Basic plot is this, a guy named Yeshua rules an organization called Ark. He has mutilated human beings for the sake of what he terms purification, restraining the influence of their pituitary glands and drugging them. One of his facilities workers escapes.

Many details have been written down, but any ideas you contribute will be attributed to you when the work is published. Think of it not as the work of one, but as the work of many rational minds. Heh heh, you saw what I did there right? Darthmaul (talk) 21:20, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

@Darthmaul If I may suggest a few characters, given the metaphors used it might be best to have a supporting character who opens our protaganist's eyes to the truth (the serpent of Eden) and a separate but similar character who guides our protagonist further in their journey (The Devil) perhaps with the two supporting characters being mixed up by the protagonist. However I think the protagonist should ultimately stand on their own two feet as it were, deciding what they believe vs what others believe. This is a rationalist story after all. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 22:26, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps AO3 or similar might be a more appropriate place (and you can get followers/fanfic writers as well). Anna Livia (talk) 22:43, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

@Darthmaul I actually pitched a pretty similar idea as a Doctor Who novel back in the 90s. My version wouldn't work without the Doctor, so when the pitch was rejected, I dropped the idea. But I think you could make your version work.

I think GrammarCommie's basic idea solves most of the problems—you get a good, relatable hero, a driver for continuing plot conflicts, and a meaningful point. I'd emphasize the fact that the Devil is pushing pure false dichotomy: The outside world is pretty bad, and it also matches as many of the more realistic Left Behind fantasies as possible (Christianity is banned—and so is Hinduism, Wicca, etc., all trade is done through an RFID mark in the hand, etc., but probably no giant metal scorpions running around eating people; if you can actually connect everything to better interpretations of Revelation than Darby and friends, even better), but it's not nearly as bad as the Ark, and they're planning to invade the Ark and liberate its people, so you have to support them because you don't want to be an Arkist, do you? The hero could realistically be fooled pretty easily (imagine Kimmy Schmidt—or even the characters in Brave New World), but you want the reader to go along with it for a while, so, despite all the problems, the outside world has to actually be pretty livable for almost everyone who keeps their heads down. And not just the proles a la 1984; the middle class needs their comforts too, especially so your middle class readers can empathize. Sure, 1% of the population is in prison labor camps, and 60% of the population is regularly committing crimes that could get them sent to prison if they're unlucky, but most people can go through their daily lives watching good TV and marrying their sweethearts and not worrying about it too often.

If this is a novel rather than a short story, you need more ways to keep the full truth under wraps for a while. One thing that helps here is that the truth presumably isn't as simple as "evil conspiracy just in it for the evulz". The Antichrist himself doesn't just like tormenting people, and in fact would rather not. But he's a fanatic who doesn't really care about anything but preparing to invade the Ark, so he's got a government full of people who do care about the stuff that isn't important to him (read: everything that matters), which is a lot more like Reagan's government than Hitler's, but with a lot fewer restraints on them. Meanwhile, when the hero goes beyond listening to the Devil, there are plenty of dissenters out there who want to enlighten him, but they all have their own spin on things, and disagree with each other. (Look at how socialists and libertarians complained about the Gulf War, Star Wars, English-only laws, or anything else.) And of course the loudest people in each faction tend to be the most irrational, and there are some factions that really have nothing but insanity to them a la Alex Jones, which doesn't help.

The big problem for the story is the finale. For my story, the Doctor overthrows both evil governments, makes a rousing speech, and fucks off to the next timezone knowing the people are going to fix everything for themselves, but that only works because the Doctor Who universe somehow works that way. Realistically, overthrowing both governments will just mean mass starvation, local warlords, and all the other fun stuff that comes from absolute chaos (unless your hero is in a position to Marshall Plan everyone, which he won't be). You could go for a cheat—a singularitarian would come up with a solution where some piece of Ark technology can be used to solve all the problems of the outside world; an objectivist would have the hero lead a small group of people into a new society that, for unexplained reasons, totally won't at best turn into the Ark and more likely into typical collapsed libertopia, and in the epilogue they've grown to the point where they can save the rest of the world Foundation-style; etc. But making it not feel like a cheat is difficult, and still not as rewarding as playing it straight. Or, maybe, he's just not the hero and savior of the world, he ends up as one more underground dissenter with a long struggle ahead of him that might make things a lot worse before they get better even if he succeeds—realistic, but a bit of a downer. Or maybe throw in a twist—Yeshua really is God, but he's the Gnostic Demiurge (or Charlie X from Star Trek), and the real God shows up to yell at him and his friends for playing with a whole planet full of sentient beings like irresponsible twats and to set everything straight; that one could work if the tone was light-hearted enough throughout the story and it generally felt more absurdist than heavy in its dystopia. --157.131.152.164 (talk) 22:23, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your thoughts and time. Although the story wont actually have the Devil himself, one of the characters is a man whose been accused of being the Devil/Antichrist. This character wont have a very large role, ironically, and I'll probably just have him sit back tied up in the back of a truck throughout the novel. And yes, the outside world will have its fair share of problems (mass starvation, an influx of mistreated immigrants ect), but the ARK community will be a billion trillion times worse. The protagonist will team up with a group of downtrodden rebels who are on their last limb, to liberate those living in the ARK community, and those being burned in the lake of fire. The protagonist wont exactly be a hero, but more of a behind the scenes type of guy, fighting to the very end.

As for keeping the truth under wraps, I have a second protagonist who actively works for ARK, but unlike the first, he doesn't know anything about the secret facility or mutilations done inside. At the novel's end he too will betray ARK, after discovering how sadistic and ignorant they are.

Now I might have a 1984 style ending where the reader is left crying his ass off, just to serve as a warning to current society, a warning not to let radical members of any religion try to purify the world. But I haven't decided whether I should do this or not.

About your demiurge suggestion, I would say if anything, the character who claims to be Yeshua should in fact be the god ahead of the Demiurge, and the Demiurge should be anti-Arkist. The reason for this is that the higher god would seek to destroy all flesh and purify the world, something very unnatural. The Demiurge is more of the natural, fleshly god who roots for the human race and encourages humanity to embrace their primal instincts. But with that said, the novel might end up being atheistic in its tone. Darthmaul (talk) 23:12, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

By the way the story's tone will be extremely grave and frightening. It'll have very little jokes, horrific (realistic) scenes, stuff that will shock Christians, like Yeshua castrating people, and leave you scared, depressed, angry, and in awe. The rebels fighting ARK are mostly atheists or people who just don't care. Darthmaul (talk) 23:31, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Depending on how many supernatural or at least supernatural-like elements will be in your setting, you might want to check the Salvation War series for ideas on the Lake of Fire. As for Yeshua, I can think on a RPG where there's a Christ-like figure who follows in a much larger and far more animesque scale Jesus' story, complete with his death as a martyr, to unite mankind even if everything is just a big lie. Panzerfaust (talk) 23:33, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

If the story doesn't end with the two protagonists being murdered, I'll have Yeshua possibly commit suicide after being forced to look at strippers. Now that is a shocking ending! Though if any of you have a different death for this character I might scrap that idea. Darthmaul (talk) 23:43, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I never really thought of having the protagonist fix the problems of both ARK and the outside world, interesting... Darthmaul (talk) 05:06, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

The reason I assumed the hero had to fix the problems of both—well, the actual reason is that I was thinking of my Doctor Who story, which was (a) about the Doctor and (b) written with people like Henry Hyde on the brain, but the rationalization is that I think the false dichotomy is central to the religious right. If the outside world is the obvious best option for taking down ARK (because they’re already planning an invasion, and have massive resources) but is also too evil to support, this gives the protagonist an interesting moral choice. But it certainly isn’t the only story to be made out of your premise, and it sounds like you’re well on your way to a different interesting story, so don’t let me derail that.

Similarly, the deus ex machina/Charlie X ending doesn’t sound like it fits at all. (If someone wants to write a more James Morrow style against-Jesus’s-kingdom story they can feel free to steal it, of course.) —107.77.213.49 (talk) 17:24, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Should I have antagonists based on Kent Hovind, Kirk Cameron, and Ken Ham? Or is that going too far? Darthmaul (talk) 18:11, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

For Hovind and Ham, I think they might work better as minor characters who just appear once, rather than serious antagonists. What is there for Ham to do when there's an actual Jesus building an actual Ark that actual people have actually go to? And as for Hovind, I'm sure he'd love to take it upon himself to run the Ark equivalent of the Scientology legal department, but how could they survive even one week before he got them shut down by trying some silly Admiralty Law nonsense that he forgot was a scam he made up? Cameron, on the other hand—well, he himself is too much of a dumbass to be an effective antagonist, but his character Buck from the Left Behind movies fits perfectly, it's probably his most famous role since Growing Pains, and he's the second best Mary Sue character of all time. (The best is of course the other lead of the same series, but can you really write Captain Rayford Steele the pilotcaptain unironically in anything but gay porn?) --107.77.213.115 (talk) 04:23, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Maybe Ham could be Yeshua's lackey, sent to the outside world to gain followers. A Kent Hovind could be a jackass obsessed with achieving a universal state of no entropy, without actually realizing what this would mean for life as we know it. I'll take your advice and keep them as minors, and leave the big bad roles to self claimed biblical patriarchs. Darthmaul (talk) 06:13, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you to tackle how science (and, why not, space exploration) is treated there. It's more than likely that at the very least evolution, cosmology, and particle physics will be banned. Panzerfaust (talk) 22:04, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the ARK community doesn't allow any scientific works to be published. If anyone wants to ask a question, they ask Yeshua and he tells outrageous bullshit. If a scientist does try to publish their work, they are sentenced to death for trying to play god. Darthmaul (talk) 00:34, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Another suggestion: propaganda and lots of it. Just like it feels the BS spewed by preachers ignoring that their "good guys" were not so, and the nasty future in store because you did not accept... blah, blah. Panzerfaust (talk) 23:40, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

And how about the those raised in the Facility speak a conlang designed by Yeshua, made to be as unhuman/unfleshly as possible. This language wont have any 1st person or 2nd person personal pronouns. All sense of individuality or ego is impossible to express in words. Darthmaul (talk) 01:05, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

1984 could also be a nice inspiration -stuff as doublethink, Big Brother Jeshua, etc.-. Panzerfaust (talk) 01:10, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I already had a basic story before reading 1984 in 2016, but after reading it the setting became darker, worse than Airstrip One. Yeshua uses not just double think, but something called the Association Technique, which causes one to associate their pleasures with pain. Darthmaul (talk) 05:54, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Any Ex Creationist/Christian Stories?

I've read a lot of them on the internet but none on Rational wiki. Hell, I know I have one. Darthmaul (talk) 03:48, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I know Onychoprion has one. —Kazitor, ^pending 04:52, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I do indeed, Darthmaul. It's on my profile thingey, if you wanna check it out. Onychoprion (talk) 23:51, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I have one. When I was a child my daycare teacher tried to "spread the good word" as it were, and as I grew older the garden variety non-denominational Christianity kinda stuck. Then one day when I was in my early teens I went to a church for a family event, during which I picked up a Bible for the first time in my life and, out of boredom, read it. After which I promptly put said Bible down very slowly and non-obtrusively and decided I wasn't that bored. Not long afterwords I abandoned Christianity. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 03:55, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

A question for those of you who have deconverted: what do you think of those who are insisting on Christ's sacrifice for all of us as well as talk a lot about the "divine omnibenevolence", but at the same time say that there's no salvation for those who do not accept it, and all that?. Knowing the truth that appears on "the book", when I hear those people I feel as if I was listening to propaganda. Panzerfaust (talk) 22:52, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

My opinion is that it is propaganda. Just replace God with your dictator of choice and the whole Jesus thing with any significant event to the regime and ta da! Instant propaganda. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 23:04, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know I'm not alone. Preachers and similar people must have either a lot of cognitive dissonance or doublethinking, or both, to accept how an all-loving God will condemn to eternal torment anyone who has not accepted Jesus (read: its middlemen) or how if Jesus' sacrifice weakened so much Satan, God does not end with him (or, for the case, why God let the latter exist). Panzerfaust (talk) 14:24, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

My own story in a nutshell is this: pudet, percussus, excito. Darthmaul (talk) 06:21, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Here is mine- I was a Christian as a child (well, forced on me). I became skeptical of the faith itself, not of a God. I ditched Christianity after learning about dinosaurs and evolution. I practiced Paganism for a while but went back to Christianity. As of 2017, I went back to Paganism. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:43, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Competition: Short Story.

Inspired by Fun:Nina The Naturopath.

Rules:

• Write a short story in the Essay namespace.
• Submit your short story.
• Topic of the short story: Tea.

the Submission Period is over. has already ended. (refresh)

After the Submission period is complete, we will vote on who has written the best story. I will use a DPL list to randomize the order because I have a feeling that Rationalwikians are so lazy that they will only bother to read the first entry.

Award: *it's a secret*

—ClickerClock (talk) 06:00, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Submissions

1. Essay:Escape from the Tea Gods —ClickerClock (talk) 08:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
2. I was bored, okay? 𝒮𝓅𝓇𝒾ℊℊ𝒾𝓃𝒶 (𝓉𝒶𝓁𝓀) (𝒸ℴ𝓃𝓉𝓇𝒾𝒷𝓈) @ 23:21, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
3. Essay:Tea Story—(((CheeseburgerFace)))  (talk • stalk) 07:09, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
4. Essay:Timeline of the Caffeine War 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 19:08, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
5. Essay:Kazitea Finally got around to it. No title. —Kazitor, ^pending 05:28, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
6. Essay:Betta - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 06:28, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Vote

Submission period is over, voting begins now! voting period ends has already ended. (refresh) —ClickerClock (talk) 01:20, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Escape from the Tea Gods	" 3
Teanage Mutant Ninja Goats	" 6
Tea Story	" 2
Timeline of the Caffeine War	" 4
Kazitea	" 7
Betta	" 2

Goat

Just... just a short story about "tea"? —Kazitor, ^pending 06:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you need to submit a short story about "tea". Creativity is appreciated. —ClickerClock (talk) 08:42, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Are multiple submissions allowed? —Kazitor, ^pending 09:09, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Sure! —ClickerClock (talk) 09:12, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Just to 'tick the joke off': Why do anarchists drink herbal tea? Because proper tea is theft. Anna Livia (talk) 20:45, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm compelled to just write the plot of Cuphead. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 21:13, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

I wrote mine like something you would see from a book. Is that okay?—(((CheeseburgerFace)))  (talk • stalk) 07:09, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

@CheeseburgerFace It's cool. —ClickerClock (talk) 09:24, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Don't ask. I can still do my original idea. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 19:14, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

It would be fun to have competitions to see who can write the best short story about any particular topic each month instead of it being a one-time event. Of course, we'd need more than 4 submissions. Spriggina (thảo luận) (đóng góp) @ 20:59, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Bumping so Archivist doesn't execute this. Spriggina (thảo luận) (đóng góp) @ 03:37, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I assume the votes for my story are British nationalists glad that Britain conquers the world. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 20:59, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Bummer I only noticed this now! I have to say Bigs's timeline of the caffeine war made me laugh out loud multiple times. Well written!!! ShabiDOO

Results

1. @Kazitor received 7 votes, putting him at first place with his story, Kazitea.
2. @Spriggina received 6 votes, making her the runner up with her story, Teanage Mutant Ninja Goats.
3. @Bigs received 4 votes, putting him in 3rd place with his story, Timeline of the Caffeine War.
4. @ClickerClock received 3 votes, fourth in line, with his story, Escape from the Tea Gods.
5. @CheeseburgerFace and Smerdis of Tlön both received 2 votes, which tied them at fifth place with their respective stories Tea Story and Betta.

Since ClickerClock is the one who started this, I'll let him give out the award to Kazitor. Spriggina (thảo luận) (đóng góp) @ 16:31, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

inb4 the prize is a userbox or a template of the like.—(((CheeseburgerFace)))  (talk • stalk) 03:44, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I imagined that that would be the case, as I was poking around in ClickerClock's sandbox (I was trying to see how he had made a particular template) and found a "best short story" thingy. I don't really know what else it would be. Spriggina (thảo luận) (đóng góp) @ 04:37, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Bump. Spriggina (thảo luận) (đóng góp) @ 15:30, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Can I be in last place? If I'm not going to be the best, I might as well be the worst!—(((CheeseburgerFace)))  (talk • stalk) 19:14, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Answers in Genesis' new series: Is the Bible True?

The Bible is clearly unlike any other document in history. Every claim it makes about science is not only true but crucial for filling in the blanks of our understanding about the origin of the universe, the earth, fossils, life, and human beings. The more we study and learn about the world, the more we come to appreciate the Bible’s flawless, supernatural character.

[internal screaming intensifies]

Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 20:56, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

This is a laughable statement, if scientists took the Bible as their guide then they'd try to cure adultery across America, by making women (what about men?) drink bitter water and eat a book. Sounds brilliantly scientific and totally non sexist to me. Darthmaul (talk) 21:56, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Hey, you've done this a lot and I don't think anybody's told you yet. Can you please make sure to indent your talk page comments using colons : before them? You can look at the source of this section to check how it's done. Thank you! Spriggina (thảo luận) (đóng góp) @ 22:31, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Could care them to explain why no mention at all exists there of, say, the phases of Venus, the four largest moons of Jupiter, Saturn's rings, the planet Uranus -there supposedly was a tribe of the Pacific that knew about it before the telescope was invented-, or the Milky Way consisting of many faint stars (I'm being merciful enough just to cite things that could be known with a very simple 'scope?. Or why are also not mentioned places as Japan or America?. Panzerfaust (talk) 23:08, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

@Panzerfaust Clearly Christians weren't meant to experience such things, and that it's all part of God's plans using his mysterious ways. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 02:25, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

The suggestion that all scientific knowledge can be found in the Bible is obvious Christian propaganda. In fact the Quran contains scientific knowledge that could not have been known 1400 years ago. Heathens! Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 22:34, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

@Bob M Don't be silly, the only reliable book of of knowledge is.... the dictionary!!! ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 22:37, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Works fail me. Actually that Islamic site I lined to above is really worth a visit. It's almost like an Islamic Conservapedia where you are never quite sure if it is serious or not.

For example under Speed of Light: "Moslems (Muslims) believe that angels are low density creatures, and that God created them originally from light. They move at any speed from zero up to the speed of light. It is the angels who carry out God's orders. Those angels take their orders from a Preserved Tablet somewhere in outer space, and not from God's Throne."

Their article on wormholes also involves angels: "A wormhole acts as a shortcut connecting two distant regions in the universe. God gave this method of transportation to his angels throughout the universe. The Quran calls them 'Ma'arej' (معارج) and describes how angels use them for long distance travel. Today Moslems know that these 'Ma'arej' is what scientists call wormholes."

I tried to find a good quote from their evolotion article but the thing is just to weird.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 08:32, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Two words, Bob: Harun Yahya... ScepticWombat (talk) 09:02, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Holy Mystra, that goes even beyond that preacher who compared Jesus with dark matter telling he's the one who holds the galaxies together (I guess since dark energy does exactly the opposite that it will be the Devil and since dark energy is almost three times more abundant as dark matter Satan will be more powerful than God (oh, well, don't expect much scientific knowledge on a Pentecostalist who takes Noah's Ark story to be true)). Panzerfaust (talk) 22:37, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

For anyone who wants more of this, there's a Wikipedia article Scientific foreknowledge in sacred texts which covers Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism, while they cover Buddhist beliefs separately. Buddhism and science describes how Buddhism predicted black holes and various modern cosmological ideas. --Gospatric (talk) 13:09, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

It's hard to call that "foreknowledge" -at best, interesting coincidences-. Now, while I'm not wanting the equations for a valid quantum gravity theory hidden on the text, a currently well-known fact described in poetic form but still quite recognizable (and not vague) would well fit. Panzerfaust (talk) 14:58, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

If you write vaguely enough, it is easy to make a liberal interpretation of the text to fit known science. But the question then becomes, what about the other "predictions"? Cherry picking much? Science is all about making definitive predictions that can be falsified by observations or experiments. Vagueness has no place in science. Nerd (talk) 03:39, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Imagine that, say, in a Bronze Age text an statement of the like: "The King star of the night has a red eye, four daughters, one fiery as a volcano, and the three others cold as ice, and dozens of attendants" is found. It's not difficult to see it's referring to Jupiter, its Great Red Spot, its many moons, and even the characteristics of the four largest ones and that would be what I want, but nothing like that has been found as much as I like to see the Sumerian/Akkadian (whatever) poem of Inanna's descent to the Underworld describing how Venus changes its aspect as the planet draws closer to the Sun on its trajectory in the sky. Panzerfaust (talk) 14:26, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

What up?

Used to edit this place, most recently as AgingHippie, but none of my old log-ins seem to work anymore. Just thought I'd say HI and see if any old-timers are still around. RagingHippie (talk) 05:56, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, I am. It's very good to see you again, AH. Spud (talk) 06:45, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

And you. RagingHippie (talk) 19:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, @RagingHippie! Good to hear from you. I'm not sure if I count as an old timer, but there are a few others who come around now and then. Bongolian (talk) 06:51, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

On the internet, last week is an "old-timer." Good to see you. RagingHippie (talk) 19:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I remember when you were known as Father Vivian O'Blivion. Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 16:05, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I go back a bunch of names further than that. I think PFoster was the first, back in '07.RagingHippie (talk) 19:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

AgingHippie has returned to us! RoninMacbeth (talk) 16:06, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Probably not in any meaningful way. We'll see. RagingHippie (talk) 19:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Don't feel pressured to, okay? --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 20:33, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I remember you as the crabby User:PowderSmokeAndLeather. Leuders (talk) 20:57, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Trying to be less crabby. Life is too fucking short now. RagingHippie (talk) 06:37, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Damn lost control of my account again! Someone help! --SagingHippie (talk) 12:39, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Hey, the greying bong jockey has returned! Groovy. Sorry to hear about your account troubles, though. ScepticWombat (talk) 14:05, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

All those people were one person? I don't know what's real any more! 2A02:C7D:164F:6B00:9E2:3B47:D026:B241 (talk) 14:51, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah I keep losing control of my account, silly me! --FAgingHippie (talk) 16:47, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

@FAgingHippie What exactly are you having an issue with? Perhaps we could offer some pointers. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 17:14, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Are you aware of Special:PasswordReset? —Kazitor, ^pending 21:48, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I'll give it a go, cheers. --FAgingHippie (talk) 00:59, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Some things don't change. Some things do. I missed this place. RagingHippie (talk) 05:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure we'll learn to hate it again soon enough. --Parevent (talk) 05:56, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah I'm sure I'll be hating this place very, very soon. --SagingHippie (talk) 12:47, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

What's the big deal about Trump and the Porn Star?

So... Why is it such a big scandal that Trump had sex with a porn star? There are people who didn't think he was having affairs one after another? If anything, the story feeds into his whole persona; "I sleep with the girls you wank to!". The news is doing him a favor by keeping the story in the press. So what am I missing? The part where he paid hush money? So friggen what? CorruptUser (talk) 01:09, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Let's see. From what I read, his personal lawyer Micheal Cohen argued that the "hush money" was not illegal campaign contribution because he paid her out of his own pocket and was not reimbursed by the Trump campaign. Stephanie Clifford, through a spokesperson, said Cohen invalidated the nondisclosure agreement and that she will tell her story soon. Other than that, it is a tale of an idiot, full of fire and fury, signifying nothing. Nerd (talk) 03:28, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

If you found out that the CEO of a company, in which you are a shareholder had betrayed your trust, that he worked on the side with a competitor of yours, covered it up, lied about it, tried to pay him off to not mention it again, would you ever trust that guy to make good sound decisions in the best interests of both of you? Would you have confidence in him to keep running the board and the company? If you found out that your child's kindergarten teacher had screwed a porn star, invited that porn star to official functions sitting at the same table as his wife, multiple times, lied about it again and again, burried it through the use of an expensive expert lawyer and then told another large package of lies to everyone...would you feel comfortable with him educating your child? Would he impart the values you care about? Would you leave your child alone with him? 87.218.201.135 (talk) 04:17, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

We already know he is a creep and a liar. Nerd (talk) 04:24, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

This is why I became a lawyer -- so I could pay off the tab for my friends' hookers. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 17:08, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

The fact that Cohen is Trump's long-time lawyer and is likely on a retainer indicates that there is an implicit monetary quid-pro-quo between Trump, Cohen and Daniels, which could be interpreted as an illegal campaign contribution. There is also the double standard that no one cares about any more (crucifiction by the GOP of Clinton over Lewinsky). Bongolian (talk) 05:32, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

There's also the sheer frikken' hypocrisy of it. As long as it's consenting adults, I have no interest in who my political leaders bump uglies with. But when a man who's been married three times with numerous affairs is held up as a model moral figure by the same people who condemned the solidly dedicated family man who preceded him? That's a travesty. RagingHippie (talk) 06:35, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

That story is just yet another example of life imitating art in the Trump White House, to wit, a bad sitcom/reality show. ScepticWombat (talk) 14:09, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

It is also noteworthy that Trump is the US' first pornstar president,[5][6] eerily reminiscent of President Camacho in Idiocracy. The spare-us-the-geriatric-sex-details from Stormy Daniels are sort of a yawner in this regard. Bongolian (talk) 05:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

People jumped on Bill for this kind of stupid shit but they're willing to give Don a pass by comparison, in addition to all of his other numerous transgressions. And he has the support of evangelicals and god-fearin' types. Then again they're probably just as guilty and know it, but STILL! Let's have some standards. James Earl Cash (talk) 22:16, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Why I changed my views on abortion

For a while, I was Pro-Life. I ignored arguments against it. But seeing an episode of Grey's Anatomy (the episode where the character Christina Yang gets an abaortion), I got some new perspective on it thought the show is fiction. I was wrong to say women cannot choose. If a woman is single, go for it. Not everyone is cut out to be a parent. If someone is married, discuss it without judgement. I may not like the idea of abortion (I am not sure how I would describe how I feel), abortion should be 100% legal. This has been a public service announcement from RZ94

its a true but long suffering aspect of our existence that emotional presentations can be far more effective at changing the minds of others than arguments, mostly because people are more receptive then. As much as would want to say that I came to all my ideas through pure reasoning I mostly looked them up after a game, tv series or book put them into my mind.Vorarchivist (talk) 04:19, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Most, if not all, of what you see on television is false. Women should be able to choose their own destiny. Please change the channel. Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 04:30, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I am strongly pro-choice, for several reasons. Abortion heals child support. The anti-abortion cult is maudlin and contemptible; I gather Europe got the vegans and we got these assholes. Finally, life itself is evil, so abortion is always an act of mercy. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 05:27, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

The anti-abortion cult is maudlin, contemptible... and hypocrite. "(...) there's an abortion every five minutes. That's one hundred thousand murders per year (...). Help us (of course to ask for money could not be absent) to defend those who cannot defend themselves (...)" (anti-abortion group commanded by a female Evangelical pastor. No mentions at all even on their site of what will happen after birth. And it's not the worst I've seen (pro-life Catholic minarchists who could not care less if you cannot afford what costs to maintain someone crippled come to mind). Panzerfaust (talk) 14:12, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I am an anti-authoritarian. Leave people to decide for themselves. Many have qualms about abortions. It isn't murder, and government should not forbid medical procedures, they should stay out of the politics, while advancing high standards of healthcare. The problem is, 2 out of 5 American women poll as pro-life (accepting of some restrictions on abortion). That is a lot of women. I doubt resorting to insults will change many minds.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:46, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I think abortion is a lesser of an evil. But from a quality-of-life standpoint, most of the time, there is a very good reason to get an abortion (virtually all situations, the couple is unprepared to raise a child) and I think abortions are beneficial to society, especially when there is no realistic 0% chance of getting pregnant from sex. Finally, forcing to term doesn't resolve the guilt of knowing this child is unwanted. Putting a baby immediately for adoption is, I think, a very cruel action worse than abortion (and that's not going into how adoptions have a ton of unloved children, like they need more), and I bet I'll have far more guilt knowing this person is alive, somewhere, and unwanted by the mother than just ending it already. The child also deserves a quality life and the child shouldn't grow up knowing how much of an accident, a burden on the family it was. I think abortion is good for both the mother and fetus. I've trouble understanding what's the big deal behind abortions. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 03:55, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

At the core of the abortion argument is the issue of when human life begins. Most pro-lifers would say that it begins at conception, when an egg is fertilized and becomes a zygote. However, this view seems rather arbitrary to me. Why don't sperm cells count as life? Or at least half of a life since they contain half of the genetic information needed to create a human? The eggs in a woman's ovaries have a finite life span, they die if they aren't eventually fertilized. Should women be legally required to cryogenically freeze their unused eggs? To protect human life?

Of course not. My opinion on where the starting point of human life ought to be is just as arbitrary as anyone else's, but I think it begins at viability. If a fetus can survive outside the womb, than it's existence ought to be protected. At any point before that, abortion is a very personal medical decision between a woman and her physician. Fortunately, the overwhelming majority of abortions take place well before viability. (during the first or second trimester typically) --DeusKek1987 (talk)

Some welcome though

Decide to come back 2 years later and first thing I get is a hammer to the face and then my secret ninja rights taken away--Parevent (talk) 15:46, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I've not had a particularly warm welcome either. The lefties who run the show here are somewhat oppressive. You could join my crew and overthrow them! --Right-wing RationalWiki (talk) 15:52, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

But what if I support the leftist tyranny of Ratwiki? --Parevent (talk) 15:58, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I thought you was wiser than that...--Right-wing RationalWiki (talk) 16:03, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I tried to ban Rob from the wiki for being an annoying right winger who only wanted to shit on the site, i'm clearly not going to be on your side. --Parevent (talk) 16:05, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

So be it. I see you deserved your cold welcome back. --Right-wing RationalWiki (talk) 16:06, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@Parevent You could always join my Party, or not. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 16:56, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Editfilter

"Paravan " is actually in the editfilter now? That's great. It's no wonder I couldn't edit with that account without tripping it.--Parevent (talk) 16:01, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

You can thank FatAardvark for that. Anyways, I've heard you were a good user back in your day, so welcome back! RoninMacbeth (talk) 16:10, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I can testify that Parawotsit wore a mod hat well. Looks like Foster the Cruel has also made a reappearance, and a welcome one in my view. Further, deponent saith not. Anonymous User (talk) 18:03, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

More like Foster the Tired these days. Getting old sucks. RagingHippie (talk) 18:50, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

In case you missed it, Christopher said it was a misunderstanding and has restored you to Sysop, @Parevent. Bongolian (talk) 20:14, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Not really meant to talk about filter 11 where non techs can see it but I believe I’ve removed all bans on the word paravant and variations. Christopher (talk) 20:43, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Para, you sound like a "paraprofessional" ;) Cat Lover (talk) 01:49, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

The a sound

By a I refer to the open central unrounded vowel. This sound is suppose to be extremely common, is it possible that that this is due to centralization? Wikipedia says, In most languages, vowels become mid-centralized when spoken quickly, and in some, such as English and Russian, many vowels are also mid-centralized when unstressed. This is a general characteristic of vowel reduction.. [1] Because if this is true, maybe /a/ was not as common in prehistoric times, but became prevalent because of this trend. Kartvelian, Uralic, Nivkh, and Chukotko-Kamchatkan are all suppose to have been a-less. Darthmaul (talk) 02:51, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Isn't /a/ simply representative of /ɑ(ː)/ or /æ/ depending on the prevalence of both? Spriggina (thảo luận) (đóng góp) @ 02:58, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

/ɑ/, /æ/, and /a/ are three separate sounds. Listen to the sound files to hear the difference. [2] [3] [4] /ä/ is another way of representing /a/. Darthmaul (talk) 03:18, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

That says that /a/ technically represents the open front unrounded vowel, not the central, although I do see that /a/ differs from /ɑ/ and /æ/ now. Thanks. Spriggina (thảo luận) (đóng góp) @ 05:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I should probably use /ä/ next time. Easy to see how it can be confused with /æ/ or /ɑ/ given how screwed up and outdated English orthography is. Darthmaul (talk) 05:50, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

At least in my idiolect, /ɑ/, /a/, /ɒ/, and /ɔ/ all get filed in the same pigeonhole; they are allophones of a single underlying sound. The sound /ɔ/ or /å/ doesn't really exist except as a variant of /ɑ/ in a diphthong or before 'r'. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 15:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC):

Surprisingly any open vowels other than /ä/ aren't too common. The open front vowel, or the low front vowel for instance, doesn't occur in 87.80% of all languages in UPSID. [5] It is only the central one that's common. This leads me to believe that the feature which makes this sound so naturally widespread isn't its openness, but its centrality. Darthmaul (talk) 18:34, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

For one of my conlangs, Vandalic, I took Vulgar Latin and ran its vowel system through a sieve that reduced its vowels to three /a i u/. I feared that the end result would be unintelligible. It actually worked rather well. Of course, most English based creoles sharply reduce the vowel distinctions of the source language. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 02:36, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Just my two cents: my native language is Russian and English is my second language, and it took me some effort for me to hear the difference between /a/ and /ɑ/ (the first sounds closer to the a sound in Russian) in those three audio files, while /æ/ sounds very distinct from both of them to me. - LucidFox (talk) 14:14, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Smerdis of Tlön I reconstruct Early Indo European with three as well, /æ ~ ɛ/ and /i u/. Also I don't believe that /i/ and /u/ were vocalic allophones of semivowels, but that it was the other way around. Darthmaul (talk) 18:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

The /a i u/ trio recurs in many, many languages. If there's another it's usuallu /e/. The basic three are what's usually constructed for Proto-Afroasiatic; Akkadian and Etruscan add the /e/. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 19:18, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Smerdis of Tlön Afroasiatic may not be well enough researched to determine what its vowel system was like. Sure, Semitic had /a i u/, but to say the same for Afroasiatic might be too biased towards Semitic. I think if one is talking about the Open front unrounded vowel, /a/, it wasn't present in any proto language. The Open central unrounded vowel however is another story, since it is so common today it was probably common back then. But as asked earlier, is this due to centralization/vowel reduction? Darthmaul (talk) 02:35, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Come join the Clown

You'll float down here. We'll float down here. --Pennywise (talk) 17:19, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Pennywise I thought you died. Darthmaul (talk) 18:40, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I’ll be back —Pennywise (talk) 19:22, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Do me a favour Pennywise and tell your director not to fuck it up this time. Darthmaul (talk) 19:54, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

What the hell was wrong with the last one?—Pennywise (talk) 22:07, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I'll tell what was wrong:

• lacked a climax because the movie featured too many climatic scenes from beginning to end.
• pennywise uses clown form with too many children, he's suppose to change form according to your fears but doesn't always do that.
• origin isn't really explained, and I haven't read the book.
• pennywise feeds off their fears and yet most of the time the boy band is anything but afraid.
• Mike Hanlon not given enough screen time.
• Crazy parents trope used twice.
• Beverly either ditched Ben or is screwing them both, sad. Darthmaul (talk) 22:21, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

You're talking out of your rear. Come join me, when you're down here with me YOU'LL FLOAT TOO --Pennywise (talk) 12:19, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Stop or I will start spouting Ugandan Knuckles. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 14:53, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Pennywise I see what you did with your profile. It says Georgie for a split second then changes back to Darthmaul. Darthmaul (talk) 18:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

It’s not meant to say Georgie at all except for when you’re not logged in. I used to have one in my sig. Christopher (talk) 18:15, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

My Chuckle For The Month

It is with great (personal) amusement that I report that LOGICAL FALLACY has a gematria value of 911 in the English system.Antigem (talk) 13:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for an excellent example of synchronicity: seeing a meaningful connection where none exists.Ariel31459^妈的！

What's gematria?-💎📀1️⃣ (talk) 05:48, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

@DiamondDisc1 New gematria —Kazitor, ^pending 09:28, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Remark on falsifiability

There is a small misunderstanding common to a number of wiki articles and talk pages about the necessary connection between unfalsifiable ideas and pseudo-science: There isn't any. At least not according to one of the greatest philosophers of science in the 20th century, who introduced the term. "Karl Popper described the demarcation problem as the “key to most of the fundamental problems in the philosophy of science”. He rejected verifiability as a criterion for a scientific theory or hypothesis to be scientific, rather than pseudoscientific or metaphysical." Food for thought.Ariel31459^{Wait! there's more?}

Unfalsifiable claims <> pseudoscience. First, "pseudoscience", to be meaningful at all, must be somehow scientistic. To be pseudoscientific, an activity or belief has to pretend to be scientific, without the appropriate rigor and method of science. A tarot card reader may be pushing superstition, but unless she somehow claims to be doing science, s/he should not be accused of pseudoscience. Nor is unfalsifiability essential to pseudoscience; there are and have been many falsifiable pseudosciences. Then there are protosciences like astrology, alchemy, or phrenology. All of them were in some sense on to something. They solved problems and did useful work; spherical trigonometry was invented for casting horoscopes, alchemists discovered many useful recipes, and phrenology was on to something about the different areas of the brain having different functions. But all of them ultimately made falsifiable claims about how the world worked that were capable of contradiction by evidence. - Smerdis of Tlön, ^{LOAD "*", 8, 1.} 03:32, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes. In fact the most characteristic feature of pure pseudoscience, is that it is usually falsifiable. Alchemy was the very first form of knowledge to be termed pseudoscience. Ironically, it was possible to turn lead into gold after all (but too expensive), though it is easier to turn gold into lead through nuclear transmutation. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy discusses general distinctions: "All non-science is not pseudoscience, and science has non-trivial borders to other non-scientific phenomena, such as metaphysics, religion, and various types of non-scientific systematized knowledge...

“Unscientific” is a narrower concept than “non-scientific” (not scientific), since the former but not the latter term implies some form of contradiction or conflict with science. “Pseudoscientific” is in its turn a narrower concept than “unscientific”. The latter term differs from the former in covering inadvertent mismeasurements and miscalculations and other forms of bad science performed by scientists who are recognized as trying but failing to produce good science."Ariel31459 (talk) 04:26, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Return of manual archiving

Do I need to do it again? —Kazitor, ^pending 09:33, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

My rule of thumb about this is, if it looks like it needs doing, do it. It can be a pain picking the obviously dead threads from the still active ones, but yeah, do the job. Wilder^Bicycle 17:57, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Was watching Youtube when...

I saw an advertisement at the beginning of a minecraft video that claimed that "Anna Szabo, JD, MBA" got through clinical depression aka major depressive disorder, a disorder that is treatable, and one that does NOT go away on its own, was apparently cured by the Abrahamic God, and that God was what got her through divorce. She calls this a "poem" even though it's actually a speech done in video form without any editing. She claims that she had binge-eating issues during this period of time, even though her mentioning this makes me suspect bulimia instead, since bulimia means that someone binge-eats, and then feels bad about it and often tries "purging" (read: vomiting) the food. She also says this line: "But none of it mattered when a Narcissist intentionally decided to mental cruelty on me exercising start." I found the URL for this silly "poem" that was being used as an advertisement for her channel, which is right here. Anyways, after more grammar mistakes, she claims to have "lifted" her "emotional pain" and "depression" up to "God" through prayer. Then there's this line: "God gave me a new understanding of my identity in Christ." I went to Catholic school for 6th grade and I can tell you that, at least in Catholic Christianity, humans are not part of any member of the "Holy Trinity." She then tells the viewer to share the video to anyone they know who is depressed. I feel that this video was just straight-up clickbait by a creationist who wants views. It clearly did not work, since the video only has 589 views at the time of me watching the video, and her channel only has 278 subscribers. Not sure about what this series of videos, many of which describe a "Narcissist" who she uses as a stand in for Satan. I am not too worried about the possibility of her getting more coverage than this. She also describes this "Narcissist" in psychological terms that make him look more like a psychopath than a narcissist. Given who she likely means by "the Narcissist", and how she seems to be in love with the bible, this could become popular among creationists if she started promoting it towards Aschafly or BANANA MAN Ray Comfort. Peace. --UglyRat (talk) 17:24, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

what exactly is your point here? your criticisms, are more than a little petty and mean spirited, and much of your assumptions baseless. religion provides a great comfort to a great many people, and can help in times of crisis. its not for everyone and if its not for you why waste your time picking at them? im sure you could find something on the internet truly egregious to rail against, something worse than a poem you dont like AMassiveGay (talk) 18:05, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

This sounds like a very long YouTube ad. Why didn't you just skip it? 174.200.11.172 (talk) 19:51, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

My problem with the ad is just how it's apparently aimed at people with depression and other mental health issues not strictly at religious people. Wasting precious time that could be used for psychiatry and therapy for trying to convert or appeal to their religious beliefs doesn't sit comfortably, heck, even if the video's intended audience was strictly for the religious and depressed. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 09:32, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

'wasting precious time'? its a youtube video. if your watching it you got time to waste. the religious aspect is front and centre. its honest about what it it is and the message is pretty uncontroversial - that their faith helped them in their time of need. if your not religious, why you would even watch this in the first place. ive not looked at their other videos, but unless they are telling you to not seek professional help then there is nothing here evenly slightly egregious. if you dont want your time wasted, dont waste it critiquing inoffensive youtubers when there is are so much worse onthe internet to rail against. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:32, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Avast warning

I just wanted to give a heads up that for some reason Avast flags the entire Rationalwiki site with "This site has a bad reputation" (a yellow !) when you look for it via Google.--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:54, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Very interesting,...do you have any suspects?Ariel31459^{Wait!..there's more.}

Not really as the drop down menu in my browser (called "Avast Online Security" Chrome on the Mac) says "how do you rate your experience" (positive or negative). That is supposed to be with regards to security but I wouldn't put it past people for treating the security prompt as a like/dislike button. That would explode the number of possible suspects as it would include the clueless as well as the malicious --BruceGrubb (talk) 17:31, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Brain Emblems.

The brain emblems, denoting article quality, sometimes seem to be applied in an indiscriminate manner. Does anyone know if there are actual requirements for use of these the emblems? They sometimes seem to be, quality-wise, little better than participation awards. I propose a new type of self-deprecating humor: represent the brain to be sitting on a whoopie cushion as it expels wind. This should have a disarming effect on the overtly captious, especially over articles that have a pulverizing effect on the cerebral cortex. "Ariel31459^{Ne levigxu, mi forliberigos min}

They're called brainstars, and they are usually voted on by the community. Most of the brainstarred articles that I've seen are better than average quality. Spriggina (thảo luận) (đóng góp) @ 15:40, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Is there a standard method for notifying the community that brainstars are being considered? What about having a brainstar festival: Town-crier notifications, publicized nominations, speeches, presentations, monitored voting; bringing together proud authors and brutal mobs to defend their exposition and/or obscurantism? Ariel31459^{Περιμένετε ότι υπάρχουν περισσότερα}

RationalWiki:Article rating has a list of criteria, although they’re a bit vague. Also @Ariel31459 remember to sign with 4 tildes not 3. Christopher (talk) 17:35, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Generally, gold articles have been read for content & quality by multiple sysops, vetted and voted on. Bronze & silver, not really. We had one article (Herbal supplement) that somehow became gold in 2008 (shockingly, User:SusanG, a famed editor from the earliest days of RW, nominated it — no one's perfect). It was subsequently demoted to ordinary article 2016, then improved to bronze status. See its talk page for the history. Bongolian (talk) 21:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

To be fair, the rating criteria were made up by one user, and everyone else went "yep, that looks good" and went along with it. So it might well be worth taking a look at those criteria, seeing as just about everybody involved left RW long ago - some, like me, never to return. Wilder^Bicycle 21:52, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

What's wrong with edit war?

In a mobocracy, when two users go at each other over an edit dispute, most often what they are doing is arguing over which version of insipid prose to use. I propose that it would be best to use the Persephone solution. Why ask administrators, who are more likely to be annoyed by the problem, to settle such questions? Just let the two primates revert one another; maybe post a note at the beginning of the article: UNDER CONSTRUCTION, NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR FALLING STANDARDS. If many editors revert the same version, the reverted editor should get the idea. They should only lose privileges if they whine about it. Alternatively, sooner or later someone will just give up and go bowling or to the Catholic Church to play bingo instead of editing this wiki. In short, what's the hurry? Ariel31459^{'जिग ऊपर है'}

This coming from the guy who tries to use his sysop powers to get his way over regular users? Wow. James Earl Cash (talk) 23:45, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Edit wars are bad because they're counterproductive, they clog up history sections, they're unnecessary, and they're ultimately an extremely immature way of dealing with a disagreement. It's always better to discuss the disputed edits through talk pages rather than engage in a shouting contest with another editor. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓^(T|C) 23:48, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

You missed the point on whining. The other guy above, didn't hesitate to be abusive and discordant in a discourse I attempted with him. I like him. But I don't think we can live together. It is unrealistic to think anything like a quorum (that makes sense) ever decides these questions. Immature? really?Ariel31459^{ignore the man behind the curtain}

You are so unbelievably passive-aggressive Ariel. And sign yourself fer cryin out loud. James Earl Cash (talk) 01:02, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Then don't contribute to the edit war. Lock the page, request him to take it to talk pages rather than entertaining the edit war and giving other editors a headache. Deal with the issue rather than yelling back in forth than in condescending edit summaries. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓^(T|C) 01:46, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

@BabyLuigiOnFire: what do we do when the history sections clog up? Call a postmodernist plumber?Ariel31459^{fiat lux}

Prevent the edit war from happening in the first place by not edit warring. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓^(T|C) 01:46, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I just noticed this, but you're saying people who get the higher-ups to help them should be reprimanded. When you advised me to call on Fuzzy while you were being stubborn re: Peterson. And you called for CowHouse against Hawaiianred and I on the Sommers article. Uh-huh. James Earl Cash (talk) 02:03, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I also suggest that both of you knock off the pissing contest between each other or you both might lose your sysop privileges instead. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓^(T|C) 02:06, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Y'know, by definition, conflicts which cannot be solved through normal talk page discussion should be referred to the Coop, but only as a last resort. Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 02:30, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Honest to god, this is not something that bothers me in the slightest. This isn't something I was seeking out, I was casually reverting this page when a vandal called LilRW with no other contributions started a stupid section on his dick and I saw this section sprout up not too shortly after. I just came to offer my side if only because I don't want anyone getting the idea that Ariel has been particularly innocent when it comes to our checkered history together. I especially don't want people taking seriously the idea that those who run to the brass should have repercussions since during our debates when we didn't see eye to eye on the talk pages, Ariel recommended me to do exactly that when I was a regular user and he was a sysop. But if nothing else, Luigi's warning has straightened out my priorities. It's not worth the hassle and stress. Time better spent on other activities James Earl Cash (talk) 02:55, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Vandals are easy to ban. If you revert their persistent vandalism, you won't get get penalized for edit warring since it's obvious what your intentions are. I also don't think Ariel is innocent either, he has a history of rubbing badly against other users as well. Don't take it too hard on yourself. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓^(T|C) 03:09, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. The only reason I didn't ban Lil RW in particular was because I was under the impression from some other exchanges between higher-ups and sysops that banning people in general was frowned upon and as a new sysop, didn't want to incur any negative attention or take any chances. James Earl Cash (talk) 03:15, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Don't worry too much about it. Usually, the worst that happens if you make a mistake in a ban is that others undo your ban/adjust your ban amount; only sometimes you might get a message from them. In the case of Lil RW, I've vandal-binned that user. You should use vandal bins more often than permabans for obvious vandals unless of course the user is a spambot in which go crazy with the permabans. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓^(T|C) 03:20, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Just do the coop idea if you lose it on each other, and don't do edit warring. I mean, it happened in 2016 apparently, and it drove an unrelated user away after one of the warrers started witch hunts claiming everyone was a sockpuppet of the other. 𝔊𝔬𝔞𝔱-𝔈𝔪𝔭𝔢𝔯𝔬𝔯 𝔅𝔦𝔤𝔰 (𝔴𝔬𝔯𝔡𝔰 𝔬𝔣 𝔴𝔦𝔰𝔡𝔬𝔪/𝔞𝔠𝔥𝔦𝔢𝔳𝔢𝔪𝔢𝔫𝔱𝔰) 03:00, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Coops generally have no winners, and should be avoided if possible. Cosmikdebris (talk) 03:19, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

So much drama over a simple question. While the specific conflicts I have encountered with the aforementioned individual can prove instructive upon examination, they are only small examples of the general phenomena observable on this wiki. I have no interest in bothering administrators in the coop. I am not innocent, as has been rightly pointed out by one alert individual and, to draw heavy lines under the obvious for them, I am certainly ablist with regard to making certain judgments. And they concern those persons without perspicacity sufficient to apprehend a complex proposition, even if the entailed argument were shown to be specious. They are recognizable, in my view, as vandals from all ideological perspectives who rather than write accurate, acerbic, witty, sometimes hilarious criticisms, proceed in the manner of inept graffiti artists, drawing mustaches on portraits, writing long ungrammatical sentences in regional vernaculars, and generally doing the literary equivalent of pointing and smirking. Progressive or conservative, inept prose is likely to garner my attention. I am not opposed to moonbats expressing themselves. I am opposed to poor grammar, insipid jokes, unoriginal ridicule and, most of all, misleading statements initiated through a corrupted representation of language.Ariel31459 (talk) 17:56, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

The simple answer is don't edit war with other users. You're the one drawing it out longer than necessary. Also, I didn't read the rest of your cruft, which I find frankly pretentious. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓^(T|C) 19:16, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Agreed.—(((CheeseburgerFace)))  (talk • stalk) 19:18, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Bongolian (talk) 19:33, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Christopher (talk) 20:01, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

C-c-c-combo breaker. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 20:04, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Wait, what are we agreeing to? That you didn't read what I wrote but nevertheless find it pretentious? And the pretense being what? That I can recognize chirpings of nonsense while you are either unwilling or unable to do so? The first I do hold to be true, while the latter is, in my view, yet to be decided. Certainly don't prove anything on my account. The question was never meant as a threat, indeed, no such thing is even possible given the order imposed here. Criticizing style is not personal. One is supposed to try harder to do better. Ariel31459 (talk) 22:09, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

What I meant is that I just gave up attempting to understand your point because I find it nonsense backed up by lots of cruft to give a false level of sophistication. We're talking about edit wars on a free-to-edit wiki by any person. We're not writing a novel here. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓^(T|C) 22:43, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

how is edit warring even avoidable? and lets be clear about this - it takes more than one person to make the war AMassiveGay (talk) 22:33, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

It's avoidable if you discuss it on talk pages (that's what they're there for) and you don't act immature over it. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓^(T|C) 22:43, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

and how often does that happen? too often folk repeatedly revert without any explanation and that really puts people back up. one reasons why do not bother editting mainspace (on the few subjects that i have some knowledge of) AMassiveGay (talk) 23:20, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I actually find this a huge problem too, where I've seen various users undo revisions without any further comments. One of the problems with that is that they use rollback instead of the undo function, and that doesn't allow further reasons for explanation. But, if someone does revert your changes without reason, ask them why they did it in their talk page rather than undo their undo and precipitate a possible conflict. БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓^(T|C) 23:24, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I still don't understand what you are complaining about. You object to verbose satire do you? How is that different from me criticizing immature, repetitive ridicule. That's what leads to some edit conflicts. We are discussing forms of humor, not novels.Ariel31459 (talk) 23:01, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

that was supposed to be satire? БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓^(T|C) 23:03, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

there in lies the problem. the thing with satire is that most folk here are shit at it. as for snark its wank anyhow, and we shit at that too. just saying the magic word 'snark' seems to give carte blanche for some fucking awful attempts at humour AMassiveGay (talk) 23:08, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

My question is: why is the satire even warranted? I gave a fairly serious response to a rather straightforward question and now we're discussing humor (which is mostly subjective anyway). БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓^(T|C) 23:11, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

OK see, that's why it was funny: MG took two lines to say what took me a paragraph because I didn't want to hurt anyone's feelings, but managed to do so anyway. Ariel31459 (talk) 23:15, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

it becomes even more egregious when poorly executed snark obscures and diminishes already weak argument. if folk must try to be funny, at least make it an after point, not the main event AMassiveGay (talk) 23:31, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Anti-edit-warring is a literal community standard. If you don't like it, ask for a rule change located in this link. There's no reason this needs to be in the saloon bar topic other than to get attention. I was contemplating on tipping my modhat to stop this discussion. Anyone for it?—(((CheeseburgerFace)))  (talk • stalk) 00:10, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't have more to say. MG basically recapped it. I am embarrassed that you find this upsetting.Ariel31459 (talk) 00:31, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

@cheesburger - you realise 'donning modhat' isnt some magic power to shutdown debate AMassiveGay (talk) 13:17, 25 February 2018 (UTC)