User talk:142․124․55․236

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archives for this talk page: 123.456.78.9

Lol, it worked. 142․124․55․236 (talk) 22:39, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Information icon.svg This user is an inactive tech.

As a part of our guidelines surrounding Techs, Techs who have been inactive for more than 2 years have their tech rights temporarily suspended to prevent abuse.

If you are this user:

Out of curiosity[edit]

What are your political leanings/views? No real reason, was just curious. ChrisAmiss (talk) 05:52, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, my political leanings can get pretty tangled, but I'd say generally leftist. Looking at your userpage, I generally agree with you on most issues, including polygamy, prostitution and open borders. I'm rather ambivalent towards free trade and am rather pro-fair trade. Also, while I'm not at all a warhawk, I don't think the West (or any other major force for that matter) should shy away from humanitarian military interventions as long as that humanitarian element is stressed as paramount, meaning: swift but precise action, minimization of casualties and collateral damage on all sides, no long-term occupation, no forcing puppet regimes onto populations and no demonization of other human beings to rally warhawkish sentiment. Personally, I think we could've been saved from a lot of misery if the West had organized a humanitarian intervention force to Syria with Muslims being allowed to volunteer instead of, well, seemingly giving Muslims empathizing with the suffering of fellow human beings in another country no other option but to join Islamist radical groups. >.> What we possibly disagree on most is free speech. While I think it's generally valuable, I don't at all support letting hate/violence-inciting speech or harmful misinformation gain legal immunity just for being 'speech'. Also, while this isn't mentioned on your userpage, I disagree that popular support alone legitimizes a government; whether it upholds its responsibility of not just 'representing', but also respecting its citizens and respecting and protecting those citizens' rights is what legitimizes a government. (Though it's possible you don't actually disagree with the latter.) Also, this essay/constitution thingy I've been working on (with big hiatuses in between) might be of interest to you. ;) (talk) 07:05, 25 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
142, my email works. Please tell me what your take on formatting, policies etc all are. Taking direction from AH and Paravant has only gotten me fucked up (and over). So, please advise. ---Mona- (talk) 20:11, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, I don't have an email, but we can talk these things over on your or my talkpage, if you want. (talk) 20:16, 26 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
"Don't have an email", wait, what? Carpetsmoker (talk) 20:40, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, not one I ever use except for when I need to provide a valid email to access a game or somesuch anyway. And I never bothered coupling this account to an email. (talk) 20:45, 26 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
142, Chris is correct to adhere to free speech absolutism. The idea of vesting the government and its armed agents with a warrant to determine what political ideas may not be said is grossly authoritarian. Religious fanatics have a right to preach that homosexuals are evil and threaten the very fabric of society, and citizens have a right to speak what the State Department (absurdly) characterizes as antisemitism -- you've done that yourself. Free speech doesn't exist in France -- they've adopted laws reflecting your views.---Mona- (talk) 06:31, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
I just knew you'd be bawling about France.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 08:12, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, who is correct on moral matters can be a rather subjective deal, but you're entitled to your views of course. I agree the government shouldn't outlaw differing political positions, though the ones you mention seem of little political merit to me (or any merit for that matter). And France has had a long history of being pall-y with Israel, to my knowledge. Whether they use their version of egalitarianism (with égal(e) here meaning 'all blandly the same'), some form of Affirmative Action, or freedom of expression to condemn political movements they don't like, it makes no difference. I'll admit free-speech restrictions have a tendency of being abused in authoritarian/corrupt regimes, but the same is true for many other laws. I'd say the problem there is more in the government being corrupt than in the law not allowing people to publically incite hatred/violence (technically it's still allowed to happen; it just couples legal consequences to it). (talk) 06:43, 27 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
France was one of the main foreign suppliers of the IDF from just after the war for independence to just before the six day war. The supposed Israeli nuclear weapon is also thanks to French technology cooperation (if said weapon exists). However, in recent times, France has been rather chummy with folks like Qaddafi and you could not consider them a full blown ally of Israel, as they aid and abet her enemies... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 17:46, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
You mean the now-dead Qaddafi (thanks to an alliance which France was a notable part of)? And going by your reasoning, would even the US be an ally of Israel? What's Saudi Arabia's stance on Israel? (talk) 17:55, 27 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
The US are not as good a friend of Israel as they could (and should) be, but they are currently one of the best friends Israel has (if you are among those whose very existence is offensive to some, you really can't be picky with your friends). France on the other hand has delivered shitloads of weaponry (including nuclear technology) to countries and leaders who openly call for an end of the Jewish state and - and here's the major difference from the US - not delivered any significant amount of weapons to Israel. The US balance their insane weapons deliveries to the Saudis with weapons and aid to Israel, because they know that a Middle East without Israel would be a never-ending nightmare for the West... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 18:18, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Weaponry which they currently use, not to fight off threats, but to kill Palestinians. Then I'd say giving them a nuclear weapon is the better option, since it's so destructive its main use is as a bluff. And I bet they'd be very reluctant to use it on 'Jewish homeland' soil. (But we don't even know if they really have one, because Israel likes to be all spooky and mysterious about it.) (talk) 18:27, 27 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Wait, Libya aided Israel's enemies? Who is France giving aid to that swears the destruction of Israel? I doubt France would do such a thing given their support for Israel's military operations in the past decade. Most of the Gulf states now are strategically in alliance with Israel over countering Iranian hegemony, and Saudi Arabia isn't hiding that it's conducted secret talks with Israel. ChrisAmiss (talk) 18:32, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Qaddafi's Lybia was an enemy of Israel. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 18:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Since this discussion was already derailed; why, Avenger, should the US, or any nation for that amtter, be 'friends' with Israel. This doesn't seem to be a rational Foreign policy stance. --Owlman (talk) 19:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
You think, that the Arabs will give you a few dollars discount per barrel, if you let Israel hang out to dry or at least attempt to do so? Or that theyy will think of you less as infidels?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 19:44, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Wut? At least try to make some ounce of sense when people are trying to have a serious discussion here, Arisboch. (talk) 19:51, 28 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
The brown-nosing you propose won't help anyone.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 19:57, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
I most certainly didn't say we should continue to support any of the Gulf (this includes Iraq) states. I would love to ban all fossil fuels ASAP as well. What I was asking is why we should support Israel no matter what because being 'friends' isn't a rational foreign policy.--Owlman (talk) 20:20, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
All democracies should be friends of all other democracies if at all possible. We may have forgotten it, but there was a time when one democracy alone was fighting against a huge global empire... They could not be picky what their favorite ally had turned into. And in the Middle East the one stable democracy (let's hope Tunisia turns out to be stable and Lebanon turns out to be a democracy) is in dire need of friends. The flame of liberty and justice for all, of government of the people for the people by the people shall not be extinguished in one of the sandiest parts of this fine planet... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:40, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Now that is a statement I can get behind, but there is a problem with this nostalgic idea of the Cold War. We most certainly weren't some perfect group of democracies fighting the most massive totalitarian society. Our refusal to criticize our allies led to atrocities in the name of liberty and freedom in many of the colonies our allies owned. It also prolonged the wars in Africa and Asia e.g. Angola, Ethiopia, and Vietnam. And in places like South Africa, Latin America, and Indonesia crimes against humanity were ignored because we had to unite these 'democracies'. So this idea that we must always support Israel no matter their flaws will only bring more hate for us and them.--Owlman (talk) 22:06, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
I was referring to the years after 1776 when there really was only one democracy (and a very flawed one at that) and their main ally France had by the time the war of 1812 rolled around turned into just another monarchy... (which of course it was in a sense in 1776) Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:16, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Oh that was a very far reference. Well like I said we still need to be critical of any government w/o exemption. Even if that democracy is alone it is better to encourage improvements than to sit by and let it act unequally. I will say I don't happen to be an anti-Zionist in practice and I do recognize that LGBT, Bedouins, Arabs, Jews (duh), Baha'i, Druze, and women tend to have better rights in Israel then in most areas that surround them, but it doesn't mean I have to defend their military incursions or police brutality.--Owlman (talk) 23:36, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Please don't mind me dropping in to talk. Avengerofthe BoN, you say "All democracies should be friends of all other democracies if at all possible." Why? Are democracies the best form of government? You do know Hitler was elected, right? Just because the majority vote for something doesn't make it right. Majoritarianism can easily lead to 'cleansing', genocide, deportation, or marginalization of whole classes of people (namely Jews in Germany, Muslims in Yugoslavia, and Arabs living in the West Bank). Should dictatorships support other dictatorships just because? I wish you would elaborate more on your logic here, because it isn't making much sense to me.
Your view of the Cold War appears, at least to me, to be incredibly biased towards one side being right. You are parroting USA leaders. Do you think the USA was a 'democracy' then or now? Democracy meaning the will of the people is what the government does. Because I certainly would disagree with that (Vietnam was hated, yet it kept going because the USA is not a democracy and the people aren't listened to).
You say "They could not be picky what their favorite ally had turned into." You're basically saying you don't mind supporting mass-murdering authoritarian maniacs like Pinochet, Batista, Noreiga, Diem, the Shah, Saddam Hussein, and Suharto, who do not have popular support in their countries, as long as they are against the USSR. That is the exact opposite of democracy! In a democracy, people choose their government and its policies! So you are essentially saying you don't mind being against democracy because we need to support democracy. Explain to me how that makes any sense.
To your final point about Israel being a democracy. I don't care whether Israel is or isn't a democracy. Even if it is (which it isn't), that doesn't matter, because I disagree with your premise that we should choose who we provide weapons and money to based on their political ideology. Rather, I think we should place the importance on the human rights record, especially in the Middle-East. Actors who have better human rights records should get more support (Kurds, Lebanon), and actors with worse records should get less support (Saudi Arabia, Gulf States, Turkey, Egypt, Syria, and yes, Israel). This standard makes the most sense to me if the end goal of your foreign policy is to save lives and make the greatest amount of people satisfied. If that isn't your main foreign policy priority, then I guess I just disagree with your foreign policy objective. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 22:43, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Hitler was not elected, he was appointed by this senile old fool Hindenburg.
The USA were and are a democracy. The government is elected. You fucking pull out your own definition of "democracy" out of your ass to flip the bird at anyone you don't like, including the USA, Israel and so on.
And about the human rights, Israel has the best human rights record of the whole goddamn Middle East, so that's who'd you support, if you actually gave a shit about stuff like human rights.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 22:52, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
"Israel has the best human rights record of the whole goddamn Middle East, so that's who'd you support, if you actually gave a shit about stuff like human rights". Yup, just ignoring a 50 year long military occupation (aka military dictatorship), collective punishment, indiscriminate shelling, ethnic cleansing, massacres, torture, administrative detention, restrictions in planning and housing, unequal water allocation, discriminatory judicial systems, forcing people to move out of a pool so that the Jewish settlers can bathe undisturbed (source:, a different system of laws in general between Jewish settlers and Palestinians in the occupied territories (aka apartheid) and more you can probably find at I really hope you seriously don't believe what you said Arisboch. ChrisAmiss (talk) 23:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Calling occupation a military dictatorship is rather silly (the army takes it's orders from the civilian government), if they really did indiscriminate shelling, there Gaza Strip, e.g., would've to be renamed into Gaza Parking Lot and the other stuff is fucking peanuts compared to pretty much any other country in the Middle East except Cyprus.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 23:11, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────(edit conflict)Israel has the theoretic capability to kill every last Palestinian and they don't. Hamas has the capability to kill some Jews and they do. Israel openly claims to want peace. Hamas openly claims to want to kill all Jews... Just sayin' also, how you could mistake my statement with regards to 1776 as Cold War romanticism is beyond me... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:22, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

"Israel isn't outright genocidal, that means they're the good guys!" (talk) 23:24, 28 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
I'd say Jordan is pretty okay. And unlike Israel, it hasn't recently bombed civilian areas or shot people for throwing some rocks around. (talk) 23:21, 28 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
You remember the Black SeptemberWikipedia, right? And that a stone is a deadly weapon, when it impacts with your skull or your windshield, when you're driving? And if your compare the civil and human rights record as a whole, Israel is still in the lead. --Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 23:25, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
And if your compare the civil and human rights record as a whole, Israel is still in the lead.- Arisboch Do You Believe That? Ah, vraiment?!? (talk) 23:29, 28 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
And if your compare the civil and human rights record as a whole, Israel is still in the lead.- Arisboch [Truth]--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 23:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
I really don't want to get into an argument over semantics, because it really just seems like a waste of time to me, but I can if you want. I don't think America is a democracy because the people's representatives don't actually represent them. See popular support for universal gun background checks, raising the minimum wage, marijuana legalization, single-payer healthcare, no more war, etc. Have any of those things people want actually been implemented through Congress lately? No. IF they were, then sure we're a democracy, but as it is, wealthy special interests that comprise a very small percentage of the population have overwhelming influence on who gets elected and what policy decisions are made. I would not call that a democracy.
With regards to Israel having the best record of human rights in the Middle East, I simply disagree. How many wars has Israel fought in since 1949? 12, by my count. How many wars has Iran fought since then? Only 4. Tell me all about how Iran continuously bombs residential areas near it. Tell me about how it says minorities can only travel on certain roads because they might commit terrorism. Tell me about how Iran assassinates political opponents in other countries and is running a worldwide spy campaign. Iran is doing none of these things, but Israel is doing all of them. Also, how many times has Israel bombed ISIS? Huh? I can't hear you. OH wait, that's because they aren't. Why not? If they support human rights, why don't they fight ISIS? And yet Iran, a country that I presume you deplore, has bombed ISIS many times and is currently fighting it on the ground with thousands of soldiers. So Israel is the one supporting human rights? Bullshit. If they cared about the massacre in Syria of Sunnis by mostly Shia Assadists, they would have moved troops to the Golan and bombed Syria a long time ago. Where was Israel when Saddam was gassing the Kurds? Where was Israel when Assad was shelling rebels with poison gas? Where was Israel when ISIS was killing thousands of Yezidis on Mount Sinjar? Where was Israel? Nowhere. That's because Israel doesn't care if hundreds of thousands of innocent people die, as long as they are Muslims or Arabs, as evidenced by their lack of attention to the aforementioned humanitarian situations. With all of this, I find it very hard to say Israel is the best in the Middle East. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 23:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
That's not fucking semantics. The government of the US is elected by the people, makes it a democracy. If you want to distort words, fine, but be prepared for other calling bullshit on you.
Tell me, who has more freedom of religion, freedom of the press, free election, LGBT rights and so on and so forth, Israel or Iran? The fact, that Israel has fought wars, doesn't change, that it's human rights record is better. The fact, that it doesn't intervene in other countries, unless they're a danger for Israel, doesn't change, that it's human rights record is better. Muslims and Arabs in Israel are better off than anywhere else in the Middle East. You should cook and/or fry red herrings, not throw it around on teh interwebz.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 23:42, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── And here the propaganda comes streaming out the window. The consensus of human rights organizations, the UN, and Israeli soldiers themselves (Breaking the Silence) is that Israel reacted completely disproportionately to the conflict that they actually started by assassinating a person on a motorcycle on June 11 who was not preparing an attack at the time according to eyewitnesses. The consensus is that Israel had other means at their disposal and still didn't use them to minimize civilian casualties. Hamas does not seek to kill all Jews. They arrest rogue groups who fire rockets into Israel. In addition, the UN conceded in its last report that the tunnels Hamas fighters came through went after ONLY the IDF soldiers. They could've used the tunnels to attack civilians, but did they? No. So in that regard, shockingly, Hamas comes out better at least statistically because they killed more combatants than civilians (unlike Israel last year), not negating its own war crimes. Israel wants peace ON ITS TERMS, which means getting the land it wants to annex the settlements. Also, I'm glad Avenger has given me relief that Israel can't possibly be so bad when it didn't commit genocide. Just like the Serbian forces were good people who were only trying to bus the women and children out of Srebrenica to go after soldiers. Just like when Saddam only killed 200,000 out of millions of Kurds in Iraqi territory shows he was only trying to target Iranian military sites and not civilians. ChrisAmiss (talk) 23:37, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, dictatorships can have a level of popular support. Fascism itself relied on popular support despite its anti-liberal leanings. Occupations are only supposed to be temporary, but we're talking a near half century of occupying a foreign country, so it more or less is permanent and thus I think could appropriately be called a dictatorship. Israel's occupation is longer than the Ayatollah's reign in Iran and the reign of Assad family in Syria. ChrisAmiss (talk) 23:41, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Countries like Jordan, Lebanon, and Tunisia have better human rights records. Hell, even HEZBOLLAH doesn't randomly shoot at civilians. They can hit military targets from hundreds of meters away using rockets, but apparently Israel is incapable of doing this without simultaneously killing a few civilians. Hezbollah and Hamas have worse equipment, poorer training, less financing, and lower morale, and yet they kill far less civilians by percentage of killed than Israel. Israel has spies, drones that fly over Gaza 24/7, satellites that do the same, and jets with the most precise targeting systems ever built. It has bombs that are accurate to within the meter, and yet 80% of the people who died in last year's war in Gaza were civilians. Hamas is literally a bunch of poor 20-something Arab guys who are given an AK-47, an RPG, basic training, and then told to go off and fight the enemy, and yet they can still kill mostly soldiers and not civilians, even going by Israel's own casualty count. That's pretty impressive given the circumstances. If civilian-to-military kill ratio is the sole statistic we are going to use to determine who "has a better human rights record", then Hamas cares more about human rights than Israel does.
Ah, the old "Arabs are better off in Israel than anywhere else in the middle-east" argument. Bullshit. Have any Arab living in Bethlehem or Ramallah come to Tunisia, Jordan, or Oman, and they will all tell you they prefer living in the latter countries to living in the West Bank. I'll bet they are even willing to prefer Libya, Egypt, Iraq, or Algeria to the West Bank. You are talking about some Arab Israeli living in Tel-Aviv (which is really Jaffa) sitting in a home with a computer and saying that is Israel having the best human rights record. That's cherrypicking. If life in Israel is so good for Arabs, why aren't Arabs flooding into Israel? Why are there hundreds of thousands fighting in Yemen, Syria, and Iraq if Israel is so much better and treats them so much more nicely?
"The fact, that Israel has fought wars, doesn't change, that it's human rights record is better" Bullshit. The purpose of a war is to kill people. Period. When you go to war, you know there is a damn good chance a lot of people are going to die, many of them innocents. The fact that Israel has fought more wars in which it invaded and conquered enemy territory that was of the opposing ethnic, religious, and linguistic group (West Bank, Gaza, Golan, Sinai) proves that it is more warlike and cares less about others than Iran does. Even during the Iraq-Iran war, Iran made only minor incursions, and they were wanting to take the Shia Arabs living in the south, not to conquer the entire country because "it's ours", which is exactly what Israel does. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 23:52, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
proves that it is more warlike and cares less about others than Iran does.- Pbfreespace3 Bullshit, but have fun sucking off one of the worst Islamists of the whole Middle East (only the Saudis or DAESH are worse), the Sunnis and Bahai in Iran's gonna thank you. Or gays. Or women. Or political opponents of the Iranian regime and so on.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 00:07, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Countries like Jordan, Lebanon, and Tunisia have better human rights records.- Pbfreespace3 Say, who has more freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, LGBT right, free election an do so on? "Tell me." Also, under what exact circumstances are which bombs Israel uses accurate to within the meter, "tell me". Really, if Israel would want to hit civilians, there'd about 10 times more or more civilians casualties. If Israel wanted to hit civilians, Gaza would be a parking lot.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 00:07, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
As far as Arabs in Israel go, you might want to ask the Bedouins living in unrecognized villages and the neglect handed to them how they're treated. And the African asylum seekers basically kept in concentration camps. And the 51 laws that discriminate against Arabs living in Israel. Also, a good deal of wars involving Israel could've been reached diplomatically had Israel been willing to exhaust its diplomatic options or outright not go to war to conquer territory (as they did in 67 and 82). I'd recommend reading Zeev Maoz's book on this subject because he goes through the literature and concludes that most of Israel's wars, except perhaps for 48, were unnecessary, wars of choice, or made out of arrogance. ChrisAmiss (talk) 23:58, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
"Wars of choice or arrogance?" Spare me this conspiracy theorists bullshit, according to which Israel went to war only to thwart "piece initiatives".--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 00:07, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Not conspiracy, that's historical fact. Political scientist Avner Yaniv concluded that the Israeli attack in Lebanon in 1982 was to thwart a Palestinian "peace offensive". In 2008, Hamas was abiding by a 5 month cease fire before Israel launched a raid that precipitated rocket fire. In 2012, a Hamas member was preparing a peace deal before he was assassinated and led to rocket fire which started Operation Pillar of Defense. ChrisAmiss (talk) 00:10, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
What "peace offensive"?? And the rocket fire 2008 never really stopped and Jabari was a terrorist till his last fucking moments.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 00:20, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Palestinians, more broadly the PLO, starting in the 1970s were warming to the idea of a two-state solution while Israel at that time did not and wanted to keep the territories to themselves (still do to an extent this day). Actually, the ITIC admits that Hamas kept rocket fire to a bare minimum, with only 10+ rockets being fired into Israel, and that's not including the daily attacks or incursions Israel may launch in Gaza if a fishermen dare try to have a livelihood or if a Gazan walks unknowingly into the buffer zone. And who is saying he was a terrorist? Would it be alright for Hamas to assassinate Netanyahu and not expect repercussions from it? ChrisAmiss (talk) 00:25, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Please excuse the break in the conversation. This is a reply to Arisboch. You are correct that Israel could completely annihilate the Gazans. So what? Why does that matter? That does not change the fact that they use indiscriminate tactics against enemies in civilian areas, for example treating any man between 15 and 50 as a possible enemy combatant. They then use that as an excuse to kill anyone they want. During the later part of the Gaza War last year, Israel launched a ground incursion into Gaza City, specifically Shuja'iyya. Israel had good control over where the engagements would be, and knew where the rockets were being fired from. So many innocent people were killed in this invasion. Israel was literally shooting at any Arab male who showed themselves there. Israeli soldiers have admitted this, and what would they have to gain by saying making up lies about their own country? The statements from Hamas like "kill all Jews" is something that naturally comes out of decades of imprisonment, starvation, and saturation bombing by flying robots for weeks on end. Of course some Black Panthers might say "the whites should die", but that doesn't make civil rights an illegitimate cause, to use a US analogy. Hamas does not have the power to kill all the Jews, and you know it. They could only kill 67 during the last conflict. They are pathetically weak in comparison, and yet you treat them like they're this powerful force capable of killing large numbers of people. That's just not true. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 00:45, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Btw, if anyone wants to post further comments on my political views, feel free to do so here[edit]

Man, Avenger really has a gift for derailing things, doesn't he? (talk) 05:23, 28 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

Okay, I have some time to comment. As I'm sure you do, I believe free speech is an essential principle we all must protect. However, we probably disagree as to the degrees and gradations that free speech ought to function in society with regard to its consequences. The US is generally good with free speech compared to the European countries and doesn't put anyone in jail generally for inciting racial hatred. However, I still believe it could be better with the way it handles speech that places a person under imminent threat (as the Supreme Court ruled with regard to an exception for free speech). I am committing the slippery slope fallacy, but I believe even if there's an intent to incite hatred imminently to the extent the person feels in danger or under duress, that the principle of free speech is too valuable to be negated in the hands of a state authority if hat authority abuses its power. For example, the espionage laws passed under Wilson were mostly meant to curb anti-war activism on the grounds of harming national security or placing the US in greater danger. Or, one could argue, though I think not persuasively, that Charlie Hebdo incited Muslim fanatics to commit violence and thus such speech should either be restricted or curtailed to protect the security of people. So, the free speech becomes a matter of weighing the principle itself versus the consequences/damages it poses to society. I am not comfortable with this dichotomy however, because it grants a legitimacy to a ruling power or state to flexibly interpret damage or consequences as it pleases/using it as a pretext to silence dissent. Ultimately, I still think the individual right trumps society's collective need for security so that the individual is protected from the obtrusive influence of government on matters of speech/political opinion. That may vary if we're talking traffic lights or health care which do provide a collective benefit. On matters of speech, however, the lines are blurred because you're dealing with abstract thoughts and statements that can vary so much as that it becomes difficult to put a quantitative measure on it (for example, what types of speech is harmful to a person cannot be readily answered; if you allowed drivers to do as they please without traffic lights, you probably could get a fair measure of car accidents). ChrisAmiss (talk) 06:34, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Accusing Charlie Hebdo if incitement? Shit, why am I not surprised to hear such shit form you??--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 14:24, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Chris accused no one of anything, sillyhead, or did you miss the "one could argue, though I think not persuasively" part? I, on the other hand, will boldly state that, yes, they did inadvertently commit incitement. And while we can have arguments over whether it was the prime purpose they had in mind (I personally rather doubt it was), it is a simple matter of fact that they knew of the potential consequences, including that French citizens could be targeted due to their actions, and clearly didn't give a shit. (talk) 17:24, 28 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
That's total blaming the victim!--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 17:50, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
No it's not. I'm not trying to justify the attacks or downplay the terrorists' responsibility. But that Charlie Hebdo were victims of an attack doesn't mean their conduct should be immune from criticism. I'm sure they'd agree with me on that point. (talk) 18:03, 28 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
I don't personally hold that Charlie Hebdo caused incitement. I mentioned it as a counterargument someone would bring to a debate in terms of whether certain forms of speech are seen to violate the collective right of people to secure lives free from terror. That's the argument as to why Hezbollah couldn't broadcast its TV station in France or the US on grounds that it caused incitement or the RTV that promoted incitement to ethnic cleansing in the Yugoslav wars. Though it's an imperfect analogy, one could argue (I don't agree) that Charlie Hebdo was seeking to provoke an attack that put people's lives at risk or provoke incitement towards Muslims/Islamists in a similar fashion and that what Charlie Hebdo wrote was not freedom of speech, but "fighting words". ChrisAmiss (talk) 18:17, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
I have just now come up with a litmus test for speech.... If speech is offenseive, it can fall into one of two (broad) categories. Category one is offensive speech that is likely to result in people wishing to kill you. This type of speech is the most important to protect. Type two is speech that is likely to make people wish to kill other people... For example the stuff Mr. Orban says about refugees, that leads to some dumbshits burning down refugees and their places of abode... This second type of speech we can do without Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:43, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
And what when the speech in question has both effects? (talk) 20:48, 28 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
"offensive speech that is likely to result in people wishing to kill you"
"speech that is likely to make people wish to kill other people"
Can you explain the difference between these two? I don't see it. ChrisAmiss (talk) 20:52, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
I imagine with "other people" he here means "people that aren't you" ('you' referring to the person expressing the speech). (talk) 20:55, 28 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
The effects are the same though in that it incites people to kill, regardless of numbers. ChrisAmiss (talk) 20:57, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
No. Maybe I should have been clearer... There is speech that is offensive (e.g. saying "Jesus was a charlatan and a fraud, the world would have been better of without him") but won't result in people going out killing the people I said offensive things about but rather the one uttering the offensive words. The other speech is incitement to violence against third parties (neither my audience nor myself). I don't think we ought to protect the latter. But protecting the former is an absolutely essential cornerstone of a truly free society Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:01, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
But what if there's social justice extremists that want to assassinate Viktor Orban for the greater good? Or what if Charlie Hebdo's incendiary publications that rile up Islamic extremists also inadvertently incite hatred towards Muslims among the non-Muslim French population? When the speech has both effects, which is to take precedence, the protection of offensive speech or the condemnation of hate speech? (talk) 21:39, 28 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
What kinda fuckheads go murder and arson because of some goddamn book or cartoon, anyway?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 21:45, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Mostly people who would not be a big loss if a bridge dropped on them... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:50, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
(EC) Many kinds ofWikipedia fuckheads, actually.Wikipedia The general unifying trend is that they're particularly passionate about one ideal or other. And thanks for totally detracting from my question. >.> (talk) 21:54, 28 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

To the owner of the page: I generally agree with your political sentiments, with the exception of this statement: "I don't at all support letting hate/violence-inciting speech or harmful misinformation gain legal immunity just for being 'speech'". It would seem to me the implication of your statement is that the government should prosecute and fine/jail/otherwise punish people or groups for publishing hate speech. I would like for you to elaborate and describe a situation in which you would support jailing someone for what they say, because based on the statement you made, I think I disagree with your overall sentiment. I agree that harmful misinformation (FOX News, etc.) should be given a close look at by the government, but as long as the government is directly elected and controlled by the people. In any government where that is not the case (America, Russia, China, India et al), I can't say I support taking legal action against any kind of speech that is intended to be hateful or violence-inducing unless it can be shown to lead directly to a crime. The case in which I would prosecute someone is this: say a right-winger in the US calls for abortion clinics to be firebombed/otherwise attacked, and it leads to someone burning an abortion clinic and killing the abortion doctors. If it can be proven that the individual(s) who commited the attack attended the rally or watched the speech somehow (in person or on the web), then I think the person who said for clinics to be attacked should be charged with accomplice to murder and accomplice to arson, and sentenced to something like 3 years in jail and 180 hours of community service. That's my idea of justice. But in the case of the Charlie Hebdo writers, no action should be taken in my opinion. Please respond with your thoughts. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 23:05, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Just to affirm: I could not disagree more strongly with 142 on this issue. The idea that the state should be empowered to decide which ideas are too hateful to allow is repugnant. Moreover, short of incitement to imminent violence I'm not giving those who dislike certain speech the veto over ideas by their reacting violently. ---Mona- (talk) 23:52, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
The subject of freedom of speech is continued at #My view on freedom of speech.
Discussion on other subjects may continue in this section. (talk) 18:14, 2 November 42015 AQD (UTC)

Iran is not surrounded by countries wishing to destroy it[edit]

Israel is and historically was. Israel has never attacked a country it had a peace treaty with. And in 1948m 1967 and 1973 it was simultaneously attacked by all of its neighbors... what was Israel supposed to do? Roll over and die? And I am not even going into the whole PFLP, PLO, Hamas and Bullshit mess... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 23:57, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

You are kidding right? Do you understand that the Gulf states hate the Shia and would love to see the only Shia (and Persian) state in the Middle East destroyed.--Owlman (talk) 00:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Bull fucking shit. Israel attacked first in 1967 by attacking Egypt and Syria. Nasser's troops were positioned in case Israel launched an attack, which it did anyway. Most of the scholarship agrees Nasser did not intend to launch an attack and that Syria/Jordan were trying their best to calm the situation. Hell, Moshe Dayan admitted that 80% of the conflict between Israel and Syria was because they sent tractors in DMZ's to provoke Syrian retaliation. In 1948, the Arab countries invaded mostly the ARAB STATE DESIGNATED in the partition plan rather than mostly invading the Jewish state. And that's not mentioning the Palestinians ethnically cleansed before then who were asking the Arab armies to intervene. And the greatest Arab army at that time in Transjordan seeked to preempt a Palestinian state by annexing it in collusion with Israel. Israel rejected Sadat's peace treaty in 1971 which led to the 1973 war. The 1973 war was an attack against a foreign army occupying part of their sovereign territory (Sinai), which is a bit different than attacking a country randomly. ChrisAmiss (talk) 00:02, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Oh boy, I've rarely seen worse bullshit told about the wars of Israel, not even from Mona or freespace3.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 00:09, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Bullshit? There's no bullshit here. Begin admitted in 1982 that Nasser was not going to launch an attack. The US and Israeli intelligence agencies agreed that Nasser posed no threat, and that even if he did attack, he would get his ass whooped. Dayan admitted that Israel was seeking to instigate a conflict in its DMZs between itself and Syria by sending in tractors 80% of the time. That's coming straight from the horses' mouths. ChrisAmiss (talk) 00:13, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
The one about Begin 1982 was carefully twisted by youWikipedia and the piece about Dayan admitting anything seems, judging by a cursory reading of the WP article, most likely propagandaWikipedia. Nice try, Chris, nice try.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 00:40, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Unlike most people, I like to rely on books rather than Wikipedia. I didn't twist what Begin said. Begin was a politician, he knew what he what was saying. A self-critical statement when it comes to historical analysis is more valuable than a self-serving statement (i.e. if Hitler admits in private that he wanted to provoke a conflict and then follows it up by saying the Poles were trying to instigate the conflict). Do tell me what these multiple acts of aggression were? Because if you're citing actions by Nasser before-hand through the removal of UN peacekeeping forces, then Begin clearly was contradicting what he said by admitting that Nasser didn't want to attack. And where does it say it was most likely propaganda? ChrisAmiss (talk) 00:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Also, look at your source and what Abba Eban, Israel's foreign minister said: "Nasser did not want war. He wanted victory without war". Again, straight from the horse's mouth. ChrisAmiss (talk) 00:51, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Last I heard, Saddam Hussein really hated Iran. He used devastating aerial raids, poison gas, and SCUD missiles because he was a Sunni Arab and he hated Shia Persians. The Taliban in Afghanistan were Sunnis who really hated Iran, and if they were allowed to take over all of Afghanistan and cement their control, they would be bad to Iran too. Pakistan isn't a big fan of Iran either, seeing as they've built many nuclear weapons capable of destroying Iranian cities. Azerbaijan is allied with Turkey, both of whom dislike Iran, in Turkey's case because Iran is Shia, and and Azerbaijan because it is Turkmen and Iran is Persian. ISIS wants to wipe Iran off the map, with all of its "kill all of the Rafidi Shias and slay their children" rhetoric and daily suicide bombing of Iran's Shia ally, Iraq. Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, and Oman don't like Iran either, seeing as they've spiked their military budgets and invaded and slaughtered Iran's Shia allies, the Houthis, in Yemen. And last but not least, America, who's politicans have openly mused about bombing, invading, and even nuking Iran. So I am shocked at your ignorance of the existential threat to Iran as a country. With all of these countries surrounding Iran that hate it and have fought it before, can you really blame Iran for fighting back by sending troops to Syria and Iraq to fight opponents who want Iran dead? When ISIS, with its army of tens of thousands of fighters and vast territory, calls for Iran to be destroyed and for all the Shias to be killed, can you really blame Iran for building a nuclear weapons program? When 2 of it's largest neighbors have been attacked and conquered by the largest superpower in the world, the USA, Iran is only trying to build nukes to defend itself. Iran is surrounded by countries that want to destroy it, and it has the right to fight back. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 00:11, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
It's a huge problem having someone as dense to reality constantly trying to edit bullshit into Israel-related articles. In all sincerity: I can't decide whether Avenger suffers from a severe deficit in logical and analytic cognitive skills, or whether he's simply driven by fanatical zealotry to hate facts and wish to avoid or obscure them.---Mona- (talk) 00:15, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
And let's look at Israel again. Jordan is ruled by a king who has not attacked Israel or threatened to do so for 40 years. The state of Lebanon has not attacked Israel for decades and has agreed to not attack Israel. The Saudi king and government, a US ally, has not attacked Israel ever in all of its history! The military dictatorship of Sisi in Egypt has been flooding Hamas tunnels and has not attacked Israel. The military Egyptian government is an ally of Israel. Syria, with its pro-Iran, anti-Israel rhetoric, has not even attacked Israel. The Sunnis in Syria haven't attacked Israel since the civil war started. Turkey has never attacked Israel! Hell, ISIS hasn't even attacked Israel, and ISIS is on Israel's border both in Sinai and the Golan Heights! Israel is the safest it has been since 1948. This idea that Israel is in mortal danger is a lie made by Jews to get more money, bombs, bullets, guns, planes, tanks, and food from wealthy US Christian donor billionaires so they can keep building their Jewish state. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 00:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Amen! (I fixed typo in your comment; changed date to 1948.) And, more money from Uncle Sam. Israel gets more military aid from us than any other country: $10.2 million a day. We Americans are paying -- up the ass -- for every war crime and human rights violation Israel commits against its Palestinian victims.---Mona- (talk) 00:42, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Israel gets more military aid from us than any other country: $10.2 million a day.- -Mona- [citation needed] --Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 00:45, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Here's your source. Put that in your pipe and smoke it. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 00:50, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Arisboch, when are you going to figure out that I virtually always have sourcing for I/P claims? read the whole page; much of the info is from the Congressional Research Service.---Mona- (talk) 01:03, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

"Iran is not surrounded by countries wishing to destroy it." Well, there is the fact that its principle international rival has invaded, overthrown the governments of, and occupied two of the countries that border it. kind of thing that makes a state nervous. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 05:54, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Who'd that be? Saddam? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 17:08, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
The United States. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 03:10, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Don't forget meddling in its internal affairs in the past to make sure the right leaders are in power. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 17:16, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, Avenger, that actually isn't a bad assessment on Iran's fear of Saddam since if Saddam did retain Kuwait he would have had access to a navy that could've invaded Iran. Besides that the Saudis have always hinted at there willingness to go nuclear, Pakistan has nuclear weapons and is no ally to Iran, the US, the one who has armed terrorists to fight Iran and previously overthrown their government, has nuclear weapons, and Israel has nuclear weapons, though this seems to be a counter measure for invasion then a first strike intention.--Owlman (talk) 18:12, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Saddam had to go (though the US decidedly botched the "what comes after" part) though given the recent surge of Iran, we might have "slaughtered the wrong pig" as Churchill is quoted with regards to Stalin... (On which he was wrong, Hitler was worse thaen Stalin). In the long term the only sensible policy with regards to Iran is: Regime change. Though we can definitely argue whether open warfare, sanctions or other means are the best way to achieve that... And we should avoid the Iraq-error of bungling the "what comes after" Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 18:18, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Say, if forcing regime change is such an acceptible agenda to you, why not apply it to Israel? ;) (talk) 19:55, 31 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
The US, silly. (talk) 19:50, 31 October 42015 AQD (UTC)

My view on freedom of speech[edit]

Continued from #Btw, if anyone wants to post further comments on my political views, feel free to do so here.

[will put something here shortly]

Any particular reason for nominating me for moderator?[edit]

Before I accept, I'd like to know whether you nominated me for any particular reason, or if I'm just part of a general nomination spree? I've raised the question om my talk page too, so perhaps it's more logical to deliver your answer there and archive this section, but I thought a post on your talk page more likely to be seen by you. ScepticWombat (talk) 12:42, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Left a reply on your talkpage. ;) (talk) 17:05, 3 November 42015 AQD (UTC)

A thought in good intention[edit]

Hello, 142! I think this is the first time I write to you on your talkpage, and I doubt it'll be the last - regardless of how "things go" here. I'm going to cut off the fat and go straight for the bacon. I really just meant to tell you that I haven't missed out on the rather friendly exchanges you and I have shared recently (I was, I dare say, surprised - but mostly genuinely pleased to see that you'd chosen to respond with such class to my post as you did, in the Mikemikev thread on Krom). Besides showing some general good humor. Now, I've never been afraid to call people out on (what I percieve as) bullshit, but I do try my best to outweigh that by actively paying attention to both the hits and the misses that all people make in their interactions with me. Despite my current userpage (which I personally find rather humorous) I'm really not much for "shitlisting" people beyond specifics that I can quote them on. And regardless, you've been very nice recently, of your own accord, and I have little motivation to cherrypick statements from people in any negative manner. So, in short, I'm less of a vindictive bitch than some people might trivially imagine. Anyways, the bacon - I just really meant to formally extend some kind of "generally nice gesture" to you, if nothing else than to say "Hey, I personally enjoy us being amicable, so let's cultivate that?". I would call it "extending an olive branch" if only I thought we had any type of major definable conflict going on, but I don't think so - nor have I ever meant to do anything but act in my own warranted self-defense (a disposition you do not need to share or even comment on in order to "accept" this "offer", for the record - I'm not asking you to "admit guilt", nor am I here to do so myself). And, as is my philosophy, I do actively intend to make myself vulnerable, partially since I actually think it's impossible to campaign for any meaningful, trustworthy altruism in the face of disagreement (regardless of "who did what") without first taking off your armor in taking that first step. Part of trust is to put yourself in a position where you can get dunked, and watch the other person simply decide not to do it. And as all "agreements" go, I expect us both to still voice our disagreements when we have them, and so on - obviously. I just mean that; my general goal here is to always pick discussions over conflicts and friends over enemies, and I try to focus on "making up" over maintaining fights, generally. And this is part of that. So, that's my two cents for you. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:37, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'm all for peace and not holding grudges etc. so I guess we're in agreeance then? Cheerio. (talk) 10:43, 7 November 42015 AQD (UTC)

"Or we could not jubilate over another human being having a rough time"[edit]

I'm sorry, but Ryulong always seems to be "having a rough time" whenever people disagree with him too much, even over the most trivial nonsense. Carpetsmoker (talk) 09:50, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I've never seen "jubilate" as a verb before today. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 09:53, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Nor me. I am stealing it.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 09:57, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't think I've ever seen it in any other use than as a verb... Carpetsmoker (talk) 09:58, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
"Jubilation" as a noun, sure, but never "jubilate" as a verb. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 19:28, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
jubilate LIVESWikipedia!!!--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 19:35, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
The intransitive form is archaic for sure. I like it :) . --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 10:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
I think there is a song I know where it appears rather prominently... Don't know for sure, though Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 13:42, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't know, if I can't be at the box Social we like to jubilate instead. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 14:57, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Eh, as long as people understand what I'm trying to communicate, it's legit language. (talk) 18:10, 4 November 42015 AQD (UTC)
That sounds like an accurate enough assessment, but that still doesn't justify the behaviour in question, in my opinion. (talk) 18:10, 4 November 42015 AQD (UTC)
Reminds me of the big shitstorm that hit Merkel when she dared to say "I'm happy that the mission to kill Bin Laden was successful".... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 19:19, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Not sure how those two things are supposed to be comparable, but sure. (talk) 10:42, 6 November 42015 AQD (UTC)


It's clearly not happening (not that I even did it in the apparent grandiose fashion described here). Would you restore my sysop bit please (considering I had removed it myself but then it somehow came back and then it was removed by someone else)?—Ryulong (talk) 19:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Also the commons images shit still isn't working and I've nuked some cookies, cleared caches, etc.—Ryulong (talk) 20:21, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, I dunno any other helpful suggestions. Just wait it out till it works again I guess. *shrugs* (talk) 20:42, 6 November 42015 AQD (UTC)
Also what about the mop restoring bit?—Ryulong (talk) 20:51, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Also about your mop, I might make a one-time exception regarding this, given the specific context applicable here, but first I have to ask: Do you personally think you really need a mop? Because it might be a good idea to try and do a while without it. I think conflicts would get out of control less fast, you won't have the temptation to overuse the tools and people won't get in a demop-remop fight if you do something controversial. (talk) 21:01, 6 November 42015 AQD (UTC)
There isn't much use for it seeing as any action I do take is almost immediately undone but when everyone has it and the fact I gave it up is frequently and hypocritically used against me. Ex. Edit summary here, protection here.—Ryulong (talk) 21:27, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I am your master[edit]

I have dominion over you and I shall be worshipped --MasterOfRationalWiki (talk) 18:51, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Or something like that. (talk) 18:53, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Lol. (talk) 19:37, 7 November 42015 AQD (UTC)
Hey, substantively Sorte is, as usual, full of shit. But I do question removing his comments as "trolling." Hell, if that were the case, I'd revert Avenger's every dropping on my page.---Mona- (talk) 16:46, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
I may be substantially full of shit, but that has to do with having a digestive system. As for the metaphoric „full of shit“, this too goes right back at you. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 20:17, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


I think this whole nude massages thing was a scam designed to attract clicks and nothing more! WalkerWalkerWalker 16:16, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I think you might be right! (talk) 16:20, 8 November 42015 AQD (UTC)
Hey, substantively Sorte is, as usual, full of shit. But I do question removing his comments as "trolling." Hell, if that were the case, I'd revert Avenger's every dropping on my page.---Mona- (talk) 16:46, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
You pissed enough at Slyngel to spam 143's talk page?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 16:50, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Avenger Droppings sounds like something out of a Marvel comic.--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 16:49, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
It is what it is. And yes, I'd consider the great majority of Avenger's droppings on your talkpage trolling as well. As for removing it; it seems to annoy him and drives him further into delusion-land, so it's win-win for me. ;) (talk) 16:52, 8 November 42015 AQD (UTC)
No win-win for you. Showing dishonesty and faking history just shows what you are. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 16:58, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
"Showing dishonesty and faking history" Hey now, that's your expertise, not mine. :P (talk) 17:03, 8 November 42015 AQD (UTC)
No, it's yours as evidenced by your actions. As for the „little one“ below, no mind reading is required. You can chew the cud, but that doesn't strain your brain too much. That you can speak almost leads me to believe in Chomsky's otherwise lunatic theories. Anyway, I think for the first time here, I'll just say outright, that you're so clearly my mental inferior that I'm somewhat surprosed. The gap isn't usually that wide. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 17:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Stop. Now. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 17:11, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Dang, don't think I've ever seen such a severe Dunning-Kruger effect before. (talk) 17:13, 8 November 42015 AQD (UTC)

It's not that. It's something entirely different. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 20:17, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

And you're still at it[edit]

You still think you're moderator material? Sorte Slyngel (talk) 16:56, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Hiding your shame is futile. It can still be dug up. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 16:57, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Haha, Sorte thinks they can mind-read. Think again, little one. :P (talk) 17:00, 8 November 42015 AQD (UTC)
Sorte, you are a vile prick; you lecturing anyone else about "shame" is hilarious.---Mona- (talk) 17:14, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Right back at you sweetie. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 17:35, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Serious problem[edit]

No doubt, AgingHippie will again remove things from the Black Lives Matter article that he doesn't like. He'll also again remove from that article's talk page discussion he also does not like, thus leaving the record of discussion incomplete. I have to go for a bit. In my strong view something is very wrong -- he may misbehave with utter impunity, and he knows it. If there is no united front to do something, he will not be made to follow the same rules and behavior protocoals virtually everyone else must. That's what it comes down to. The God of Abraham may not be a respecter of persons, but where AH is concerned, Paravant and others appear to be.---Mona- (talk) 20:23, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Global warming is a serious problem. What happens on the 25 000th most popular site on the internet is not a serious problem. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 20:33, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
It's not a website, it's a hashtag.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 20:36, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Last I checked, Rationalwiki was, in fact, a website. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 20:40, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
I was talking about BLM.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 20:44, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
I was talking about RW. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 20:50, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
(ec) @Mona: Did you ever hear about the concept of a double standard? Sorte Slyngel (talk) 20:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Global warming is a serious problem. What happens on the 25 000th most popular site on the internet is not a serious problem. Peace.- AgingHippie
Says the guy who CAN'T HELP BUT GET IN A HUFF when page content isn't neatly proportioned according to perceived proximity to the core subject and/or an article links too many news items for his liking and CANNOT FOR THE LIFE OF HIM SHUT UP ABOUT RECENTCHANGES.
Holy badoozzles on a stick. I rest my case. (talk) 21:26, 8 November 42015 AQD (UTC)
Please keep that promise - resting your case. It deserves a rest. AH is right although I'm rather surprised that he resorted to this formatting. But the storms in teacups here keep some users busy so they don't do any harm out there. RW is a good thing. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 21:33, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Duly noted[edit]

Hello, I'd like to invite you to discuss my most recent formatting edits to the Ayaan Hirsi Ali article. The discussion is avaliable here, and it is my intention that we drive towards expansion and improvement of this hit piece. There is nothing but formal disagreement from my side, but it is to be taken seriously. I'd appreciate if you not rollback or undo my changes for the time being (say, a rough 24 hour period?) due to the severely different legal nature of the two iterations, and the fact that this person isn't really hailed as a prophet by anyone we care about here, anyways. All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 04:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

coop case[edit]

Hey, that Dlagon Dlagon case hasn't been there very long. And last nite into today so many are preoccupied with events in Paris. I feel the voting should remain open another 48 hours or so.---Mona- (talk) 17:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Add to that, the voting is by no means completely lop-sided which would normally be the justification for such an early case closure..--TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 17:47, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Whatever. And here I thought you wanted people to stop paying attention to this lesser-importance issue, Mona. (talk) 17:53, 14 November 42015 AQD (UTC)
I do. But the case is already there. And the voting can't reasonably be considered over.---Mona- (talk) 18:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
It's been well over a day and the result was already obvious from the getgo. More time will just turn it into more of a dramafest. But if that's the direction you wanna go with... *shrugs* (talk) 18:40, 14 November 42015 AQD (UTC)
Discussions of banning somebody should not be done and over with in the space of a day, esp. if there are people saying "no". We don't summarily execute people in mock trials here. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 18:42, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't think the banning of this troll even merits a discussion. Also [insert copypasta of my previous post here]. (talk) 18:49, 14 November 42015 AQD (UTC)
While I think we should ban him, people are saying otherwise and unless you want to try your hand at the "I decide how thing go" game, you should know better. Remember, this wiki is incredibly reluctant to ban even trolls, and some o the hottest contentested coop cases were over these kinds of things. | Also the outcome isn't entirely obvious, given ,you know, "Yes" only has 3 more votes than "no". That isn't "speedy end" material. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 19:00, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
It was before the no-votes suddenly started appearing. And looking at how well-informed and reasoned those no-votes are, I could argue that it still is. But I don't plan on conflicting any fellow sysop on their actions. If other people want this to balloon out of proportions, so be it. *shrugs* (talk) 19:44, 14 November 42015 AQD (UTC)
Why go all snide? The no votes are well-informed; "yes" is just "we think he's an asshole trolling Ryu so let's ban him," based on about a dozen edits. Some of which were replies to others. And some are innocuous. But at the end of the day I don't care that much, only as to principle -- the principle that there is no articulated principle in support of this proposal.---Mona- (talk) 22:15, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Calling stuff like "Oh this just about a naming joke", "Ryulong is incredibly thin-skinned and baits trolls, so let's provide a platform for them so Ryu can get what's coming for him", "Paying any attention to this troll is absurd because Avenger and Ryulong. Also, there's no policy written down about this so we should do nothing." and "I saw Ryu's name so I'm arbitrarily gonna assert this is all about Ryu getting his panties in a bunch and call it a day" well-reasoned and informed is plenty of justification for going all snide. (talk) 00:26, 15 November 42015 AQD (UTC)

What happened[edit]

Is that I realized an article already existed on the subject, and then that our article was named badly. Sincerest apologies. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 02:31, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

No worries! ;) (talk) 03:54, 16 November 42015 AQD (UTC)

thanks for Trump fix.[edit]

Thank you. — Unsigned, by: Keter / talk / contribs

No prob. (talk) 05:00, 19 December 42015 AQD (UTC)


Could you possibly link one to your avcount? Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 18:29, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I suspect it's hypothetically possible, yes. ;) (talk) 18:32, 30 December 42015 AQD (UTC)
Is it also perhaps actually possible? 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 18:59, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Well, I don't want to give people the impression I can be reliably reached via email, but lemme work out an acceptable compromise for you. Just a sec. (talk) 19:18, 30 December 42015 AQD (UTC)
You can contact me at the following address: ;) (talk) 20:03, 30 December 42015 AQD (UTC)
Um, scratch that. It won't let me log in anymore for some reason. O.o (talk) 20:36, 30 December 42015 AQD (UTC)
Maybe DG can help? oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 20:41, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Maybe their servers haven't updated with my new account's login information yet? *shrugs* (talk) 20:45, 30 December 42015 AQD (UTC)
Let's try another one: (talk) 21:17, 30 December 42015 AQD (UTC)
The email option is still unavailable for you. The FCP Foundation (talk/stalk) 00:03, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
No, no, what I meant with "Well, I don't want to give people the impression I can be reliably reached via email, but lemme work out an acceptable compromise for you." is that I wasn't gonna put anything in the email box for this account. Instead you can email me directly at the earlier-mentioned not-striked-through address. If it's easier for you to send something to me, I can temporarily put the email in there, but as I said I don't want to give people the impression I can be reliably reached via email, so only temporarily. (talk) 00:34, 31 December 42015 AQD (UTC)

"This is just part of your secret scheme to merge RW into one page isn't it"[edit]

I had to laugh at that remark, since it then brought to my mind "What would that one article look like?" We might find out, as I might draft it somewhere in the funspace. Old guard (talk) 03:43, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I imagine it'd look a bit like this:

Fundamentalism is bad! Creationism is bad!

Yes! Yes!
Yes, agreed!

Pseudoscience is bullshit! Astrology is bullshit! Paranormal stuff is bullshit!

Yes! Yes!
Yes, indeed!

Racism is bad! White supremacism is bullshit!

Yes! Yes!
Yes, of course!

Sexism is bad! Homophobia is bad! Fuck gender roles and heteronormativity!

Yes! Yes!
Yes, indeed!
Sure, but do we really need to treat these subjects? We're not GenderWiki, right?

LessWrong sucks!

Yes! Yes!
Huh, what?

GG is bad!

Yes! Yes!
Meh, I don't really care.
Sure they're bad, but do we really need to bother covering it to this extent?
Bah, this is GenderWiki all over again.

Israel should stop oppressing the Palestinians!

Yes! Yes!
OMG, you antisemites!
Do we really need to cover this? I prefer not being confronted with complicated polical issues staying away from controversial issues like this one.
My eyes! The politics; it burns!!
*blink* *blink* (talk) 04:06, 5 January 42016 AQD (UTC)
At the start it looks suspiciously much like one of Plato's dialogues. --JorisEnter (talk) 00:37, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Hmm, maybe Plato was right about that anamnesisWikipedia thing after all, then. (talk) 00:53, 10 January 42016 AQD (UTC)

Stupid block talk[edit]

Ok, sick and tired of talking via jokeblock.

Even if you were to eliminate the differences in wealth and culture, which will obviously eliminate the bulk of the differences between 'races', there's still going to be some minor differences that impact what the "best" government programs are. Indo-Europeans and some Africans can and do consume dairy, while most of the world can't/don't. This means that your public health campaign to fortify milk with vitamin A and D isn't going to be too helpful for many of your Asian immigrants. The biggest problem with trying to discuss this topic is, once again, nearly everyone bringing up the topic is an asshat so it automatically triggers everyone's defensive mechanisms, and usually ends in flamewars. CorruptUser (talk) 06:10, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

You'd probably get a lot less flak in reaction if you framed it in the context of differing cultural customs instead of 'race', though. (talk) 06:45, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The problem is that it isn't cultural. There are minor physical differences that come through. CorruptUser (talk) 13:28, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Or maybe that one in particular is a cultural difference, just in part caused by biology, or a biological difference caused by culture... Which can probably explain most differences, sort of. CorruptUser (talk) 14:40, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Well, humans are a thoroughly social animal, so what the dominant culture's stance is towards, in this case, drinking milk, would have a significant effect on how useful a trait lactose tolerance would be for individual humans. (talk) 14:27, 13 January 42016 AQD (UTC)


I'd like an article, if you're in the write-y mood. 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 16:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Eh, I'd be more prone to write something about one of the politicians. Though I haven't been in a very write-y mood lately, I'm afraid. :/ (talk) 14:19, 13 January 42016 AQD (UTC)

Your opinion greatly needed[edit]

Your professional judgement as a moderator is needed here. If you are unaware of the background of this case, please read the whole thing first. Thank you for your time. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 23:21, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I did a thing. I hope it was a good thing. (talk) 20:08, 28 January 42016 AQD (UTC)


You seem to know what political positions Sargon wants reversed. The Reactionary article lists typical views of reactionaries, and I'm curious which apply. As you will have noticed, the article lists none while also violating common sense. You also seem to have a problem with the association fallacy. Could you elaborate why you rejected it? Thanks. ~ Aneris 16:57, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

You're free to raise your concerns on the talkpage and argue your points in good faith, there may be substance to some of them. Humorously making the article ridicule its own positions isn't helpful, though. (talk) 17:06, 7 February 42016 AQD (UTC)
You are probably a newbie here. Talk pages are for second class whiners only. Everyone has quickly figured out that they are completely pointless. People who own this wiki don't bother with talk pages at all, and just edit their stuff in and push it by majorty rule. I thought you have information you could add. Nevermind then. ~ Aneris 17:44, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Good luck getting majority support with that attitude of yours. :P (talk) 17:56, 7 February 42016 AQD (UTC)
I do the opposite, in fact. I'm currently looking for ways to speed up the divorce from the sceptics-rational-secular movement, since alternative projects are underway and most people in the community have a dim view of the RW. For the time being I try to make improvements, but I don't believe any are possible. ~ Aneris 18:52, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Eh, why bother marrying movements to begin with if you're not really invested in the relationship. (talk) 19:14, 7 February 42016 AQD (UTC)

Ryulong on WP[edit]

His disgusting behavior and bullying tactics are well documented (not linking because unfortunately dox is often dropped) at Wikipedia. Calling him "human trash" isn't even that inaccurate considering how he's driven countless people off the WP projects, and basically went on a doxxing crusade of his own against people who disagreed. брэндэн (talk) 07:21, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Addendum - I've seen how this wiki sheltered and enabled that abuser here, and it's only by the grace of mona that yall finally grew the balls to drum him out of here. брэндэн (talk) 07:22, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
What are you smoking, and can I have some? - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 07:24, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
You know perfectly well what kind of a person Ryulong is, and what he did to editors at WP, and I'm frankly disgusted by your shielding of him. брэндэн (talk) 07:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
You're right, I know perfectly well what kind of person Ryulong is. Which is why I know what you're posting is amazingly devoid of facts. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 07:36, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Have you even seen the things he did on the WP pages that he was controlling? Or his attempts to get the social justice community to act as his personal army? брэндэн (talk) 07:42, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
asl - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 07:43, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Lol, you know even Jimbo Wales denounced him right. брэндэн (talk) 07:48, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Oh and dont forget, Mona, an editor here, until recently, was also a target of Ryulong's harrassment. брэндэн (talk) 07:50, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
I didn't know we had users from Earth-2. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 07:51, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
[1] some of his choice edits, on this very wiki. брэндэн (talk) 07:54, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
For gods sake, learn to indent correctly. You're embarrassing yourself. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 07:56, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
This is clearly something you need to get out of your system, Brenden, so feel free to continue. I hardly check my talkpage anyway. Though perhaps starting a IHateRyulongWiki might be a thought worth considering. Peace. (talk) 07:57, 15 February 42016 AQD (UTC)
I don't get it, what did ryulong do that was so good that you feel compelled to defend him? брэндэн (talk) 07:59, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Sacrificed a million goats, boned a bunch of the prettiest dudes, and fed them sweet CabalBuks, to be sure. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 08:02, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
I suppose at least he isn't laurelai (although being better than a literal rapist is small praise) брэндэн (talk) 08:04, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
The reach of the Ryulong Cabal™ is vast and unceasing, with many a man and woman prowling across the depths of various wikis, their eldritch tentacles seeping in and infesting every core server, but alas, even it has no idea who you're talking about. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 08:07, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
(ec) I can't speak for 142, only for myself, but as someone who is obviously not a fan of Ryulong, calling him "human trash" is rather strong, to put it mildly. Is he a "trash wiki editor"? Sure. Is he a bully? Also yes. Should we reduce his entire personality to this single aspect of him? Perhaps not. I know a few people who are complete jackheads in their online persona, and actually quite okay in every day life. Internet dickwad theory? I don't know. Carpetsmoker (talk) 08:04, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't recall defending Ryulong in recent history. Though perhaps you were addressing Kitsunelaine, in which case: learn to indent correctly. (talk) 09:27, 15 February 42016 AQD (UTC)
He's a bully who tried to corral the social justice community on WP to attack his own personal opponents, and in the process, discredited our entire group and caused many of us to leave the project. брэндэн (talk) 08:08, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
uh huh - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 08:11, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Well seeing as you're the ideological police here, I guess I'll be kowtowing to the great and glorious ryulong on your behalf. брэндэн (talk) 08:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


...are you people arguing about some guy who has not edited here in a real long time? What good do you think will come of it? Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 09:29, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Because some people just can't let go. The internet reveals the depths of obsession. Alas. - Kitsunelaine 「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」 09:37, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Someone mentioned his name in the coop and now Brenden can't seem to shut up about him. Also, nice rhetorical question. ;) (talk) 09:38, 15 February 42016 AQD (UTC)

Is there peace?[edit]

I haven't seen you for a long time, and it is quite some while since we locked horns. Now that I'm taking a vacation, adhering to every stricture imposed on me, and I will probably do that much longer than a couple of months, can we say, that we have no unfinished business? We won't be best buddies anytime soon, but you seem to have your heart in the right place. Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 16:49, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Peace sounds great. Though if you feel like having a proper fisticuff, I'm up for that too. ;) (talk) 17:24, 15 February 42016 AQD (UTC)
Thank you so much! I've made all sorts of — let's not say enemies — but my reputation seems to be tarnished. That is not really my problem, unless I have been crude, which I have. But I have never hurt anyone here intentionally — I wanted certain articles no to be taken over on a whim. I'll gladly refrain from fisticuffs. The only time I've been involved in fisticuffs, it consisted of a single blow and I received it. I don't remember much about that. I was brought home unconscious by friends and woke up the following morning with a completely split upper lip. :-) Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 17:54, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Ouch. Guess it's a good thing you don't remember it, then. ;) (talk) 17:56, 15 February 42016 AQD (UTC)
I rather tend not trying to remember. But the was a silvery lining. As the lip healed I was left with a scar, after all it was split up to the nostrils, but the Invisible Pink Unicorn saw to it, that the scar is on the inside. :-) Cheers Sorte Slyngel (talk) 18:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC)


I vandal binned at the same time you were blocking. Up to you - feel free to parole from the bin. Looks like you recognise the IP after all. rpeh •TCE 20:40, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I guess both measures are appropriate. It's not like they were gonna make constructive contributions anyway. ;) (talk) 20:44, 28 February 42016 AQD (UTC)


P1: Grammar is the devil.
P2: The devil does not exist.
C1: Grammar does not exist.

Done and done! Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 00:17, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

But then how could you construct those sentences if grammar doesn't exist? Hmm, I smell a logical paradox. (talk) 00:30, 2 March 42016 AQD (UTC)
P1: Logical paradoxes are the devil. (etc., etc.)
I win! FuzzyCatPotato!™ (talk/stalk) 00:32, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
P1: You don't win.
P2: P1 is correct.
C1: Guess what? :P (talk) 00:35, 2 March 42016 AQD (UTC)
P1: Nuh uh!!! P2: Mom sez u gotta play nice Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 00:37, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Pfft, momma's boy. (talk) 00:46, 2 March 42016 AQD (UTC)
Ok ok ok
P1: We need words to write sentences in English
P2: We are capable of writing sentences in English
C1: Words exist
P1: Words in English require grammar
P2(C1): Words exist
C2: Grammar exists
Ok now I will put an end to the atheistic evilutionist kufr once and for all inshallah
P1: The word "God" is a word
P2(C1): Words exist
C3: God exists
P1: The word "God" in Arabic is Allah
P2(C3): God exists
C4: Allah exists
P1: If Allah exists, Islam is true
P2(C4): Allah exists
C5: Islam is true
Please go your nearest Masjid and say the Shahada before two witnesses, degenerate Western scum. Bear in mind not to become a Shia, Ahmadi, Sufi, Wahhabi, or reformist by mistake, such is worse than being a Christian (but not as bad as being a Hindu). Lord Aeonian (talk) 02:24, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Ah, but your last P1 ignores the most important attribute of God/Allah according to monotheism/tawhid: God/Allah is the most supreme, beyond any other entity, the sole determiner of the realm of the absolute. As such, God/Allah can never be fully comprehended by any human. Therefore, any religion which claims to possess any portion of perfect knowledge relating to the will or nature of God/Allah (or which acts as if it did) is committing blasphemy against the Supreme One and can be safely ignored. (talk) 13:34, 2 March 42016 AQD (UTC)
You are very clever my kafir friend, but you obviously don't know that the scholars have always considered the word of Allah in the Noble Qur'an to be incomprehensible to man. Hence why only those blessed by Allah with great knowledge can interpret it for the Ummah. In fact, the worthless Shia scum went astray because they believed that Allah grants such knowledge to bloodlines, rather than to those Allah alone chooses. Atheism debunked once more! Lord Aeonian (talk) 22:18, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
It's good to know not all scholars are blasphemously arrogant, but whether or not there are a select few to whom God/Allah has revealed the absolute truth is sadly irrelevant, as the general population will still be equally helpless in processing such truths. In addition, there is the problem of pretender-prophets, who cannot be absolutely distinguished from the real deal by any normal man due to the latter's lack of access to the realm of the absolute. And while I agree with your sentiment about the Shia position you describe, I cannot state absolutely that it is wrong, as surely the Supreme One has at least the ability to award knowledge to whole bloodlines as they see fit. (talk) 23:20, 4 March 42016 AQD (UTC)
Once more very clever, but you forget that we have all these answers as provided in the Most Noble Qur'an. Even if the general population - no, even if everyone - was unable to comprehend it, it would still be the revealed word of Allah. In order to play these silly games about why Allah would allow or not allow such and such to understand His knowledge, you must first admit that His knowledge exists! As for the "pretender-prophets," the kafir Ahmadis (and, to a lessor extant, the Shia themselves) have fallen for such nonsense, but the True Believers have seen through their lies, as usual. True Believers venerate ibn Wahhab and the Salafi truth, the original way of the Sahaba, instead. And now, I shall disprove atheism and Mormonism and Veganism and whatever else the kuffar believe. You see, the Most Noble Qur'an is like an onion. Unlike the fabricated Christian Gospels, Hindu vedas, and whatever the Sikhs have, the Most Noble Qur'an is amazing because one could study it an entire lifetime and learn new things. However, one of the first layers of this onion is the rule against bid'ah, or innovation in religion. Anyone can see this is, even a child who reads Allah's message. Kalaam is also forbidden, but it's probably ok to use that if you are debating an atheist. The Athari school, which preserves the way of the Ummah, and the Hanbali school of jurisprudence, which follows the original laws, are clearly the only acceptable options. If Allah did not exist, there would be many options, all equally strong, and no scholar could choose between them! The great scholars Ibn Hanbal, Ibn Taymiyyah, and Ibn Wahhab all reminded the Ummah of the simple, first layer of the Qur'an fact that bid'ah is wrong. Now, some foolish people say, "Why would Allah want the whole world to live as 7th century Bedouins?" But the answer is simple - if Allah wanted us to change, why is the Qur'an the final revelation to mankind? Allah would keep sending revelations if he wanted constant change! Now, contrast this simple truth to the thousands of denominations of Christianity, the many interpretations of Hinduism, the esoterism of Judaism. Contrast it with the mental gymnastics atheists must do, to deny the existence of an all powerful omnibenevolent creator who talks to influential tribal leaders in the desert. Even a fool could see that the Athari school of Sunni Islam is true, and everything else is false. Lord Aeonian (talk) 04:27, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

RE: Christina Hoff Sommers[edit]

It kinda isn't. Unlike the accusations against, I dunno, Hitler, this one is pretty well sourced. Check the article. Zero (talk - contributions) 22:47, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I've read most of the article before. Sure, many of her positions could be a significant deal more feminist and she's intermingled with some sketchy groups, but last I checked feminism isn't a unitary, rigorous, dogmatic ideology. How can we justify labeling the more conservative feminists "anti-feminist" (and claim we're not committing any NTS-fallacy) while at the same time criticizing fundies for committing the NTS-fallacy when denouncing other people who identify as belonging to the same faith as 'not true believers'?
Either way, though, it was my impression both versions of the paragraph in question conveyed the same content and denouncement of Christina Sommers as 'not really committed to feminism', but the reverted version was less "neener neener, we're not gonna call you a feminist" about it. (talk) 23:39, 13 March 42016 AQD (UTC)

A little note[edit]

Thank you for your (chances are probably unfruitful) attempt to resolve the currently ongoing edit war. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 03:01, 12 April 2016 (UTC)


Just lock the page for now. Nevermind.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 03:34, 12 April 2016 (UTC) 03:34, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

It's like you read my mind. :) (talk) 11:14, 12 April 42016 AQD (UTC)


Thanks for that. rpeh •TCE 20:44, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

No prob. ;) (talk) 20:46, 17 April 42016 AQD (UTC)

Threats to RW[edit]

An editor is thinly threatening to call others and brigade the site because they aren't getting their way, isn't this problematic at all? Lord Aeonian (talk) 02:05, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Of course it is, but last time I heard the job of a moderator is to do as little as possible. *shrugs* (talk) 02:09, 18 April 42016 AQD (UTC)

Just curious[edit]

I was just wondering if you'd be willing to elaborate on why you moved from "progressive liberal" to "regressive liberal." The position just never made sense to me. I've give you an example:

In the U.S., the Christ-worshipers try to ban abortion. I presume (?) you oppose this. Why? Isn't their perspective valid, and their beliefs real for them? And since all perspectives are valid, how could you oppose them? The typical response is that they are trying to infringe on what others do, which infringes on everyone's right to have their own perspective and actions. But this is affirming a perspective - liberalism - over other perspectives, such as Christian dominionism. Furthermore, why does the West refuse to interfere with theocracies like Saudi Arabia? These states certainly restrict perspectives and ideas which disagree with the state's official mantra. It seems to be that, at some point, a relativist has say some position is better than some other position, or risk having no opinion at all, since everyone else's opinion is so valid. So I don't see a point in being a relativist in the first place. It makes much sense to me to assume some ideas are better than others, and then discuss with followers of other mantras to see which is best. Lord Aeonian (talk) 01:25, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Why I went from absolutist social progressive to relativist pluralist? Simple, I was on a quest for truth and reason and reality hit me in the face. Overt double standards when comparing different cultures, accepted moral ideals recurrently conflicting, and the simple and self-evident truth that morality is merely a subjective construct of the mind and of human society. In the end it all comes down to what things give us a fuzzy feeling and what things give us anti-fuzzy feelings, and what those things are can vary from person to person, both subtly and substantially. Note that this doesn't mean relativists can't have personal moral preferences or opinions on others' moral codes; it just means they don't assert these to be of an objective/absolute allure. (This also serves as a convenient intellectual excuse for when it turns out said preferences don't all neatly fit into 1 coherent, logically consistent moral framework.) (talk) 01:18, 14 May 42016 AQD (UTC)
"In the U.S., the Christ-worshipers try to ban abortion. I presume (?) you oppose this." You assume partly correctly and partly incorrectly. You see, personally, I'm very much anti-abortion. The common brutal practice of fetus destruction seems almost as barbaric to me as the practice of forcing female genital mutilation onto little girls. A piece of developing human tissue is violently excised, robbed of a future, robbed of the potential to brave unique and joyous experiences, without the consent of the person who could've had the pleasure of experiencing the latter. Unfit Spartan babies at least got to savour the taste of wine before meeting their end. But I'm not so arrogant as to suggest my singular opinion should be forced onto others and made into law. Likewise, I'm also opposed to groups trying to force their moral code down other people's throats. (talk) 02:36, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Totally my opinion on abortion, too. At one hand, I hate abortion in all cases except danger for the expecting mother's life or sanity, but I also don't think, that anyone has the right to stop her from getting an abortion, that the medical insurance companies should provide this service (no matter what religion their bosses profess. If your religious view conflict with providing abortion, get over it or get off the market!) and that there should be organizations providing this service to women who can't afford it (such as Planned Parenthood). Anything else will bring back the era of back-alley quacks doing abortions and you can see it live in countries, where abortion is illegal how "good" that works.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 13:35, 14 May 2016 (UTC) 13:35, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
"Furthermore, why does the West refuse to interfere with theocracies like Saudi Arabia?" Because Western countries, like most other countries, are self-interested foremost rather than principled. And Saudi Arabia specifically is a notable US ally, of course. Just look at Europe which, despite its proud human rights history, is freaking out over masses of refugees arriving and potentially requiring humane treatment. And sadly for the latter group, EU governments can get away with ludicrous things as long as you don't have the right piece of paper. (talk) 03:09, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
This is probably dumb but what is the difference between moral relativism and moral subjectivism? Also, correct me if I am wrong, but I would assume from your answer on abortion you are comfortable with some abortion restrictions?--Owlman (talk) (mail) 03:39, 14 May 2016 (UTC) 03:39, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
The two terms are typically interchangeable, though there's a nuanced difference. Relativism says that there is no objective, universal standard for right and wrong (i.e. moral universalism is false), while subjectivism says moral statements don't relate objective facts about the world (i.e. moral realism is false) and instead refer to attitudes or conventions of humans. (talk) 04:18, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
And yeah, I'd support some abortion restrictions, but I wouldn't want them forced onto people. (talk) 04:34, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Philosphically I am an anarchist so I don't think I could accept any restrictions on abortion since that would violate someones self-ownership. I would never encourage abortion, though, but I think you have to go after the root cause in order to prevent. I would have supported something like the Pregnant Women Support ActWikipedia with possible exception to "abortion counseling" since idk what that is. I don't really have a moral philosophy because I am too lazy to read anything philosophical but I would describe myself as libertine.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 15:08, 14 May 2016 (UTC) 15:08, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
What about people's right to self-regulate, though? If a community decides "we don't do abortions", who's to force them to do otherwise? This is functionally indistinguishable from a nation encoding abortion restrictions into law, except the latter more overtly asserts a veneer of normative objectivity. Freedom is a funny thing; one person's freedom can easily conflict with another's. Even if you could devise a specific form of maximally free society, if that were the only society people could choose from, that'd be a rather restrictive situation (paradoxically enough). That's why I'd want a diverse pluralist world, with people being able to choose what society they want to be part of and what moral code they want to abide by. And yeah, that act sounds pretty good. (talk) 18:56, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Fuck that kinda community, since it'd restrict the reproductional rights of it's members.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 19:23, 14 May 2016 (UTC) 19:23, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Sure, but what community you're a member of doesn't need to be set in stone. Ideally, joining a new community should require minimal effort and face hardly any resistance. Preferably, communities should also be far less location-bound than they currently are. Also, I've always found it interesting (and at times grimly amusing) how one-sided people's interpretation of 'reproductive rights' usually is (that is, as anti-reproduction, pro-abortion rights). (talk) 19:43, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Anti-reproduction? Ain't it the normally wingnuts, who're against in-vitro fertilization, surrogate mothers and such stuff (together with the hard green elements of the moonbats) for it being "unnatural" or some such horseshit, just llike they're against measures who'd lower the unwanted pregnancies and thus the need for abortions (sex ed and easily available contraceptives)?--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 20:05, 14 May 2016 (UTC) 20:05, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, wingnutters are as morally coherent as your average crazy person. But that doesn't change the fact that "reproductive rights" is almost always a euphemism for "abortion abortion abortion", at least in most American contexts. By the way, I'm all for making contraceptives widely available and actually educating people about these things (as opposed to trying to indoctrinate them into an abstinence-only mindset), in case you had any doubts about that. (talk) 20:20, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
I believe you have a right to an abortion. Rights shouldn't overlap others so a community can't ban abortion in my view.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 22:01, 14 May 2016 (UTC) 22:01, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Except that people's rights almost inevitably do overlap and conflict with each other. The right to be free from bigotry conflicts with freedom of expression, the right to a dignified life ending can conflict with the right not to be forced to kill another human being, etc. To the point, a person may have a right to an abortion, but if people also have a right not to be coerced into performing an abortion and there's no one around that wants to perform the abortion, chances are someone's rights are going to be infringed. And communities are just groups of people; those people don't somehow lose their rights by grouping together. (talk) 22:23, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
The community doesn't get the right to violate the minorities within it. Assuming no one was going to perform the abortion then no one's rights would be violated if the person didn't get an abortion. You have no right from bigotry or to a dignified end. You simply have a right to die.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 22:32, 14 May 2016 (UTC) 22:32, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
"The community doesn't get the right to violate the minorities within it [...] You have no right from bigotry" So people don't have the right to discriminate against minorities, but then they suddenly do? You know, rights can be arbitrarily asserted and rejected, but I see no logic in both rejecting and asserting something at the same instance. (talk) 22:48, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
I may not like bigotry but I have no right from it. The community has no right to restrict a bigots free speech but a community may cast that person out. For example, a business may eject their CEO for their bigotry but they can't persecute them.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 22:55, 14 May 2016 (UTC) 22:55, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Hmm, and banishment isn't a punishment then? Legally speaking there is of course a difference between the private actions of citizens and the legal proceedings of the judicial branch of government, but in a moral and a philosophical-naturalist sense, is there really a meaningful distinction between socially-enabled humans condemning and punishing a fellow human being when they represent an official legal institution and when they do not? (talk) 23:11, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Well I don't see banishment to be the same as persecution. I think that there is a difference since a company, theoretically speaking, can't wield as much power against someone compared to the state. Like I said earlier, though, my arguements will be ill equipped since I haven't study much philosophy.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 23:36, 14 May 2016 (UTC) 23:36, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
It's not necessarily persecution, but historically persecution often entailed social exclusion, so it's hard to argue it can't potentially fall under it. I'd also disagree that companies can't be more powerful than governments. The distinction between the two isn't necessarily relevant either way; both are human organizations guided by personal and collective aims. (talk) 00:10, 15 May 2016 (UTC)


Add the Sanders article to it too, please. Typhoon (talk) 15:07, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Took you long enough. Typhoon (talk) 15:29, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm not constantly looking at my computer screen, ya know. (talk) 15:31, 17 May 42016 AQD (UTC)

Balance fallacy[edit]

It's practically the same as appeal to moderation. Withoutaname (talk) 21:37, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

It's one form of it, but "balance fallacy" as a term is much broader than that. See the "teaching the controversy" stuff, for example. (talk) 22:21, 19 May 42016 AQD (UTC)

Rule change[edit]

Can you propose the rule change, please? Make it something like: "change 3 months after registration date to 3 months after first edit. Pbfreespace (talk) 00:04, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Sure, no prob. ;) (talk) 00:30, 4 June 42016 AQD (UTC)
Ah, forgot about this. Was gonna wait a bit for the coop to settle down first, but now I'm not sure it's still worth the effort. (talk) 23:51, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

"is she also determined to translate these leftist views into actual policy?"[edit]

Yes, her to-the-left of Obama views are supported by her voting record. Typhoon (talk) 07:45, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

You don't like sports?[edit]

Or is it only those listed you dislike? Laurogeita Hamabost (talk) 20:42, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I generally dislike sport and I especially loathe the media's overblown focus on it. (talk) 20:47, 21 June 42016 AQD (UTC)

Nomination for RationalMedia board election[edit]

You've been nominated to the RationalMedia Foundation election. Please accept or decline here; if you accept, you may wish to campaign. Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (talk/stalk) 18:55, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Clown car[edit] — Unsigned, by: Can't sleep clown will eat me / talk / contribs

Clown car! Can't sleep clown will eat me (talk) 21:27, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Sigh. (talk) 21:33, 28 June 42016 AQD (UTC)

Aye or nay.[edit]

Really, votes should be yes or no. It's not clear if you can vote for more than one, and more options is confusing. Stop this madness. There's no majority if one person votes for each of six options, and hence no decision. Taba (talk) 21:47, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I explained it pretty well here, I think. There's also the "Pick 1 option" under each of the votes, in case that wouldn't be clear otherwise. (talk) 21:53, 28 June 42016 AQD (UTC)

Voter Fraud[edit]

One party in the current coop case is fixing the vote by stating the vandal-bin time as "0 seconds". Can you please do something about this? PBfreespace (talk) 22:14, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not "fixing the vote"; that's a nonsense statement. I am providing the predetermined timeframe I consider to be adequate. --Castaigne2 (talk) 22:19, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
The question asks "if there is a binning", though. A binning of 0 seconds is the same thing as no binning, so it doesn't apply to the question. (talk) 22:23, 28 June 42016 AQD (UTC)
"Mr. X, you get to say how much you want to pay in taxes" "I'l pay negative one trillion percent!!" See the issue here, moderator? PBfreespace (talk) 22:24, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Can you strike all votes that call for 0 seconds? PBFЯЗЭSPДCЗ (talk) 22:25, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
I would, but first I need to see if David isn't gonna stab me in the back when I try to keep things orderly. (talk) 22:28, 28 June 42016 AQD (UTC)
I'm really confused as to why you see that as an issue. If you ask me how much I want to pay in taxes, that's pretty much what I'll say. If you don't want an honest answer, don't ask the question or don't provide a choice.
If you want me to lie, you'll need to tell me what you want my lie to be.
By the by, you are confused about what "vote fixing" and "shystering" is. Vote fixing is when you rig the vote so that it comes to an outcome that you have determined ahead of the vote. Not only do I not have the ability to do that, it would be remarkably hard to do unless you were a moderator using many long-term sockpuppets. Shystering describes someone who tricks money out of someone else. Don't seem to be doing that either. --Castaigne2 (talk) 22:37, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Be bold. Don't worry about David stabbing you in the back. If he thinks we should hold another vote even though we just had one, let him. It won't do much to improve his image. Just remove the "No" votes, or better yet declare them invalid. PB (talk) 22:45, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Still around?[edit]

Haven't seen you in the recent changes feed for a while. Well, take care buddy! All the best, Reverend Black Percy (talk) 10:19, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I took a bit of a vacation from RW. But I'm sorta back now. ;) (talk) 10:24, 11 September 42016 AQD (UTC)
As we all need and deserve sometimes. Welcome back, anyhow! ^^ Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:08, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

You've been nominated as a moderator[edit]

You've been nominated in the upcoming moderator elections. See the nomination at RationalWiki:Moderator elections/Nominations. FuzzyCatPotato of the Minuscule Pralines (talk/stalk) 04:21, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Guess I was inactive at the time, but thanks for thinking of me. ;) (talk) 02:27, 12 November 42018 AQD (UTC)

This shit needs to be archived[edit]

I'm serious, look at this mess. You inquisitors can't even blam simple heresy. K0rnsbl0dLet the galaxy burn!"Kill!Maim!Burn!" 11:55, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for motivating me to keep this shit around for some time longer. :D (talk) 02:18, 12 November 42018 AQD (UTC)

that was 100% trolling, please reban[edit]

It's not mop abuse to stop people from actively trolling, it's a listed short term block reason for a reason. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:08, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

4 days for a sarcastic comment pointing out your reaction is precisely what Trump expects and desires from his opposition? Hmm, colour me unconvinced. If it's any consolation though, I don't plan on editing in the coming days. Don't feed the troll is good advice. Perhaps I should start following it. (talk) 18:18, 15 October 42018 AQD (UTC)
Good post! Nerd (talk) 18:42, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, that was appropriate. "Sarcasm" doesn't mean saying stupid asinine things you genuinely believe. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 18:22, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

The blocking[edit]

That was friendly fire. I was aiming at that "Daliwhatever" guy and hit the wrong button. Sorry about that. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 19:32, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

No worries! (talk) 20:37, 19 November 2018 (UTC)


You have been removed from the Tech user group for inactivity. Per the RationalWiki:Community Standards, users who have been inactive for more than 2 years are removed from tech to prevent abuse. If you want to be re-added, open a topic on RationalWiki:Requests for user rights. Your tech rights can be returned without having to go through the process for new techs. Rabbitseatcarrots (talk) 13:39, 28 September 2022 (UTC)