Talk:Good times virus hoax

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

I am interested in this article because it was an example of three highly competant people falling for a hoax even though they had all the knowledge necessary to recognize the warning was a hoax. Point is: Dini is an ass. HeartGold tx 00:35, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

It is also interesting that virus hoax memes have many of the characteristics of religions. They include within themselves instructions to propagate them; these instructions say that they are for the good of the recipient; an ounce of thought would allow one to dismiss them; and they are inevitably destructive in some way. There are other similarities too but I can't remember them now. This was explored at some length in the book "The Meme Machine." By Susan Blackmore. (if I remember correctly)--Bob_M (talk) 01:45, 23 June 2007 (CDT)
Funny jab, but weak link, I think. What is ironic about the Good Times virus is, thanks to html, scripting, and other unnecessary email fancyness, parts of the Good Times virus hoax could be real today. HeartGold tx 03:45, 23 June 2007 (CDT)
Weak link? I don't think so. It's not an original idea of mine. It's a point that's made fairly often. Blcakmore made it quite a central theme of her book. Here's a link.http://www.complete-review.com/reviews/blackmrs/mememach.htm I've read it. It's quite good. I believe "Virus of the Mind" by Richard Brodie covers similar ground, but I haven't read that one.--Bob_M (talk) 04:32, 23 June 2007 (CDT)
I wasn't blaming you Bob. However, how many people were willing to put their own lives at risk to propagate the Good Times Virus Hoax (as opposed, to, say Christianity)? How many people were willing to stake not only their reputations, but also discard all that they have previously accomplished, to further the good times virus Hoax (e.g., see Paul). I think it is a weak link. Hoaxes are shenanigans, and while some religions can fit into this classification (depending on your POV), I think there is a great difference in the purpose and results. HeartGold tx 11:33, 23 June 2007 (CDT)
Well yes, you're right. A lot of people have died and been killed for various religions including Christianity. For that matter Christians have killed other Christians because they have different ideas. So yes, religions are different to virus hoaxes - one gets people killed and the other doesn't. The point is there is a similarity in their method of prorogation.--Bob_M (talk) 12:28, 23 June 2007 (CDT)
The number of people killed in the name of Christianity pales in comparison to the number of people killed in the name of atheistic ideologies such as communism (Mao, Stalin).
The analogy you reference could also be made about education. Without education, and a pursuit of science, for example, would we have the nuclear bomb? Fire bombing of Dresdin, Tokyo? Would Pakistan have the bomb if the U.S. hadn't first invited Pakistani students to the U.S., provided them with a subsidized education, and then made it difficult for most of them to stay in the United States after their technical educations were complete? Education follows the pattern of a Meme machine, it seems to me, as well. Yet for some reason, the analogy is being used to pick on religion, and not other ideologies such as communism, universal education, etc. Wonder why. HeartGold tx 19:38, 23 June 2007 (CDT)
Presumably you see another conspiracy. Western education, science, could all be described as memeplexes depending on how broadly you cast the term. The thing about both virus hoaxes and religion is they fit the definition so nicely. Furthermore I wasn't the one who started talking about people dying because of religions but not because of virus hoaxes. You started that line of discussion. To pick up on your other point I rather suspect that religion has over the years killed more people than politics. Your suggestion that Christianity has been responsible for less deaths than some other odious forms of government - and presumably this some sort of defense of Christianity is .... well ... I don't know how to react. Surely the fact that that Christianity has been responsible for any deaths totally devalues the philosophy. --Bob_M (talk) 14:45, 24 June 2007 (CDT)
The established Church, maybe, but not the religion. --ויִכִּ נתֶּרֶפּרֶתֵּר שְׁלֹום!
You mean the Christian church is responsible for the deaths but not the religion? So that's OK then? --Bob_M (talk) 15:06, 24 June 2007 (CDT)
"Surely the fact that that Christianity has been responsible for any deaths totally devalues the philosophy" Umn, religions don't kill people, people do. I don't know what to say. Why are you so concerned about (I presume) wars fought in the name of Christianity? Aren't there more recent and more pernicious philosophies being used to justify killing others? Christianity should never be used to justify murder or war, in my opinion. Does that suffice? HeartGold tx 00:44, 25 June 2007 (CDT)
Well, you said --Bob_M (talk) 12:22, 25 June 2007 (CDT)"The number of people killed in the name of Christianity pales in comparison to the number of people killed in the name of atheistic ideologies such as communism ". Later you make the perhaps slippery point that it is individuals who do the actual killing in the name of their religion. It's the "No true Scotsman" argument again. I've obviously got nothing against your last point: "Christianity should never be used to justify murder or war, in my opinion." From this I take it you would happily condemn things like the Crusades and the Inquisition. --Bob_M (talk) 12:22, 25 June 2007 (CDT)
"From this I take it you would happily condemn things like the Crusades and the Inquisition." Based on what I have studied, yes. But it always strikes me as odd, for example, when the left cries about the death penalty (which I support in certain circumstances) but ignores the loss of 2,000-4,000 human fetuses per day (depending on which statistics are accurate). Or bemoans wars in the name of Christianity while supporting communism. HeartGold tx 13:44, 25 June 2007 (CDT)
I'm glad we agree that many bad things have been done in the name of Christianity.--Bob_M (talk) 13:55, 25 June 2007 (CDT)
To HOG (Wow! Proof that acronyms are part of the liberal conspiracy! :O), the 'abortion is murder' debate should really go on a page about abortion, but since I'm here anyways, please explain how liberals support Communism? - All Hail Tuna 03:02, 12 September 2007 (MDT)
Hi AHT. HG is presently missing presumed insane, so I don't think you're going to be getting an answer. --Bob's your unkle 03:32, 12 September 2007 (MDT)
Well, it has "liberals" and "Communism" in the same sentence, so Rob might be able to help. --Sid 03:43, 12 September 2007 (MDT)
DY-NO-MITE! Why has that never come up in the article or this page before now? Please tell me that I am not as old as I am starting to think I am. :) --Edgerunner76 11:41, 14 September 2007 (MDT)

mission[edit]

This was a one-man conspiracy theory of some sort, and although the talk page is an interesting look into the mind of a strange person, I don't see why we should keep this. The only article that links to it is a redirect that is only linked from this article (freakin' brilliant, eh?). humanUser talk:Human 21:34, 31 January 2008 (EST)

Can I delete this gibberish? Totally non-RW IMHO. DogP 12:36, 17 March 2008 (EDT)
I vaped the trash. Shall we keep the talk page? (That no one will ever find, but still...) humanUser talk:Human 20:35, 12 May 2008 (EDT)