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.
If everyone who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2019.
| Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.|
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with !
I'm Leaving For Good: Insults Do Not Conversation Make
I was very excited to be here until I realized that the majority of posts are laden with insults. Sure, be upset with theists. But don't be closed-minded about it. You're throwing the baby out with the bath water. Goodbye.somethingsea (talk) 06:41, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Leave of Absence
I am very excited to have found this site, as I have been acting in an immoral manner by neglecting my kids in using social network sites to help people understand reason and consistency. Since this site is founded on that, I can expect to either convince or be convinced of, the relevant positions, regardless of time (2 + 2 is 4 in 2 AD, 1975, now, and 2025), that being the prominent problematic factor of social media and attention span, as well as the social legitimacy of being long-winded and anal about definitions that concern the sustainability of life. Thus, I am off the Internet to clean house, be with my kids, and read books, thus reinstating my morality.. somethingsea (talk) 22:55, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
How I Found RationalWiki (or, Wikipedia is Ilogocal)
- In trying to find the origin of taxation and whether money has ever existed without taxation, I found it to not be considered coercion. Upon editing it to include this, was repeatedly met with reverts, contending first of the user not considering it coercive, and then of it not being a mainstream view. In asking where to discuss this, since if the mainstream view on 2 + 2 was 5 it would therefore be wikiable, was told that Wikipedia was an encyclopedia, not discussion forum. Accordingly, I now view it as immoral. You can see my explanation of this on my page at the site: shyguy76767.
Quick paste of that profile that I will refine later
I am now [http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/User:Somethingsea here], although since there is still unfinished business here, I will also be active until it shows itself as being [[unresolvable]]. Wikipedia [[reports]] about the [[world]], which is [[statist]] - a [[society]] based on [[taxation]]. Taxation is [[coercive]] as it is [[involuntary]], and is the core of most of the [[corruption]] that exists. Accordingly, Wikipedia consists of [[bias]]ed articles regarding [[politics]] and whatever it's [[influence]] extends to. Thus, while [[Wikipedia]] and wikipedians aim to have an un[[bias]]ed site, written from a [[neutral point of view]], this is not [[maintain]]ed, cannot be maintained, nor is it [[feasible]] or [[possible]]. Wikipedians merely report about the world, not caring whether we live in a society wherein baseless [[opinions]] [[rule]] the day, as the business of accurate reporting - not of reality, but of mainstream opinion - takes fundamental precedence for this site. It's not like people casually look to Wikipedia for accurate information or anything. They want to know what the Mainstream Mob thinks! An example of unsubstantiated opinions being the basis for article reversion is seen with users [[User:Iwilsonp|Iwilsonp]] and [[User:Sjö|Sjö]], on these respective pages: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tax&oldid=644178514 here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tax&oldid=644214739 here], for the definition of [[taxation]]. "I don't think it's coercion." is not a reason, but an unsubstantiated opinion. Nonetheless, I provided reasoning to explain the inclusion of coercion to "imposition" within the definition of [[taxation]]. Iwilsonp has [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Iwilsonp yet to respond], and Sjo is [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sj%C3%B6 considering it further]. Here is the reasoning that taxation is coercive: *1. Using the definition: "A [[tax]] (from the Latin taxo; "rate") is a financial charge or other levy imposed upon a taxpayer (an individual or legal entity) by a state or the functional equivalent of a state such that failure to pay, or evasion of or resistance to collection, is punishable by law." *2. [[coercion|Imposition]] is [[involuntary]]. *3. Iwilsonp's reasoning against attaching [[coercion]] to [[coercion|imposition]] was, "coercion carries a negative connotation of something [[illegal]], however [[taxation]] is generally considered a [[government right]]." My response is: Since without [[taxation]], [[government]] [[non-existence|would not exist]], why wouldn't it be considered a government right? I'll explain this further: if [[government]] were not [[funded]] via the [[coercion|imposition]] of [[levies]], namely, the [[involuntary]] inclusion of a person's money to the [[government]] treasury, then the [[government]] would no longer be a [[coercive]] entity. That [[taxation]] is [[coercion|involuntary]] is precisely why [[government]] is [[government]]. If [[taxation]] were [[consent|voluntary]], it would not be [[taxation]], and [[government]] would not be [[government]]. It would simply be [[society]] and people interacting. Because the [[state]] and [[government]] are the same concept, using them will result in [[circular reasoning]], as the respective pages, referring to each other, show. The problem lies with the nature of taxation and government: they do not refer to [[equal]]s, but [[rulers]] and [[slave|citizens]]. This [[doublethink]] of taxation being a societal necessity corrupts all of society, especially via corporations. The means to correcting the circular reasoning is to call taxation what it is: [[coercion]]. The only thing you need for [[taxation]] to be [[involuntary]] is that one person who is [[taxed]] [[coercion|does not agree to it]]. This is the case. There are numerous instances of this. I, for instance, [[consent|do not want]] to be [[taxed]]. I [[consent|do not want]] my [[money]] taken from me without my consent. However, the money is taken from me, under threat of being sent to jail. If I resist going to [[jail]], I'm [[threatened]] with [[death]]. This falls squarely into the definition of [[coercion]]. Even as this site [[disingenuously]] states it is based on the lack of bias, there is [[unbiased|no page on it]]; the link for "unbiased" goes to "biased", about which there is an inherent bias regarding the [[moral]] [[good]]ness of the subject: "[[Bias]] is an inclination of temperament or outlook to present or hold a partial perspective, often accompanied by a refusal to consider the possible merits of alternative points of view. People may be biased toward or against an individual, a race, a religion, a social class, a political party, or a species. Biased means one-sided, lacking a neutral viewpoint, not having an open mind. Bias can come in many forms and is often considered to be synonymous with prejudice or bigotry.". Where is the bias? [[neutral point of view|Here]]: "'''All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia '''''must''''' be written from a '''''neutral point of view''''' (NPOV)''', '''which means''' representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, '''''without bias''''', all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Do you hold a neutral stance on the following three topics? *[[Murder]] *[[Rape]] *[[Genocide]] I would hope not. They are immoral, lacking sustainability and coherent applicableness to the receiving party: they are socially incoherent. I enjoyed using Wikipedia while I remained ignorant of it's underlying corruption, and now I am glad to be aware of it, tossing it aside for it to [[Criticism of Wikipedia|implode on itself]]. Goodbye. [[User:Shyguy76767|Shyguy76767]] ([[User talk:Shyguy76767|talk]]) 06:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC) I am slightly revising the decision to leave: Wikipedia is used by a great number of people, just like Facebook is, and I see no reason people could not be reasoned with to show the contradictions inherent to Wikipedia's intent, definitions, and actions. Therefore, I will proceed to see if Wikipedians are amicable to such logic. If not, I intend to find or create other avenues that are conducive to logical and reason-based presentation of items, rather than mainstream consensus, which can be false, with no assurance of accordance to reality: what if the mainstream thinks 2 + 2 = 5? [[User:Shyguy76767|Shyguy76767]] ([[User talk:Shyguy76767|talk]])