RationalWiki:Saloon bar

From RationalWiki
(Redirected from Saloon bar)
Jump to: navigation, search
Saloon bar
WIGO Bar colour.png

Welcome BoN
This is a place for general chit-chat about virtually anything that doesn't fit anywhere else.
Beer.gif For previous conversations see the automagic barchives. Drinks drunk.gif

What is going on?

The Bar
(talk) (talk) (talk) (talk) (hic)

To do list

God I feel so fucking stupid!!!! Ugh!!!!!![edit]

I am taking a self paced Algebra course online and it is the same stuff I was taught in high school. Now, I am struggling with something I should know already. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 22:18, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

You're not stupid, it's just math is a kinda use-it-or-lose-it skillset. All I can say is, if you find yourself memorizing formulae, you're on a bad path to (re)learning a particular skill in a way that keeps it for your future. The more conceptual your understanding, the better. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 22:49, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm enrolled in one of those too, through a site called Straighterline. I suck at math. My lady friend who is a senior in high school (yes, she is 18) is undoubtedly better at algebra than I am with almost enough credits for my associate degree in business. What a Wonderful World (talk) 02:16, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Almost everyone feels that way about algebra. Do the exercises until you can do them easily is the best way to study algebra. Here is a large problem set with answers.Ariel31459 (talk) 20:44, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Online courses are always harder than high school courses. I always had a problem with block scheduling in high school specifically with math. Any other subject, it was great. But 1 hour 15 min of a class every other day does not help you get in the mindset to learn something difficult. If you're not good at algebra, like me, it would help to have two blocks set out to learn it every single day. Problem is, you've gotta work and two and a half hours dedicated to untutored basic algebra every day is functionally wasteful if it's not pacing with your understanding of it. I always had a bad time with math. I got on the advanced math track, which really sucked for me, and I would get teachers who would pull me aside and talk to me, "your work isn't wrong, but why did you use all these equations? You just had to use this one. This was multiple choice and your work doesn't even get you close to any of these answers," and I would say "I don't know, I panicked." I'm very bad at reading math. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:25, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Try reading a range of 'maths-centred books' including narrative ones - sometimes you need several different approaches to understand a particular aspect.
Also establish or get involved in an algebra support group 'to accept the higher power{s).' Anna Livia (talk) 09:45, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
@Ariel31459 made a great point here, @Rationalzombie94. Math is not a spectator sport. The only way to become proficient is doing a lot of practice problems. Do some every day. Unlike @Ikanreed, I do not believe the more your conceptual understanding is, the better. Sometimes, memorization is necessary. By that I do not mean rote memorization. It is possible to remember a formula because you understand it and know where it comes from. Since you mentioned (ordinary) algebra, the quadratic formula naturally comes to mind. Try to not just remember the formula, but understand the derivation, which is neither hard nor long.
Do you have to take an online course, by the way? Doing things online makes you prone to distraction. Consider borrowing or buying an algebra textbook instead. (What level of algebra are you at?) Nerd (talk) 18:46, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
I've got to reassert my position because it's been a powerful indicator of what I can use years later. I can regurgitate exactly zero trig identities, but having looked one up, I can tell you exactly why sin(x)²+cos(x)²=1 in terms of the underlying nature of what sine and cosine represent on a unit circle. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:00, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
@Ikanreed OK. But while the unit circle can help you remember the Pythagorean identity, it is not a proof on its own. It is an application of the identity. The standard trigonometric identities can be derived by a geometric construction, algebra, or a combination thereof. Check your precalculus or calculus textbooks if you still have them. Nerd (talk) 14:01, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Double dare[edit]

A real beauty

I'll give $50 to the first person ~who jumps into the black hole! ShabiDOO 01:49, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I'll give a hundred to someone who comes back with proof. Kencolt (talk) 03:08, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
I bet $200 to ski around a black hole. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 19:08, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
$300 for the first person who sticks their dick in it. Double dog dare. DuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 02:24, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
I bet $600 for the guy to take a healthy shit in the black hole. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 15:16, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
I'll bet a $10,000 for making this first black hole image more clear than being blurry. Besides, I think this picture looks fake to me, not very convincing. Mar9122 (talk) 12:42, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
@Mar9122 You realize this is a photo of a black hole over 53 million light years away, right? Of course the damn picture isn't gonna be very clear. — Oxyaena Harass 04:47, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I see this "This is a picture of a black hole" everywhere. I don't think it is. I think it's a picture of the effects of a black hole on nearby matter.Hubert (talk) 10:46, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Also it's a radio picture. — NekoDysk 12:18, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
You say that like all perception isn't like that. 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:1D8:7F7C:A69D:476A (talk) 12:44, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
@Hubert It's the picture of the accretion disk, not the actual black hole itself. We can't take pictures of black holes because they're black, they absorb all light, but this is a pedantic point, in all practicality it's an image of a black hole. — Oxyaena Harass 22:58, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
@OxyaenaWell, Yes. That's really my point. Hubert (talk) 15:22, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
We're talking fifty bucks here and you guys are trying to come to concise agreements about whether the aspects of a picture are exactly what a picture defines? I knew I liked you guys, but sheesh, you're out 50 bucks, I'm on my way to that black hole. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:25, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I know consciousness is weird but[edit]

I don't get why it's so hard for people to believe that the brain produces consciousness. It's like there is a need for it to be some kind of mystical thing that it really isn't like this makes it out:

where did the brain come from? You tell me, let's break it down. There is no infinity you say. Then that itself implies a beginning of creation. A creation that you believe is separate from one thing to the next, not all one thing working together and existing as one, as I see from my side of things. So what brought on this beginning? Where did the brain or anything else come from for that matter? If you have theories of your own I'm all ears. Everything in my world fits and works and it is the result of years of study and practice and experience and simply seeing parallels everywhere pointing to one possibility. That is the theory of consciousness Itself being the infinite, that which has no beginning and holds the spark of existence within its beingness. The resonance of said consciousness vibrates as everything we see and it is conscious of these objects within its own field of being. It's all one and it is the self, the only thing that could be. This brain theory has no basis that I can think up. Not unless I get wildly imaginative and start shoving pieces where they don't fit. Also it is up to the individual person to make up their mind as to whether there is a God or not. If one sees things as I do then you could call consciousness God or any other word they want. It is that which exists, the source from which this whole thing seems to have emerged yet I see that as the mind of existence. Please elighten me if I'm telling myself fairy tales seeking comfort. I want to know how a brain is resposible for more than the mechanical balance and upkeep of the body/mind. Truth is so obvious to me I can't look anywhere and not see it. I know what I am and am becoming more acquainted with myself moment to moment.Machina (talk) 07:02, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

"The brain produces consciousness" and the word salad you offered up both describe the same mind-body monism. All of reality is various bits of reality (atoms) 'sensing' and interacting with each other (i.e. the universe is 'conscious' of itself, otherwise nothing would interact). That includes the brain, of course, but because all the interactions going on are a lot harder to follow we call it something different, more special. But is consciousness special? Is monism boring or magically amazing? *shrugs* (talk) 08:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Except the brain does produce consciousness, we just don't know how. I wouldn't call the universe "conscious" of itself, more like a machine really.Machina (talk) 18:45, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
The brain can't sense anything on it's own, it isn't sensitive enough. It requires two cameras, air chemical sensors, millions of pressure sensors, millions of temperature sensors, thousands of liquid chemical sensors, two frequency sensitive pressure sensors, along with a few miscellaneous internal sensors to create the experiences you feel. Brain injury can change personality, memory, sensory perception, language ability, etc. What exactly is left for a disembodied conciousness to do separate from the brain? MirrorIrorriM (talk) 09:26, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
you can only trust your own mind and body so far and my 'reality' fundamentally shifts as my perspective does. certainty only exists for religious zealots blind to their own failings. its rarely an attractive trait. AMassiveGay (talk) 09:42, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
We all know that 'we are entities in our bodies and observing the world' - and that from observation other people are the same; and there is something more to 'the entity' than the purely physical (otherwise why wonder, a sense of beauty, humour etc?). And, despite millions of person hours spent considering the subject, in philosophy departments, scientific research projects and pubs/bars (among other localities) nobody can come up with a definition of what 'the entity' is that everybody can agree upon. Anna Livia (talk) 09:59, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Wonder is useful because it is helps for finding resources and ways to solve problems; it helps survival. Beauty is important because it gives a preference for things looking a particular way which helps prevent consumption of rotten things and encourages reproduction with those who are healthy (although it gives bizarre secondary sexual characteristics). Bizarre secondary sexual characteristics give pretty strong evidence for 'beauty' (at least from appearance) being simply an evolutionary trait imposed on your brain. Humour is important because it both shows a level of cleverness (useful for survival), and usually shows non-hostile intentions. These things all evolved for a plethora of reasons, but we tend to use them for things far beyond their original function and that's fine. A wrench may not be a hammer, but you can certainly use it as one. The fact that a wrench may be used in place of a hammer even though it wasn't designed for that isn't magic, its coincidence. It can just be hard to swallow that cognition itself, along with all its hopes and dreams, love and care, resolve and dignity, is merely an electro-chemical coincidence. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 12:25, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
So why do we enjoy sunsets, music, art, 'cute baby goats' etc?
It is the way in which there is more to 'love' than mere physical attraction and cooperation, to 'wonder' than just curiosity etc, and the feeling that 'there is more to "sentience whatever that means" than in a purely scientific philosophy' which defines what consciousness is. Anna Livia (talk) 14:16, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Well, for music, pattern recognition is a huge part of it. Whether it is harmonically (the most common harmonies in music worldwide are the lowest whole integer frequency ratios) or rhythmically (rhythmic notation varies worldwide but it is fair to say that most music consists of set *cycles* of rhythms, divided in various ways, that fit a particular pattern people like). Audio pattern recognition certainly could be a theoretically useful survival trait. I would speculate that art might extend into that system as well. It has been suggested that some of the appeal about cats can be traced to human nurturing instinct so perhaps the same applies for "cute baby goats". There's even branches of evolutionary psychology devoted to explanation of other human aesthetics including "natural beauty" like sunsets (the theory less being about sunsets and more what we find as a "beautiful landscape" often is quite geared towards nomadic human survivability). So, yes, there are possible logical reasonings for all of the above.
That being said, there's no problem enjoying what it means to be human without worrying about the above (provided that someone isn't exploiting this for their own advantage, eg religious leader types that exploit the mysticism tendency of humans purely for greed and profit.) Soundwave106 (talk) 15:25, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

This is kind of getting a little off track from what I was trying to say. But I tend to agree with the evolutionary aspect to much of what Anna says. I think you want to make these things seem like more of a mystery than what they actually are. Love is little more than physical attraction and cooperation. To me reality is less fantastical than people say it really is. Like the word salad saying that consciousness is the spark of creation, it's not. But it won't stop people from claiming it is.Machina (talk) 18:45, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

On the topic of love, yes, it's little more than a unique chemical reaction when it starts, but it's the work you put into it based on that little more you get when you work on it that maintains its meaning. What you get back from something you love, something you enjoy doing, can be cut down to the minutia of chemical reactions. Interpersonal love is not a whole lot different from, say, building model trains at a chemical level. Just, interpersonal love requires another human with a brain, which is either more or less fun for you. So you're at a crossroads. The minutia of what you love and what you hate are built upon the same physical laws that dictate whether you love a stuffed Pikachu or hate a... let's just leave it at a stuffed Pikachu, I think that's confusing enough. So you have to use your brain, whether it's provided to you by some God or just physics, to decide what your brain is here for. Which is a lot harder than believing Karma or Dharma or Abhidarma can tell you what your brain is here for. I think the focus on the beginning of consciousness is a worthwhile endeavor, but only because I love searching for it. But it's an ambitious goal, like biology is a function of chemistry, chemistry is a function of physics, and physics is a function of math, and math is a cousin to, dare I say it, philosophy. It's easy to say without an expressed logical reason, value doesn't exist. But with our human social biology, value and reason have a uniquely human spin to them. Lucky or unlucky, it's what we've got.Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:11, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Much of 'what consciousness is' is explicable by scientific means - adding to the chances of survival for individuals and the group (including social cohesion) 'and all the rest of it.' It is 'the bit that says there is more to heaven and earth and who I am than in your scientific philosophy' that is being discussed. Anna Livia (talk) 10:59, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
As I posted before, your consciousness evolved for survival. Some of the traits that came from that (such as pattern recognition, ability to recognize good food from bad food, ability to recognize good mates from bad mates, ability to recognize good people from bad people, ability to recognize danger, etc.) have neat side consequences such as enjoying sunsets. It is merely coincidence and nothing more. Again the hammer and the wrench analogy: the wrench is not designed to be used as a hammer, but regardless of purpose or original intent it certainly can be used as a hammer. But there is nothing mystical about the wrench being used as a hammer, merely a coincidence of the design. The stumbling point most people have is assuming consciousness must be some ultimately special thing, instead of just a weird quirk that is relatively rare. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 12:27, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
But - most people will express some variant of the Hamlet quote and 'I am a person with quirks, not merely a Number Six brain' (to bend a quotation somewhat).
What is the 'technical explanation' I came across once - aspects that develop as a system becomes more complex that cannot be logically deduced from the simpler versions. Anna Livia (talk) 23:04, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
i believe popeye said it best 'i am what i am and that all that i am' AMassiveGay (talk) 00:21, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
It is called emergent complexity, and everything has that. A game of chess has more possible move combinations than there are particles in the universe. Point being that emergent complexity is nothing special about humans, and in all cases can be explained as the sum of its parts. The issue is that you cannot easily analytically solve for emergent complexity because the number of options becomes greater than is calculable (see chess example). We understand, at a electrochemical level how the brain works, and that everything within your mind is an product of that, but we cannot (given a set of electrochemical boundary conditions) predict how your mind will behave. That is only because of a lack of processing power though. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 17:28, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
I mean, hold on, slow that horse, a game of chess having more moves than particles in the universe? I think I get the metaphor you're trying to make, but maybe dial that claim back. Humans can interpret the world in an unmeasurable number of ways. But that doesn't tie directly to infinity, which is the mathematical concept of no limit, and sometimes for math purposes that I will never comprehend, infinity needs a second infinity to multiply itself by. Unfortunately, there is a limit to human interpretation, it starts at our senses and ends with our brains. So a game of chess has a baffling amount of moves. But a game chess has strict, clearly defined rules, and a clearly defined space that it can be played upon. And chess is played between two humans, ideally, both adhering to these strict rules. So what do you mean by "more moves than particles in the universe?" That's bold, and I get the exponential number of possible chess moves is infinity. Like, you get down to two kings and you just move the kings around forever, but that doesn't mean chess is being played or chess moves are being made. I'm glad you are disassembling, keep it up. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:24, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
The comparison of particles with chess moves is unimportant in the sense that a really big number is involved, and expressing that is the point. We do not know how many particles are in the universe, or even if there is a finite number of them. There is supposed to be 10 to the 86th power of protons in the visible universe. The number of chess moves is more difficult to analyze, but they are all contained in chess games. The number of distinct chess games comprising n moves or less is definitely finite. Clearly, as n becomes arbitrarily large the ability to play games with n moves becomes impossible for humans. Also, with respect to predicting human behavior, discovering the essential initial conditions required to make such calculations is also an obstacle (probably fatal). Ariel31459 (talk) 04:10, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

What make you think the Brain produce consciousness ? I know everybody do not walk the same way but if brain was made for that purpose ?

Star Wars IX: The Rise of Skywalker[edit]

Trailer. Wow. Just wow. This could be very interesting. Zero (talk - contributions) 18:54, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Probably going to be trash honestly. There's no way to salvage the series. I'll still watch it, however. 2601:CA:8200:34A:F50C:C74C:A51E:62C5 (talk) 19:41, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
I think it could be good. — NekoDysk 20:09, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Could be. But is the "saga" really over at ix? I wonder how long before they try to flog another Star Wars triptych.Ariel31459 (talk) 21:06, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
The word from the studio is that the Skywalker saga is over-- that is, the story started in Episode One ends in Episode Nine. They also say there will be more Star Wars movies (most likely), they just aren't a part of the Skywalker saga. (Examples are things like Rogue One and Solo.) What those stories might be, we don't know... tales of the Old republic, or what happens a hundred years from whatever? Kencolt (talk) 22:24, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
The mouse is not going to let a valuable property go unexploited. It will be milked for brand recognition until people are throwing up from porg overdose. Star wars will then be left in a dumpster for 10 years until they reboot it like everything else corporate media touches. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 21:16, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
I was a Star Trek: Next Generation watchin dumbass little kid. I watched Star Trek NG on TV, didn't really like it, mostly watched it to have an excuse not to go to bed. I watched the Star Wars box set on VHS, didn't really like it. I watched the remasters in the theaters, didn't really like them. I watched the prequel trilogy movies in theaters, didn't really like them. I watched the two newest Star Wars, I just don't get the issue. There is nothing wrong with them as movies. What in the world does anybody want from this franchise? It's high fantasy, and it's pretty good at it. I did watch a Chinese cam of Solo (it was still English audio with Chinese subtitles, it was nice, nobody in the audience laughed at the bad jokes) and that was a cash grab for sure. "You don't have a family? Let's call you Solo" ok but the pacing was bad, the scene was miserable and pointless, and if anybody cared why Han's last name is Solo, they cared about the wrong thing. But at the same time, who names a guy Han Solo? And the first alien he has to kill is Greedo? AND THEN HE LEARNS HOW TO WORK WITH A TEAM!?! I get it, 1977, groundbreaking, and it is good, I like it more today than when I saw it as a dumbass little kid. I'm not saying it isn't good. But I mean, was there ever going to be a better Episode I than the one we got? The Phantom Menace is good, by comparison to a New Hope. It is good enough to fit in the Star Wars universe, even if all the in-universe tech is rookie garbage-level continuity error. The fuck did you expect a high fantasy prequel to look like? The fuck do you expect Disney to do to "milk" Star Wars? Sell toys? Start their next trilogy at Episode XVII? Like there weren't ever Star Wars toys or promises of prequels and sequels, it was toyland universe building from the get-go. Let Disney have it if you're too grown up to like the Star Wars universe. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:16, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
'phantom menace is good, by comparison to new hope to a new hope' - that right here is a massive pile of bullshit. the problem with the prequels and in the 7 and 8, is that they dont know why the original worked along with catering to 'fans'. stars wars is and always was a a very simple story that does not do well when you try to add depth or over analyse it. all it does is draw attention the ridiculousness of it and to the many plotholes while making many more. films like star wars are best when they keep things light, in tone and in detail, to keep the plot moving at speed. the moment it slows down, giving you time to think about whats going, forcing to you pay attention to the stupid plot, it dies, you lose all suspension of disbelief. the extended universe killed star wars because 'fans', read: obsessives, couldnt leave it alone, and they gave lucas too much credit who believed the hype. the result was the prequels which just could not have worked under those conditions and with the genuinely poor director that lucas is. the depth and back story backstory only served to create a mess that sullied the origin. the later additions were stillborn because of this - the tone is wrong, the characters bland and while ripping virtually the plot of the the original, they forgot to rip the fun. they are just bad, by the numbers films. you can see the joins. AMassiveGay (talk) 10:57, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Very fair response, but I mean, I didn't say the prequels were good by comparison to the originals. I meant they are all good movies by comparison to a majority of films that hit theaters at the same time that they hit theaters. Really, they are, the amount of scrutiny it caught was different. Just, with Star Wars, they all exist in the space of a "good film" in that they are always well made compared to other films. The comparison between consistency in the Star Wars universe comes later, it falters in what was possible for the money to work versus the amount of continuity required by a fan. It doesn't make them bad movies, it makes it a crap story, from a continuity standpoint. Not as much within the two trilogies but across trilogies. But at least the prequels are a trilogy about the fall of a hero, that hadn't been explored before in the mainstream. It's too bad it got panned by audiences. Anakin going to the dark side wasn't fun to watch? Literally he has to, why would we, as a major audience, celebrate the rise of a villain when that villain is required to be an ultimate bad guy? It's a difficult story to write for the amount of mass appeal required of a box office prequel smash hit. I mean, it came out pretty shallow, but so was Luke's rise to greatness. Vader/Anakin's death rattle redemption speech was foreshadowed in everybody's accepted canon. I'm sorry I couldn't help myself from calling Solo pure shit, that was an aside. I just had to call Solo pure shit, the movie not only shat upon continuity, it did nothing that we don't see in any other movie. Just a clarification of my criticism, not a refutation of your points. I like the hero/villain subversion going on in the new trilogy, even when I have to roll my eyes at stupid shit. I'm willing to watch how it plays out. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 01:34, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

The force awakens (Star Wars VII) was the only Star Wars film I particularly liked and I had no expectations because reboots can be great or disappointing and it all comes down to personal taste and is totally subjective (we are talking about a Space-Opera here). I don't think rebooting is a bad thing. Some batman series and some James Bonds and some Star Trek were far more enjoyable than the previous ones...for many of us. You can even say some were deeper, more meaningful, emotional and even touching. I hope IX is enjoyable, though I'll avoid trailers or long cinema reviews until I see it on the big screen. As long as there is no Jarjar Binks I don't see any reason why IX is doomed to fail. ShabiDOO 11:57, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Let's pretend to attend Donal Trump's funeral[edit]

All men and women come to pass. The grieving process is complicated and personal, I've been through it. And all great figures have extravagant funerals As unfathomable as it seems, Donald Trump will also some day shuffle off this mortal coil, rest his eternal soul. When he does, there will be a funeral, by which his death will be a greater event than yours or mine. Let's have a few eulogies for him, pre-posthumously, just so we're a little more prepared. I will start, but by no means take this as the tone. Donald means a lot of different things to a lot of different people. I will attempt to have some class during this.

AHEM: We may have never locked him or her up, we may have never built the wall, but we know one thing about our dear Mr. President, he said he wanted to do whatever anybody told him he wanted to do. And he told it like it was, whether it was winning a golf tournament that should have been taking place when it wasn't or just plain talking shit on a dead guy that called him out once. Whether it was his love for Wikileaks, or his total disavowal of any understanding of Wikileaks, he was the vocal barometer of the head of the executive office, the one true life that mattered, his life. I shudder to think that we must move forward, not knowing exactly how Mr. President feels at any one second, to maintain our country without our lead executive's barometer constantly spewing into our social lives. Whether he knew what he was doing or not, he always let us know that he felt exactly like his constituency should feel. I'm sure he is already missed as president, and I hope his family can grieve quietly, safely, without constant press coverage or his guidance on bankruptcy law. Mr. President, Donald Trump, it was an honor to survive your command of my country. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 04:04, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Pretty sure the wall is being built as we speak, and 2020 isn't a foregone conclusion yet. — NekoDysk 11:11, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
I do not agree with fantasizing about people being dead. MirrorIrorriM (talk) 12:18, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
I would wear a party hat and dance on his grave. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 13:35, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Trump is an abhorrent disgrace to this world, and the day he dies is a day of summing up all cases where he inflicted harm or even death on people and also spitting verbal seethe at the people who supported him. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 03:14, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Give him a break. He has done what he could for America. Nobody is perfect. He hasn't done any of you personal harm, and none of you are 100% innocent. How would any of you like it if Donald Trump's name above was replaced by any of yours? 2600:1:F1A8:AC53:F50F:EE64:20F7:849E (talk) 05:47, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Trump is a dictator, racist, sexist monster who has made a mockery of the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights. Why should we give him a break? --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 13:42, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
I'll grant you "racist, sexist monster" but [citation needed] for the rest. What makes Trump a dictator? Who are the people he's physically harmed/killed? Why haven't I heard about this from the media? 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:1D8:7F7C:A69D:476A (talk) 15:06, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Let's call him a "dictator wanna-be". It's pretty clear that he has authoritarian tendencies. However, the US's governance divisions are rather strong, and Trump is rather weak. His list of major achievements are rather small (putting "conservatives" on the court, a tax reform bill). In the meantime, he is soiling the office of the presidency with poor moral character, poor managerial skills (as evidenced by the turnover rate of government officials), and stoking national division through populist tomfoolery on Twitter. I think he will, without further adjustment, appear near the bottom of most historian's presidential rankings in the future. (One other "accomplishment" I think I am seeing, and this is something that began before Trump but is being reinforced... now that Donald Trump is the "God-Emperor" "false prophet" of the evangelical movement, America are moving away from institutional religion at a *very* fast rate. So I guess there's that.) Soundwave106 (talk) 19:45, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Probably because you think CNN is fake news don't follow the media where people say this. — NekoDysk 15:27, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
That's a great non-reply you got there. 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:1D8:7F7C:A69D:476A (talk) 16:57, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ So there is no shortage of people who say Trump behaves like a dictator and kills children on the Mexican border, which is why I am suggesting it's due to the media you watch. — NekoDysk 17:08, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

You're right, there is no shortage of such people, including in the media. I was wondering whether it's all based on lunacy such as somehow blaming Trump for immigrants taking their children on perilous journeys. You seem to be suggesting the affirmative. 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:1D8:7F7C:A69D:476A (talk) 17:32, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
They're just being rude. If Trump does nothing wrong, they can say so politely. 00:30, 15 April 2019 (UTC) — Unsigned, by: 2600:1:F1A8:AC53:F50F:EE64:20F7:849E / talk
The problem is Trump does almost everything in a manner that is either useless or counterproductive. Further, being polite over such things is outright stupid, not to mention fallacious. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 15:19, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Trying to reason and be civil with Trump is nearly impossible. I am not an unreasonable man and at one point I believed Trump's lies, hyperbole's and distortions. I come to realize that Trump and the Republican party in general is insane. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 21:07, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

If he's anything like his predecessors, he'll shoot himself in a bunker. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:23, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

What would Trump be doing in a bunker? He's not waging a losing expansionist war. 2A02:1810:4D34:DC00:1D8:7F7C:A69D:476A (talk) 06:54, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Ok, so this went off the rails. I thought it would be fun, but it's not fun. On the point of fantasizing about peoples' deaths, though, I've got a couple funerals that I will realistically have to attend in the short-term. So forgive me, but fantasizing about people being dead is a little different from my intention of fantasizing about a funeral. I take full responsibility for expecting there to be a difference when I started this topic. Y'all have done nothing wrong, I did the bad thing by invoking Trump. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:58, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Alex Jones and Minions[edit]

Alex Jones points out that "Astronauts died" during the race to the Moon and wonders "How traumatic was for their families" to watch a Moon landing conspiracy theories-joke in one of "The Minions" movies...

Rings a bellWikipedia's W.svg? Thinker(unlicensed) 15:07, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Am I the only one who read this topic title and thought it was gonna be about Alex Jones' thoughts on the yellow things from Despicable Me? DuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 16:19, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Alex Jones on minions.png
DuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 16:26, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Well, the title was intentionally misleading Thinker(unlicensed) 16:11, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Increasing the Earth's Mass[edit]

Worldwide over 50 billion chickens are now being slaughtered every year. If for some reason I took over the world and wanted to increase earth's mass with the dead chickens, how many years would it take for this to actually make the earth substantially bigger? སྤྱན་རས་གཟིགས་ (talk) 03:06, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Stupid question? The Earth's mass would remain the same regardless of how much of said mass was in the form of "chicken" instead of water and various gases and minerals. CoryUsar (talk) 05:12, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
So not even mountains of chickens would have any affect? སྤྱན་རས་གཟིགས་ (talk) 06:14, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
The chickens of the planet Xorg-Xorg in the Zirkon galaxy evolved to feed off of nutrients from a fifth dimension. They certainly do add mass to their planets. However Earth chickens don't have this ability (as far as we know). Since all Earth bound organism are just made of Lego pieces lying around Earth...there can't be more mass unless it rains new Lego pieces...which is what happens 0n the planet Borger-Dorf-Prime in the Choppycox galaxy...but sadly not on Earth. We live on an unremarkable planet. ShabiDOO 14:43, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Some chap in the 19th century (I read somewhere) wrote a book on how meteors and other matter from outer space were possibly 'overloading' the Earth. Anna Livia (talk) 10:01, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Oh no! So for every asteroid that lands on Earth, we will have to fling several people of the same mass, out into space? ShabiDOO 14:43, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Or an equivalent mass of chickens. Fortunately, chickens can thrive on Mars. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 19:01, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Earth is full! Build a roof! 2A02:C7D:1635:5C00:9D7F:CB12:425:98B1 (talk) 14:04, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Think of all the people who lose weight every year! Where does that weight go??? I suspect that there are series of mini black holes in subspace which absorb all the lost weight and thus the mass of the earth is constantly being reduced! (Or maybe it's just being redistributed.) Hubert (talk) 15:19, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

@Anna LiviaThe earth loses hydrogen and helium and gains mostly iron and nickel from meteorites. Usually there is a net loss of material, on average about 55 million kg per year, that is about 10 to the minus 17 of earth's total mass.Ariel31459 (talk) 19:38, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
I was just quoting what I read (and the original reviewer 'was probably not convinced'). Anna Livia (talk) 20:10, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
It's quite interesting actually. This thread inspired me to go looking down some unexpected rabbit holes. I suspect the original poster was not being entirely serious but it's always useful to have something to learn. So thanks.Hubert (talk) 14:45, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Was the (late) 19th century writer's concept based on valid science at the time (ie not being aware of 'gaseous escapes) - and what would happen to a tidally-locked planet or satellite if 'an excess of material' were to make landfall in a particular area? Anna Livia (talk) 17:45, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
If it were big enough it would kill the dinosaurs? (If the hypothetical planet had any hypothetical dinosaurs.)
In most cases 'an excess of incoming over outgoing material' will merely have minor effects upon orbits/superficial soil chemistry etc, and there will be a few extinction level events and other disruptions (eg hitting a geologically stressed area, or 'the dam that held back the North Sea').
Consider our tidally locked Moon; what would happen if 'some combination of planetary orbits influencing asteroid belts and cometary debris orbits' meant that material tended to land in one particular region (rather than spread more or less evenly) - so that the centre of gravity changes. Anna Livia (talk) 12:52, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

The Mount Rushmore Singers[edit]

— Oxyaena Harass 23:20, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Fun Conservapedia bit (Okay, about as fun as dropping a rock on your foot)[edit]

No creature has ever been observed changing from one Baramin into another. Evolutionist Richard Lenski claims to have observed a bacteria evolving, but even if the unproven claim is true, the bacteria is still bacteria, it has not left its Baramin.- Baraminology article

Last time I checked, evolution does not always mean species literally adding more cells, skin or organs. Not a biologist or anything but I remember somethings from Biology class plus my interests are largely in metaphysical ministry. Evolution is fact nonetheless. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 20:56, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Not to mention that baraminology is silly pseudoscience. Cosmikdebris (talk) 21:10, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
And that "Creature changing from one thing to another" is a purposeful misunderstanding of evolution. "I choose to remain ignorant of your argument so that I can refute it" is an annoyingly common occurrence. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 21:17, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Using the bacteria example here, let us say a bacterial strain thrived in hot, dry environments and only infected humans. Now as part of the hypothetical several volcanoes erupt and cause nuclear winter which causes many people to die; the bacteria might evolve a little to last in cold environments and infect monkeys. It is not a change into a completely different species, it is just environmental adaption. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 21:57, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
The definition of species in the space of bacteria is not so clear and unambiguous as multi-cellular mammals. I would say a primary niche distinction that grandiose would convince any post-apocolyptic microbiologist that they were dealing with a new species. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 02:59, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
In point of fact "species" is not as clear a definition as we might imagine. In historical/evolutionary terms there is no clear dividing line where one species becomes another. It's simply a continuum of gradual change. The fact that the fossil record is necessarily incomplete gives us the illusion that that there are clear cut-off points but this is an illusion. Even today we have ring species which demonstrate this.Hubert (talk) 11:37, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
One example I'm pretty familiar with is brewer's yeast, in which a separation between "ale yeast" (Saccharomyces Cerevisiae) and "lager yeast" (Saccharomyces Pastorianus) occurred a few hundred years ago by "artificial selection", eg human activities (fermenting and storing beer in temperature ranges lower than ale yeast typically tolerates). I remember at one time there was some question on whether lager yeast is a separate species or not. The current consensus I believe is that it is -- S. Pastorianus is an "interspecific hybrid" between S. Cerevisiae and another yeast variety called Saccharomyces Eubayanus. In most non-bacterial cases that I know of, human-driven artificial selection (including human driven hybridization) has not evolved new viable species (at least, new species in that they are fertile -- humans have made *millions* of mules)... but there's still enough of an influence to change a wolf into a pug. Soundwave106 (talk) 13:13, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
What about [1] - and there must be other species that have likewise evolved into niches created by humans. Anna Livia (talk) 16:34, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, probably. Even for bigger animals (that naturally evolve slowly over 1000s of generations) there's plenty of examples of smaller changes, due to the evolutionary pressure of human activity. (Elephants are a great example of how rapidly a trait -- tuskless -- can be adapted, even with relatively slow reproduction, under significant pressure.) Certainly for other fast reproducing tiny creatures (insects, fungi, bacteria) it is plausible humans have actually created new species with their activities, similar to the new species of yeast example. The London Underground mosquito is from what I read debatable, but there are other examples in the Wapo article (even if not outright new species yet, some pretty huge differences). There will probably be a whole lot more of this if the worst scenarios of climate change play out and the evolutionary pressures kick into overdrive. Soundwave106 (talk) 18:11, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
The article seems perfectly correct to me - "Baramin" is a term for a fantastical idea that exists solely so that people can deny evidence - so how could something change from one thing that doesn't exist to another?? :puz: A stopped clock moment! :)Aloysius the Gaul 03:49, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

You can't make something from nothing[edit]

I'm not a big expert on astrophysics but didn't people say that we don't know what was before the big bang? I hear something about a singularity, but when I googled it they said that Quantum physics pretty much rendered that theory null. But then I get stuff like this:

And I don't know what to think.Machina (talk) 21:40, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I write stuff like that off as the rambling of the insane. My personal conclusion is that whoever wrote that long winded rant needs sleep, psychiatric help, or at the very least a very patient English teacher. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:44, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
They certainly seem confident in what they have "experienced".Machina (talk) 01:58, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Most people are, however that doesn't make them right. Further, it has been posited that a complete philosophical nothing (total nonexistence) may not be possible, rendering whatever point this person is trying to make mute. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 12:06, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I don’t think that’s what he’s trying to say, I think. More like saying how can there be a beginning or something like that, and how something has always been. I don’t know what it’s trying to say but philosophical nothing doesn’t seem so.Machina (talk) 14:07, 16 April 2019 (UTC) ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ We may never know what happened before the Big Bang, although some people posit that the Big Bang was the result of random quantum fluctuations, and then you have the multiverse folk, and then there are some saying that the Big Bang came about as the result of matter and energy being spewed out of the other end of a black hole. I think it's safe to say we simply don't know at this point. — Oxyaena Harass 23:44, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

I have to admit, I didn't read through the entire text. I just skimmed through it, and it seems to be the usual pattern: "Stuff can't be created from nothing, so some divine intervention must have happened for the universe to come into existence." This is just a case of special pleading, because people using these arguments fail to apply the same logic to the divine (usually the God(s) of their religion) which is implied to be eternal.
You are right that we don't know what happened before the Big Bang (or if that question even makes sense in case time itself was created by the Big Bang). Using naive reasoning and classical physics, we arrive at a state of infinite temperature, density and zero volume about 14 billion years ago if we evolve the universe backwards. This is the singularity you were speaking about. However, singularities are a problem in physics because you can't predict anything from them; also, the known laws of physics break down a fraction of a second before the Big Bang. This is why physicists don't really work with the singularity itself, and why the singularity doesn't fit with quantum mechanics.
While we don't *know* where the universe came from, it's not like we don't have any *hypotheses*. For example, our section of the universe could be a small portion of an eternally exponentially expanding universe - it's just that, in our section, inflation suddenly stopped some 14 billion years ago due to quantum tunnelling effects. We could be part of a much larger multiverse in which universes pop into and out of existence every once in a while. The universe could be cyclical in nature, i.e. it could collapse back in on itself after billions and billions of years and create a new Big Bang. All of these explanations can't be experimentally proven, unfortunately; not with our current technology and quite possibly never. But they're arguably better than any religious explanation anyone could come up with because they're compatible with the established laws of nature and don't require falling back to a god of the gaps argument the first time there's a phenomenon for which there's no scientific consensus yet. Imaginative username (talk) 00:05, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
God of the gaps is a solid point here, well said @Imaginative username. If you want to ask "how" something came from nothing, you're presupposing both ideas. "Something" and "nothing" need to be defined. I would like to hone in on "nothing" as a possible physical state, but I do understand it as a contextual point of reference. I mean, think about the number 0. Name one thing in the universe that exists at 0, paradox. 0 is a really great reference point, but it's only a reference point. Let's get back to solipsism here, when we want to talk about "nothing," are we on that not conscious shit or are we on that no physical effect shit? How can nothing come from something? Fuck, what gives you the confidence to say there ever was "nothing?" What importance does a beginning or end hold, and is it so important that it must hold true outside of your perception? If it's just to our own experience, then yes, "nothing" is a very valid concept (resident nihilist here), but if you want to argue against the physics that we can perceive, well, there's not exactly a bottom to that well yet, and I think the question about "something coming from nothing" is not even wrong here. You can still find fulfillment in the search for "something," but "nothing" is a reference point, a human construct. "Nothing" does not appear to be (and I will eat these words if I'm wrong) a physical possibilty. Why is it so much more intuitive that the idea that time and space and matter are not constants of our universe, and must be exceptional, must have a beginning or end? Why is that idea more realistic than the idea that time and space and matter have no beginning or end in our universe, are not exceptional, and are just perceivable properties of it? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 05:32, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
I agree with both of you, the old "You can't make something from nothing (therefore Goddidit)" chestnut is wrong on different levels.
Firstly,as Oxyaena points out it's special pleading because it claims it can't be done. Except a God can do it.
Secondly it presupposes the existence of a God which can do these things. This really is begging the question in the classical sense as it assumes the existence of the thing it sets out to prove.
Thirdly it assumes, as Gol Sarnitt says, that "nothing" is a possible state of existence. An arguably dubious premise.Hubert (talk) 06:28, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Besides, the premise is wrong. C®ackeЯ
Link leads to "Sorry, it looks like that page does not exist.". I'm not sure if that's a mistake or an incredibly subtle commentary on the proposition.Hubert (talk) 09:28, 17 April 2019 (UTC)


What’s the density of the neutrino “soup” we’re apparently swimming in...is it time to bring back “the Ether”? 06:33, 17 April 2019 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

I can't be bothered to look up the exact number, but I vaguely remember that we're penetrated by millions (billions?) of neutrinos every second. Since they travel with almost the speed of light, that doesn't mean that the density is crazy high. Anyway, what do you mean with bringing back the ether? Neutrinos don't interact with photons and, quite generally, don't have much in common with photons - they aren't the medium in which electromagnetic radiation travels. If you're talking about the ether as a omnipresent medium - well, that's a closer analogy to quantum fields, really. The neutrino density isn't even particularly uniform throughout the universe. On earth, most neutrinos come from the fusion products from the handy fusion reactor eight light minutes away, while in intergalactic space, one would encounter mostly cosmic background neutrinos which have a lower density. Please elaborate what you mean with your ether statement so that I can refute your points more accurately :) --Imaginative username (talk) 08:23, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

'As everybody knows' - the Big Bang was powered by all the hot air generated by discussions in the previous universe about their big bang. Anna Livia (talk) 10:08, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

HAHAHA, holy shit, I literally laughed out loud, this is so good. Awesome joke, great timing, perfect crowd. Fucking nailed it. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:43, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I’m not entirely sure what any of this has to do with what the “OP” is trying to say with that word salad. I’m guessing God in his case is consciousness.Machina (talk) 00:47, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Notre Dame Fire[edit]

It just started and already the blame is being put of refugees and Muslims. Nice... Commie Lib (talk) 02:01, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Remember, when something bad happens you must play the blame game before all facts are gathered. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 02:17, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, but I read someone instantly blaming it on the ongoing renovations, and that made sense, used context clues, and proved to be correct. Making informed predictions is fine, as long as you're not a dumbass. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 02:57, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
At the opposite extreme, I found a few idiots celebrating the fire as the destruction of Western colonialism. Skarka's Law comes to mind. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:53, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I hear the damage is not fatal and have no doubt the roof and spire will be reconstructed. — NekoDysk 13:19, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Well, the whole Church could be reconstructed, the concept of fatal damageWikipedia's W.svg is quite fuzzy...Wikipedia's W.svg Thinker(unlicensed) 16:19, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Given that various other 'major building fires' (Windsor Castle, Hampton Court Palace, York Cathedral, Houses of Parliament (1834) etc) were the result of 'old buildings repeatedly repaired and rebuilt, sometimes with whatever materials came to hand and without regard to possible problems arising' and human fallibility (overloading the furnaces with tally sticks) these are the most reasonable first assumptions.
A number of 'billionaires etc' have already pledged large sums - so some aspects of capitalism 'work.' And expertise is already being offered eg [2].
Such destruction has always happened for various reasons - fire, imperfect construction, 'the wrong sort of royal' (William II and Winchester Cathedral) etc. Anna Livia (talk) 16:57, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
My understanding is that it was rather remarkable that Notre-Dame lasted as long as it did in its current form. Most buildings from that period with extensive wooden superstructures have either had them replaced or have not survived. The roof of Chartres CathedralWikipedia's W.svg burned down in the early 19th century, and was replaced with an iron roof with copper cladding, to no apparent esthetic loss. Notre-Dame itself was extensively renovated at around the same time, but the wood was kept. Not sure who ultimately makes the decisions here, but that kind of replacement would seem advisable. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 19:03, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
I can't help but thinking that if we had, today, the multi-generational longitudinal thinking in architecture that it took to build Notre Dame, we'd be building a space elevator right now. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:22, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
If we build a space elevator, suddenly my conlangs may become useful. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱs. 22:27, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
It's a pity due to the works of art and centuries of history lost to the flames. That said, the usual loons are having a field day, and I'm pretty sure some Fundagelicals out there are celebrating the fire due to their hate of Catholicism. Panzerfaust (talk) 23:10, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
The usual fringe loons will have a field day no matter what, but note from that link that this loony bin fringe was too nutty even for Fox News. Personally, the only slightly political thing I saw in my personal social media space was some meme-age reminding people of the three black churches burned down recently, and the outcome of that was largely positive. (Obviously it was easy to find "the Muslims" and other edgelord type stuff in groups like 4chan's /pol/, but what do you expect? Practically every other sentence is a racial slur there.) Soundwave106 (talk) 00:01, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
The problem I see is, this conspiracy about Muslims being to blame is already being coopted by mainstream media. money=grabbing trolls being citied is the end-all, our time on earth is nigh. Fucking, who cares about a national monument or an old building!?! We come across destroyed shit that we have no record of, cool, try to recreate it on paper. A Cathedral burned down, a Cathedral that is thoroughly ON PAPER, I know it was a marvel, I know it's a huge point of pride for France, an old beautiful building built in honor of a very Catholic god, a huge architectural work for its time, home to a huge catalogue of works of art that mostly survived. But my God, build a fucking playground, build a hospital, rebuild it on the moon, I don't care, just do something other than care about whether this Cathedral was burnt down by Muslims so an imaginary mosque could be built instead. And if you really care about that, build anything secular in its place. Anything other than a place of specific ritual worship beats this conspiracy. But, no, of course not. We'll spend billions to rebuild the Cathedral. It means too much to too many people to ever disappear. I'm slighting that exact concept, not disagreeing with the reality of it. Deep breath, in summation.
I'd just say, rebuild it on the moon. Perfect chance for Catholicism to be cool again, Lord knows, collectively, they have enough money to do it, and then it's forever protected from anyone who doesn't spend enough to get to the moon. I mean, how many levels does this have to work on for the Vatican to get behind it? Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:11, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Actually rebuilding it on the moon might not be so impossible. Macron seems to think it can be rebuilt in five years. I'd say that the rebuilding it on the moon would only be a little more challenging than meeting that deadline.Hubert (talk) 12:16, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
If you want something on the moon, a Gothic style Catholic cathedral is probably not the best choice. — NekoDysk 12:32, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm sure that's true. Such a building would, however, leave a fascinating puzzle for the next post-apocalypse civilisation. But, yes, it's a kinda slim justification. So probably best to go for Macron's Paris solution.  :-) Hubert (talk) 15:26, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Meaninglessness of a building re:Gol Sarnitt[edit]

First a disclaimer. I think Notre Dam is architecturally unremarkable and its ugly and I don't quite understand why people love that. However I understand why it is devastating to lose it...and I don't blame them for grieving over it. Every country has something that if they lost it, it would be soul destroying. It isn't only a building. Canada for example doesn't have one building where its destruction would devastate the whole country. Some would be delighted to watch parliament buildings burn down, the CNTower is not that meaningful to someone thousands of KM away on the other coast, there aren't so many historical buildings to begin with and none are older than a few centuries. In the USA however, there are multiple buildings whose loss would horrify the country. The White House (preferably while any other president was in power), the World Trade Centre to name two examples. Canada does however have important natural features. If Niagara Falls somehow blew up or eroded over night leaving an unremarkable river, it would devastate Canadians especially the millions who visited/propsed/honeymooned/concieved/gambled/partied there. There will always be some who find it unimportant. Just a rock with flowing water. Doesn't make the majority stupid for mourning its loss. And we don't need to go into the reasons why people identify with, are proud of, love, cherish buildings/features they never participated in creating etc. Here is a list of things that some people find stupid and yet the majority would be utterly devastated if they dissappeared: Big Ben, Astronomical Clock, Brandenburg Gate, Colliseum (for all Europeans), Taj Mahal, Great Wall, Ayers Rock, the stupid angel in Rio De Janeiro, Sphinx, Matterhorn, Rhine, Nile, Mt. Everest, Grand Canal, Bolshoi. Etc. ShabiDOO 10:28, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Probably 'many centuries-old, repeatedly-partially-rebuilt-and-repurposed buildings are major fires/other disaster waiting to happen - and a combination of 'luck' and 'the best protection/repairs/health and safety measures that can be undertaken under the circumstances' have kept them safe.
Consider who gains the most from any fire in such buildings - the 'fund this rebuilding project' people, the builders, artists, craftspeople, archaeologists, academics etc, etc. Does anyone ever blame #them#Anna Livia (talk) 10:35, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
In the end, you can intellectually devalue anything pretty easily. It is, after all, just the same particles everything else is made of arranged in arbitrary shape. The value ascribed to Notre Dame comes from the people who value it, and the history they mentally write on it. If a cathedral falls in the middle of the woods, and no one is around to cherish it, it doesn't make a sound. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 13:45, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
We better get to work launching these things to the moon then! I understand there is a huge cultural relevance to Notre Dame. I don't share it, which I do not think is only because I'm not Catholic or from France. I don't know if I would share the notion. What I'm denigrating is that the idea to cope with losing something is deciding to build the same exact thing in the same exact place so you can pretend it is just as important to you or your country as it was 800 years ago. I understand that it has cultural relevance, national relevance, but I think that is security-blanket-level thinking. I am ready to let people mourn the loss. I'm sorry, I cannot speak on this without being sarcastic and mean, it is just a dumb idea to me to unleash a vast amount of stagnant capital to recreate a single building. What use, what good, what importance has a 2019 reconstruction of a thirteenth century Cathedral got that a burnt down 13th century Cathedral ain't got? I get it, I'm there, life sucks and things go away for no reason. But you can't just pay for a REPLACEMENT NOTRE DAME like it didn't get burnt, that's stupid. Build it on the moon. That's stupid too, but at least it's useful, at least we're going somewhere. Gol Sarnitt (talk) 03:17, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Personal Experience[edit]

Last thing I heard the conspiratards are whining about how the fire wasn't put out soon enough. I was talking to one and he said that in all the videos provided by the MSM, there was only one fire helicopter at the scene and there should have been more. He went on to talk about how this was likely a false flag by the Deep state to get another war in the Middle East by blaming the Muslims. That, he said, or it was the Muslims. I commented to him that the fact nobody actually died probably means it wasn't a false flag, but he said that 9/11 had already permanently justified the War on Terror and this was just a small reminder. He then insinuated that the motivation behind limiting fatalities was to prevent this causing a rise of Islamophobia and removal of Muslims from Europe. So, in conclusion: If it "looks like a false flag", it's a false flag. If it doesn't, it's a coverup, and also a false flag.Totally not shoehorning in any way whatsoever. Summa Atheologica (talk) 16:24, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Sounds like the typical conspiracy mindset. Must have been a pain to listen to.Hubert (talk) 16:46, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Given that the general reaction seems to be 'blame it on the refurbishments and problems arising therefrom/lack of previous funding for maintenance as has happened before' and it did not happen at Easter itself (or even Benedict XVI's birthday), a singularly bad warning.
And the argument against using more helicopters was - their rotors might have stirred the air enough to create further damage.
And there seems to be an inherent contradiction between 'ramping up the war on terror in the Middle East' and 'aiming to prevent rising Islamophobia' - or am I missing something? Anna Livia (talk) 17:45, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
The Donald suggested to use flying water tankers against the fire. Besides the possibility of so much water falling down further damaging the structure of the temple, there's some reason why said planes are seldom used in cities (if they're used at all). Panzerfaust (talk) 23:17, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Besides - there is a large amount of water readily to hand, called the Seine. Anna Livia (talk) 13:10, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Anna Livia, do you have a source for the rotors possibly causing damage? I would love to read more about that. Also, while to a normal mind there might have been a contradiction, the conspiratards believe that the NWO/"elites" want both. In fact, they think that the War on Terror was made in part to create refugees to flood Europe with. Summa Atheologica (talk) 13:22, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
@Summa Atheologica How about not using ableist languages, it only further stigmatizes the intellectually disabled by doing so. Please and thank you. — Oxyaena Harass 15:28, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Summa Atheologica - someone 'heard it on the radio.' The usual quick websearch produced eg this which seems relevant. Anna Livia (talk) 18:53, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry. That was not my intention.Summa Atheologica (talk) 19:54, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

SA - I think my response to you and yours to someone else could be reversed for clarity. Anna Livia (talk) 22:26, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Something I find odd[edit]

How can a small YouTube channel like mine have more subscribers than a college? The Southwest College of Naturoprathic Medicine (https://www.youtube.com/user/NaturopathicSCNM/featured) vs my channel which is run by one guy with limited resources (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC9-WwlVtCNBzbDtKcat4yqw?view_as=subscriber). The Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine has 1 subscriber while my channel has 169 subscribers. Is there a psychological factor I am missing? --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 01:40, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

YouTube is huge, and 169 subscribers isn't all that much really. Still, you probably reach to a broader audience with your videos compared to some obscure college, and that's good. Meanwhile, my sister (whose account I share) has 40,000 subscribers. 👀 Probably haven't told any of you this but we make $1,200 off, like, mainly two videos. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 05:25, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
You’re not advertising there, are ye? 06:16, 17 April 2019 (UTC) C®ackeЯ
It's allowed, we like him. No of course not, that would be bad, this is an interesting psychological question. :D — NekoDysk 12:35, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
My intention was not really advertising, I could put that on my user page. I just find it interesting that an organization with far more resources and connections has literally 1 subscriber while I am one person with limited resources but far more subs. The really fun part is that the EAS (Emergency Alert System) community is very niche. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:16, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Because who would ever intentionally subscribe to a homeopathy school? Hannasanarion (talk) 11:44, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Something I noticed[edit]

Alex Jones is going crazy lately. I feel if he keeps it up he could surpass Aleister Crowley as the most crazy guy of all time.Herriman2 (talk) 23:50, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Our prophet and savior Alex Jones has always been crazy so it is really nothing new. As for craziest person of all time, that title goes to Adolf Hitler (my opinion). --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 00:46, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
...Lately? Kencolt (talk) 02:05, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm honestly not sure I can agree, after the Last Week Tonight video about him. Out of context, Jones looks like a lunatic. In context, he looks like a snake oil salesman. Of course, perhaps his willingness to potentially harm people to make money is some kind of insanity, but I think the screaming lunatic is part of the act. That actually makes me like him less, though. RoninMacbeth (talk) 03:05, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, John Oliver's expose of Jones was pretty good. Behind Alex Jones' batshit exterior lies a cold-blooded con-artist who exploit anything and say anything to make a quick buck. If he's getting crazier, that's only because he thinks it'll make his idiotic viewers cough up more cash for the bullshit he sells. DuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 03:33, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
AND HE'S RIGHT Commie Lib (talk) 06:38, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
In his recent lawsuit from Sandy Hook victims, Alex Jones has plead insanity. Linky Hannasanarion (talk) 11:45, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Which is contradicted by his statement in his child custody case that his entire thing is an act. Revolverman (talk) 20:17, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

My Experiences with the "paranormal"[edit]

I honestly wish my parents would have never told me anything about demons. Sometimes I feel crazy because I'm not going to lie, I've heard and felt some shit in my late teen years. These aren't vague childhood memories and dreams from decades ago.

So the most notable example is this: I was seventeen and had just gone to bed. Thirty minutes went by and I had to use the bathroom (it takes a while for me to fall asleep by the way). Halfway out of my room I hear a close growling sound from my bed. My stomach lept into my mouth and I was instantly uttering the syllables, Jesus Christ. I know my brothers couldn't have made that sound, and although there was a neighboring dog, I had never heard her growl before and the sound was too close for that to be a possibility. This never happened again and to this day it confuses me. I mean I wasn't getting much sleep back then so I could have hallucinated it. What do you think? སྤྱན་རས་གཟིགས་ (talk) 08:04, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

You heard a one occurence of a growl, while being sleep deprived, in a silent house, and your mind was prepared to hear demons. This is a website that pride itself on rationalism and skepticism. What do you think is going to be the answer? (talk) 12:11, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
There is very very strong evidence to suggest that auditory hallucinations are entirely dependent on what the individual expects to hear. Believers in some religion or paranormal pseudoscience will always hear something that their beliefs assert is real, whether that's a demon growling, or a ghost going "ooooOOOOOOooooOOOOO", or a real person that they think is there but isn't (this has happened to me on several late nights: hearing my SO's voice then remembering she isn't home). Hallucinations are generated by beliefs. Hannasanarion (talk) 13:22, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
"I was seventeen and had just gone to bed. Thirty minutes went by and I had to use the bathroom [...] What do you think?"
That's usually a problem of older men. Thinker(unlicensed) 15:49, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Squirrels, chipmunks [3] and other animals (even some birds) make weird growling sounds, and a lot of fighting and mating takes place in the middle of the night, so if your bed was near a window, you may have heard it. Millennium Scallion (talk) 17:24, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Can confirm, although for me it's usually stray cats who decide to hold a fight club under my windowsill. DuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 17:31, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
It can be hard to shake these beliefs. At the time I was sure I didn't believe in demons, but unconsciously I know I still did because it had been drilled into me. Do you think that's a form of abuse, namely teaching a child about demons from an early age and then paving the way for multiple demonic experiences? སྤྱན་རས་གཟིགས་ (talk) 18:03, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Parents have Feet of clayWikipedia's W.svg. Ideally you would accept it as a stupid fear your parents passed onto you, and recognize that, as an adult, you now have the power to question it, reject it, and move past it. Millennium Scallion (talk) 19:25, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Good point. As an adult you have the power to make up your own mind and revalvate whatever weird stuff your parents may have believed. I hope that most adults do this. (But I may be wrong.)
But I have a question as it's not clear from your original post. Do you still believe that a demon hid in your room for no other reason than to growl at when seventeen-year-old you when you went for a pee? I'm guessing you don't. I'm also hoping that you are not going with - "I can't explain X, so X must have been caused by a demon." Hubert (talk) 20:16, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't believe it was a demon, but I must have been crazy because this is not what it sounded like. སྤྱན་རས་གཟིགས་ (talk) 20:42, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Ha. Well, it definitely wasn't that squirrel. Millennium Scallion (talk) 21:57, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Joseph Graves[edit]

We should have an article on Joseph Graves. He's very well referenced on this wiki as being the final word on refuting racist pseudoscience, but there is no article about his arguments and qualifications. How is this scholar and gentleman not graced with an article? Rupert R Rupertson (talk) 12:37, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

ye we will do an article EK (talk) 13:20, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
I guess you don't want your "authorities" like this affirmative action charlatan examined too closely. Rationalwiki: LMAO (talk) 15:17, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Try not giggling so hard, it only makes you look like even more of a buffoon than you already are. — Oxyaena Harass 15:31, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

My newest creation on RationalWiki[edit]

University of South Los Angeles

A mix of Christianity and woo. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 12:35, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Fundie and alt med. Of course they team up. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 03:25, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Buddhism seems condescending[edit]

I know that as a religion people say it helps them more than anything else, but in my experience it tends to be the other way around. Ever since I started reading it. I just get the sense that I am bad for what is essentially being human. Like how they say that since nothing lasts and is impermanent that there is no point in really striving towards it. In the case of friends and relationships they make it sound like wanting such things is a problem like this:

However it was through seeing love as an emotion like all others that I was finally free of the attachment and desire of constantly needing to find, upkeep and become embattled over that type of 'love'.

If you accept that all phenomena is conditioned, and that all things are impermanent then it is the natural conclusion that any relationship you ever get into is bound for the same, and thus emotional pain.

This doesn't mean that relationships are bad, but it does mean that through this logic we can move beyond harmful thinking like the 'One', 'Forever together' and 'Soul mate' fallacy and we can avoid getting into, or staying in relationships that we know to be harmful for us.

But the disillusionment allows you to go further, and to investigate your own desires, your own root's of these feelings.

Meditate and truly ask yourself where this fear of intimacy came from - not just ' It originated at x time' but try to look. For me, I had a turbulent relationship with my parents and then at fourteen/fifteen I was in an abusive relationship and then until I was twenty my years were spent being physically/sexually assaulted which caused my own views of relationships to be very harmful for many years, and I spent many years ruining or running away from anyone who would get close. I would lead them in from a desire to be wanted, but then run away to avoid all of my anxieties and fears.

Eventually I learned though, that a life of not trusting anyone or allowing them to get close to you is a lonely one - and if you are not yet ready to move beyond the need for emotional bonding (it is possible to transcend the construct of loneliness or at least need for intimate relationships too) then you have to come at relationships from a different angle - and that is one of mindfulness and mutual understanding.

I just get the sense that I feel worthless for wanting relationships and bonds just because “I’m not ready” to transcend the need for them.Machina (talk) 14:31, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Religions that require asceticism really aren't for most people, I don't see it as condescending, more so as it is a genuine religious practice that only certain people can handle, not everyone will be able to live the life of a monk for example. The Catholic Church requires its priests to be celibate for life, and that is incredibly hard to hold fast to, so parishioners often end up venting their frustrations on little boys. — Oxyaena Harass 15:34, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
i'm sure you mean the clergy rather than parishioner there AMassiveGay (talk) 16:03, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Buddhist asceticism especially is a turn off because it discourages ambition, there is no strong desire to strive towards the betterment of oneself. Instead, there is extinction. Maybe I'm misunderstanding Buddhism, but it sounds like a futile attempt to escape suffering. སྤྱན་རས་གཟིགས་ (talk) 18:15, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

It’s more like I struggle with their claims like how “there are no objects in the real world”, whatever that means. I want to ignore it but I just get triggered by anything that contradicts my view of reality.Machina (talk) 22:19, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Mueller Report[edit]

I can't be the only person reading this today. The description of the meeting of Manafort and Kilimnik is fucking wild. They met to create a backdoor for Russia to control part of Ukraine and discuss securing votes from Democrats in midwest states. That is so fucking close to coordination, that I'm sure they couldn't legally prove it when the layman would see that and say it's coordination. - RipCityLiberal (talk) 15:59, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

This is a link to the full Mueller report: https://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2019/images/04/18/mueller-report-searchable.pdf
When discussing it, pointing to the pages in question would be better. Thinker(unlicensed) 17:34, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
For those interested, there are also annotated reports here (Politico) and here (Washington Post). Bongolian (talk) 17:43, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Only part that matters[edit]

“”On October 30, 2016, Michael Cohen received a text from Russian businessman Giorgi Rtskhiladze that said, “Stopped flow of tapes from Russia but not sure if there’s anything else. Just so you know ....” 10/30/16 Text Message, Rtskhiladze to Cohen. Rtskhiladze said “tapes” referred to compromising tapes of Trump rumored to be held by persons associated with the Russian real estate conglomerate Crocus Group, which had helped host the 2013 Miss Universe contest in Russia... Rtskhiladze said he was told the tapes were fake, but he did not communicate that to Cohen.

The rest is dull. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:40, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

The sources and method discussion is fascinating. I've been following the WaPo annotations, but they have multiple reporters reading different sections out of order. On Twitter, there was something about Sara Sanders admitting to lying that I found interesting as well. -RipCityLiberal (talk) 18:10, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
I need genuine skeptical help(trump piss tape) Thinker(unlicensed) 18:31, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, and? I had a hard time rejecting that as fake, even though someone faking it made more sense, logistically, than it being the real thing. Still think it's real even if that one is a fake. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:33, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
As I already said, let's just suppose that the video it's real. Three consenting adults doing dirty things in a hotel bedroom... Nothing wrong with it, good for them. Thinker(unlicensed) 18:52, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Lmao, well yeah. But you know, you're kinda dumb(god damn you're so dumb, it ricochets through every stupid word you grace us with don't you know how dumb you are god it's just so fucking dumb) if you're gonna say "consenting adults" about that particular public figure, considering his documented history of ignoring both words of that phrase. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:58, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Except no one has accused Trump of rape or sexual assault in that instance. If we want to discuss Trump's sex crimes, there are better-documented examples. RoninMacbeth (talk) 19:11, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I'm just saying that UT doesn't give 2 shits about the ideals he picks up for rhetorical convenience. It's all a shell game of "what can I pretend to care about to win this line of this argument". My thoughts on the piss tape itself are: it's hilarious, it's real, and if politically meaningful ideals ever meant anything to this country, we wouldn't have trump in the first place. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:21, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
You know, at this stage, with all the crap Trump has done and said, I'm inclined to think, what difference does it make if the piss tape exists? Do his supporters care what he does or has done, as long as he massages their hatreds? Ariel31459 (talk) 19:40, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
To reword my thesis: It's a totem of the irrelevancy of meaningful ideals in this country. In any real or pragmatic sense it means nothing. But it represents political nihilism to me. It's a bauble to say "Yep, that's how little we care" ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:57, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
OK, ikanreed, so the "Only part that matters" of Mueller reports is the part about the piss tape, which in turn "In any real or pragmatic sense it means nothing." Thinker(unlicensed) 20:55, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Exactly. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:57, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

The Slam Dunk[edit]

Volume 2, page 2 point four:

...[I]f we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgement. (My emphasis added)

This dude needs to be gone ASAP -RipCityLiberal (talk) 19:40, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I mean, yeah trump is vile and bad, and probably performed obstruction for his own protection, but also, what legal system are you imagining supports the legal theory of guilty until proven innocent? There's a dozen valid legal bases for impeaching trump, but all of them require the democrats having a spine and admitting that holding the president accountable for the crimes they commit with their power is worth impeachment(and like 15 senate republicans having any values at all). ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 19:49, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
If the end goal is the removal of DJT from the White House, the preferred an honestly most effective option, is to beat him in 2020. This batch of candidates (although there are entirely too fucking many of them) has so far proven to be thoughtful and engaging in policy and present a case that I think most Americans can get behind. But because 2/5 Americans actually vote and 1/4 of the voting population is an idiot, there is a fare reason to be concerned. But impeachment is not the answer, it is a necessity, if this administration will not do anything about the first part of the report, where it's made very clear; Russia wanted Trump, Trump Officials knew Russian actions would benefit them, and they continue to fuck around (someone was indicted for trying to interfere in 2018!)- RipCityLiberal (talk) 22:26, 18 April 2019 (UTC)


What are the benefits of not masturbating? What are the negatives? How long have you gone without masturbating? Bonesquad11 (talk) 17:38, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Nominally, for men, the only known medical benefit of masturbation is reduced risk of prostate cancer. There are no known medical benefits from abstinence, though many common beliefs about it granting "Manliness" in some abstract way through testosterone. Not well established through the literature. I don't want to share my sex life with a fucking wiki. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:43, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Are there any benefits from abstinence for women? OK maybe not you personally but what's the longest anyone has gone without masturbating and what did this do to them? Bonesquad11 (talk) 17:56, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Well, one could argue that female abstinence results in a considerably decreased chance of unwanted pregnancy. That's about all I can think of. Kencolt (talk) 20:49, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Buddy, you might want to double check the title of this section. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:51, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
There is an inherent difficulty which faces anyone wanting to carry out any large-scale long-term study on the effects of mastrrbation on healthy human males. The problem is finding a sufficiently large control group of long-term non-masterbators. Hubert (talk) 18:02, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Same with porn use, according to what I've read. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:34, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Stress relief, mostly. Plus, masturbation prevents nocturnal emissions. Maybe. CoryUsar (talk) 06:20, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Conservapedia repare attempt[edit]

It seems our friends at Conservapedia have been able to "repare" the ontological argument.

Hopefully they will be able to "repare" all of the other proofs for God as well and finally prove his existence once and for all to all us godless baby-eating atheists. Summa Atheologica (talk) 20:10, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I get the joke, but "repare" is perfectly valid middle English, and considering that the early 14th century is where they get all the rest of their views... ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:16, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Is it really? Do you have a source for that? The file is here. I had trouble embedding it.
I mean, I'm just mocking conservapedia, but also of course I've got a citation ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:26, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
That is perceptive in more than one way. Conservapedia's views on science and religion adhere more closely to those of the Dark Ages than those of the Enlightenment, and their autocratic, stratified structure, with arbitrary and severe punishments, not to mention a total lack of elections, reminds one far more of the Plantagenet monarchy of the time than of anything the Founding Fathers could have dreamed up. Summa Atheologica (talk) 22:02, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

I know this isn't the point. But premise one is crap.Hubert (talk) 06:42, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Directly adding complaints into the articles is vandalism, at least I consider it vandalism.[edit]

On the University of South Los Angeles article I had to remove a complaint edited directly in the article. We have talk pages and the bar for complaints. This has been an administrative message from RZ94 --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:06, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Uhh.... If you look at the original edit of this article with your name on it, you'll see that the phrase "Why is this mentioned again?" is in the original article and was added by none other than...you. So you reverted your own edit as vandalism? Maybe you could ban yourself for a short time :) Cosmikdebris (talk) 23:16, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
I feel stupid, forgot I added it as context. --Rationalzombie94 (talk) 23:48, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

What happens if you stop talking to yourself?[edit]

Just curious really. I saw something about it on YouTube but I wanted to know here.Machina (talk) 23:27, 18 April 2019 (UTC)


Actually this is where I got it from. The claim is that you are living in a world of symbols (or in this case thoughts) and not really in reality. Not really sure what any of it means per se. just sounds like more confusing Buddhist stuff.Machina (talk) 23:33, 18 April 2019 (UTC)