User talk:Andrew5

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Archives for this talk page: <1>, (new)



Uncyclopedia[edit]

We I miss you. It's Farmhand, BTW! (talk) 23:10, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

You were right to cross out the we. ShabiDOO 07:56, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Could you do this somewhere else, not on my talk page? Andrew5 mobile (talk) 13:18, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

What's up[edit]

I see you're a weather nerd. I was wondering if you'd know much about the future of climate change in China, an area which happens to have insnared my academic interest (historical/cultural interest, not so much meteorological interest). You've definitely heard about the Henan floods, but I was wondering if I could get some uncommonly educated insight out of you. Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 04:53, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

I've heard of the Henan floods, partially caused by Typhoon In-faWikipedia. I don't know as much on China as other countries, but depending on what it is I may be able to help. I moreso do it with North America and to some extent Europe, Africa and South America. --Andrew5 (talk) 12:16, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Well I suppose it's only natural that you'd be most informed about the area you inhabit. In that case, I'll adjust my question to your area of expertise. How do you think rising sea levels and worsening wildfires/hurricanes will effect the future of United States politics? Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 20:21, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Whichever political party takes it more seriously. Part of why Barack Obama won with such a landslide here in the Northeast was because of Hurricane Sandy. Part of why Trump lost, was climate change.--Andrew5 (talk) 20:40, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Do you think that the West/East coasts could ever become too hostile to inhabit? If so, could ecological catastrophes like that exacerbate pre-existing political instability? It's just that people tend to be pessimistic about United States politics, some going as far as predicting a Soviet-style dissolution. I'm wondering if climate change could contribute to that possibility. Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 20:57, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Depends. Certainly Florida and Delaware could sink due to Global warming, and hurricanes will likely continue to wreak havoc on Louisiana, Texas and possibly even Mississippi, Alabama, North Carolina and elsewhere. Besides low lying areas in the Northeast, I think they will be spared. Could climate change contribute to it? No, because our constitution forbids it. However, it could lead to Democrats dominating in US politics for a while, similarly to the 1930s and early 1940s, or what Republicans did during the 1920s. --Andrew5 (talk) 21:01, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Well I can see that hurricanes are what you understand best. I live in British Columbia, so the extreme weather I'm familiar with would be wildfires, although it isn't nearly as bad here as it would be down south (California). Would you know much about the qualitative differences between how wildfires and hurricanes damage ecological stability or human infrastructure? Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 21:13, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm not too good, but I know wildfires burn things and hurricanes is more-so break things. I also know, that fires were created by a massive heat wave, just 2 months ago, where parts of British Columbia got as high as 121°F or 49°C. (Funnily enough, night was 69°F or 21°C, so....) I do know South Lake Tahoe is getting devistated, and it is causing issues. It did get down into the 30s last night (or just lower single digits in Celsius), and tonight is going to be just one degree above freezing,hopefully that helps.--Andrew5 (talk) 21:20, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Well, I suppose that all we can do is hope it gets better. It's interesting seeing someone as interested in weather/meteorology as you, I don't think I've encountered someone like that before. Nebuchadnezzar7658 (talk) 21:27, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
If you go to Wikipedia, and their WikiProject for tropical cyclones, it currently has 115 members, although weather only has 23...I used to be in WP:WPTC on HurricaneTracker495 before getting blockedWikipedia for being a sockpuppet and block evasion.--Andrew5 (talk) 21:29, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

For being unable to wait a couple minutes[edit]

Rainbow trout transparent.png Whack!
You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Somebody just wants to let you know you did something silly.

I was obviously working on starting the debate. Plutocow (talk) 16:43, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

And the AFD wasn't even formatted the right way, well, I'll try to fix it. --Andrew5 (talk) 16:44, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Death penalty discussion[edit]

Let's continue it here so we may each respond at our leisure. What positive social effects does the death penalty have? Why should I support it? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:46, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm not saying you should, @GrammarCommie, I'm saying I do. Looking at this article, it is just being used improperly. A four year old literally had an entire life, and lost it due to murder. They deserve it. --Andrew5 (talk) 23:00, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
I don't think such moralistic arguments are very good. US military command signed off on a drone strike that killed seven people, including at least one child. Do they deserve to die? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:03, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Depends. Were they attempting to save a country from invasion? Or just to be mean? As an aside, the answer should be to cause less civilian deaths, but sometimes are unavoidable when attempting greater good, However they had nothing good to do by killing a 4 year old and most would say they deserve to die. --Andrew5 (talk) 23:07, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
The US military doubled down on that drone strike after it became an embarrassment. Also, serial killers aren't just cartoonish "bad guys". Usually they're lashing out, or promoting a cause, or detached from reality. So, what's the difference? Why shouldn't we execute political leaders? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:26, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
I'll remind you that at least one child was killed in said drone strike. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:44, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
I heard. But was this drone strike in an attempt to free Iraq from terrorists? If so, great! If not, then they should be punished, albeit not sure if death is appropriate. It depends. I'd definitely say, though, it is inconsistent. --Andrew5 (talk) 00:09, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
It didn't even happen in Iraq. Also, your understanding of geopolitics seems a bit juvenile. Plutocow (talk) 00:20, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
@Andrew5 So let me ask you another question then. Do you think the legal system should enforce morality, or do you think it should enforce law? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:41, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Law,easily. But sometimes mortality is necessary to enforce law. It's sad...but true. --Andrew5 (talk) 01:12, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
So what if the most legally effective thing is, in your view, immoral? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:33, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
I’d say it depended on how necessary it is legally and how immoral. Think of how heartbreaking the story is and whatnot. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 10:46, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Why? The legal system isn't in the profession of providing sympathy, as you yourself acknowledge. It is in the profession of enforcing a set of rules and standards, nothing more. Be the story heartbreaking or be it not, all should be judged without favor or zeal. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 10:58, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Side discussion[edit]

Andrew, would you be in favour of the state chopping off the hands of serial thief's? Would you be in support of amputating a criminal's leg if they chopped off say, an ex-girlfriend's leg as some revenge for leaving him? ShabiDOO 00:18, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

No. Although these analogies are getting a bit ridiculus, complex and irrelevant. I mean, would you want Dzhokhar TsarnaevWikipedia still alive? --Andrew5 (talk) 01:11, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Really Andrew? Why is it ridiculous. Why is chopping off a hand ridiculous but murdering someone not? ShabiDOO 01:34, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
@Shabidoo Please stop calling execution "murder". It isn't. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:36, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Indeed you are right commie. I should be using "homocide". Good catch. ShabiDOO 01:45, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
@Shabidoo You should be using "killing", not legal terms. It does no one any favors by trying to conflate legality and morality. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:48, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Homocide is not a legal term commie, and I would prefer to hear Andrew's response than disagreement over terms. ShabiDOO 01:58, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Homicide seems to be a legal term, but "when one human being causes the death of another" is perhaps even broader than killing. Either way, I'm not sure why you jump to amputations for less severe crimes; would amputating limbs from Tsarnaev be justified? Would it be too much, not enough? It seems possible that somebody could think that theft doesn't justify amputations, but that murder, say, justifies execution, but it seems more difficult to maintain that cases wherein execution is thought to be justified are also cases where amputation would be prohibitively cruel. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 talk 02:49, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Dictionary entry: the killing of one person by another. I don't see anything in that definition which makes it a "legal" term. In the first scenario I am referring to an example which happens in some Islamic countries (amputation for theft) and in the second scenario it is a "tit for tat" punishment. I thought it would have been obvious for anyone familiar with examples of sharia punishment but I guess I should have been more clear. Again though, I would like to hear Andrew's answer in any case instead of bickering over one of the least important terms and questioning why I am using an analogy before I even get to my point. ShabiDOO 08:40, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Ok, well I was asleep for the last like eight hours (it’s still well before seven). Anyway, would I view chopping hands off of thieves practical? No. Or the other one? Well, that’s a bit more complicated. I’d still say no, but they might have killed her, justifying life in prison. In most cases, murder justifies just that. But sometimes people go above and beyond there murders, and think the murder of very small kids for no reason, or the murder of 10 people. That’s when the death penalty is needed. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 10:44, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Andrew. Could you explain why you answered no to those? ShabiDOO 11:12, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Because in those cases, it's completely impractical (and for the thief, they can still steal with legs). In some cases, the death penalty is not impractical, and is reserved for the worst of crimes. Btw, what you said is what they used to do in ancient Mesopotamia. --Andrew5 (talk) 12:13, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
So practicality is what matters as opposed to retribution? ShabiDOO 12:29, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Both matter, equally as much.Andrew5 (talk) 13:09, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
If they are both equally as much then I don't understand how an amputation would be that different in either case. Let's take robbery: While chopping off one of their hands doesn't completely stop someone from physically robbing again, it certainly makes it somewhat more difficult. Unless they go to incredible lengths to adapt, there will be at least some forms of physical robbery that cannot be done anymore (for example sophisticated pick-pocketing), not to mention it will be more difficult to convince other criminals to cooperate with them in physically stealing things. It isn't ideally practical, but it is practical to some extent. You could for example blind the prisoner and then it would make stealing in the future extremely difficult (though not impossible). In fact, I would argue that blinding the prisoner would be more practically effective as jailing them for 10 years, as long jail sentences are not effective deterrents either. In the case of someone chopping off another person's arm (either as torture or the unfortunate result of an attack), having one less arm will make it pretty difficult to do it again in the future (more so than theft) and chopping off both their arms will make it extremely difficult, blinding them will make it an extremely practical solution. Both examples are also clearly quite retributive and satisfy some human beings fairly dark and primitive lust for revenge and the criminal suffering terribly. But the only practical punishment you seem to be entertaining here is if they are never able again to commit the crime again in public. I am not going to debate whether this is reasonable when there are almost as practical alternatives (such as blinding a prisoner), but if keeping them from committing the crime again towards the public is one of the two most important goals, then wouldn't life long solitary confinement keep them from both attacking the public AND attacking fellow prisoners? And wouldn't that also be a particularly vicious punishment, enough to satisfy the lust for making that criminal suffer terribly? ShabiDOO 13:23, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
[ec] I didn't think about it that way. My support for the death penalty has weakened, but I believe in extreme cases it could be appropriate. Definitely to be used sparingly, few and far between. Like at Terre Hutte, from 2003 to 2020 there were no executions, as there should be.Anyway rn I am busy IRL.Andrew5 (talk) 13:27, 20 September 2021 (UTC)