2025 RationalWiki 'Oregon Plan' Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff—we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $10, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!
Donations so far: $8765.50Goal: $10000

Talk:Human exceptionalism

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Smith doesn't like the article[edit]

but is intellectually honest enough to link back to it, which I didn't expect - David Gerard (talk) 07:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

eugenics[edit]

I don't see why this shouldn't link to eugenics. We argue there that eugenics may work for animals but won't work for humans. It's a perfect example of Human exceptionalism.--Coffee (talk) 21:23, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Wut - David Gerard (talk) 23:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
Are you deaf? I don't see why this shouldn't link to eugenics. We argue there that eugenics may work for animals but won't work for humans. It's a perfect example of Human exceptionalism.--Coffee (talk) 15:06, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't see that article making that argument, & linking the two articles to each other under 'see also' doesn't make a lot of sense either. €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:43, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
The article totally does: Eugenics#The absurdity of eugenics --Someon (talk) 21:38, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Then that article/phrasing should be changed, not this one. Adding a link to the "See also" section here smells too much of what Wikipedia covers under "Do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point".--ZooGuard (talk) 08:32, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry about that. I didn't realise I was editing Wikipedia.--Coffee (talk) 12:49, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
The behaviour is stupid and counter-productive no matter on what site it's done.--ZooGuard (talk) 13:48, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
(sigh) You want more than an apology?--Coffee (talk) 13:52, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
If that was an apology, it was very poorly worded. The second sentence implied that the first one was sarcastic.--ZooGuard (talk) 13:55, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm starting to wonder if the concept of "humor" is totally alien to you.--Coffee (talk) 12:59, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
The concept of "dickhead", OTOH, is depressingly familiar - David Gerard (talk) 14:35, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
We could come up with a zillion things that we could then argue constitute "human exceptionalism". However, the article covers its use as a phrase - David Gerard (talk) 22:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)