RationalWiki's 2018 Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff — we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

If everyone seeing this today donates $5, we will meet our goal for 2018.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!

Donations so far: $2397Goal: $5000

User talk:ClickerClock

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
This page is automatically archived by Archivist
Archives for this talk page: <1>

Vladimir Putin as a science denier that's anti-innovation.[edit]

You seem to be reverting the fact that Putin is a science denier himself.[1] He has been promoting entrepreneurism and internationalization in Russian science in attempt to burnish the nation's prestige while also diversifying its stultifying, oil-dependent economy. However, the arrest of innovators, such as Dmitri Trubitsyn in Akademgorodok, a Soviet-era sanctuary of scientific research that was supposed to showcase this, illustrate why such a breakthrough in Russian science has proved so elusive: The Russian state, which is Putin's main vehicle for his plans for the nation’s resurgence, often stifles growth. A bureaucracy empowered by a steady erosion of democratic checks and balances can often smother new ideas. In other words, Russia is arresting scientists for allegedly involved in a criminal conspiracy for inventing and innovating too fast, too freely.[2] Also, he has not only rejected science and feared the educated,[3] but also denies man-made climate change as a threat, just like Trump.

What does Trump cracking down on science and tech has to do with Putin? And what Putin has to do with the anti-science movement? -- Bryan See (talk) 15:26, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

@Bryan See I was not aware that Putin was a global warming denier nor that he was arresting scientists. Thank you for the information. ClickerClock (talk) 09:38, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Not to mention, waging war on science because Putin knows that his threat to his regime is always and precisely among the thinking and educated. Also, he may be a Luddite who's anti-technology - he may paint computers (he may have echoed Trump's views), digital technology (such as the carrier's superior Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch system) and the Internet (of which he calls the project of the CIA). @ClickerClock -- Bryan See (talk) 12:04, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Phobosgate[edit]

There's a talk page section on Phobosgate, see User_talk:Bryan See/Phobosgate#Sources_to_make_serious_case_for_Phobosgate -- Bryan See (talk) 08:26, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Have a beer![edit]

Velkopopovický Kozel.jpg For demonstrating exemplary goatery in the line of duty, Spud
has awarded you some beer. Look it has a goat on the label!

Thanks. You deserve this. Spud (talk) 13:13, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! ClickerClock (talk) 13:14, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Message[edit]

I failed too many times, could you just email it? —ℓσωℓу ѕуѕσρ вιgℓʝвιgℓ σf gσαтιѕтαи (ᴡᴏʀᴅs ᴏғ ᴡɪsᴅᴏᴍ/ᴀᴄʜɪᴇᴠᴇᴍᴇɴᴛs) 05:38, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

@Bigljbigl done! ClickerClock (talk) 05:43, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Moving pages to userspace[edit]

In relation to User:Bryan See, I noticed that you have moved quite a few of his pages from mainspace to userspace. I'm interested in your opinion on whether these pages should also be moved:

Thanks. CowHouse (talk) 03:40, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

@CowHouse Ramzan Kadyrov seems to be fine, it just needs more work. Parents Against Underage Smartphones has too little references to be in mainspace. Don't forgot to remove categories if it's in user space. ClickerClock (talk) 03:54, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you![edit]

Someone finally noticed my multiple threads on the Duplicate articles page! Th hug.gif-ⅅℐᎯℳᎾℕDⅅℐЅC1 (talk) 05:04, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Cool. ClickerClock (talk) 05:12, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I need someone to vandalize my page[edit]

It's to test a gadget.

@Bongolian

ClickerClock (talk) 07:15, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Any particular type of vandalism? Bongolian (talk) 07:16, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Not really. ClickerClock (talk) 07:16, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
@Bongolian ClickerClock (talk) 07:18, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
You could always create a sock puppet to test the vandalism yourself if you wanted to. I'll give it a go. Bongolian (talk) 07:19, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Note to self: make a sockpuppet. ClickerClock (talk) 07:20, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
It's works! Thank you for the vandalism. @Bongolian ClickerClock (talk) 07:21, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Speciesism[edit]

So I see you've made edits to the "speciesism" page to refute, as you call it, the "pro animal bias".

Some issues with what you added:

  1. People part of the Animal Liberation Front often use strawmen to make make their point. The standard Animal Liberation argument goes [Singer's Argument]” – This suggests that you don’t understand what a strawman is. A strawman is when an opponent’s argument is misrepresented, and that misrepresented argument is refuted instead of the actual argument. How was what Singer said misrepresenting an argument? He simply explained his thoughts and was consistent in what he said. He wasn’t trying to rebut any point.
  2. Therefore valuing humans because of intelligence is illogical. Valuing humans on the basis of intelligence can have nasty consequences.” – Exactly. Intelligence doesn’t matter, so saying animals matter less than humans due to their lower intelligence is baseless
  3. "The thing many animal rights activists overlook is that Signer is an eugenicist who actually values a healthy dog's life over a baby with down's syndrome. He honestly believes that parents should be allowed to kill their disabled babies." - This argument is an instance of the genetic fallacy. Ideas should be evaluated on their own terms, not by reference to the originators. What he says about parents and their babies has nothing to do about his views regarding animals.
  4. "Disabled humans do not like being compared to animals nor do they like being considered or argued to be less worthy of life than a healthy dog." – This ableism is solely with respect to cognitive ability. I’m sure a dog doesn’t “like being considered or argued to be less worthy of life” than a healthy person. This means nothing.
  5. "He also stated in an interview in 2013 that he believes that in 100 to 200 years from today, humans will look back on how we treat animals today in a similar vein to how we now look back on our ancestors who kept slaves." – If you really want this to be a false equivalence, you need to explain why it is one.
  6. "Using slavery as an excuse to promote your agenda is of course messed up and racist." – I doubt that Dawkins was trying to be racist. It’s not an “agenda” either since Dawkins outside of that one interview doesn’t seem to talk much on the issue.

RockyRob97 (talk) 11:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

  1. The misrepresentation is that animal rights activists act like speciesist value humans more based on intelligence. It's more complicated.
  2. We agree.
  3. Overruled. Genetic fallacies apply to evidence (studies), not a philosophical argument. Overlooking a man's eugenicist ideas devalues disabled people. Scientists nowadays often refuse to use research that were an result of unethical eugenics. I understand that Singer sees me less than human. I understand that Animal rights activists often view disabled people as pawns in their battle for animal rights. I am not a speaking point. I am a human being. Animal rights activists continue to ignore disabled people who are deeply uncomfortable with a man who believes its okay to murder disabled babies.
  4. Excuse me? I said I do not like being compared to an animal. The fact you consider a dog's feelings over a disabled human really says something about your priorities. I value a dog's life but I refuse to be argued to be less worthy of life than a dog to promote your agenda. That is it. Simple. Do not use an philosophical argument where you argue a disabled child's life to be less than a dog.
  5. It is a false equivalence but you do not believe it to be so. Jewish people often get very offended if you compare the holocaust to animal slaughter. Black people get offended if you use their suffering composed of a disgusting history of rape, kidnapping, child labor, lynching, mutilation for PETA purposes.
  6. Accidental racism exists.

ClickerClock (talk) 12:06, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Issues with other user[edit]

Hi. One user has made accusations against me and reverted all my edits and revoked my user rights. I was not given any warnings prior to any of his reverts.

With regard to his accusations, this is what he said "1. You seem to be a BJP proponent editing BJP-related pages. 2. You've engaged in plagiarism".

He has not said from where the plagiarism is supposed to come, and has not asked me about it. I used an old version of wikipedia for some of the information, but most of it was rewritten or clearly referenced to websites.

His other accusation about BJP (the BJP is the current ruling party in India) is also wrong. I'm not a proponent of the BJP. I'm also not aware that RationalWiki forbids editors on the basis of political affiliation.

On the other hands, due to the work of one editor, all Hinduism articles are extremely biased not only against the BJP, but against all aspects of Hinduism in general (like factual errors about Hindu educational institutions, ...). That user clearly was a SPA with the mission of Hindu-baiting. My edits were trying to make them a bit more factual and balanced.

For example, in the honor killings article I removed the category Hinduism [4], because it is not supported by any Hindu text or authority or guru, and is not practicised in Hinduism. I'm open to the possibility that it happens also among Hindus (I don't know), but is not part of Hinduism (which category implies).

My issue was not that honor killings do or do not occur among Hindus (I simply don't know enough about it), but that it is not part of Hinduism and Hindu doctrine (which I am sure about), which the categorization implies. My issue was solely about the categorization.

In the David Frawley article (about a fairly mainstream Hindu writer on Hinduism and Yoga) I balanced some extreme smears with actual quotes from the author. It is a "Biography of A Living People" article and therefore should be held to some higher standards.

And in an article about a Hindu educational institution, I pointed out that there are factual errors in the claims in the article [5], which still have not been fixed.

Please can you help? Thanks. --Stargazer (talk)

Thanks[edit]

...but you can understand my position: I don't think I am being unreasonable/over-sensitive. Anna Livia (talk) 10:17, 17 October 2017 (UTC)