User talk:Eira/Archive4

This is an archive page, last updated 6 June 2016. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <5>

, (new)(back)

Mobocracy against Total Noise

How we solve this problem? If we don't keep certain standards we are due to sink ourselves in total noise of every idiot (like eg. JJ) trying to impose his opinions on others. But is it a fact or just a cultural prejudice? (BTW are we allowed to discuss cultural prejudicies? It was not allowed in WP as supposedly there are no such things in the universe) JimJast (talk) 08:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

BTW, response to Eira about Nazis acepting "fucking communists" to their party (NSDAP). It was a fact I've seen in my own family. A guy, despite being a workers organizer in his youth, and being publicly known, uder his own German family name, was checked by Gestapo and forgiven his "youthful errors" and acted through the whole WWII period, against Nazis, as cypto Nazi and Russian spy delivering info about movements of Nazi's army through his network of other crypto Nazis despite each of them obviously risked life for what he or she was doing. Most survived the WWII and that's how I know about them. Also Goebels wrote once an article titled "To the comrade on the left". The Nazis considered themselves "rightists" but working for progress of the society as did the "fucking communists" as "leftists". That's why they "understood" the "fucking communists". And Eira might not that's why I'd like to pass it to her that often unexpected things happen as eg. now with the Big Bang and "crypto creationists" who simply don't understand physics so well as "JJ, the idiot" does. So it might be worth to find out what he is talking about from his own paper rather than some cultural stereotype. JimJast (talk) 10:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Your argument here is that Nazis had Communist spies and thus were friends with Communists? WTF? --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 07:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

And besides Eira, I'm admiring your courage when you are shooting from the hip, not knowing a thing about physics, counting on luck. And as they keep saying the luck likes brave people so why shouldn't I? If you knew more about physics you would know that infinite series are done in the first half of the first year but then you couldn't demonstrate your courage and then I wouldn't know less about your character so all well that ends well :) Now you have to decide whether you want to help "Jimmy the Crank" with his book which sould be rather written without Polish accent while even Texan accent is OK. So what about it pardner? JimJast (talk) 16:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't possibly care less about you being Polish, as that has nothing to do with me disagreeing with you. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 07:12, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I know. But about those communists: Nazis were friends with them since obviously they didn't know that they were spies, but knew that they were former communists and hoped that they became good National Socialists (most of them were of German background). Out of those former communists one guy worked even in Gestapo and saved the first guy I was talking about, from certain firing squad, or worse, when a woman who was communicating with Russians on the radio got caught redhanded by the Wehrmacht and revieled that she works for the first guy. His story for the Wehrmacht officer who arrested her, was that they work for the Gestapo who is going to leave them behind the Russian lines to spy on the movements of Red Army and he (the Wehrmacht officer) may call the Gestapo for confirmation of the story, asking for such and such, which the officer did, and luckily, the guy who worked at the Gestapo, was there and this way he found out that the cover were blown and acted accordingly. He ordered the Wehrmacht officer out from the appartment a.s.a.p. and pray that the Getapo action is not blown yet by him showing in this appartment without an autorisation from the Gestapo, or they take care of him for interering with their operations without checking with them first. The officer got scared since in these times everyone was scared of Gestapo, and left without checking any further. The war in Poland was half over and the Red Army was already almost on the right side of the river, that splits Warsaw in halves. After the communist spy cell got dissolved and all those communists went over the river to wait for the Red Army and after the Red Army came, those communists got promptly arrested by the Russians which I've seen too. It turned up that the Russians couldn't believe that it was only luck that they didn't get caught by Germans for such long time (about 5 years). They were worked on by the Russians who tried to establish the truth, at Lubianka prison in Moscow. They returned to Poland after only one year investigation, after being well fed not to show their fate to unsuspecting observes for whom Red Army were heroes, still as communists. Russians needed the Polish communists then to hold power in Poland. Only the one who worked at Gestapo was send back to Poland with an order to put him into jail for further explanation of his story. He spend there 15 years. The Russians were not able to prove his working as a double agent, during the war. He got a bit sour though, but who wouldn't in his situation. I knew personally all those people since I was always there as some of them were my family. That's how I know (and also from the Goebel's article) that Nazis were not too vindictive towards communists and considered them the most readily convertible to National Socialists from all the "leftists". Don't you? :) JimJast (talk) 09:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The point is that the Nazis would have killed them if they knew they were still communists. Saying that "XY was friends with Z" when XY would have killed Z if they knew that they were Z, but XY didn't because they were lied to or otherwise deceived doesn't mean that XY was friends with Z.

There's a film here of a black woman who has light enough skin that she was able to pass for being white. This was an enormous advantage in the racist country she was living in. Her deeply black mother kept "embarrassing" her by outing her as having a black heritage, and ruining her life. The end of it showed her mother showing up, but recognizing that her daughter had the chance to totally avoid racism by hiding her history, and introduced herself as her daughter's nanny. Now, the fact that the woman was accepted by society doesn't mean that the society was accepting of black people, it just means that she was deceptive enough to pass as an acceptable member of the society.

So, again. Arguing that the Nazis and Communists were best pals is a total misrepresentation of history bordering on "lie". --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 02:38, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I think JimJast is trying to say that the Nazis and the Reds had a common enemy in the "Reaktion," the so-called "bourgeois" political movements, which they both considered to be ossified and outdated. The Nazis had been somewhat infected by Marxist thinking and believed that the "working class" were a better base of support than any other, and did make some efforts to recruit rank-and-file German communists, whom they considered to be suckers duped by the Big Nasty Jewish Conspiracy. ListenerX^TalkerX 03:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

ListenerX is right, remember the song I sent you: "Kom'raden, die Rotfront und Reaktion ershossen..."? Stalin helped Hitler ("the best friend of workers" as he called him before WWII) at the beginning of the WWII not only with entering Poland from the East while Hittler attacked it in 1939 from the West but also with helping him with France, delivering fuel to Nazis tanks, until the idiot Hitler atacked Russia since he thought that those delieveries are to slow and need German efficiency. Stalin couldn't believe what was happening and ordered Red Army not to respond to Nazis attacking them. That's why there was such a quick Nazis progrss on Russian front. French communists can't forgive Russian communists till now. Niether themselves for helping Nazis with registering Jews for Nazis transports to concentration camps. Being a socialist you should look deeper into the problems that might show up when things go from bad to worse. The history likes to repeat itself that's why it's beter to know how it happened the first time around. That's why I give such a long introduction, starting from 1543, to the history of Big Bang in my essay. Did you read it? If not, how do you know that it's me who is an idiot? JimJast (talk) 14:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

First of all, I'm not a fucking communist. Second of all, just because the Nazis used the word "socialist" doesn't mean they were the same socialist that I am. Again, it was East Germany that was the German DEMOCRATIC Republic, not the west. Does that mean that because you, and I support democracy that we think that a secret Stazi police force abducting people without notice or warrant is a good idea? No. It does not.

You have an odd view of history... do you really think that Germany was cozy buddies and friends with Russia before WWII? They were yes, bedfellows, and had a treaty, but that does not mean that they supported each other. Nazi Germany was using Russian (do you understand this term of art? It means that they were telling Russia one thing in order to gain benefits from Russia that they had no intention of returning.) The same that the "ex-"Communist spies in the Germany government, etc were simply feigning loyalty and fealty to the Nazis, so the same Nazi Germany was stringing Russia along with the intent the entire time to betray them.

You appear to have a poor grasp of Russian military tactics as well... Russia fought much the same against the Nazis as they did against Napoleon. First, the Germans made fast progress because they made fast and unexpected assaults, it's not called Blitzkrieg because it was slow. Next, Russia is used to fighting invaders. With so much land, they withdrawn and burn the fields. The invaders have no ability to sustain themselves off the conquered lands, and thus have to continue to spread supply lines thinner and thinner, and Russia doesn't particularly care, because they have so much land that they could still produce sufficient food (by their own measures) for themselves, and they were going to lose the land anyways, so who cares if it is burned to the ground or not... It's called "Scorched Earth" tactics... it worked on Napoleon, and it really ate into the Nazis as well, especially when winter arrived.

Frankly, it seems like you have a preconceived bias and narrative that you're going to push despite any and all evidence or reasoned logic. And ListenerX, if having a common enemy was alone sufficient to create a strong bond between two parties, then we could match any and all Native American tribes against the Europeans, even if they were in open war against each other.

Oh, and as a final humor: "Kam'raden, die Rotfront und Reaktion erschossen", links die Rotfrontkämpferbund (the militant arm of the at-the-time Communist Party of Germany) alongside the Reaktion, not alongside the Germans. Specifically, "The Nazi Sturmabteilung and the Communist Red Front fought each other in violent street confrontations, which grew into almost open warfare after 1930." Wow... what a wonderful pairing there was between Communist and Nazis... they kept open arms out to each other! (Get it? A pun!) --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 05:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

P.S. oh yeah, and Stalin calling Hitler "the best friend of workers", guess where the Sovreign of the UK got the title of "Defender of the Faith"? Hint: it was from the Pope awarding it to King Henry VIII, for defending Catholicism against the Protestants... of course, King Henry VIII almost immediately departed his entire country (England) from Catholicism not much later. Of course, he liked the title, "Defender of the Faith" and thus kept that title, despite objections by the Pope. Why? Because now the Pope didn't mean anything. So, quite literally, the title "Defender of the Faith" was awarded to someone who would shortly commit such heresy as to install himself as the supreme head of his own Christian church. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 05:17, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I, for one, am not against Turtle Noise. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

This reminds me that there was a lot of turtles in Warsaw during the WWII since Poles were staeling them from transports sent to German Army for turtle soup (that didn't need refrigeration and were not too quick to ecape). I myself had one for a while but it manged to escape. Wich may tell somehing about speed of JJ at his joung years. JimJast (talk) 13:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

What is a personal attack?

So, you call JimJast an idiot, and that isn't a personal attack, or that's an OK personal attack. And then JimJast makes the (admittedly quite laughable) accusation that you don't accept his theories because you have been brainwashed by Opus Dei. Or is it the bit where he suggests your rejection of his theories might be due to dislike Jews or Poles (again, quite laughable suggestsions.) And that is a not OK personal attack, and you delete the whole section. Still looking for a standard of what constitutes a personal attack beyond your private whims. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 07:44, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Please read the entire edit summary: "This entire section is full of nothing but personal attacks. Accusing me of being a cultural bigot is especially outrageous." (emphasis added to note keywords.) As before with Psygremlin, if a post has some actual content rather than just making personal attacks, then I will address that content or criticism. But if someone is going to post something that just rails on someone without any further meaningful content then the content is vacuous and contains no purpose except to attack someone. As a note: "you're an idiot" is a personal attack, and if I ever post that and that alone on another person's wall, then they're well within their rights to remove it. However, if I say "everything you post here lacks evidence, and defies logic. As well, your post uses as a counter-example for our current models of the world something that completely violates all of math, and known physics. You're an idiot." Then the comment has something meaningful beyond just being a raging personal attack. Note: I have not deleted all of what JimJast has ever posted to my talk page. So, obviously, I'm not deleting content because it contains personal attacks... perhaps if you rubbed two of your brain cells together, you might be able to recognize a different criteria for me removing content beyond simply "there exists a personal attack here"... you know, like "for all statements in this post, there is a personal attack without any further comment". --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 22:14, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

So you are saying that personal attacks are OK, so long as one has a substantive point to go with them? Actually, I think there was more to what JimJast was saying than personal attacks. He was recounting his own experiences, "oh here is this site RationalWiki, where people will be rational"... "oh, maybe they aren't so rational after all". Well, I can relate to JJ's experience, although his explanations of why is excessively conspiratorial (you as an Opus Dei agent, etc.). And, as Armondikov likes to point out, many people confuse others disagree with them with irrationality, and that may well be what JJ is doing here. But, just because his reasons are bad, doesn't mean his conclusion is necessarily entirely wrong - to say otherwise is the fallacy fallacy (X is a bad argument for Y, therefore Y is false). He may well believe the right thing for the wrong reasons. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 00:32, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

For me? Yes, insults don't matter if there is substantial argument to go along with it. To me, insults are fluff or rhetoric. If there is nothing to their post other than fluff, why should I leave such attacks on my page? The Loya Jirga in their single ruling held that removing blatantly offensive content from one's Talk page is ok. If—as your own analysis shows—there exists nothing to a post other than statements designed to inflame offense, then it is blatantly and patently offensive content with no other purpose.

The claims of "zOMG, why is this rationalwiki?" Is identical to the comments accusing me of cultural bias, or being a Nazi... vacuous comments except to inflame and offend. Although, I'm fairly used to it, but is again, vacuous criticism. Who gives a shit if someone attacks the credibility of RationalWiki? I'm the person who has been arguing that RationalWiki's mission is to be offensive... if not simply by stating fact, then by being snarky and satirical.

I am not committing the fallacy fallacy, as I am not rejecting his conclusions, I am rejecting his arguments themeselves. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 02:42, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

How is disputing whether RW is really as rational as it likes to think it as being is vacuous comments except to inflame and offend? I think it is a genuine criticism that can be made of this site, that it is far less rational than it claims to be. JJ's formulation of the criticism has its limitations, but that doesn't mean that better versions of the criticism don't exist.

And thanks for contributing that gem "RationalWiki's mission is to be offensive", I will have to add that to quote that. I wonder, to what extent do other editors share that conception of RW's mission? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 05:33, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Disputing whether RW is really as rational as person XY thinks it ought be is not in and of itself a vacuous comment. But when the statement is "Rationalwiki? More like IRRATIONALwiki!!!" The statement is devoid of any meaningful criticism. It's like saying, "Oh yeah? Well, you're a poopyhead!" ... it's vacuous criticism. There is no points or direct evidence to point to, no syllogism making an argument, it's just baseless insult.

You yourself seem to acknowledge the failure of JJ's post when you say "JJ's formulation of the criticism has its limitations"... definitely true, as in: it contains absolutely no meaningful argument that can be addressed. As for "that doesn't mean that better versions of the criticism don't exist" is entirely accurate, and I wouldn't delete such content, if it made a real honest and valid argument. But arguing "When I saw this place was RATIONALwiki, I thought I would find people who disagree with me, but when I posted my bullshit, it was immediately attacked by skeptics and demands for evidence or reasoned logic, so you guys totally fail a rationalism!" I mean... that doesn't even make sense. Should RationalWiki support the argument that the earth is only 6,000 years old, even though no physical evidence, or reasoned logic can be presented to defend such a notion? No. The defense of that very style of argument would make us Irrationalwiki, not the fact that we rejection creationism out of hand.

I noted else where that prior to physical evidence, belief in the Gorilla was unjustified, and thus irrational. Despite the fact that it turns out that the Gorilla actually exists (and existed at the time) there was no evidence to support such a claim. The rationalist POV requires skepticism, and demands for evidence, and those claims that cannot meet those requirements don't get a free pass to belief by claiming that we are the ones being irrational.

Finally, your comment about RW is offensive. The truth is offensive for those who reject it. People who invent religions don't want to hear that they're total fucking idiots making up bullshit, but yet that is precisely what the Rationalist position demands. Creationists complain how we call them ignorant, but they are. Arguing against "chemical evolution" and other various bullshit that we have actual first-hand proof of. Dynamaclear is deeply offended by the content in their page, and have waged serious campaigns to get the text to read favorably towards their product, but again: that is not what Rationalism demands. RW is offensive, because the TRUTH is offensive, and because SCIENCE is offensive. If not simply to people, but also to the common sense. About 99% of Quantum Mechanics alone offends common sense. It offends common sense to think that holding a bowling ball on a pendulum to your chin and then letting go will be entirely safe. It's so offensive to common sense in fact that I have no doubt that every physics professor performing the demo before his class has to psych himself up with a mantra of "science works, science works, science works, science works, science works, science works..."

If you wish to put a poll to the editors of RW, about "should RW be a fluffy happy place for people to post crank ideas, and we support them, and don't say anything offensive about them"... then I think your answer is going to be a hefty, "Fuck off asshole." --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 23:33, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Most people — maybe not most RW people, but most people in society in general — would I think agree there is value in politeness. Basically, it's not about what you say, it's about how you say it — that is a bit of common sense. And, that common sense is not a "style over substance" fallacy. Style counts. Saying things nicely is better than saying them offensively. It has real social benefits. It makes society a better place. You might not agree with it, but I think the average person would. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, part of the charm of RW is that we can call a moronic nutjob a moronic nutjob, a crank a crank, a liar a liar, and we don't have to be nice about it. We might be witty, or satiric, or utilize litotes, but we don't have to be nice to idiots and their kin. ħuman 04:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Human, do you think the world would be a better place, or a worst place, if it was more like RW in terms of politeness? If politeness is a good thing, then RW's deficiency in that area is a bad thing. If politeness is a bad thing, then we should encourage everyone to be as insulting and rude and offensive as possible, at work, at school, in the home, in public places, in the media, in politics, etc. I wonder what the result would be... Personally, I doubt it would be a good one. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 07:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to add to the annoyance on your talk page Eira, but I just had to answer Maratrean above. That argument rests on a particular moral framework and your premises are the principle of universality and the deontological view that acts are good in themselves. Suppose I apply a utilitarian framework. I judge being polite and being impolite by its utility. You see, I enjoy having sites where I can go where I'm not required to follow any protocol of civility. Sometimes it's just more fun. Why do you think 4chan is so successful? I have a choice to visit those sites or not. If I want civil discourse, there are plenty of other sites designed for the purpose. I want those sites to be available and I also want sites of the other type to be available. I say it is good to have both, as that maximizes utility, and that it would be bad to be restricted to only one option. So, in my view, that is a false dilemma. --Danfly (talk) 13:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Danfly is right here. There is no universality to the idea of "be rude, and be offensive" here on RW. Most of the time, I'm not dealing with idiots spouting bullshit. But if you were to look, I bet that you would find that when people feel another person is being wrong, like really batshit wrong, they typically face that person with offensive, or at the very least "hostile" words. ("You're going to hell" is perhaps the most common Christian version.) The world isn't happy place where everyone is nice to everyone else. I generally accept that... but I just want hateful words to be backed up by honest and rational arguments. As for "This sort of offensiveness would never be supported by the general public" danfly brings up 4chan, but as well, Penn & Teller's Bullshit. The purpose of this offensive speech is not to change the mind of the purveyors of bullshit, but rather to show the disdain that such bullshit deserves, and get people who are not purveying the bullshit to stop accepting or buying the bullshit. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 04:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

@Danfly, you misrepresent my argument, I do not assume deontology or universalizability (or Kant's categorical imperative or anything similar.) The same argument can be made in a utilitarian fashion. Your utilitarian argument is mistaken, because you seem to be judging politeness just by your own personal utility, whereas utilitarianism has always been defined in terms of maximizing the overall utility for everyone. That it makes you and some other people happy is a positive; but you have to consider if there are any negatives, for people other than you, (or even negatives for you beyond your immediate happiness), which I think there are, but you show no evidence of having considered that. Also, it would be wise to consider the distinction between act and rule utilitarianism — your argument makes you sound like an adherent of act utilitarianism, I think rule utilitarianism is a better approach. Rule utilitarians observe that adopting rules of general applicability often works out better in practice than deciding everything on a case-by-case basis, given that we are not perfect reasoning agents. Also remember J.S Mill's dictum — better to be Socrates unsatisfied, than a fool satisfied. Even with just reference to ourselves, we should not define our utility functions purely in terms of what makes us happy, but also consider other factors (e.g. what makes us more wise, or more rational).

By naming itself "RationalWiki", this site has identified rationality as its central value, so it seems fair to judge it using a utility function which values rationality over other things. I have argued that politeness tends to produce rationality. (Politeness is not the same thing as rationality; one can be polite but irrational and impolite but rational. Still, I argue that on average, politeness leads to more rationality, and impoliteness to more irrationality.) Saying that impoliteness is fun — well, it can be fun, among likeminded individuals; but what is best for fun is not necessarily the best for rationality. As to 4chan, it may well be very fun (depending on your idea of fun), but it isn't very rational — but that is fine in a way, because it makes no claim to be rational. But RationalWiki claims rationality as its central value, so rationality rather fun should be the primary component of our utility function for RationalWiki.

@Eira, the problem with "disdaining bullshit", is that what you think is bullshit and what is actually bullshit are not always the same. If you get in the habit of disdaining bullshit, then you can end up disdaining, and hence rejecting for no good reason, something that isn't bullshit after all. Whereas, if you take every idea seriously, no matter how stupid it appears at first — well, you will reject it all the same most of the time, but on that rare occassion when something comes along where your prima facie impression of it is incorrect, by taking it seriously you may actually discover a truth you otherwise would not have. That is why "disdaining bullshit" is bad for the pursuit of knowledge, and bad for rationality. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

RationalWiki isn't technically defined by "rationality" but "Rationalism".

I don't declare bullshit as bullshit without investigation and evaluation. Homeopathy is bullshit, this is clear by all physical evidence and proper scientific evaluation. Does Homeopathy now deserve some grant of renewed non-bullshit by purposing a different more unscientific mode of action? If someone tells me that he dropped an apple and it fell into the sky, I don't have to investigate the event scientifically, and exhaustively to conclude that the most likely answer is: "he's lying". Because he's stating something that specifically violates known physical law, and without convincing, and overwhelming evidence, his statement amounts to nothing better than a statistical blip that is either: fully explainable by a misinterpretation of evidence, or he's committing fraud.

Of course, I wouldn't expect that a purveyor of bullshit yourself would want to hear any of that. Because to apply the principles of methodological naturalism (commonly regarded here as "Rationalism") to your own beliefs and demanding physical evidence and reasoned logic from your own religious babbles, would necessarily force you into the position that your talking shit, and should stop spouting bullshit... but that doesn't sit well with you. So, instead, you concoct a different scheme, you attempt to shift the burden of proof, away from your own claims, and place an impossible negative burden of proof upon us. You wish to tie our hands so that we can't call anything bullshit until it has been definitively proven false... thus, your own personal bullshit gets to squeak in under the door. I'm sorry, but that's not how Rationalism works. Rationalism requires the burden of proof on you. You need to provide convincing physical evidence that your "Maratrea" exists, and that belief in her is justified. But since that requires violating Ockham's Razor, again as noted before: you play "shift the burden" just like all the other bullshitters out there in the world. You would honestly fit in nicely with Kent Hovind, and William Lane Craig, and all the other apologists out there in the world.

To put words in your mouth: "If I can just hand wave away any disputes to my beliefs, then I win!" Sorry... this site works on logical positivism. Put up or GTFO. Your Maratrean bullshit is meaningless and unworthy of critical analysis. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 09:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

You bring up the tired old rationality vs. rationalism distinction. Please tell me, what is the actual difference? I said, by calling itself "RationalWiki", this site claims rationality as its central value. Is rationality not the central value to rationalism? If not rationality, what then?

Whether homoepathy is bullshit or not isn't relevant. The point is, your bullshit meter can't be perfect. One of these days, something will come along, which you will just dismiss as bullshit without investigation, but which actually isn't. It probably won't be some new form of homeopathy. It will probably be something completely unexpected. If you give every idea a fair hearing, even if you suspect it is bullshit, you might study it for long enough to realise it is not.

My own religion isn't relevant - if you think it is bullshit, no problem. I only ask that you give it some at least cursory examination first before declaring it to be so. If you do some, and then conclude it's all nonsense, that's fine with me. But actually, your real issue is not with my religion at all, it is with religious thought in general. So, someone like you, who is opposed to religion in general, I wouldn't even bother to try to convince you of my unique religious doctrines. I'd just stick to arguing some basics, like the existence of God or an immortal soul.

I find it fascinating how you identify "methodological naturalism" with "rationalism". That is quite an equation. Descartes, Leibniz, Spinoza would not agree with you. Methodological naturalism and rationalism are not the same thing.

"Rationalism requires the burden of proof on you." What about your burden to prove your burden of proof is the correct one? I make some quite extensive arguments (Russell's Teapot and the Burden of Proof) as to why I think your allocation of the burden of proof is incorrect. You just think your dogma on the matter is beyond question.

"If I can just hand wave away any disputes to my beliefs, then I win!". Um, no, I don't think that at all. You have no evidence for that claim beyond your assertion.

"Sorry... this site works on logical positivism". Does it now? Why cling to a philosophical school which almost all serious philosophers agree is as dead as a doornail? To quote RW's own article on the topic: Most philosophers consider logical positivism to be, as John Passmore expressed it, "dead, or as dead as a philosophical movement ever becomes." By the late 1970s, its ideas were so generally recognized to be so seriously defective that one of its own chief proponents, A. J. Ayer, said in a interview: "I suppose the most important defect...was that nearly all of it was false.". (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

“”do you think the world would be a better place, or a worst place, if it was more like RW in terms of politeness? If politeness is a good thing, then RW's deficiency in that area is a bad thing. If politeness is a bad thing, then we should encourage everyone to be as insulting and rude and offensive as possible, at work, at school, in the home, in public places, in the media, in politics

You are effectively asking Human to imagine a world wherein everyone acts impolitely and judging the moral worth of politeness (admittedly not an act itself, but a virtue tending to lead to actions of a certain type) based on the desirablility of that world. How do people normally explain Kant's principle of universality (universalization)? You also appear to be judging politeness by the actions it leads to rather than as a virtue in itself, which is why I describe that as the second premise of your argument. If you are approaching this from a virtue ethics point of view, then that was far from clear. In my hypothetical, I am judging aggregate utility (which is actually what I am concerned with) based on the assumption that people will tend to stay away from sites that bring them negative utility and will more frequently visit sites that bring positive utility. My own views on ethics aren't particularly relevant (and arguments about ethics always end up at admitting we can't know we are right because of the is-ought problem and agreeing to disagree. Let's save the time), since the only point I'm making is that there are alternative views under which your dilemma is not valid. Of course you can make a utilitarian case that politeness is inherently bad because it is true on average, like you say, but I think the situation is different when someone chooses to visit a place knowing its ethos when they have a choice of going to a place that serves much the same function, but has higher standards (LessWrong for example). Besides, you were aware that your politeness=good/impoliteness=bad dichotomy was not necessarily black and white according to every potentially valid ethical theory when you made the argument. The real problem is that you did not build your premises from the ground up and it is not difficult to reject them out of hand. However, if your premises are valid, your conclusion is deductively valid. That much I admit. --Danfly (talk) 10:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Just a short aside - we've had misunderstandings about the distinction between the philosophical tradition of rationalism and what I'd call "modern rationalism" before. The latter is what I'd describe as a synthesis of rationalism and empiricism, and the name simply reflects its emphasis on reason in arriving at a position, in contrast to irrational or magical thinking. Looking at it now, I'll admit that our own article on the topic is not very informative and in serious need of work (it even features a lengthy postmodernist section, for Maratrea's sake...). Röstigraben (talk) 11:30, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

@Röstigraben: I suspect the term "rationalism" (in the modern sense) was devised by people ignorant of the history of philosophy, who had no idea that it was already taken by a movement which pre-existed them by centuries. I think the other difference is that classical rationalism was a movement lead by thinkers of unquestionable intellectual seriousness, while modern "rationalism" lacks the same intellectual depth.

@Danfly: I don't see myself as depending on a particular theory of normative ethics - deontological, utilitarian/consequentialist, or virtue ethics. Personally, I think they all contain some truth - the nature-in-itself of an act or state of affairs is morally relevant (deontology); the consequences of an act are morally relevant (utilitarianism/consequentialism); the character which tends to produce such acts is morally relevant (virtue ethics). I don't see why we need to identify one of these three and say that is foundational to ethics to the exclusion of the other two. In any case, when I try to argue ethically, I try to avoid too much reliance on a particular ethical theory - I think this is in fact what most people try to do when they make ethical arguments in the real world. Real world ethical reasoning is not constrained by theoretical purism. In any event, my argument isn't necessarily an ethical one - it could be purely a pragmatic one. When I argue "politeness makes society better", do I mean "better" in an ethical sense, or just better in the sense of "makes it better for me" (and who knows what ethics is, or if there is any such thing)? Both or either. The listener can put on it whichever interpretation makes sense to them.

I think we can construct a kind of "virtue ethics" argument, but one which makes equal sense from a utilitarian perspective - when people are by habit polite, that has positive consequences for society (increased peace and good-neighbourliness, decrease in intersocietal conflict, etc., etc.) If a site has a culture of impoliteness, you respond "don't visit it if you don't like it". But, a site having such a culture will encourage habits of impoliteness in its members, which are unlikely to be limited just to that site, but bleed out into other areas of life. Thus, the site's culture can damage society. Obviously, RW is a very minor player here, so individually it makes little impact. But, it is part of a broader problem of Internet culture, where traditional norms of civil discourse are being eroded, and that erosion is not going to be limited to just those communities on the Internet that most encourage it. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to throw a spanner into the works here. What makes something polite? Turns out, "politeness" is just a subsection of "ethical", or as nearly analogous to as to make all the same arguments about "what is ethical?" apply to "what is polite?"

You know, there are more things that are "good" simply "people getting along". If we just wanted people to get along, then Galileo, Copernicus, and Martin Luther (the first guy, the monk) never should have brought forth their complaints. Martin Luther destabilized Catholic temporal power, and constructed a whole new system wherein people were accountable to themselves. Was this a "good"? Regardless of our interpretation of the ethical quality of the action, it certainly wasn't regarded as polite.

And in a wonderful display of your willful sophistry, you complain about equivocation and people naming themselves something that was already named (you know, like feminism, libertarianism, conservativism, Republican, Democrat... the list of examples of people "co-opting" terms abounds.) and a spectacular display of goalpost shifting! "In any event, my argument isn't necessarily an ethical one - it could be purely a pragmatic one." Congratulations, on shifting the goalpost, in fact so superbly, that it now sits in a limbo, of never being established anywhere. So, I ask the question, did I really just mean what I said, or did I make a satirical parody, or perhaps I'm lying. Any and all of these interpretations are valid, hurrah! --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 21:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Is politeness a subset of ethical? That's an open question. Politeness may well be ethically required some or all of the time; but, there may well be occassions when politeness is not ethically required, or is even ethically prohibited. On such occassions, if there are any, politeness ceases to be ethical, but does not cease to be polite. So, arguably, politeness is not a subset of the ethical.

Suppose there is a person who completely rejects the concept of ethics as useful or valid - an amoralist. Yet that person may nonetheless see politeness as, at least some of the time, useful in achieving their own personal goals. So, such a person might be convinced to value politeness, even though their valuing it is not in any way ethical; another person, who does believe in ethics, might furthermore value politeness as an explicitly ethical thing. This is my point, that arguing for politeness can be, but doesn't necessarily have to be, an ethical argument.

There are indeed more things that are good than "simply getting along". But politeness does not mean that everyone has to agree with everyone else. People are still free to disagree strongly with the views of others; just politely. One can strongly put a view and still be polite about it; there is a difference between assertiveness and abusiveness. So, there is no reason Galileo, Copernicus, Luther, could not have got their views across politely. Were they in fact polite? I don't now enough about Galileo or Copernicus to say; Luther does not strike me as polite at all, intemperate invective would be a better description of him. Could Luther have expressed his ideas politely? Some of them he could have; I'm not so sure about some other of his contributions, such as On the Jews and Their Lies, could ever be expressed in a polite manner. Actually, I wonder if there is any connection between his intemperate personality and his rabid antisemitism? I think there may well have been.

As to people co-opting the term rationalism, yes it happens all the time. It doesn't change the fact that the people who did it were likely ignorant of the history of the term's previous use. It also doesn't help, that while the original meaning was reasonably clear, the replacement meaning is so vaguely defined as to be incoherent in practice. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 00:28, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Have you reviewed the philosophy behind aesthetics? Politeness is analogously the exact same thing... define what is and is not "polite". --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 06:34, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I have studied aesthetics somewhat, but am not as familiar with it as I would like. Which particular theory of aesthetics are you referring to? How is politeness like beauty? I don't think they have much in common. I can't give you a succinct definition of politeness, but that doesn't mean there is no such thing. Justice Potter Stewart defined pornography as "I know it when I see it"; not the most useful definition, but the point is the difficulty in defining something does not mean that it does not exist or is somehow an invalid concept. Although I struggle to define pornography, I am certain such a thing exists, and there are things that definitely fall under that heading and things that definitely do not (even though there may well be grey areas in-between). Same applies to politeness. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:13, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

So, go study it. If you don't understand how being direct and honest could be interpreted as "polite" to some people, then you are clearly ignorant. There are things that are clearly unethical (murder) and things that are not (saving a person's life) but that doesn't mean that ethics doesn't have 8 hojillion different models and explanations. "Politeness" is really just following the social norms established by a community so that you don't fit in. Like on RW, it's considered polite to not engage in sophistry. Yet, you're being impolite and doing so... --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 10:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

You know, if you are going to try to support your position with an argument from aesthetics, you'd better identify a particular position within aesthetics as support, rather than just vaguely pointing to the discipline as a whole. Further study on my part will do nothing to cure your vagueness. There is nothing impolite about directness and honesty; but, as I said, there is a difference between assertiveness and abusiveness, which you do not seem to acknowledge. Yes, standards of politeness are culturally-relative, but that does not mean there is not a transcultural core. And your accusations of sophistry are baseless. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:52, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

"Yes, standards of politeness are culturally-relative, but that does not mean there is not a transcultural core." EXACTLY!!! This is the same thing that is true about aesthetics. What makes something beautiful? What makes something polite? They're analogous questions!

"And your accusations of sophistry are baseless." Proof by vigorous hand-waving? --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 11:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Some elements of politeness are culturally-relative, but there is a transcultural core. And much of the impoliteness of RW violates that transcultural core. And, RW is not really a culture to itself, but part of a larger culture (I'd say global English-speaking culture). And, much of the impoliteness of RW violates the broader culture in which RW is situated.

If you are going to accuse me of sophistry, you need to prove the claim, not me. Your proof by vigorous hand-waving is not proof at all. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 19:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

What things does it violate that are part of this "transcultural core"? How do we define this transcultural core anyways? I mean, if one culture/subculture thinks that something is polite while all the others believe it is impolite, does that mean that that something is "transculturally impolite"? Do we need unanimous assent for something to be termed transculturally impolite? See, this is why I'm talking about how you're a sophist. You're arguing that RW is being rude to some transcultural core, but no identification of that transcutural core. In fact, actually, many cultures hold that specific subsets of people are worthy of disdain and that not being impolite to them is actually impolite itself. ... AND THIS IS THE WHOLE POINT I WAS MAKING. "Politeness" is subject to the exact same philosophical arguments as aesthetics and ethics. There is no universal "polite" that we can point to and say, "this is polite, and this is not polite." So, in the full standard (and thus polite) netiquette of the anonymous internet flamewars: FUCK OFF! --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 23:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Really Eira, if that is your argument, why not be explicit from that start, rather than leaving me to guess what your argument actually is? As to a transcultural core, I think one exists for ethics, and one exists for politeness too. An example of the transcultural core of ethics is the prohibition of murder. Every culture agrees that, in general, killing other people is wrong, although there are exceptional cases. Some of those exceptional cases (e.g. capital punishment) are very disputed. But let us not let the differences blind us to the similarities. Fred kills random people because he thinks human flesh is the most succulent of meats. So Fred kills Tom and eats him. Fred tries to eat Sally too, but Sally fights back and kills Fred in self-defence. Now, in our culture, we say, Fred's killing Tom was immoral, but Sally killing Fred was not immoral. But, just about every other culture says that. So, here we have something, which is either an absolute universal, or if not an absolute universal, very near to being one. So, contrary to what you suggest, there really is a transcultural core to ethics.

Same for politeness - detailed rules of politeness vary from culture to culture, but there are elements common to most if not all cultures. For example, try to attack the idea rather than the person, avoid negative hyperbole about those you are talking to, if you make allegations be willing to provide evidence, give others a fair opportunity to respond, try to be conscious of the preferences or culture and others and try to make allowances for them where possible (but, not when doing so would be an excessive imposition), etc. As to saying "FUCK OFF", the offensiveness of the expression itself is specific to our language/culture, but the general rule of avoiding expressions which are offensively dismissive (in some particular culture) is itself transcultural. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 09:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Trying to put pieces together after edit conflict

Hi Eira, I'm guessing it was you with whom I had this edit confflict. And of course I apreciate your knowledge of history and similarities with Napoileonian wars tactics, but fact is that Stalin was surprised by Hitler's attack and another fact that Russian communists helped Hittler to solve "Jewish question" in France not to mention fuel deliveries from Baku for Geraman tanks during first year of Hitler's war with France. I had relatives there too who saw it.

Of course I know that you are no creationist just trust scientists the same way Russian communists trusted Nazis until it became impossible. Yet before Nazis fought in Spain and Russian communists helped them too ("Homage to Catalonia" by Orwell is the book to read; did you read it? And all the big librery by Leon Trotsky, killed by Stalin's order for it) I hope for further discussion when you read my story that collided with your assumed attempt to answer me. JimJast (talk) 07:51, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

JJ - sources? Cause that's really not anything I learned living in France. But we probably don't know our own history.En attendant Godot 13:51, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

OMG! The Russians helped the Germans while they had a treaty together? SHOCK! SURPRISE! Oh, and Stalin was surprised by the attack? Again, SHOCK! SURPRISE! It's like Stalin was a naive fool, and believed the Nazis... of course, had he actually known and understood the Nazis he never would have trusted them, and never would have been surprised by their attacks. I mean, the Nazis were involved in open war on their own streets with Communists, why would Stalin ever think that the Germans were going to respect a treaty with them? Ah... self-dilution, ignorance, and naivity...

You still don't seem to get the idea that the Nazis fucked the Russians over, and had planned to do so from the start. You seem ignorant to the idea that people can be duplicitous and deceptive. It shows extreme naivity on your own part. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 22:43, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

The BigBang explains the origin ot the universe?

Eira, just curious: if you believe the above, despite that it contradicts the law of conservation of energy that necessarily suddenly shows up from nowhere (violating something sacro sanct for any physicist), how would you react to the fact that it can be proven with simple Newtonian math, that the Big Bang didn't need to happen, since all astronomical observations have simple explanations including quasars and the alleged accelerating expansion of space predicted by Mileva Marić Einstein's general relativity with accuracy to one standard deviation (accuracy that can't be any greater)? JimJast (talk) 18:06, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

this term. the "law" of conservation of energy applies only and very specifically in cases of known and finite systems. we do not know that it is always true. No one in phsyics would ever argue it is true. this is what we call a strawman

+ -

2) Generally, understanding that Conservation of energy as a theory, still would make sense in the form of our current understanding of the Big Bang. no one in the major physics thinks "nothing comes from something". they think that either everything has always been here (one therory is it is a giant cycle) or that there is something beyond (like brames), or that it is a collapsing of everything.

+ -

3) generally, it's important to present actual arguments as argued in science, before attempting to "discredit" things.--En attendant Godot 18:14, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

The question was hypotetical, since we don't have yet all the required coditions. Just Einstein's general relativity. Besides we may substitute here the tensoral description of the univese and the conservation of 4-vectors which are mathematically and theoretically exact, though math is not a science as good as physics. And I wonder how a tensoral strawman would look like. JimJast (talk) 18:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

So you state you are wrong and Einstein's relativity is wrong, so people should defer to your model instead? Then state the argument that math doesn't model the theory you have very well, so it is not as good as physics? That's not really an argument, that's an excuse. ~ Subsound ~ 19:13, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

"Math is not a science as good as physics"... which is entirely humorous, because without math there is no physics. Math is in fact the pure expression of science so much so, that Math describes worlds which cannot in any way be consistent with our universe. No, Math is not a science... it is however a tool that is absolutely necessary for all of science, and without which, no science would be possible beyond dialectic babblings of how many angels can dance upon the head of a needle. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 22:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

The Big Bang does not explain the origin of the Universe. It explains the development of the Universe. Much like evolution doesn't explain how lfe began, it explains how life develops. I would openly be willing to watch you attempt to explain with simple Newtonian physics why the Universe is not expanding in accordance with the Big Bang, and rather the warps of spacetime account for the apparent Doppler shift in viewing distant objects. Hint: Newtonian physics lacks warped spacetime, so good luck... --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 22:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

He has actually done it (or tried to). See this thread. The posts on the last page are especially relevant to the discussion about conservation of energy.--ZooGuard (talk) 07:46, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

"...with accuracy to one standard deviation (accuracy that can't be any greater)" that's one of the dumbest things I've ever read on RW. ħuman 04:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

You know, you become so desensitized to idiocy that sometimes you miss the super retarded shit that some people post. The entire sentence from which you quoted continues to demonstrate that JJ appears to lack any proper understanding of mathematics. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 04:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Hu, nice meeting you again. Can you explain the folks around here how the accuracy of astronomical measurements may be grater than one standard deviation? Or maybe you Eira? I'm all ears. JimJast (talk) 18:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It can be accurate to within less than one standard deviation (assuming the standard deviation is not zero). It could be accurate to within (σ-x) from the mean, where x is some extremely small constant with a value greater than zero. Since speed, distance and acceleration are all continuous variables, that number can be as small as you like, as long as it remains positive. You realise you have measurements in your own essay that you describe as having 'accuracy greater than one standard deviation', right? If you have measured something to within one standard deviation, all you need to do is eliminate the two values at exactly (μ+σ )and (μ-σ), then your accuracy is within less than one standard deviation. It might be hard to do, but astronomers have clearly done it before --Danfly (talk) 20:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Danfly, thanks for your knightly gesture saving damsel in distress but the joke has been explained by slow JJ and luckily for us you were quicker and we avoided another edit conflict. JimJast (talk) 21:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

What about writing a book about the universe that was never created

Since these ancient times when I was banned for life from each science forum I wanted to pick up some knowledge about the universe from, and subsequent years of studying astronmy and physics, I gained enough knowledge that we may convince any reader that Einsteins and Carl Sagan were right when Carl said on TV that he believes that the universe was never created and so it must have existed always. Contrary to popular opinion. But we can't do it with my literaly skills (as you, Eira and Human might have noticed). We need yours, combined skills even if Eira hates my guts and Human just valids her time more than 1/3 of possible profits from the book that is bound to be a bestseller at least in the astronomer and creationist communities (even if for different reasons). And Eira, you are bound to stop haiting my guts once you find yourself that Feynman was right maintaining that cosmologists are bunch of dopes since it is an eternal truth (like the "Archmedes law", true forever) that energy can't be created.

And BTW, sorry for being ironic asking you the question about one standard deviation. I understand that you just don't know what any physicist knows, that it is another "law of nature" that any measurment can't be more accurate than one standard deviation, or not even that, and 6 standard deviations away from predictions of a theory is considered the maximum of reasonable limit of trust in a theory. About what the Big Bang hypothesis suffered in 1998, before being patched with "dark energy" (a.k.a. "repulsive gravitation"). I hope you both forgive me the joke, since I know that it is not nice to joke about someone's ignorance (especially if it applies to women who are by nature gifted with grater skills. So I just hope my sin will be forgiven. JimJast (talk) 20:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Books on creationism, and fairies are often best sellers. The quickest route to demonstrating crankery is to publish a book rather than a peer-reviewed article. Personally, despite the fact that I am aware that I could make tons of money (or at least reasonable sums of money) for playing up crankery and bullshit, I'm unwilling to impinge my morals and lie, cheat, and steal money from people, which is exactly what you're asking me to do.

Why do you hold to the false dichotomy that the Big Bang it true, or the Universe wasn't created and eternal? Do you seem to lack the imagination to imagine that the Big Bang was not in fact the start of the Universe, but merely a single defining moment in the Universe's existence? We don't know what happened at t_0 relative to the Big Bang. It could have been anything, and anything could have happened before the Big Bang. The Universe could have been existing for decillions of years prior to the Big Bang, it could have exists unbounded in time prior to the Big Bang. We simply are incapable of measuring any of that, just like we cannot look into a black hole. Experimental blindness keeps us from knowing what was prior to the Big Bang. But perhaps the Universe existed eternally prior to the Big Bang... but then, you can't handle such an idea... amirite? Because you've already conflated "Big Bang" with "moment of creation". Rather than, "event caused by physical and natural law in a pre-existing Universe". --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 21:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

When making a point, jj, it is somewhat useful if you do not simply lie and make things up. Sagan fully believes the universe was "created" in the sense that it did not always exist. sagan on big bang--En attendant Godot 22:23, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Dear "Esperanto", I've seen Carl Sagan only once on TV and it was when he most certainly said that he believes that the universe is eternal (as was the opinion of Einstein while he described his 1917 model with "cosmological constant" "the biggest blunder of my life"). People change theirs opinions you know, and just yesterday I changed my opinion about you, thinking that the book should be written in Esperanto, and you are the only native speaker of this langusge I know so I should rather, than argue with you, should try to talk you into cooperation on this book.

I've learned a little esperanto myself when I was young (so at least I should still know the grammar, which frankly, I've forgotten by now, having to learn English one as more needed at the time) but by the end of writing this book I might know it well enough to complain about you jumping to conclusions in Esperanto (which I'm not able to do yet). So tell me (it could be in Esperanto) are you going to join the project? Esperos(?) JimJast (talk) 08:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Eira, you said "Do you seem to lack the imagination to imagine that the Big Bang was not in fact the start of the Universe, but merely a single defining moment in the Universe's existence?"

Apparently I don't have that kind of imagination. I don't even understand what is this "single defining moment in the Universe's existence". Does it mean that on Wednesday evening there was nothing happening except the regular flying galaxies to and fro and by the Thursday morning we were already after this "definig moment" with no one noticing anything particular? No "start of the Universe"?

I calculated how much of redshift there was in the universe before the expansion was noticed by astronomers. I did it to subtract it from the apparent total redshift to have the objective picture of the redshift. What part is due to expansion and what to dynamical friction of photons (I had then the regular Newtonian picture of universe as all astronomers had). It turned out that the redshift was the same as after the assumed expansion was noticed. If you can think the alleged expansion is exactly zero: no expansion at all, everything is due to dynamical friction of photons, which means the alleged expansion of universe is due to lack of proper math done to check what was before and after redshift were noticed by Edwin Hubble (or more clearly) the amount of redshift didn't change before and after it was noticed just astronomers don't know how to do the math right. The calculations are evailable for checking them for over 25 years and no one ever bothered to read them except one referee who said "they look OK to me but they say that it is expanding so I have to recommend rejection of your paper", which he/she did. Nobody bothered to read any of the next papers in which proposed the Einsteinian explanation of the same thing. Ever after. Than I learned from Feynman that cosmologists, including his professor are bunch of dopes, mostly idiots. So where is the beef (the alleged expansion)? What I found was just Einsteins' theory working perfectly well predicting things for many years after the deaths of its creators. Even the quasars, that Carl Sagan said in this movie recommended by Wating, are not yet understood. That why I would like to write this book since they need Einstiens theory to be understood and the theory is already almost forgotten due to it contradicing creationism. JimJast (talk) 14:15, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

This may help you, alternatively the Multiverse may have existed since eternity while our subsection of the Multiverse that we call the Universe exists since the Big Bang. It's possible but unlikely that the consensus of serious scientists is wrong and some other explanations exist for all the many different pieces of evidence for the big bang but I and most serious scientists think that's unlikely. Proxima Centauri (talk) 16:47, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Proxima, How you explain Feynman's opinion on consensus of serious scientists and a very simple calculation saying that the universe is not expanding and never was and that the Big Bang happens to be due to illusion of expansion resulting from lack of math skills of astronomers and credulty of those talked already about by Feynman? JimJast (talk) 19:50, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

JJ, I am not sure if your interpretation of Feynman's quote there is correct. Are you trying to suggest Feynman rejected Big Bang theory? Your quote doesn't show that at all. Your quote shows that he was disappointed with the rate of progress in the physics of gravitation. Don't know what year he wrote that in, it may well have been justified. The physics of gravitation tends to be reliant on expensive telescopes, spacecraft, experiments, etc., both to confirm its current predictions, and to collect new observations requiring explanations. The large scale of gravitation makes it the most difficult of the four fundamental forces to study experimentally/observationally. I can easily imagine, at certain points in its history, there was a lot of theoretical work going on, but that work was getting more and more divorced from experiment/observation, and that may well have been what Feynman was complaining about. But, just because that was true at the time Feynman wrote it, doesn't necessarily mean it is true today; and even if it was still true today, I don't see what implications you can draw from it to help your anti-Big Bang case. (Personally, I don't believe in the Big Bang, but I don't endorse your approach in arguing against it either.) (((Zack Martin)))^™ 23:22, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Maratrean. It seems that you are the only user of this wiki who pays atention to anything. You are right that if reading Feynman's letter (which BTW was written in July 1962, at the time of Warsaw-Jablonna Conference on Asronomy, Astrophysics, Cosmology, and Relativistic Theories of Gravitation) one may have various opinions about this what Feynman meant. Though calling 126 serious scientists "dopes" and "a lot of worms trying to get out of a bottle by crawling all over each other" should, IMHO, be a signal to stop and think. Even if "consensus of serious scientists" in words of Proxima thinks they all are right and "the obscure scientists that JimJast cites" is wrong.

It is a fact that ("Obscure scientist") Feynman neither had no idea how gravitation works, since being an experimentalist, he didn't analize Einsteins' general realativity that deeply, nor he was sure about the Big Bang, since it was before 1985 when I got the result that the universe is not expanding. So Feynman was without data on which he could base his general accusation that his friends are bunch of idiots jumping to conclusions without any proof of anything. Which even I don't do, since I have a proof in form of one page paper, marked "file 162", that should be easy to understand by an intelligent high school student. Which unfortunately are in short supply in our times. I might safly bet any amount of money that no reader in this wiki knows why things fall. Despite that it is described in detail in my description of Einsteins theory. We just live in sad times when humans stopped thinking (maybe except sculptors, who have only one source on which they may rely and it is just an "Obscure scientist" Feynman). That's why I use this "Obscure scientist" from deep past, since apparently there is no one else left who understands the common calculus, which makes the expansion uf universe impossible and with it the Big Bang as well.

And BTW, would you like to write this book with me. I thought it should be written in Esperanto so even Chinese would understand it (which BTW they should adopt as their common language, so it would be soon adopted by the whole world) but English is fine too. Whats is important is to let people to know why things fall down. It is a shame that so many years of science they (even some scientists) still thik that it is because the Earth attracts them (with 4th fundamental force :) which is also an anti scientific illusion though propagated by creationists. JimJast (talk) 08:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Warning! This page is troll infested, please don't feed it! I'm not Jesus (talk) 11:15, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer, but I'm really not the best person to be writing that book with you. We have completely opposite views on the issues. If I understand you correctly, you believe in an infinitely old universe; I by contrast believe in a finitely old universe. I don't believe in the Big Bang, but I am one of those dreaded creationists of which you speak. So not sure how well us writing a book together will go, when we have completely opposite views on the topic at hand. Also, our approaches to the issues are very different - I prefer an approach focused on philosophy, you prefer an approach focused on physics. Finally, if I was to spend the time to write a book, I'd really want to spend it writing a book on my own views rather than on yours. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:06, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

There has been a lot of off-topic babbling here in this section... let me clarify here: JimJast, I think you're an idiot, and a crank. Go away, I don't want to fuck around with you anymore. It's getting tiresome. I won't write a book with you, and I won't help you formulate your ideas any further. You have plenty of people at your University who are significantly better equipped to debate you. All I know is that you're retarded enough to gloss over any shit that disagrees with you, which is like one of the biggest defining features of a crank.

Again, the TL;DR: go away. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 10:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, Eira, I just wanted to tell Mar that we shoudn't try your patience any furhter so I'm taking my rags to my "Essay tak page" where I invite anybody interested in the question "why things fall". JimJast (talk) 11:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

ASL

I'm curious where/how you learned ASL. (I read that you know a bit of it on someone elses talk page -- i hope that was you) As a linguist, i'm fascinated by the idea of physically mapping a conversation, instead of using word order or grammar markers. But I've really no one to learn from (other than the signs themselves... but to actually study the grammar, the colloquialisms, short hand, etc. I think too little study on ASL, LSF, BSL has been done -- or rather, few main stream specialists on human language evolution, and language development with the mind have noticed the input native ASL people could offer. so, anyhow, just curious. oops, forgot to sign.--En attendant Godot 20:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I do indeed know ASL. I learned it by having the opportunity to spend every lunch for like 3 months or so with a Deaf person. It was really fun sitting down and chatting away in sign language, while at the same time eating. I once had some other friends attend the lunch, and it was frustrating, because they wanted to be part of the conversation, but I could no longer eat and talk at the same time, because I had to voice what I was signing, and translate for our friend. Bleh!

I think you'll find there's some disappointment to "physically mapping a conversation, instead of using word order or grammar markers". ASL uses word order just as heavily as any vocal language, and has grammatical markers all the same as well. There's some positionality used to derive grammatical markers, and such, and temporal aspect is much more easily represented in sign, but they're all actually quite similar compared to vocal languages. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 16:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't know how I missed your reply. anyhow... It's intersting you say that, cause everything I've read - and as I've said, i've never talked with a deaf person for more than 5 mintues, in a "where is the bathroom", "do you know where this address is" type way -- but the books suggest that subject is mapped generally spacially, and topics are established in space so that I create on the right of me the "space" for one person, and on the left, the "space" for the second, so if i want to say the first person wore a blue dress and was a great dancer, I'll sign that, in her "space". also, if i want to say "she gave it to him" I can use those predefined areas to define the verb "to give". I will be disappointed if that is not the case. :-) Sadly, i'm basically "signing english", cause I do not know any of the facial markers, any of the word order unique to ASL, etc. I need, like you had, a lunch buddy. Enjoy your day (if that's possible within the context of local politcis. but i suspect your life is more than this place...).En attendant Godot 16:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, yes, the spacial references are used like you describe, but they still have word order just as much as any vocal language, and grammatical structures as well. The spacial references are really just pronominal elements rather than much of anything else. I suppose what I like most about ASL is that due to the existence of classifiers (there is a handshape that means "car", one for "airplane", one for "person", etc) it allows for significantly more expressive "non-verbal" information to be expressed. As in, rather than using "words" and semantic elements to describe how a car hit another car, you just throw up two handshapes for "car", and demonstrate how they collided. Head-on, side-swipe, rear-ending that caused the first car to go spinning, while the second car went off into a ditch? It's all best expressed with classifiers and non-verbal expressive demonstration. (The last example was a bit silly and over-the-top...) --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 00:28, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, i'm a trained linguist, so i do know it has gramatical rules, though they are far more flexible than a highly coded language like English, but it's the kinds of things you describe that you have to be a fluent speaker to really study. I could only imagine the pun and word play you can make. I was doing a research paper on puns in French, and was comparing to some other word play - and wanted to include an ASL or LSF punning, but didn't know anyone to say "ok, what's a great pun?" Since then I've learned one or two, including a local denver name for WalMart that plays off the sign for "cheep". ;-)En attendant Godot 01:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Am I the only sad git who still thinks "ASL" stands for "Age, Sex, Location"? ADK^{...I'll meditate your hub cap!}

The longest ASL pun I know is a story, "I met my friend in paris, and we went out for lunch, where we ate pizza." It's commonly taught to new students of ASL apparently, with a few wrong signs thrown in, but the signs are just subtly wrong, or easily mistakable. The phrase taught to the new student actually has them talking about having sex with lesbians. Another easy screw up is "bitch" vs. "say" (both signed identically except for handshape, B for the first G for the second).

I don't know if I would call the grammatical rules in ASL any less flexible than English though... as a trained linguist, I'm sure you understand that German rules aren't any more flexible than English, or Latin, or any other language. I mean, unless you want to say that ASL speakers accept more "broken" ASL than English speakers accept broken English... Actually, having learned ASL from a native ASL speaker from birth, I picked up some older lexicon, and odd phrasings, or an odd ideolect, that was more towards the idea of eschewing "English" words. As in, the sign for "group", and "class" were the same. Many people learning sign language are however taught that they are signed with different handshapes ("g" for "group" and "c" for "class") and the handshape is typically based off the first letter in English, or an "initialism"... the guy I learned from basically rejected such words as "English" rather than ASL, and so he actively rejected using such words. The movement indicates the notion of a group, and the handshape is restricted to classifiers (car, person, etc) rather than based on the English word you're attempting to express. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 16:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with broken or not broken language. One thing linguists look at is how coded the language is. how strict are rules, and how much comes from situation or context (Japanese, russian, and to some extent, latin if you look at word order alone), inference (lakota - lakota has no stated pronouns after the first mention - it's very hard for non speakers to follow stories). So the languages develop over time to be high or low coding, high or low context. ALS, (at least from what i've read) is very high context, low coding. This does not mean it's more or less precise - it means it makes precision in different ways. In english, you cannot say "the boy blue" it must be "the blue boy", but in russian and lakota, you can say "the blue boy" "the boy blue" "the boy who went to teh store blue" and still know that the blue relates to the boy, not the store. I think a lot of people assume that when we talk about flexibility of language, we are some how putting down signed languages or saying they are not as rich (though a language only 200 years old, is granted, not yet as rich as most spoken languages, and it uses tons of indexed words and spelled words still... but give it time, it's a baby!) or as developed as a "real" language in some way. In fact, again from reading, not practice, I would say ASL and LSF (not really BSL) has the potential when used by fluent poets and singers, to be far more compelling than english.

Anyhow - loved the pun. I think i'm confused about why a "g" and "b" hand shape sign would be confused, though. they are quite different hand shapes.

I'm also curious how real every day moms and car-driving neighborhood cheffeurs, and whatever other situations that demand at least one of our hands be full, maintain enough vocab "one handed". I have wondered if a lot of one-handed slang comes up when you are trying to manage your real life -cooking, towing a grabby 3 year old, and holding the stack of crap your boss handed you. anyhow, don't mean to hog your wall. :-) nor turn you into my "asl goto gal". i just meet very few people who actually speak it, not just do a signed english/contact asl type conversation (like me).En attendant Godot 16:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I understand high-context, vs low-context (I speak Japanese after all). So, I think I just misunderstood your meaning behind "highly coded". Yes, sign language is pretty context sensitive, but I would say actually less so than Japanese. But then, Japanese has extensive social-order coding that ASL does not have. I suppose the point I try to raise is, that every language has a pretty equal amount of coding, it's just distributed across different areas of coding. (English word-order is so strict, because we don't have much coding elsewhere. German has more noun coding, and thus freer word order, but still a very strict word order, especially for verbs. While Latin has incredibly free word order, but even more extensive coding for nouns and verbs.)

I was apparently confused. It's the word "speak" and "bitch", the first using the 4 handshape, and the later the B handshape.

Most of ASL does not depend heavily on the other hand. Most of the time the hand is either a B shape, or some other non-semantic handshape, or it is identical to the main hand and either moves synchronously or asynchronously therewith. So, it's kind of rare that the off-hand is actually used to distinguish a minimal pair. Since the off-hand rarely is significant, while it takes some getting used to to read signs made with only one hand as opposed to two, thankfully humans are really good at completion, and so it's not just possible, it becomes relatively easy. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 21:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

So I'm wondering....

....if you have a problem with this user's name, an d if you think this sort of expression is something that should just be ignored as opposed to actively discouraged. If you're okay with it, well, there's not much to say. If you're not, then what's the difference between that bit of expression and MC accusing Psy of raping black women in order to maintain white privilege? (Which counts as a "false defamatory statement" in my books, and, as per your own definition, is not protected free speech anyways.) --P-Foster_{The Holy Roman Empire was neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire. Discuss.} 23:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

See, there's this funny thing. I've never run cross-swords with MC, but I've had Psygremlin throw a shitfest over a minor and trivial slight that I made against him. And what was his response? "Kick her off the board! SHE'S AN EVIL HARPY!!!" The idea that Psygremlin didn't participate in any escalation is a little difficult for me to swallow. He often runs off crying "zOMG, someone offended me, let's ban them!" every time someone makes even the slightest remark against him.

The name you linked to isn't appropriate, and I imagine it was dealt with appropriately... block the username only (no IP blocks) with a note: "make a non-defamatory username". We wouldn't, and shouldn't tell the person to go away and never come back, and block his IP forever... --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 05:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I want an appeal

I am not a board of trustees member anymore. I resigned because the drama and shitstorm I was taking was interfering with my mental health. Even if I were still a board of trustees member, the board takes an official stance of non-interference with web page politics. Lastly, god damn it fuckers, he's not trolling in this comment at all, and being civil and reasonable. Do you have to be THAT huge of dicks? --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 15:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

There was a community decision that his posts not be allowed to remain. If you disagree with that decision, fine, but that doesn't give you the right to ignore it. Please don't insult people who are only trying to uphold the will of the majority of editors. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 15:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I know about the community decision. I voted against it. Mobocracy means we do whatever we want, not that "majority" rules. I'm not insulting anyone by calling them dicks, because when they're deleting content that IS NOT MC'S (like, say, it's a comment of my own) just because they want to censor MC (which won't actually accomplish anything, because it's FUCKING BAN EVADING ANYWAYS). But here come MC, is nice, respectful, civil, reasonable and rational, and what's the response? "FUCK YOU! GO AWAY!" ... nice job, who's the troll now assholes? --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 16:13, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

You're right that no one should be deleting your comments. But I am honestly baffled at this general attitude. I mean, I am - in real life - sighing.

What do you want to be done? I mean, honestly - what rule should be followed? Should we hold votes on stuff like this, and then if people want to ignore it because they voted against it, we let them? Why vote on it at all, then?

I'm not trying to attack you. I honestly want your input. Do you not want any moderators, but instead the more anarchic system previously? Or do you not want votes and rules, but do want moderators or some other authority (and in which case, what should they be doing)? Or do you not want either?

I don't understand what you want. Please tell me.--^talk 16:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Have you not noticed the endless cycle of being a dick to some people then cuddling up all nice to others so they'll feel protective and go on the defensive about "free speech" and that? "Civil, reasonable and rational" is just a cover to get under your skin. Don't fall for it. ADK^{...I'll liberate your engraving!} 16:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Fuck you, I know exactly what MC is doing here, I'm not a fucking idiot. But how we treat MC speaks to our morality not his. He was railroaded and given a 2 year block for ban evading a 2 month block, and he's SHOCK! Ban evading again! I FUCKING TOLD EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOU THAT THIS WAS GOING TO HAPPEN, AND THAT YOUR 2 YEAR BLOCK WASN'T GOING TO SOLVE ANYTHING. And then you tell me that I'M the idiot for falling for MC's purported bullshit? --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 16:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

So what would you have us do? Nothing? That's worked pretty well the last few years hasn't it? Like it or not, letting MC do as he likes over the past few years is what has led us to this point - and you would have us press the restart button, only to end up here again two years down the line. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 17:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

There was nothing that required fixing, and that's the whole point. You just don't like MC, and can't suffer a troll to post, so we had to blow a whole bunch of drama up and work it up until we got justification from people to ban him. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 18:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Nothing that required fixing? The community as an organism felt differently. It wasn't one or two users scheming that brought us here - it was the gradual development of the community as a whole in response to MC's persistent trolling and a failure to deal with it. Your userpage says you believe in evolution; now consider the evolution of RW and what MC is in relation to it. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 18:10, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

So, your argument is that MC has made the community stronger, and better? So, he's not a troll out to destroy us... of course, the autoimmune response to dealing with MC could very well kill us, because ALL YOU FUCKERS ARE OVERREACTING TO HIM. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 18:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

My argument is that the RW community evolved naturally to get rid of a troll, yet you deny that and insist that it's the evil machinations of a few authoritarian users. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 21:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The question is: why did we have to get rid of the troll? It's because people didn't like him, and for no other better reason. This is the thing, people are acting like this is a no brainer, because "who wouldn't want to get rid of a troll?" Well, all the people who think this website shouldn't have any trace of "permanent" level ban hammers. Honestly, we've banhammered MC just because he's a troll, and no one likes him, so when do we have the vote to banhammer JimJast and Maratrean for being cranks and no one likes them? --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 09:28, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, two points: point the first: I'm part of the anarchist party here. If you're asking me "what rule do you want followed" then you're asking the wrong question. It's like asking an atheist which god they want to follow. It's nonsense.

Second of all, there was no due process in the whole MC thing. The response to "he's evading our banhammer" was "let's use a BIGGER banhammer, that will work!" No, it won't because he was already ban evading, and he was... and IS (just like I fucking said he would) still ban evading. Laying down a punishment upon someone for no other purpose than "we want to PUNISH you!" is never going to be met with compliance with the punished party. The punished party has to agree' to your punishment in order for rehabilitation to occur. No one tried to do any of that. It was just "he keeps calling Psygremlin a racist raping self-african, so we should ban him, and get rid of him."

This wiki used to ... it used to be a place where people came together and worked things out and you had do deal with the bullshit people forced on you, because you couldn't just CP banhammer them away. The whole fucking wiki was built on the idea of opposing authoritarianism and thus picked up anarchy as an idea to see if people who were actually fucking rational human beings could deal with it. Guess what? New people started coming in and going "hey, other wikis have rules, we should have rules!" And then got other people to sacrifice the core essence and concept of this wiki for the sake of having rules.

This wiki is turning into a shitty place, because for all the talk of anti-authoritarianism, and the castigation of CP for banhammering the undesirables, it has now come out that we have become the beast that we complained about in CP... I haven't seen a real good reason for banning MC other than "we don't like him!" If psygremlin really thinks that MC's comments amount to defamation, he can take it to a fucking real court and get it settled with fucking DUE PROCESS rather than railroading MC out of town just because no one likes him... --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 16:34, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Who are these 'new' users? Me? ADK? AD? Psy? Or is Brx pulling all the strings from behind the scenes? EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 18:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

"And then got other people to sacrifice the core essence and concept of this wiki for the sake of having rules." for those people who can't seem to read. No, the new users aren't pulling your strings from behind the scenes, but they are convincing you that there is a problem here, when there actually isn't one. By manufacturing problems, they convince you we need real rules, with real leadership, and real authority on this webpage. And now that our site has authorities, it is becoming authoritarian... it's a simple tautology... --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 18:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Your userpage says you're a socialist. Socialism requires authorities. You say that authorities equals authoritarianism. Therefore socialism equals authoritarianism equals fascism. Are you a fascist Eira? Fascist. And I find it interesting that you claim that it's not the troll who is the problem, but those who want to get rid of him. Again I ask you: who are these new users who are 'manufacturing problems'? EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 18:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Socialism is a real world governance system. This wiki is not the real world. This is not SRS BZNS... Individuals need protection against corporations, and need to be provided with fundamental necessities for life. The government however should not be restricting any person's social liberties. It shouldn't tell you what religion to believe, it shouldn't tell you what you can say, and what you cannot say. This board has no economic system. It is all about speech. If you want to call me a fascist because I think corporations shouldn't be treated the same as natural persons, then meh, yeah, legal persons don't deserve the same rights as natural persons. They don't need food, shelter, and healthcare. They don't have a corporeal body. Protecting natural persons from legal persons is not fascism to me. Restricting thought and communication though is fascism to me. I acknowledge though that by being socialist I believe in some authoritarianism. The government cannot protect natural persons from legal persons without having an authoritarian system in place to regulate legal persons. That doesn't mean that I think that the government should have any place to stifle the rights of natural persons... only legal persons, who only have personification because of statutory law in the first place. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 18:21, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

See Neb below. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 21:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Let's see, this site has banned one user for two years, after a vote, and after several years of obvious trolling. Yes, we're exactly like CP. DickTurpis (talk) 16:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

A person who has had even just one abortion cannot tell a person who has had 100 that that other person is wrong for having had an abortion... our moral high ground was that we wouldn't invoke "I hate you" bans. Now we have, so congratulations our moral high ground is gone. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 16:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not an 'I hate you' ban. It's a 'you're a troll ban'. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 17:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Or, perhaps, an "I hate you because you're a troll" ban. DickTurpis (talk) 17:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

And what is wrong with trolls other than "I hate you". We codified and formalized treason in the US making it nigh impossible to accomplish, because the monarch of England was using it as an "I hate you" execution/imprisonment method. So really, this "you're a troll" ban, is really just "we don't like you". You can "justify" it with all the post-hoc apologetics you want, but that's what it fundamentally breaks down to. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 18:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

What's wrong with trolls? See TK. Their whole point is to disrupt and destroy a community, because they've always failed at being part of one. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 18:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

(EC)I guess you put me in my place. Thank you for letting me know where you stand.--^talk 16:44, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

This wiki was founding on a principle of anarchy. And now everyone shits a brick when human and I disagree with a ruling and so we do our own shit on our own "turf". This place really is turning into Fascipedia... you don't want to be called a fascist? Then stop trying to enforce a rule of law, fucking ANARCHY rules here, bitch. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 16:40, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Obviously touched a nerve there. ADK^{...I'll pass your automobile!} 16:44, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Internet is serious business. --188.238.88.195 (talk) 17:21, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Dammit MC... it's making it really hard to get them to not be cocks when you keep butting your head in. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 17:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Eira, that was not me. I employ the 86.45.... range. There are imposters who regularly sprout up, but you can always tell them for their lack of sophistication. I admire what you're doing here, but I would counsel you to be prudent. I'm playing a long game here. All know that the trial was a sham, I lacked a defence, I faced a predetermined jury, and the result was far too close for anywhere near as binding a decision. Until I get a retrial I will remain a lightening rod for dissent and free speech. Those in authority will use their jackboots and try to repress me, (And you, and others who hate what they've done to this place) but in the long run, liberty always prevails over tyranny. 86.45.235.173 (talk) 17:53, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I knew it wasn't you. I'm muddying the waters. Stop clearing them up. After all, you could be using proxies... --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 17:55, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I dislike this 'troll' word getting bandied about. Judging by EddyP's definition of troll, 'someone who disrupts communities', it seems to me that a troll is someone with an independent spirit of mind and intellect who doesn't naturally fit into the prevailing social and political consensus of the times. It seems to me that Nazi Germany could have done with a few more trolls and few less 'members of the community'. 86.40.88.149 (talk) 18:10, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, trolls are only reviled when they're in disagreement with you. In fact, it seems to be the going definition. Not "out to destroy the community" but rather, "disagrees with me." --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 18:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The community made a decision, and a pretty overwhelming one at that. You are at liberty to not like it and to continue to contribute. You are at liberty to argue against it if you think you can overturn that consensus. You are not at liberty to unilaterally ignore it. Life is like that.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 18:50, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

51 to 49 is "overwhelming"? WTF dictionary are you using? And actually, because we're a mobocracy we have been able to unilaterally ignore it before. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 18:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Well I was thinking about this vote for instance, which seems pretty overwhelming to me.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 19:19, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Notice how there are plenty of long-standing members who haven't voted? In fact, only 3 of 7 moberators, from what I see... of course the vote on MC was only 51-49 in the first place, so the ban itself wasn't particularly overwhelming in the first place. Of course, the issue was originally human saying, "we had a vote, and MC was banned, but I disagree with it, so I'm going to make a troll sanctuary." --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 09:28, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

What 51-49 vote? Do you mean the Human coop vote? EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 15:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Correction, the vote I was referring to was 20-14. Still, that doesn't make the ban overwhelming. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 16:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The projection on the part of the MC defenders continues to be amusing -- "You guys are just overreacting to MC...STOP OVERREACTING, THIS IS THE INTERNET, NOT SRS BSNS!! THIS IS A TROLLOCAUST BY NAZI FASCIST AUTHORITARIANS (likely of the aspie variety)!!! FASCIPEDIA!!" Not srs bsns is srs bsns. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:50, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Mobocracy means whatever Eira wants, everybody wants --24.246.11.252 (talk) 20:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I explained mobocracy on RWW, but perhaps not everyone was there. Mobocracy is two people revert warring forever until one of them finally gives up, and we have a stable version. Mobocracy means literally rule by the mob, it is not "democracy" (let's vote on everything, and some level majority declares a winner), mobocracy is everyone does what they fucking want to, and you can't tell them otherwise, because they have just as much authority as you do. And you can't collect your friends together and outvote them, because the votes are non-binding. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 09:28, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

That's stupid. --193.65.150.15 (talk) 11:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)