From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Icon internet.svg

This Internet related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Editorial notes
  • Page generates fanboy butthurt
Icon sociology.svg This article contains information about one or more living persons.

Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats.
Reference any contentious allegations solidly; unreferenced allegations should be removed.
If legal threats are raised on this page, please direct the potential litigant to RationalWiki:Legal FAQ; do not interact with them.

Archives for this talk page: , (new)

Ground Zero Mosque[edit]

"While Mason's channel remains one of the most popular atheism channels on YouTube, he has become an increasingly polarizing figure due to his outspoken attitude towards Islam and Muslims (joining the ranks of those who oppose Park51)" I went to the youtube link and could not find Thunderfoot saying he opposed this proposal. He appears to be saying that he finds the hypocrisy of Islamic countries such as Saudi Arabia unacceptable, and appalling. Not only could Christians not build anything in Mecca, they would not even be allowed to enter the city. I find that I am in agreement with his disapproval of such a fantastic ideology. It's rational...yeah.Jackinthebox (talk) 02:57, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

winters affair[edit]

this section is terrible. Hysterically it accuses Mason producing a strawman and engaging in science denial and then goes on to highlight "describe the exact biological process which impacts on political representation" as an example of "real scientific discourse". As though the inability to exactly describe a process means her ridiculous theory has purchase and the comment itself isn't straightforward science denial. To put winters comment in a context that might make the unchecked idiocy leap a little higher for this audiance, her statement is the same as saying "describe the exact effect climate change has on a specific weather event" and gloating when it can't be done. the person who wrote that passage managed to confuse "real scientific discourse" with a classic (if not quinessential) science denial tactic. Well done "rationalwiki". — Unsigned, by: / talk

  1. "But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink!
  2. Her response was somewhat sarcastic. Or to put it another way, if someone claimed they could prove that the Abrahamic God is real I would (quite correctly) request that they put up or shut up. He claimed something that was patently false, she told him to put up or shut up. Case closed. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 12:20, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
No he didn't. What was thunderf00ts false claim? I mean precisely. Because there are biological explanations for the phenomena. We are animals, there for social structures we build by definition must have a biological explanation. It's funny you should use the example of proving the existence of God as an argumentative technique when discussing this. Be sure which concept out of biology and patriarchy has more in Common with an unevidenced knowledge claim. — Unsigned, by: / talk
Yes, he did. Patriarchy is a very real social phenomena that can be seen in multiple aspects of life, but is more pronounced in less advanced social structures. Sharia Law or the laws espouses by Moses in the Old Testament are some of the most blatant examples. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:01, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Oh patriarchy is very real. Well turns out biology is too. I'd invite you to provide the the definitive set of social structures which is establish it is real and that means there isn't biological processes which impact political representation. You and winters are falsely reversing the burden of proof and then claim an effective conspiracy theory. — Unsigned, by: / talk
I just gave you an example, two examples in fact. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:23, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
No you didn't. You just claimed that patriarchy can be seen in many aspects of life. Which ones exactly. And why are they example of patriarchy and not something else? And how is causation of these many effects established, exactly. I'll wait. — Unsigned, by: / talk
So seeing as I effectively won the exchange in the way winters did, because the best you've got is Abrahamic religion exists as an example of "patriarchy" I'm gonna go ahead and change the article. — Unsigned, by: / talk
Given that I the article is locked that will likely be difficult. In addition you have unfortunately run afoul of Danth's Law. Good day! ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:50, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

That's precious given it seems like winters argument could be construed that way. You lock away. I'll wait it out. You have utterly failed to demonstrate your claims in relation to patriarchy other than to say Abrahamic religions exist and could be described as patriarchal. What that is an example of is pretty unclear, but it is not an example that a broad construct which can be sensibly called Patriarchy exists. — Unsigned, by: / talk

I think I got an address wrong.[edit]

The YouTube address I posted- the last character was wrong, it was a zero rather than an o. Flashthecash (talk) 23:11, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Rekt. — Dysk (contribs) 23:18, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

thunderf00t's law[edit]

The people who go on most about how everyone else are just sheeple tend to be the most sheep-like of all.
—Thunderfoot [1]

Add this to the sheeple page. (Call the law whatever you like). (talk) 17:45, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

This was said four days ago and has not seen common use. No thanks. Zero (talk - contributions) 18:19, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Thunderf00t and SpaceX denial[edit]

Thunderf00t's recent video seems about how SpaceX is fake and the project is unsustainable. However, I don't have enough expertise for that. So, can anyone confirm or deny this? And is his position justifiable? Akangka (talk) 05:54, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm no expert either, but Thunderf00t's track record pretraining to this topic points to me he probably isn't justified in his point. He has a massive hatred for Elon Musk and has gone out of his way to criticise almost every move the man has done in the last 4 years. He has been claiming SpaceX and Tesla will fail and that Musk is a snake-oil salesman for nearly half a decade. The man just has a grudge. Also several comments in his very own video demonstrate how wrong he is in his very first point: "the absurdity of the opening claim that confounded the price that SpaceX charges for F9 for the cost of F9 and cost of F9 for the cost reduction from reusability." — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs
But Musk IS a snake-oil salesman and his childish demeanor results in negative interference with his own companies, and every single one of his own wild ideas that he relentlessly forces onto his companies has failed. However that doesn't mean that everything that happens at those companies is bad or will fail. Thunderf00t behaves like a conspiracy theorist in the way that he correctly identifies an issue but then invents everything else in the story --2A02:1810:3922:FA00:6162:FB4C:ED85:6A43 (talk) 10:34, 3 August 2023 (UTC)