Talk:Therian/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 7 May 2024. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

CUR...

CUR, you can't even keep your story straight. Yesterday you identified yourself as otherkin. Now you're saying therians aren't otherkin. What's the deal? Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:08, 22 January 2009 (EST)

My story? My story is that I identified myself as otherkin because it is fairly close to therianthrophy, but not the same. No one knew what the word therian meant, and I was in no particular rush to have to explain it. --"ConservapediaUndergroundDiode^{MOAR KITTY:}[1] (wasn't me) 19:10, 22 January 2009 (EST)

If the title is "therian", why is the bolded word in the lead "Therianthropy"? Oh, and I corrected it a bit, it's not a "philosophy". ħuman 19:09, 22 January 2009 (EST)

I mov ed it into thd text as it isn't the title of the article. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:13, 22 January 2009 (EST)

WE ARE NOT WINGNUTS! I DISCUSSED THIS IN GREAT DETAIL ON THE DEBATE:OTHERKIN PAGE! --"ConservapediaUndergroundDiode^{MOAR KITTY:}[1] (wasn't me) 20:02, 22 January 2009 (EST)

People won't automatically agree with you just because you discuss something in great detail or TALK IN CAPITALS. Analysing & refuting unscientific concepts is one of our primary missions & this is prime example. Please don't remove the content which queries the rationality of therianism. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:05, 22 January 2009 (EST)

CUR, it honestly sounds partially religious, hence you shouldn't be too surprised of RW hostility...-Diadochus 20:19, 22 January 2009 (EST)

CUR, the people described in this article are wingnuts. That you happen to identify as one is not our fault. ħuman 20:20, 22 January 2009 (EST)

Considering the complete absence of a political element, much less an extremist one, I don't quite see how this can qualify as "wingnuttery". --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 20:32, 22 January 2009 (EST)

Define "Wingnuttery" (I thought it just meant "unhinged")  ^(Toast) _{and marmalade} 20:34, 22 January 2009 (EST)

It's ambiguous: can just mean loopy in a general sense, or can mean "right-wing nut" (see WP:Wingnut (politics)). Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:39, 22 January 2009 (EST)

I was only aware of the political definition. Even then, "mentally deranged" seems a little, I dunno, discourse-dominant as well. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 20:57, 22 January 2009 (EST)

There are plant therians. There are earwig therians. And we aren't 'wolfs in human bodies,' we have a split-personality. --"ConservapediaUndergroundDiode^{MOAR KITTY:}[1] (wasn't me) 20:42, 22 January 2009 (EST)

Article doesn't say there aren't tree or insect therians; it says there aren't many of them. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:49, 22 January 2009 (EST)

Look. Number 1: It's not religious. Number 2: Just because evolution doesn't fit into it doesn't mean it's not true. Any brain abnormality could easily produce the characteristics of a split personality. Number 3: Try arguing on my turf: , the Werelist. Register, then you can get verbally mauled by some therians all you want, as I'm sure Savage can defend therianthrophy more effectively than I can, partially because he is intiminating. P.S. Make sure to use the username you have here, please. I am registered as cheetah. --"ConservapediaUndergroundDiode^{MOAR KITTY:}[1] (wasn't me) 20:52, 22 January 2009 (EST)

Just to clarify, CUR, you are saying that therians suffer from a brain abnormality that results in multiple personality disorder? ħuman 21:36, 22 January 2009 (EST)

(unident) Yes. Or something similar. But unlike most cases, our other personalities are other species, not just other humans. --"ConservapediaUndergroundDiode^{MOAR KITTY:}[1] (wasn't me) 21:37, 22 January 2009 (EST)

I'm Anuolf, I'm a moderator at a therian forum. I understand your skepticism, and I encourage it. Should any of you have questions after my comment, please feel free to bring them to my attention. . . . ^{— Unsigned, by: Anuolf / talk / contribs}

The rest of this post & thread moved to Debate:Otherkin

Hi Anouf, thanks for joining us. I've moved your post to the debate page about otherkin & therians as it relates to a lot of the discussion there, & this page is really just for discussing changes to the article. (Also please write ~~~~ at the end of your posts to sign them. Thanks.) Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:35, 22 January 2009 (EST)

Epiphany

I'm part cheeto and part wool! Oops... ħuman 00:17, 23 January 2009 (EST)

Art and Writing

(moved to User:ConservapediaUndergroundResistor/Art and Writing, comments moved to User talk:ConservapediaUndergroundResistor/Art and Writing ) ħuman 18:48, 25 January 2009 (EST)

CUR had already copied it to User:ConservapediaUndergroundResistor/writing/poem/Outcast, but not removed it from here. I've deleted the duplicate & swung the talk page comments over. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:56, 25 January 2009 (EST)

Oh, thanks! ħuman 19:04, 25 January 2009 (EST)

Causation

This section reads like something that might be better suited to a Fun:Therian article...TheoryOfPractice 20:28, 26 January 2009 (EST)

Yeah in this one we could have serious speculation. NOT! --"ConservapediaUndergroundDiode^{MOAR KITTY:}[1] (wasn't me) 20:29, 26 January 2009 (EST)

CUR going NOT stopped being funny when the Wayne's World move came out. - User $\scriptstyle -i\ln(-1)$ 20:31, 26 January 2009 (EST)

Okay. Sorry. But we probably won't move it. If you want to, I've no objection. But better not to offend. --"ConservapediaUndergroundDiode^{MOAR KITTY:}[1] (wasn't me) 20:35, 26 January 2009 (EST)

You don't quite get the idea of snark do you CUR? - User $\scriptstyle -i\ln(-1)$ 20:37, 26 January 2009 (EST)

I was worried about offending users who didn't want it moved. And why you'd revert my edits? --"ConservapediaUndergroundDiode^{MOAR KITTY:}[1] (wasn't me) 20:39, 26 January 2009 (EST)

I thought that section was pretty funny, and belonged. ħuman 20:43, 26 January 2009 (EST)

Although I don't know "whose" version I am talking about. ħuman 20:49, 26 January 2009 (EST)

Nobody edit the article for at least a week. - User $\scriptstyle -i\ln(-1)$ 20:50, 26 January 2009 (EST)

(unident)Why? --"ConservapediaUndergroundDiode^{MOAR KITTY:}[1] (wasn't me) 20:52, 26 January 2009 (EST)

Beacuse you are on the verge of start yet another fucking argument Mr. Fresh Start. - User $\scriptstyle -i\ln(-1)$ 20:53, 26 January 2009 (EST)

I am? How? --"ConservapediaUndergroundDiode^{MOAR KITTY:}[1] (wasn't me) 20:56, 26 January 2009 (EST)

I just thought CUR's edits made it a little insidy. - User $\scriptstyle -i\ln(-1)$ 20:47, 26 January 2009 (EST)

Oh. Well, I think, if you look at the therian shorthand section, it's easy to understand. --"ConservapediaUndergroundDiode^{MOAR KITTY:}[1] (wasn't me) 20:48, 26 January 2009 (EST)

(unident) I thought it was hilarious. Mind if I post it to the Werelist? They've already got 'exaggerated therian rules.' --"ConservapediaUndergroundDiode^{MOAR KITTY:}[1] (wasn't me) 20:45, 26 January 2009 (EST)

As long as they use the GFDL, you can, yes (and link to the source). If they claim full copyright on info posted there, sadly, you can't. ħuman

Back to the point I was trying to make--the section in question is niether informative nor is it snark that rises to our usual standards. It seems in-jokey to CUR only. May I move it to a Funspace article or no? 09:40, 27 January 2009 (EST)

I'd say yes, but it's not fun - it's krap. Love² 09:57, 27 January 2009 (EST)

Causation was written by Publius so you should probably wait for or ask for his opinion before moving it. I think that the rest of the jokes should stay in this one; it would be a shame for it to lose the snark. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 10:31, 27 January 2009 (EST)

The rest of the jokes are fine--it's just that one pgph that seems out of whack...TheoryOfPractice 10:33, 27 January 2009 (EST)

I don't see what's wrong with it, it's pretty hilarious. It sort of interbreeds YEC and scientology and sci-fi nerdism into a snarky mockery of what a hypothetical therian might think. ħuman 15:46, 27 January 2009 (EST)

Meh, I don't see the humour--it reads more like someone is just playing with the idea of theriantropy, as opposed to what I'd like to see the article do--attack it for the fundamental irrationality/stupidity/insanity that it is--our articles on religion and woo pull no punches--this one seems to...TheoryOfPractice 15:51, 27 January 2009 (EST)

Ah, I see. Feel free to remove/improve as you see fit... of course. ħuman 16:27, 27 January 2009 (EST)

Do what you want with it. I was just complying with CUR's bestial cry for solidarity in seeking out a rational explanation while pulling a Hubbard. - Gentleman Publius (V)<,",>(V) 18:31, 27 January 2009 (EST)

(unident)<sigh> You just won't leave it alone, will you? But, there could be a rational explanation. I don't know what one would be, but I am in favor of thinking about it. And it isn't stupidity, ToP. Please goat that. --"ConservapediaUndergroundDiode^{MOAR KITTY:}[1] (wasn't me) 18:34, 27 January 2009 (EST)

Causing more trouble than worth

Someone please vape this. --"ConservapediaUndergroundDiode^{MOAR KITTY:}[1] (wasn't me) 19:21, 27 January 2009 (EST)

No it is an article assessing woo, it is completely on mission. You need to stop wheel warring on it. - User $\scriptstyle -i\ln(-1)$ 19:28, 27 January 2009 (EST)

Woo, by definition, cannot be true. Spiritual explanation for therianthropy are woo. The idea that there is a rational explanation isn't. --"ConservapediaUndergroundDiode^{MOAR KITTY:}[1] (wasn't me) 19:30, 27 January 2009 (EST)

There is no rational evidence it exists. - User $\scriptstyle -i\ln(-1)$ 19:34, 27 January 2009 (EST)

There is no rational evidence it doesn't. There is rational evidence saying that our explanations are wrong. Millions of experiances, felt by perfectly normal, rational people cannot be swiped away easily. --"ConservapediaUndergroundDiode^{MOAR KITTY:}[1] (wasn't me) 19:38, 27 January 2009 (EST)

I've removed my ill-received attempts at comedy, thus moving it toward the RW ideal, methinks. - Gentleman Publius (V)<,",>(V) 19:35, 27 January 2009 (EST)

General, no the comedy was good. Mocking the idea is fine.

CUR as has been said before extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It is on you to show that this is anything other than your subjective interpretation of your feelings. - User $\scriptstyle -i\ln(-1)$ 19:41, 27 January 2009 (EST)

Why don't you ask someone who's seen a therian accidently snarl when surprised? Or someone who's seen a cat therian yowl accidently? --"ConservapediaUndergroundDiode^{MOAR KITTY:}[1] (wasn't me) 19:42, 27 January 2009 (EST)

Anecdotal and hardly extraordinary. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 19:50, 27 January 2009 (EST)

A person spends ample time obsessing over being a cat, pretending to be a cat, imagining to be a cat, and at some point they accidentally act like a cat? Sounds like evidence to me! - Gentleman Publius (V)<,",>(V) 19:51, 27 January 2009 (EST)

(unident) Alone, yes. When millions of these things are added together repeatedly, and happen with the same person over and over, they mean something. And I never obsessed over wolves- heck, I don't even like wolves. But I still feel wolf urges and instincts. --"ConservapediaUndergroundDiode^{MOAR KITTY:}[1] (wasn't me) 19:53, 27 January 2009 (EST)

Millions of people see UFOs and angels. Since when is that remotely evidence? --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 20:00, 27 January 2009 (EST)

Sightings of UFOs are signs that something is going on. The most probably explanation is not little green men- still possible, but extremely unlikely. As for angels, same thing as UFOs. --"ConservapediaUndergroundDiode^{MOAR KITTY:}[1] (wasn't me) 20:05, 27 January 2009 (EST)

CUR, please stop edit warring. We don't let one person's opinion dominate an article when it's at odds with everybody else's. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 19:55, 27 January 2009 (EST)

Gender dysphoria is a recongnized mental problem. Is it an incredibly stretch to think that something similar might be happening here? And many therians suffer from gender dysphoria. So they may be related. --"ConservapediaUndergroundDiode^{MOAR KITTY:}[1] (wasn't me) 19:58, 27 January 2009 (EST)

We've already got that mentioned in the article. Please stop edit war & discuss any further changes before making them. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:07, 27 January 2009 (EST)

Especially since the one thing you're reverting to makes hardly any sense at all. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 20:09, 27 January 2009 (EST)

Then why doesn't this apply to anyone else? Let's avoid making value judgments about theories of teh brain until we have a serious, scientific, debate about this. Arcan, if it isn't grammatical, correct it- don't change it back to where it is merely shooting down possible, rational ideas. --"ConservapediaUndergroundDiode^{MOAR KITTY:}[1] (wasn't me) 20:11, 27 January 2009 (EST)

What do you mean it doesn't apply to anyone else? Are you seriously complaining that we're not letting you write the article however you like? And this statement, "There is no established phenomena, as members of the subculture can cite none that cannot be explained by observation, just like everything else in psychology that hasn't been studied yet." has much more than grammar issues. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 20:14, 27 January 2009 (EST)

I was attempting to point out the idiocy in that statement. Therianthropy is a figment of the imagination in the same way gender dysphoria is. --"ConservapediaUndergroundDiode^{MOAR KITTY:}[1] (wasn't me) 20:29, 27 January 2009 (EST)

Hey!

I see you've discovered furries and their enormous persecution complex. Gratz, hope you enjoy it! Chris Fanshaw 20:23, 27 January 2009 (EST)

It is pretty seriously huge, no doubt. The odd thing is that if CUR was like, "hi guys I'm a furry, just here to contribute," we'd be all cool with it. It's just that he insists on making it a huge deal...-Diadochus 20:36, 27 January 2009 (EST)

I didn't even want an article on therians, or otherkin. I just want to have therianthropy either be left in peace, or combine efforts with people to find common ground, or a rational solution. So- I have a proposal. We work together, rationalists and therians, to find out what is going on. Until then, the therian article will be locked, and we will stop discussing it. When we find out what is going on- well, you can interpret that. --"ConservapediaUndergroundDiode^{MOAR KITTY:}[1] (wasn't me) 20:44, 27 January 2009 (EST)

The article wasn't made for you or because of you. It was created because someone ran into an interesting "news" piece and started the article. ħuman 21:16, 27 January 2009 (EST)

Little light hearted piece of news <prepares to run>: I found a goat therian. --"CUR^talk 17:05, 7 February 2009 (EST)

Merge

Shouldn't this be merged with otherkin? They're parctically the same thing.DSFARGEG 17:17, 14 February 2009 (EST)

The same but different. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:51, 14 February 2009 (EST)

Comment, if I am allowed to: We are not suffering from a mental illness, just a mental abnormality. To call it an illness is insulting. --"CUR^talk 17:53, 14 February 2009 (EST)

Given my history with a particular user who is close to the topic at hand, I'm going to keep my distance except to say that one article dealing with two really closely related topics that points out the similarities and differences instead of two articles repeating a bunch of stuff seems like a better bet, especially given what a small niche we're dealing with. That is all. TheoryOfPractice 17:55, 14 February 2009 (EST)

I concur with ToP. By the way, I found a better explanation. When things have cooled down, anyone who wants to hear it can. <prepares to run> --"CUR^talk 17:56, 14 February 2009 (EST)

You know, the most ironic thing about this whole incident is that on the other forum, I have a reputation for being a hard-headed, die-hard, dye-in-the-wool rationalist. --"CUR^talk 18:02, 14 February 2009 (EST)

It's all relative; among people who think that their brains are animal, you're a rationalist; among actual "hard-headed, die-hard, dye-in-the-wool rationalists", you come off rather silly. Bastard word Hoover! 18:08, 14 February 2009 (EST)

And here's the new explanation- certain neuron pathways are unusually wired. This manifests itself in habits and ways of thinking that closely mimic that of a particular animal. This explains a great many things, such as how one can associate with non-existant animals (their quirks are how they think the animal acts) and how some people are more affected. So the brains aren't animal- certain habits are animal-like. What do you think? --"CUR^talk 18:12, 14 February 2009 (EST)

Ah, so after much debate you finally concede that it is purely subjective, and nothing to do with any similarity with the animal? Bastard word Hoover! 18:17, 14 February 2009 (EST)

The atypical neurowiring is still there. The association with an animal is a judgement based on one's observation of one's atypical behaviors. So one could have certain animal-like behaviors. Something which I'm sure we've all noticed at some point. --"CUR^talk 18:20, 14 February 2009 (EST)

Take your pseudoscience and leave; I don't want the wiki to be taken over by another debate in which we refute you and you don't listen. Bastard word Hoover! 18:23, 14 February 2009 (EST)

I will take the pure speculation on an unstudied concept and leave this page. Let's try to not bring this up again (yes, I know I am mostly at fault here). --"CUR^talk 18:28, 14 February 2009 (EST)

So can we merge the page? Even the wikipedos have only a paragraph or so on therians (the internet subculture that is).DSFARGEG 18:10, 14 February 2009 (EST)

It is not just on the internet, as I have explained. --"CUR^talk 18:12, 14 February 2009 (EST)

FYIADDSFARGEG 18:13, 14 February 2009 (EST)

And that means? --"CUR^talk 18:14, 14 February 2009 (EST)

EC CUR, I'm not going to get into yet another pissing match with you about this, and I'll try to keep a reasonable tone. You can't just spout off about neurons, pathways and the like -- neuroscience isn't something that people just think up; that's not how science works. Nobody with half a brain is going to take you seriously, especially once your argument incorporates "non-existent animals." There is an incredibly huge literature out there on mental illnesses/delusions and their links to the anatomy and physiology of the brain. Get into a good college, do a doctorate in that stuff, participate in the scientific process, and then tell us what you find. Until then you're just spouting nonsense.TheoryOfPractice 18:19, 14 February 2009 (EST)

Oh, I recongize that I have no proof, and that you can dismiss it. But it is more plasible than other theories that have been suggested, no? --"CUR^talk 18:22, 14 February 2009 (EST)

No. No evidence, no experimentation, no engagement with the literature. No. TheoryOfPractice 18:26, 14 February 2009 (EST)

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Bastard word Hoover! 18:27, 14 February 2009 (EST)

No, it's not. Imagination and silliness are the best explanations so far. And CUR, keep in mind the outcome of a certain Trial of the Century that occurred not long ago. ħuman 18:29, 14 February 2009 (EST)

Which Trial of the Century? Bastard word Hoover! 18:30, 14 February 2009 (EST)

Mine. As for the explanations, perhaps they make the most sense to you, but they do not to me. So we are even as far as sense. By the way, does anyone know some good books on psychology so I can come back a few years from now and make a better argument? --"CUR^talk 18:32, 14 February 2009 (EST)

Back on topic

I don't think these should be moved as this is a reasonably good quality article, and I don't want to lose that with merger that ends up a poor mismatch between two. - User $\scriptstyle -i\ln(-1)$ 18:49, 14 February 2009 (EST)

But it's practically the same subject matter, only otherkin is more of a broad term (slightly more that is). Why have to articles that cover the same topic?DSFARGEG 18:54, 14 February 2009 (EST)

I think you have been outvoted, DSFARGEG. --"CUR^talk 19:02, 14 February 2009 (EST)

Only 2 people want to keep therians as it is. Learn2 math.DSFARGEG 19:05, 14 February 2009 (EST)

2 people oppose. 1 in favor. Rest don't care or haven't made opinions clear. --"CUR^talk 19:07, 14 February 2009 (EST)

^ Learn2 read. TheoryofPractice clearlyoutlined that it made more sense to have one article.DSFARGEG 19:11, 14 February 2009 (EST)

I'll read above, but just because WP can't find sources in order to write more, it doesn't mean we can't have the two separate articles. They really are two distinct kinds of silly people. ħuman 19:17, 14 February 2009 (EST)

We focus on moonbats more than WP who would consider what we do giving things undue weight or what ever that policy is called. - User $\scriptstyle -i\ln(-1)$ 19:23, 14 February 2009 (EST)

Well, at least this time I didn't go nuts. I must be maturing mentally- scary. --"CUR^talk 19:35, 14 February 2009 (EST)

Hmmmmmm... looking at ad hoc, it would appear that most of my arguments fall under that category. Which doesn't mean that they are innately incorrect. --"CUR^talk 19:37, 14 February 2009 (EST)

It just means we aren't going to listen. - User $\scriptstyle -i\ln(-1)$ 19:42, 14 February 2009 (EST)

(unindent) Precisely! So you don't listen, I speculate and find evidence, and later we can bring this up! I just have to wait for that guy's book to come out- I may get a copy. --"CUR^talk 19:45, 14 February 2009 (EST)

Back on topic again, I say we keep this where it is. It's closely related to otherkin, & they both link to each other, but there's not very much duplicate content. + This also deals with the taxonomic meaning of therian, which will be lost in the muddle if this is merged with otherkin. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 10:15, 15 February 2009 (EST)