RationalWiki talk:What is going on in the world?/Archive10

This is an archive page, last updated 8 March 2012. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <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>

, (new)(back)

Is Richard Branson a socialist?

Given we, the taxpayers, have given him a £400 million discount on a bank while keeping the bank's bad debts for ourselves, no, he's not a socialist. He's a cunt.

Jeez, it's just a joke. By Faux standards, anyone who says that the current system on which to do business is flawed is a commie. They've already done it with Buffett. Osaka Sun (talk) 04:44, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I got the joke but I'm pissed off at Branson for adding insult to financial injury.

Russia and the Euro

There can't be any finger towards the EU (not the same as the Eurozone, btw), Russia never planed to enter nor would have been accepted into the EU (and definately not the Eurozone). --★uːʤɱ kant 01:49, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

It's quite funny that they're doing this right when the euro's in shit, though. It's like Medvedev wants to challenge them. Osaka Sun (talk) 02:00, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, you've got a point there. --★uːʤɱ secularist 02:13, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

This is nothing new; the proposal (Union State of Russia and Belarus), has been around for years, but it has ebbed and flowed along with the ups and downs of the Russia-Belarus relationship. Judging by record of the past, this is probably just yet another announcement, and will fall apart before anything permanent becomes of it. I don't see why this would "piss off" the EU, none of these countries have ever been considered likely to join the EU in the foreseeable: Belarus might have a chance, maybe in 30-50 years, but that is pretty unlikely... Russia is probably just too big to ever join the EU, and Kazakhstan has no hope either... (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:42, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Bottled water does NOT treat dehydration!

I know it sounds silly at first, but you have to remember that dehydration is not the same as being thirsty. It is a medical condition that needs to be treated with saline, not just water. A person who is clinically dehydrated and tries to treat himself with bottled water, especially distilled water, runs the risk of lowering the concentration of the electrolytes his body needs to function, which can lead to water intoxication or death. The regulatory authorities are erring on the side of caution, and they have medical science on their side.

Let me ask you guys a question: If it's so "obvious" that water cures dehydration, as these people claim, than why bother putting it on the bottle? Who's going to choose their brand of bottled water based on something so "obvious?"^{— Unsigned, by: Tesformes / talk / contribs}

You're assuming bottled water is distilled, which is only sometimes the case. Moreover, electrolytes are not lost at nearly as fast a rate as water is. You're right that the medical treatment is a saline drip, but otherwise bottled water should be fine. Maybe you can throw some potato chips in too, to recoup electrolytes. --User:Brxbrx/sig 23:33, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

The claim is not that it treats dehydration, but that it prevents it. ListenerX^TalkerX 01:29, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not even that, we in the EU mostly live in places where we have these magical things called "taps". They dispense this stuff called "water", that hydrates and quenches thirst, for a fraction of the price of getting it in a bottle. In fact, it's a fraction of a fraction, really. When bottled water manufacturers claim this, they're bullshitting and fearmongering by slyly implying "hey, if you don't buy our stuff that is highly overpriced you're going to die!!!!" You know what, fuck them in the ass. This isn't "we need more common sense" or "the EU gone mad" it's stopping bottled water companies A) stating the fucking obvious and B) tricking consumers into buying it by hiding behind this. ^gnostic 01:22, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

An outright ban on such bullshitting is a somewhat dangerous proposition; it might get people thinking that advertising is honest. ListenerX^TalkerX 01:29, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, but if you believe that, you're already too far gone. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:40, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I like the taste of Arrowhead water. It tastes good, better than regular water. But it's expensive--. 04:36, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Cool. Good to know. Thanks, Brxbrx. 04:47, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

This might be just me, but bottle water tastes fucking horrific to me. I don't know how to completely phrase it, but the closest I ever got was "It taste like theres a healthy shot of Gasoline in it" --Revolverman (talk) 05:17, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

It depends on which brand.--. 05:41, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

You can't regulate idiocy. Even if water didn't prevent dehydration, this is still nonsense. We need more bureaucratic oversight for such a trivial thing? C'mon guys, really? It's no wonder the EU is in such a deadlock when it's more tied up with printing red tape over the silliest of issues than actually fixing things... Dark Fire (talk) 12:02, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

If you think this sort of thing is the root cause of the EU's problems you're probably in wronger than wrong territory - like saying that getting rid of the Royal Family would save enough money to rid the UK of poverty. Ha! If only it were that simply... Usually EU regulations are done en masse and include a lot of useful things, like regulating the fact that you can't put toxic chemicals into food. It's when the papers get hold of it and cherry pick that it starts to sound absurd. For instance, the shenanigans about cucumbers that had to be straight enough wasn't a load of bureaucrats sitting around and saying "we must make cucumbers straight", it was part of a far wider regulation on classifying foodstuffs that were fit for human consumption - and the shape is actually consumer driven, not a top down edict. The regulation was relaxed recently allowing for people to be sold the "second rate" produce, which is why you can now buy far cheaper vegetables, but they're all massively deformed. Not talking cucumbers not being straight, I'm talking about carrots that look like Joseph Merrick. But they've been marketed as cooking vegetables that are meant to go in stews and shit, so the quality doesn't matter. But the point is, that was driven by consumer demand for foodstuffs that looked nice. Advertising regulations are usually no different to this sort of thing, if you dive into the specifics you'll find something that you might think is absurd, but is really just a side effect of even-handed application of what was demanded of the EU in the first place. ^bomination 13:58, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense. Obviously comparing it to the faults of the EU at large was hyperbole: this isn't the ECB, so it's hardly time taken from economic force. But it does demonstrate a very unhealthy level of distrust in market forces that has been running in the EU for quite a while. You yourself just proved it - people demand straight cucumbers? That's fine, let them buy them then. Supply follows demand, after all. We just simply don't need a bureaucrat to regulate out alternatives. Really, I'm all for skepticism of markets, health care for example tends not to be universal without intervention. But this is really such a basic thing. It's like saying that we can no longer packet instant noodles because they aren't actually instant - they take 60 seconds at a minimum >_< Dark Fire (talk) 21:04, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

When one thinks about the enormous amount of environmental harm and economic waste caused by the bottled water cult, a bit of government regulation rubbed in the eyes of its leaders is not a bad thing. When people pay more for water than they do for petrol, something is really wrong. I understand in less developed countries with unsafe water supplies, but in developed countries tap water is fine to drink, and thousands of times cheaper, and far less environmentally wasteful packaging, and less carbon emissions due to transportation and manufacturing costs also. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:16, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I cannot believe I am about to do this... but, ^theist 16:35, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

My wife won't drink tap water, just bottled bloody water. She claims that it tastes nasty. Tastes just fine to me, but then I've lived in London for years so I'm used to it. Hmmm. One small point. I once inherited a spider plant from an ex-editor of mine. It wasn't a very happy spider plant, being small and wan and spindly, plus my ex-boss had been giving it her bottled water. I switched it to a diet of 100% London tap water and the fucking thing exploded in all directions. The problem is that I'm not sure if this was because the bottled water was so bland, or the tap water contained so many yummy chemicals. Hang on, I'll just check to make sure I'm not growing gills... Darkmind1970 (talk) 11:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

London tap water is about as hard as it comes - I mean it lurks in alleyways carring a knuckle duster... No, no, no, I mean that it contains about as much chalk as is possible without actually being solid. Look inside any London based kettle which has been used and you'll barely see the element through the chalk deposits. Evidently the spider plant likes this as compared to less mineral water. Bad Faith (talk) 12:06, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I just made the mistake of looking into our kettle. Pass the vodka please. Darkmind1970 (talk) 14:13, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

It's probably more likely that the bottled water contains the yummy chemicals. There are a few problems associated with plasticisers leeching out of the bottle, for instance. Not convinced it can harm you either way, though - remember that "containing lots of artificial chemicals" below the lethal limit is far better than "only contains natural chemicals" above the lethal limit. ^theist 16:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I live most of the year in Colorado and we have amazingly good water. "pure rocky mountain spring" and all that. But when we live in paris, I cannot stand the tap water. It's bad enough that most people drink bottled water in our apartment. I feel guilty about that, but what do you do about the taste? Do filters work? or do you just have to "get over it?" GodotSome would use a tautology to describe it ("The way things are done around here is the wa 16:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I lived in Sheffield for most of my life with very soft water - quite dangerous in its ability to dissolve lead. It was making tea in London that put me off the stuff - the water there's horrid. Not much better where I am now: kettle furs up a bit which I'm not used to. But I only really drink it as coffee which masks any taste the water might have. Scream!! (talk) 16:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The horrible thing is that I don't mind it, although given the amount of limescale I just found in the kettle that my wife is supposed to have cleaned recently I might change my mind. I must admit however that I seldom drink it on its own - I prefer to make coffee with it. The water in Oregon on the other hand isn't bad at all. Darkmind1970 (talk) 16:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘It's all about what you grew up with. Having moved Up North I can't stand the local water and love going to see my family who live near London where the water is really tasty. My wife is exactly the other way around. The problem is that we think of water as just water whereas it varies completely from place to place. And, Darkmind, really don't be put off by the inside of your kettle. 'Peckham Spring' is one of the best mineral waters around, even if it is abit expensive on water heaters. Bad Faith (talk) 17:05, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Melbourne and Sydney water are both OK, but Melbourne water tastes better, Sydney water tastes a bit more chlorine. New York water is quite nice. San Francisco water is pretty foul. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 08:22, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Australian MP and halal meat

Well, usual alarmism from him. But he does have one reasonable point — "He tabled a petition demanding that all Halal meat be clearly identified". I think that is fair enough. Some people have objections to eating kosher and/or halal meat, and I don't think it is too much to ask for those meats to be clearly labelled so that they can avoid them if they wish. (This is more a problem with halal meat than kosher, since in my experience one rarely encounters kosher meat outside of Jewish establishments, due to its cost, whereas halal meat is much more common.) There are a number of quite legitimate reasons why someone might not want to eat halal/kosher meat. One reason is that halal/kosher abattoirs are frequently exempted from some animal welfare regulations (e.g. stun before slaughter), and a person may not want to eat meat where they felt the animals were more likely to have suffered pain than in the standard slaughtering process. Also note that Halal meat is prohibited to some Sikhs and Hindus by their religion (see Prohibitions in Sikhism and Kutha meat for details.) And also one should remember the prohibition in Christianity on eating "meat offered to idols" (Acts 15:29, 21:25; 1 Cor 8:1, 10:28) — some Christians may well consider Halal meat to be "offered to idols", depending on their view of Islam and of the blessing pronounced during Halal slaughter. But anyway, such views may be right or wrong, but it seems to me only fair that all meat produced in the kosher or halal way be clearly labelled. Of course, I expect most of it probably already is anyway (why pay the extra expense for kosher/halal slaughter if you aren't going to label it as such?—but then I guess some offcuts of kosher or halal slaughter probably get sold without the label—in particular the hindquarters from kosher slaughter is commonly sold as non-kosher, due to the difficulties in making the hindquarters nikkur), but still it would be nice, as part of the right of the consumer to be fully informed, to have that clearly stated in all cases. Personally I have eaten halal meat, and probably would again, but for a variety of reasons (including religious), if I was given the choice, I would prefer to eat meat that was neither halal nor kosher. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:00, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Objecting to the process of halal slaughter is one thing. That's not what he did, though - David Gerard (talk) 11:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, for starters I'd suggest people bother to find his original remarks in the Hansard, rather than relying on some second-hand report from a journalist, given that journalists very often over-simplify or distort things. It is not hard, but anyway I have done it for you - House of Representatives Hansard, Thursday, 24 November 2011, p. 75. Now, reading his original remarks, he seems to make a few basic points (1) In some areas Halal meat is so common it is hard to find any meat which is not Halal (even though none of these areas would have a Muslim majority) (2) Halal meat is sold without being labelled as such (3) Legally all Halal meat should be required to be labelled as such (4) The increasing frequency of Halal meat is part of some creeping Shariaization or forced conversion to Islam. And my response is: (1) Don't know for a fact that is true, but I would not be surprised if it was; (2) Don't know for a fact that is true, but I would not be surprised if it was; (3) I agree with this statement; (4) This statement is a load of silly Islamophobia. Actually, many Muslims have no interest in halal — my uncle's family is Muslim, and to my knowledge he makes no effort to seek out halal meat, although he insists he has an "allergic reaction" if he eats pork (I suspect his "allergy" is just the guilt he feels when he imagines his parents watching him eat it). (((Zack Martin)))^™ 12:02, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but this is bollocks

I honestly don't know about Australia but I sincerely doubt that there is any law demanding that the method of slaughter is shown on meat products. That is certainly true for the UK. And, within reason, why should the non Muslim/Jewish consumer give a shit whether the meat is Halal or not? It is certainly true that the average consumer isn't bothered to be informed as to whether slaughter houses are humane and, unless Halal is particularly inhumane, it really doesn't matter - unless you're potty enough to believe that it does. I know that, in the UK, if you're bothered about how your meat is prepared, you're effectively forced to go to specialist butchers. I'd be very surprised if it were any different down under.

So yes, even when you read Hansard, this is what it appears to be - some islamaphobe trying to stir up trouble. Bad Faith (talk) 17:22, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

"I sincerely doubt that there is any law demanding that the method of slaughter is shown on meat products" — who said there was such a law? He isn't, I am not, no one is saying there is such a law. People are suggesting there should be. If I know an animal was slaughtered in country X (e.g. if the label reads "Product of Australia"), I should expect it to have been slaughtered in compliance with the animal welfare laws of that country. And that would be true, in Australia at least, except for the fact that kosher and halal slaughter has a religious exemption to those laws. I think a fair quid pro quo, for a religious group being exempted from laws of general application, is that the products be clearly marked as such (e.g. "this product was slaughtered in a halal/kosher manner"). Anyway, he is clearly an islamophobic alarmist, but that doesn't mean his point might nonetheless have some validity. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 08:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Interesting find

This video is kinda old, but I'd say it's pretty useful for understanding the current economic climate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1bZ-TiX8rA

Mr. Anon (talk) 18:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm a fan of [ this one], myself. PintOfStout Talk Good people drink good beer. 23:24, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

"Recent entires"

This was funny the first time, but it does this every month. Pi, plz to fix? Tx - David Gerard (talk) 23:08, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Muppets=Commies

After Ace spotted this, here comes my rambling: FFS! After thousands of years of disdain for some of the rich and rich evil people being portrayed in every single medium you'd think that a few so-called "journalists" would pick up on the fact that both of those are not indicators for being "liberal", but just one other cultural phenomenon! But no! Every time a rich person is portrayed he has to look good or it's commie propaganda! Arrrrgggghhhh! --★uːʤɱ kant 11:01, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Coal Mining

Thanks to whoever memorialized the Monongah mine disaster. I'm descended from East Tennessee coal mining folk myself, so things like the Fraterville Mine disaster and the Coal Creek war are in my family history. MDB (talk) 17:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

ObamaCares

RE: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-ward-in-praise-of-obamacare-20111206,0,6794828.story

“”After the diagnosis, instead of focusing all of my energy on getting well, I was panicked about how we were going to pay for everything.

If one of your citizens can say this, you simply don't deserve to call yourself a First World Country. That's all. ^sshole 13:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Though from the comments "The majority of the problem is that she and her husband made decisions to risk future needs to satisfy current wants." Current needs... current needs? Like a home to live in? "Hey! I'm on the street eating soup out of a cardboard box but at least if I get cancer I can get it treated!" How the fuck do you yanks manage to live? ^postate 14:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The vast majority of us don't fall into that category...through "rugged individualism" and help from friends and family we usually find a way to make things work despite the bills. People who suggest that others don't "plan appropriate for the future" and deserve the fate they've been given are talking out of their asses. -- Seth Peck (talk) 14:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The first time I really realised what a fucked-up health system the USA has was when I was reading Executive Orders by Tom Clancy. There's a man in intensive care with Ebola, his wife has Ebola, and the First Lady of the USA who's helping to treat them says to her husband that she really hopes that their insurance is paid up. They're suffering from a deadly disease spread by Iranian agents and they're supposed to be covered by insurance? What the fuck??? Darkmind1970 (talk) 14:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The health care system here is a sorry joke, run for massive profits by a closed system. A tube of basic antibiotic ointment that costs $3 in Mexico costs $30 here - same manufacturer, same brand, same packaging. A friend of mine on vacation here had a serious fall, broke her back. She was carted to ER, catscanned, then kicked unceremoniously back into the hands of the friends with whom she was staying - in a wheelchair, after three days in hospital. After six month's recovery at her friend's house (who found themselves having to care for their friend and guest as a very ill wheelchair bound patient who needed daily nursing care - at home), she was eventually able to return to her home country, where she got a bill for $125,000. And you call this a fucking health care system? It's pathetic. Unless you're well able to pay for it, of course. DogP (talk) 22:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

The fact you can have a plot where a guy cooks crystal meth to pay for his cancer treatment and for it not to be totally unrealistic says much. ^theist 22:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Doctors? Who needs that when you've got WebMD? Problem solved! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:19, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Bill Johnson

(1) Mr. Johnson donated his sperm without knowing the sexual orientation of the recipients, and (2) it does not appear that he crusaded against donation of sperm. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

His outrage about his own ignorance of what happens to his donations is only second to the outrageousness of his outrage. -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:10, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Irony?

I don't think this is good enough for WIGO but it sure is pretty funny, given the rather-serious subject. -- Seth Peck (talk) 19:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Texas should drop the pretense...

Normally, I don't like sermonising in WIGOs, but for this, I'll totally make an exception. Denying someone the right to prove their innocence isn't just illegal it's morally bankrupt. ^gnostic 09:37, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Can't believe we're all agreeing on this--User:Brxbrx/sig 11:49, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that we're all agreeing on this! MDB (talk) 12:27, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe Rick Perry is actually the Président de Curval from the Marquis de Sade's 120 Days of Sodom — the judge who enjoyed sentencing to death those whom he knew to be innocent. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Have you really read that?--User:Brxbrx/sig 13:23, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Arpaio

Here in Arizona, people are starting to get real fed up with him, especially since it turns out being tough on hispanics apparently means you have to go soft on child molesters. I mean, all this guy does is pick on brown people and be cruel to people that can't afford bail.--User:Brxbrx/sig 13:38, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

So he's the same kind of person he was when I used to live up off 7th Street and Bell...wonderful. But that county is pretty damned conservative, and half the population of the state... -- Seth Peck (talk) 16:18, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

know your meme

are the memes on know your meme actually memes or what people will hope to be memes? AMassiveGay (talk) 23:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Some of both. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Many are short-lived. Others are memes that don't really go far outside of Memebase, such as some of the images that get captioned over and over again. Were there some in particular that looked far-fetched to you? -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:08, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Pretty much all of them AMassiveGay (talk) 18:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

A lot of the rage comics stuff I've never seen, but I don't read image boards. ^postate 18:18, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah, yes. Rage comics is one of their newer babies, but they didn't start it (I'm pretty sure that's the case, having seen them pop up elsewhere before they were on that site). Rage comics are kind of a "meme of memes" in that they repeat the same templates, concepts, styles of captioning and language (e.g., using "le"). They also stole incorporated other memes from other web comics and image boards, such as the "CLEAN ALL THE THINGS!" graphic, "Evil Peter Parker" and the Freddie Mercury "Champion" graphic. -- Seth Peck (talk) 18:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Rage comics started on 4chan but are now wildly popular on Reddit - David Gerard (talk) 12:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

This is why for your internet culture curiosity, you go to Encyclopædia Dramatica. Articles on forced memes are identified as such and are appropriately ridiculed. Get it from the source, not some corporate fuck or twelve year old --User:Brxbrx/sig 19:57, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

"Shut up, Brx." ArchieGoodwin (talk) 22:20, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Perfect time to use this one. -- Seth Peck (talk) 22:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I logged in to chime in with Brx, you shouldn't take ED's type of humour at face value, it's suppose to be in the spirit of the Devil's Dictionary, KYM is often too sanitary and PC to accurately portray the sentiment and humour in the memes, also as Brxbrx pointed out, if you want to be savvy about your internet memes you'd avoid KYM and Memebase like the plague, places like ED are grass-roots from top to bottom without any commercial incentive to appease or compromise. Also Reddit sucks ass. (Solarius (talk) 14:15, 16 December 2011 (UTC))

knowyourmeme tends to just make up the facts which are not obvious --145.94.77.43 (talk) 12:12, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Hitch

I'm confused. Do I vote up because he was such a great man, or down because I am so upset that he has died? I don't know if I can bring myself to upvote on Hitchen's death. --Damo^Hi 08:49, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd vote up to acknowledge his passing away, voting it down only buries it among the other down-voted WIGOs. (Solarius (talk) 14:16, 16 December 2011 (UTC))

If people are worried about such things, you can add "closed=yes" to the vote tag which will disable any of the clicking. I'd like to see how that would go down, though. ^postate 18:05, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid that the 'God rest his soul', no matter how ironic it was meant to be, completely ruined it for me and rendered it unvotable. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 20:57, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Same here, Genghis. I'll be bold and delete it. Rennie McGreet (talk) 15:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

UK is a Christian country

The UK (and it's preceding variants centered around England prior to the various unifications) has no official separation of church and state, indeed, the CofE is effectively the state church; which the de facto figurehead of state being the actual head of the church - i.e., The Queen. There is considerable history of religion ruling the country and the history of religion dominating the country's affairs is extensive. The CofE was formed precisely because the King had a lot of sovereignty lost to the Catholic Church and was forced to consult the Pope on most issues. Compulsory religious practice was also enshrined in law until relatively recently, with unelected bishops in the House of Lords and vague "collective worship" still in schools being the tattered remains of such legal enforcement of religion. To say the UK isn't a "Christian country" is probably twisting the history considerably - and this doesn't bother me too much, as it is what it is. Whether that's an entirely appropriate label now, with religion's influence being more-or-less at an all time low, or whether it's an divisive label, is debatable. But I don't think Cameron has a particularly "twisted" take on it. ^pathetic 09:40, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Thing that makes no sense to me, is the British monarch is both head of the Church of England, and also a member (but not the head) of the Church of Scotland. How can she be a member of two churches with such radically different ecclesiologies? Is she supposed to believe in the historic episcopate when she resides in England, and to cease believing in the same whenever she ventures north of the border? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:18, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

It makes lots of sense. Being the head of a church is about holding the power, not about belief. You don't actually think the pope believes all that Catholic crap, do you? OK, to be fair, with the UK, the power is symbolic rather than real but the principle still holds. Bad Faith (talk) 11:38, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the principle is that since Henry VIII formed the CofE and ended the Vatican's power over him, the churches in the UK are subordinate to the monarchy. Therefore it doesn't matter if the Queen believes both sets of nonsense, one but not the other or none of it. As for the UK, I think it (like Germany) is essentially a pagan country with a christian veneer laid over the top. How much of modern christianity has solidly pagan roots? Hint: that decorated evergreen in my living room has damn all to do with Palestinian rabbis. --Longbow (talk) 19:21, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

It kind of depends on what you mean by a "Christian country". If you mean that current British attitudes are governed largely by biblical decrees then it obviously (and fortunately) isn't a Christian country.

If by "Christian country" you man a county which has historically been much influenced by the Christian church then obviously it is a "Christian county".

It seems to me that Cameron is playing fast and lose with the two meanings. For instance he said: "that a return to Christian values could counter the country's "moral collapse" and blamed a "passive tolerance" of immoral behaviour for this summer's riots, Islamic extremism, City excess and Westminster scandals..

Clearly if you are going to return to something then you no longer have it. And the UK is not now a Christian country.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 15:04, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not a Christian country anymore. Osaka Sun (talk) 19:14, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Given that the British monarchs trace their traditional succession to Odin, and that the English common law is at least partly derived from Germanic tribal law, we can safely say that the country, at its deepest roots, is not Christian. ListenerX^TalkerX 22:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we need to resort to such ridiculous arcane assertions to determine whether the country is Christian or not. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Bob's point is probably most relevant, it's playing very fast and loose with two implied meanings of "Christian country". Because even Richard Fucking Dawkins accepts the predominantly Christian heritage of the last few centuries or so, but that's not the same as having Biblical values. The former really doesn't bother me, but latter is a stretch of the imagination. ^theist 23:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Payroll Tax thing

You won't see me saying this often, but what exactly was wrong with the bill that House Republicans proposed? Didn't it have everything Obama requested, such as a one year extension of his payroll tax cut. Surely a 1 year extension > a 2 month extension? Mr. Anon (talk) 02:50, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

The Thatcher funeral privatization petition is hilarious

But there's no way the government will go along with it. Osaka Sun (talk) 18:45, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm working on a potential bid at the moment. I need funding for the cheapest possible cardboard coffin so that I can build the best possible dancefloor over it. Darkmind1970 (talk) 17:54, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Traditional marriage

That story is almost too beautiful for words. Yet another conservative shows they have a) no idea what the concept of traditional marriage is and b) has the scruples of a rabbit on heat and gets it shoved firmly back in her cheating face. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 12:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Occupy Rushmore

Am I the only one who remembers that AIM loved the term "occupy". Hell, indian activists in denver (AIM, mostly) support the new Occupy movements. And does anyone not get offended anymore? GodotEn live 00:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I found their offense to the term "occupy" a bit silly. It does seem like everything's offensive to at least someone nowadays. Sam ^Tally-ho! 00:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

This is extremely old news; the problematic choice of words has been pointed out numerous times already. RationalWiki being extremely male and extremely white, it's no surprise it's taken this long to notice it, and it is no surprise the tired old "everybody gets offended!" defense is being used. Dendlai (talk) 00:45, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm a woman, and i find it to be far from "tired and old" to say, stop whining about being offended. Every damn day someone is offended by something that you can really just move on with. Don't like the word cunt, don't use it. Don't like the words "happy holiday"? grow up. Life in a multi cultural world like ours is going to say things. getting "offended" just cause you don't like it is what's tired and old. --GodotEn live 01:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

It's, of course, not getting offended "because you don't like it". It's getting offended when people say offensive stuff. Somebody in a position of privilege over somebody else saying to not be offended when they say something offensive is bollocks. The obvious example would be how the word "gay" is used by a certain element of society today. Republicans and the like like to complain about "political correctness", when, of course, the essence of being politically correct is to not say racist, sexist and homophobic stuff. "People complain I'm racist when i say racist stuff, that's so PC!". Dendlai (talk) 04:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

"It's getting offended when people say offensive stuff." Dropping n-bombs, the guy who called me a "faggot" the other week, cat-calling girls walking down the street, etc; those are aggressive, hurtful and offensive acts. I'm not sure how calling a movement dedicated to the occupation of Wall Street "Occupy Wall Street" is on its face, "offensive," and I think calling it so risks blinding us to stuff that is unquestionably offensive. It's one thing to point out that the term might have other valences, other significances, and to give people food for thought so that in the longer term they can start to interrogate the power imbalances that are manifest in--and made invisible by--language. But just saying "that's offensive" risks making one look shrill and risks shutting down productive discussion, because people generally don;t like being called out for stuff they've never considered before. PintOfStout Talk Do you think expletives make you look intelligent? I dunno. Do you think being self righteous makes you look like a prick? 05:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Sam ^Tally-ho! 05:20, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Though nobody is ever really just saying "That's offensive" other than for really blatant stuff. As for the example of "Occupy Wall Street", the ones objecting to it have pointed out why and how it's problematic. But the ones reporting it oftentimes dumb it down to "look at these people being offended for silly reasons! Aren't they silly!" (like the WIGO). What risks shutting down discussion is that kind of "I didn't mean to offend, and I wont listen to what they say, and will instead mock this marginalised group for being offended". The people using problematic language rarely seem to have any interest in discussion. It's like certain white people who are obsessed with being allowed to use the n-word, because black people do, completely ignoring context and power structures. Dendlai (talk) 05:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that people using "problematic" language need to be willing to discuss it and stop if need be and it is true that the Native American groups in question have stated why they are offended by it. The name they're suggesting ("Decolonize Wall Street"), however, seems to me like it would be more offensive sounding than "Occupy." To me their sensitivity to the term "occupy" is a little over the top. The article says it "is offensive in light of the brutal history of occupation by early colonizers and the United States government". One could also say that the government "stole" Native American land. Would that also make the potential phrase "Steal back Wall Street" offensive? There are so many other similar phrases that the movement could have used that could be deemed offensive this way. This offense to the word "occupy" would make the word off-limits to other potential names and slogans for other things. Normally I'll vouch for those claiming to be offended, but this case in particular just seems a little over the top to me. Sam ^Tally-ho! 05:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Cognitive Disorders

This guy is teaching a class about cognitive disorders (we can assume autism might be discussed at least some of the time) and he hold decidedly non scientific views about autism? That's a problem. I doubt anyone would care that he was a creationist if that **one thing** were not there. --GodotEn live 01:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

He's a fairly vocal creationist - he's on the ICR's technical advisory board and he's been seen before - so it will probably be a creationism-centric case. On the other hand I agree that it's bad enough without all that. I wonder who will join into the fray? Peter ^{Urist for Mod!} 02:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Canada as a foreign nation

I've not looked at the full context of his statement, but I personally don't consider Canada to be foreign. In the political sense, sure, but. But they are our allies, and our neighbors. They are as much a part of America as the US. I don't think Rick Perry fudged this one (but he's made plenty of other gaffes, so what's one less, amirite?--User:Brxbrx/sig 21:37, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Canada's just one of the US's bigger northern states, you big silly goose. Why do you think they speak mostly English and play hockey? Sam ^Tally-ho! 21:41, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations, Brxbrx. You just said the single stupidest thing I've heard all year. Keep your fingers crossed that nobody steps their game up for the next three days, but I think you've got this one aced. Way to go! PintOfStout Talk Do you think expletives make you look intelligent? I dunno. Do you think being self righteous makes you look like a prick? 21:43, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm willing to give Perry some credit as I'm sure what he was thinking when he said "foreign" was "a state that may or may not engage in terrorism against us and yet we're buying their oil". But yeah, the man needs a lesson in vocabulary, especially if he has any hope to be in a position where he must engage in international relationships (I think know for a fact he has no freakin' chance, but I'm sure he hopes for it anyway). -- Seth Peck (talk) 21:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

If he thinks "foreign" means "terrorist," he's got bigger problems than a failure to grasp seventh-grade geography. PintOfStout Talk Do you think expletives make you look intelligent? I dunno. Do you think being self righteous makes you look like a prick? 21:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Pretty much sums it up right there. -- Seth Peck (talk) 21:49, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

What the fuck? This is the kind of statement that just sends shivers up my spine, both on the ignorance of the speaker and his audience, and what it means on a larger scale. Canada's government is drastically different than ours, given that they both share Representative democracies. The people have a different history, they come from different places than "americans", and they all manage to live on like 5% of the land. ;-) Seriously, though, if your only knowledge of Canada is that is is both torn and not torn by Quebec, that's enough to let you know it's a foreign nation. As for perry, it suggests he doesn't really consider the world at large very much. a weakness in American Politicians. ONe reason I liked obmam is he spent a significant time away from the US -- something most politicians never do. He gets what it means to be "just one country among many". few politicians, even Dems, really get that, cause few have ever lived outside of the US for any length of time. GodotEn live 21:58, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I think Perry and Brxbrx should come to Detroit and try to cross over to Windsor without their passports, since it's not really in a foreign country. Hilarity ensues.PintOfStout Talk Do you think expletives make you look intelligent? I dunno. Do you think being self righteous makes you look like a prick? 22:06, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

So "bon cop, bad cop" aside, how much English do most quebecois know (and I suppose, how much will they let on that they knwo), and how culturally different are the two "sides" of the on-again, off-again quebec independence?GodotEn live 22:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

The last statistic I read was that roughly 50% of the Quebecois were unilingual francophone, but in Montreal that number would be way, way, way lower. How culturally different are the typical "oui" and "non" voter is a hard one; people from the same town/same family can fall on different sides of that issue; moreover, in recent years an interesting shift has happened, where ethnic nationalism (of the "le Quebec au Quebecois" style) is starting to give way to a a brand of nationalism that I think of as policy-based nationalism: i.e. in an independent Quebec, we could move away from the creeping conservatism embodied by Harper/Alberta/big chunks of Ontario and create a nation more strongly rooted in the kind of social democracy that informed a lot of the Parti Quebecois's ideals. PintOfStout Talk Do you think expletives make you look intelligent? I dunno. Do you think being self righteous makes you look like a prick? 22:25, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Let me alter my position a little: depending on Canadian oil would be far preferable (even benign to beneficial) to depending on Saudi oil, both for logistical, financial, political, ans security reasons. And P, as usual, you're not making much effort to consider what I'm saying. It's always knee-jerk reactions with you. Of course Canada isn't a part of the US. But it's a part of North America and its culture.--User:Brxbrx/sig 23:03, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

"As usual"? Anyways; 1. Canadian oil is tar sands oil. Nasty, stuff, about the worst oil in the world, so, no, not really. And there's no such a thing as a single, undifferentiated "North American culture." Harlem, Mexico, Newfoundland and Iowa are all very, very different places. What you said was that you "don't consider Canada to be foreign." Canada is a foreign country in any meaningful definition of the word "foreign," full stop. Just because it's near by and politically allied makes it no less so. PintOfStout Talk Do you think expletives make you look intelligent? I dunno. Do you think being self righteous makes you look like a prick? 23:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

But can you not see what Perry meant? Do you really think he thinks Canada is part of the US?--User:Brxbrx/sig 23:46, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, Brx, do you consider Mexico to be the "same country" and, if not, please explain why Mexico doesn't meet the same criteria. If you do, then I presume that you have no problem with an open immigration policy. Bad Faith (talk) 23:49, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Brx, he really does, in one way of looking at it. He really sees canada as an extention of the US, and that's a huge problem. It's not *just* a slip of the tongue, though it is that. It is a particular American way of looking at the world. "me" and "everyone else". Canada is "me". GodotEn live 23:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

"can you not see what Perry meant?" What did he mean? That nearby allied countries aren't actually "foreign"? That doesn't make him look any more competent. Define "foreign," as the word applies to diplomacy/international politics for me. PintOfStout Talk Do you think expletives make you look intelligent? I dunno. Do you think being self righteous makes you look like a prick? 23:54, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I hereby distance myself from the brick. --★uːʤɱ pirate 02:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, cmon, guise, you're taking him too literally. Cut him some slack, there's plenty of other things not to like about him--User:Brxbrx/sig 05:29, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I've never been to the Canada-US border, but from looking at it on Google StreetView, much of it would be so easy to just stroll across undetected. You see all these photos of two roads running in parallel, and the border is the strip of grass between the two. There's streets where one side of the road is American and the other side Canadian, not even a strip of grass to separate. There's even buildings built over it. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't mean it's not a foreigner country. PintOfStout Talk Do you think expletives make you look intelligent? I dunno. Do you think being self righteous makes you look like a prick? 14:17, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

And I never said that Canada was not a foreign country to all non-Canadians. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 07:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Pandagate

Just to point out, the list of 12 males in previous years have also had animals feature. I suppose if feminism is relevant, then women should equally be able to be the butt of light-hearted humour. Or does feminism mean that women have to be treated seriously and men have to be the butt of jokes at all costs? ^{d hominem} 01:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The issue is that the sports person of the year was a male chosen from a list of male nominees. Women don't feel that they are adequately represented this year. And please don't add the -gate suffix to every goddamn scandal. That got old in the nineties--User:Brxbrx/sig 01:49, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I added the -gate sarcastically. And I don't see what it has to do with Sports Personality of the Year at all; The Democratic nominee for President will be selected from a male-only shortlist, does that mean women are under-represented? ^sshole 01:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you questioning the fact that women are underrepresented in politics or that the "available roles" for them in the media are more limited than those of men? PintOfStout Talk Do you think expletives make you look intelligent? I dunno. Do you think being self righteous makes you look like a prick? 02:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

No, politics is politics and I'm pretty sure women are under-represented. I'm simply questioning a) why the panda thing is wrong and hilarious and the BBC being awful when it's nothing particularly new and is actually something that has been done on both genders before apparently without complaint and b) why another compeltely unrelated list's all-male-ness should be entangled with it in any way, as by that very line of reasoning we can say that the Glamour Awards were all female therefore the Benson the Carp being on the male list was wrong. ^sshole 02:12, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, I didn't know about boy animals being on previous lists, so that point goes to you. I'm not sure why we should think of the two lists as completely unrelated--they both come from the BBC, right? So there is a sense of an institutional view of women that is revealed in those lists: all athletes are guys, and many women are famous just for getting married. Heteronormative and limiting, much? Also, the glamour awards being all female and the sports awards being all male is a weaksauce comparison and I expect better from you. Last I checked, women are athletes, roughly half of the medals at most sports competitions go to women; the glamour industry is not at all gendered the same way. PintOfStout Talk Do you think expletives make you look intelligent? I dunno. Do you think being self righteous makes you look like a prick? 02:32, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I recognise the Glamour Awards comment was a little bit of a stretch, but I'm just trying to emphasise the absurd nature of saying that the demographics of List A means List B should be composed a particular way. Now, both might come from the BBC, but the BBC is a vast organisation, composed of many people with editorial say - and probably aren't in constant communication with each other - so they are very much separate entities and were likely composed without knowledge of each others content. I certainly couldn't tell you who the winner of Sports Personality was, never mind the nominations, so perhaps whoever composed the 12 people lists was similarly unaware or, perhaps, didn't realise the need to pander to women by ignoring the chance to lighten the year with news of a panda (christ-on-a-bike that pun was not intentional...) as no.12, after all there is precedent for it. I certainly don't think it was padding due to sexism, and the evidence to say it was due to institutionalised sexism is, to be very very generous, non-existent. ^pathetic 02:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the BBC should have done a better job on this, or at least put it into a comedy section. With the 2011 male newsmakers you have almost everyone covered, the good ones, the crazies and all: the Tunisian self-immolator, Naoto Kan, Breivik, Mark Duggan, Mario Monti, Cain, etc.

But the women's picks are a joke. Who the fuck cares about Pippa Middleton, Prince Albert's wife, the Dutchess of Alba, Justin Timberlake's military date and a bloody panda? Batshit Bachmann really doesn't deserve to be there either. The first person I thought of was Angela Merkel, and even she wasn't there. Osaka Sun (talk) 02:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Ellen Sirleaf, Aung Sun Su Kyi... PintOfStout Talk Do you think expletives make you look intelligent? I dunno. Do you think being self righteous makes you look like a prick? 02:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not from the UK so I don't know if these lists are jokes or not, but if they are serious, that these are the "best" news makers, then the single biggest issue is one POS already made: women are famous cause they married someone famous, dated someone famous, got dumped by someone famous, or showed their tits at the right time. They are really not famous or infamous in and of their own actions. And yet I know this is not reality, this is just what the Media seems to tell me. GodotEn live 03:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Defense Bill

Did the guy who posted the WIGO of Obama signing that defense bill even read the article? The President has the power to issue signing statements that dictate how the bill is to be enforced if parts of it are unclear (which in this case, it is). Obama had previously threatened Veto, but a super-majority passed the bill, so his veto would have been overridden. In this case, he is making sure the controversial parts of the bill are not carried out on citizens. Of course, we'll have to see whether he holds to this statement, but you can't just claim that he only has "reservations", when he is using the maximum ability of executive power to ensure safety for US citizens. Mr. Anon (talk) 03:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

You have to admit it is one shitty bill. Osaka Sun (talk) 23:36, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Indiana Pi bill

Whoever wrote that WIGO, please read this. Mr. Anon (talk) 03:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

O'Keefe

Doesn't the US have laws against inciting someone to break the law? Surely it's O'Keefe who should be prosecuted. Toffeeman (talk) 10:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

AFAIK, nope. This is especially hilarious when undercover police forces talk you into something and then arrest you for doing that exact thing they talked you into. --★uːʤɱ digital native 11:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, entrapment is a valid and relatively easy defense, given that the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it didn't occur and the defending attorney only has to show that the prosecutor can't prove that it wasn't entrapment. -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:28, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

It depends -- I think there are laws against inticing people to commit specific crimes. And you can always prosecute under "criminal conspiracy" charges, or maybe even the RICO statutes, which can go far beyond prosecuting mobsters. MDB (talk) 17:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Haley Barbour

Anybody who knows Tennessee political history will remember Governor Ray Blanton who, as his term in office was winding up, went on a pardon spree, including murderers. This provoked outrage across party lines throughout the state, a loophole was found in the state Constitution and governor-elect Lamar Alexander got a phone call saying "get to Nashville now, we're swearing you in early." (Blanton called it "impeachment, Tennessee style".)

It's widely believed he was selling pardons out of the governor's office, though he was never convicted. (He did go to prison for selling liquor licenses.)

I'm wondering if something similar is going on with Barbour. MDB (talk) 17:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

The executive privilege of pardoning needs to be abolished (except, perhaps, for inmates on death row, in which case the inmate is relegated to life without parole pending appeal). It's clearly a vehicle for favoritism and smacks of aristocratic rights of old. -- Seth Peck (talk) 17:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Moral Compass

It burns. -- Seth Peck (talk) 20:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Drug money and elections

I'm not sure that I see the difference between MegaCorp investing millions in elections so as to get the results they want and drug lords doing the same thing. In either case organisations who look no further than their own profits are trying to distort the political system to their own ends. Jack Hughes (talk) 14:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Haven't the Mafia been doing it for decades? Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 14:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The politicians did it until very recently (e.g., Tammany Hall). This particular "flaw" in democracy has been noted as far back as classical Greece. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Bollocks to mutli-cellularity

What does the beer taste like? Toffeeman (talk) 16:34, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't buy it. Release the data! -- Seth Peck (talk) 18:54, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

"Atheism is a violation of Indonesian law"

I don't even know what to say to that...GodotDear god, fucking grow up 21:58, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Ugh, belief being a violation of a nation's laws seems so... medieval. It's like saying believing in Santa Claus is in violation of the law. Get with the times, Indonesia! Sam ^Tally-ho! 01:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, is someone admitting that people's atheism constitutes a "belief" now? ListenerX^TalkerX 05:13, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, lack of belief then. Sam ^Tally-ho! 05:25, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Atheism and the belief in Santa are equivalent here in that they are positions on the existence of a supernatural entity. Not that they are both 'beliefs'. Peter ^{Monomorium antarcticum} 05:27, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Atheism does not, in theory, require any beliefs, but any individual self-professed atheist will have some associated beliefs, some rationalization of their atheism — and that is not to mention the people who publicly profess weak atheism, but who blurt their strong-atheist beliefs after a few shots of whiskey. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:30, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps so, but that's not required for the Santa analogy. Peter ^{Monomorium antarcticum} 05:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

If you have to ban beliefs that differ from your own, that just shows how little confidence in your own beliefs you must have. Sarah Parker (talk) 07:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

If you need an ideological rallying point around which to gather people, you pretty much have two choices, orthodoxy or orthopraxy, and some problems with the latter were made evident around Jesus's time. ListenerX^TalkerX 07:09, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, yeah, I suppose if you want to con people with made-up bullshit, you better be ready to come down hard on those who dare to say that the emperor's got no clothes. Sarah Parker (talk) 07:12, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I prefer orthopraxy myself, for obvious reasons; the only reason orthodoxy is any more flexible is that there are no mind readers, so one cannot prove that, for example, most people who say the Nicene Creed do not understand a word of it. ListenerX^TalkerX 07:15, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

ACTA

ACTA is old new, it was signed years ago. I don't think it's relevant at all to SOPA, and it really just seems to be about preventing false advertisements and counterfeiting. Mr. Anon (talk) 00:56, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

All three clauses in that comment are factually false - David Gerard (talk) 11:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

What NASA calls The Most Amazing Highest Resolution Image of Earth Ever.

I didn't know the earth consisted entirety of Northern America. Amazing. Ace^Moderator 19:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

You know the Earth is a sphere right? (ʞlɐʇ) ɹǝɯɯɐHʍoƆ 20:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that was an especially stupid thing to say... I'd now like to see you go on a nobs-like defense of it. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

You know that it is a composite image, right? :) Previous versions of the Blue Marble have included both hemispheres and the 2004 Blue Marble collection includes full Earth maps.--ZooGuard (talk) 21:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I was being facetious. Ace^Moderator 21:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

You were supposed to say: "The earth is a 3-dimensional object and this is nothing but a two dimensional picture. Why don't you ask resident mathematician and geologist Andy Schlafly if the earth is two dimensional?" Occasionaluse (talk) 21:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

What I like most about it is that you can't see any human influences, save for a few black spots from man-made lakes (due to dammed rivers). Gives a new meaning to "Mostly Harmless". If there were Schlafly-esque extraterrestrials whizzing by outside the Clarke belts, they'd probably look down and say "Not even Kardashev I, no major contributes to the galaxy. Not notable." -- Seth Peck (talk) 22:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Julia Gillard

So, how's Australian politics down there? Osaka Sun (talk) 16:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Moon base

I'm all for it, but hearing a Republican suggest it is pretty damned ridiculous, given their small government minds and tax breaks for the wealthy. "Oh, but that will help stimulate innovation!" Since WHEN has it ever? Didn't GWB give a speech about wanting the same thing? -- Seth Peck (talk) 22:30, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

A moon base before 2020 in these economic times, and from a neoconservative.

Someone's a little kooky. Osaka Sun (talk) 23:01, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

It's hard not love Gingrich. The crazy is really starting to come out now. I really hope he wins the nomination, it will make 2012 so much more entertaining. DogP (talk) 00:23, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I know I've said it before, but I'd prefer it if someone slightly more insane wins the nomination. -- Seth Peck (talk) 00:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

At this point everybody except Mitt Romney means a second term for Obama.

I wonder how he thinks that would be possible; maybe he thinks cutting taxes will make the economy grow so fast (hahaha, yeah, sure) that he will make enough taxes to actually built that thing? Wouldn't he have to increase taxes? Which would (after him, not reality) kill jobs, and the US would go into recession. I think it might be possible to start building a station on the moon, but for one country alone? Nope, neither really possible nor wise. --★uːʤɱ structuralist 00:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

UHM, I hope what you meant was "everybody except Mitt Romney means a shoe-in for a second term for Obama", because while it may be a good fight, I honestly I don't see a majority backing a flipflopper or a multi-millionaire or a Mormon (say what you will about the rest of his politics). -- Seth Peck (talk) 16:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

That's what I meant, yes. I wasn't aware there was that much of a difference. --★uːʤɱ atheist 16:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm far more concerned his stated endgame for this plan is to make The Moon the 51st state in the union. I know conservatives have nothing but disdain for any treaties that are not unfair in the US's favor, but damn. --CoyoteSans (talk) 20:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh yuck, now I have a vision of a moon base filled with clones of Newtie, like in that film Moon. Ugh. Darkmind1970 (talk) 21:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Headscratcher on Fred Goodwin

A lot of anti-Labour comments on Twitter about the knighthood revoking. Sure, Blair should have never given him that honour, but every single thing Goodwin did would make Alan Greenspan blush. Libertarianism at its finest. Osaka Sun (talk) 02:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

One town's war...

RE: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/one-towns-war-on-gay-teens-20120202

Sigh... sometimes I feel quite tired of backing things up with reason, with calm discussion, with evidence, with politeness. I feel drained by it. I feel it's repetitive, pointing out flaws and dissecting comments and ideas. I feel I've thought enough that I don't need to justify things to myself any more... so sometimes I feel like, instead of all that, we should start saying what we really mean. These people are disgusting. They're an affront to what is good. They're a disgrace to humanity. They're vile. They're full of hatred. They're, frankly, stupid. They couldn't reason themselves out of a paper bag if I gave them a calculator and step-by-step instructions. They're wrong. They speak of personal responsibility but take none of it, as if it's something other people have to do. There are people dead, and they can deny it all they like but we all know, and they - deep down - know it too: they're responsible.

I want to go up right into their face, real close, personal-space-violating close, eye-to-eye and say two words: Fuck. You.

If they're lucky, I might not punch them in the face immediately afterwards. ^moral 15:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The awful irony there is that these suicides had very little to do with the youths being gay; anyone who is bullied like that would be at a suicide risk. ListenerX^TalkerX 16:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes... but they were bullied because they were gay and teachers were expressly - well, at least confusingly given the rulings and guidelines they were told to abide by - forbidden from helping them because of it. If you were bullied because, say, you had the wrong hair colour they could do something about it... if you were bullied because you were gay they had to "remain neutral". No fucking irony anywhere. ^gnostic 16:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

That teacher who stood calmly by and watched the gay student get beat up — if he said the "neutrality policy" prevented him from stopping the fight, he was lying. ListenerX^TalkerX 16:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Whether it's a confusing policy or that teachers were quietly supporting of gay bashing is beside the point: this bullying only got to that level because they were gay, or even just perceived to be in some cases, no other reason. It would not be acceptable in any way, shape or form with any other motive, but in this case it's "controversial". ^bomination 16:23, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I doubt they were bullied because they were gay. They were bullied for being different. This article's main character says it started before she even had an inkling of what being gay was, and the first insults were "cock muncher" and "whore". they "dyke" came later. But, there is an institutionalized numbness toward kids that are "different". Especially in a town like this that thinks gay is a choice. They see you as choosing this life, so "suck it up, babe". GodotGrow a vagina 16:31, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

By the way, i *loved* this line (rolls eyes), cause you know, trolls and bullies respond so well to insults. " The school's principal, looking pained, had suggested Brittany prepare herself for the next round of teasing with snappy comebacks – "I can lose the weight, but you're stuck with your ugly face". HOw about fucking putting the bullies to chores each day? (by the way, whoever thought up suspensions is just fucking stupid. kids get to not go to school, and that's PUNISHMENT?GodotGrow a vagina 16:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

(EC²) I disagree. Without the SPLC, etc., etc., to go to bat for you, no one can hear you scream. Bullying with any other motive would never reach such prominence in the press for anyone to hear about, but it does happen all the time.

Agree with WaitingforGodot. It is unfortunate that the root cause of the suicides has been misidentified. On the other hand, I know Anoka, and can say with some confidence that the issue is the town's collective inability to stand up to those few bad apples in the "Parents' Action League." ListenerX^TalkerX 16:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

All this is a sophistic debate anyway. Whatever the directness of the causal chain between the policy and the suicides, the fact remains that this policy - coined by people whose role should be to PROTECT the children - sent a clear homophobic message and created a climate that implied that some kind of bullying is acceptable: calling it confusing is too nice, when one cannot even say that some other perfectly adjusted people are homosexual, it is homophobic, full stop. I hope this will go to court and a judge will rub those adult their responsibility in enabling bullies in their faces! dx (talk)

That is giving the policy too much credit. Bullying has been endemic in the Anoka schools since at least the 1950s. Gay-bashing is just the latest fig-leaf under which it operates. What I am hoping is that this pressure will cause the district to tackle bullying seriously instead of just making teachers go "Now, Johnny, we don't say 'faggot'." ListenerX^TalkerX 03:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

+1 for proper use of term "fig leaf". -- Seth Peck (talk) 18:17, 6 February 2012 (UTC)