User talk:Fyrius

What is going on? World Blogs Clogs Elections The Bar (talk) (talk) (talk) (talk) (hic) Welcome to RationalWiki, Fyrius! Check out our guide for newcomers and our community standards! Tell us how you found RationalWiki here! If you are interested in contributing: Read what our articles are intended to be Check out the to-do list See our help page and Wikipedia's formatting cheatsheet If writing a new article, consider writing up a draft And most importantly: Pull up a goat and have some fun!

a master of lingerie? Sir, you have my attention. --PsyGremlinSiarad! 12:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I commend you for using this pun instead of the "cunning linguist" joke. Fyrius (talk) 12:10, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

/deadpan face on. I don't get it. PsyGremlinSermā! 12:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

When I mention my involvement in the field of linguistics around the more silly-minded sort of people, they often ask me if I consider myself a "cunning linguist", or bring up that phrase in any other way. A play on the word "cunnilingus".

It's not a bad joke, it just gets a bit old. Fyrius (talk) 13:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Ridicule

Hi. I started a thread on that point you raised. Forum:On ridicule You might want to contribute. Cheers. --Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 17:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking my concerns seriously. I guess I my initial worries were wrong, you guys are more reasonable people than I gave you credit for. I'm glad to learn that. :) Fyrius (talk) 10:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

From your user page

“”I've seen more than enough like-mindedness nests where rather than trying to learn something together, the denizens only congratulate themselves about how right they are and how dumb the opposing views are, without ever challenging their views with any of the genuinely difficult issues.

Very true. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 18:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Fyrius, I am a long time lurker but i rarely add anything here... I saw your comment on the christianity page, you are right: arguably true from a certain point of view but trollish ... BUT you must know: Rationalwiki spawned from Conservapedia. Original members of RW were a mix of disgruntled but sincere CP users and a bunch of merry pranksters... CP is not known to be either neutral nor sane... So when peeps watch a fundamentalist website, it's normal the discussions gets weird!

I dont think RW ever pretended to be a reliable reference. RW is not the uncyclopedia but it's no Wikipedia ... ( and honestly, even if we steal some of theirs jokes, it's clearly not 4chan)

I have seen here very serious discussions as much as very(VERY!!!) funny ones... So, RW is what you do with it, it is VERY permissive.. there are over 400 sysops (!) here but they are mostly there to erase spam and block TK

Hang around our saloon bar, launch intellectual challenges to your fellow RWpedians, stimulate us: you would be surprised! Alain (talk) 18:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC) ( taking his sysopship a bit too seriously)

Question

Do you honestly think you can win over any person with reason? - π 11:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, no. I've been that optimistic for a long time, but as I wrote in the Forum:On ridicule thread:

"Some people are not receptive to reason. I'll have to admit that. It breaks my heart, but it's true.

But when reason doesn't work, ridicule isn't going to help either. Arguably in that situation the only thing you can hope to achieve is that the wrong beliefs don't spread, but I say you can achieve that better with arguments than with ridicule. Ridicule is easier, but arguments are the only valid way to discredit ideas, and furthermore by being the one to remain reasonable you'll set people the right example on how to evaluate beliefs and deal with disagreements about factual things." Fyrius (talk) 12:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

You want a challenge to test your ideas on? - π 12:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The ideas that some people are not receptive to reason, that ridicule won't help, and that reason will do a better job at keeping nonsense from spreading?

I think I've had a good number of practical experiences that could have refuted them for me, but I take it you have another challenge in mind. Proceed. Fyrius (talk) 12:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay. This is Philip J. Rayment, an Australian creationist. I have never seen anyone able to debate him without resorting to ridicule. I would be interested inseeing if you can get him to concede a point before you resort to ridicule. - π 12:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Reason only works on the reasonable, don't forget. Totnesmartin (talk) 12:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually I'm with Pi here. I, for one, would love to see a demonstration of your use of rationality when debating with Mr Rayment. Dare I suggest "the age of the universe", "the talking snake" or "dinosaurs and man coexisting"? These are perennial favourites though there are many others.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 13:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

If he's such a notoriously closed-minded person, I'll readily admit I probably can't get him to concede a point. I already agreed with you that reason is wasted on some people.

I could try talking to him without resorting to ridicule, and I think I could succeed - I express it in different ways when I lose my patience, even when I have no incentive to "try to win a bet" about it - but if that'll be my reason to confront him, as a test of not-using-ridicule, it would seem like a bit of a pointless charade. I already know the exchange would end with me giving up. And I've never before entered a discussion with ulterior motives, so it wouldn't even be a proper test. (Not to mention that that sounds tiresome as heck.)

But I could link you to other places where I've debated hopeless people and given up, if you really want to see how I deal with failure. (See here or here for example. I'd advise you to wait until tomorrow, though, they have an April Fools' joke where the usernames and avatars are messed with.)

Or I could just tell you: I get angry, and I accuse people of being closed-minded, of not listening, of being irrational, of practising wishful thinking, or of being too dense to follow the discussion properly. Each of which I will consider justified criticism at the moment. Fyrius (talk) 13:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

It rather depends on your definition of "closed minded". He'll certainly read and respond to every point you make.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 14:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I have a confession to make. I've noticed I do sometimes deride chronically irrational people in non-rational ways, when they annoy me enough.

In my defence, I do it personally and to their faces (well, to their avatars), and I do it mostly to vent frustration; I hope it does nothing to reassure me or anyone else that we're not the ones who are wrong.

But still, I've been inconsistent. Bad Fyrius. Fyrius (talk) 20:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey there! I've been reading this: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Forum:On_ridicule as linked from the Christianity talk page. And let it never be said that your stance on keeping rational and winning people over with reason doesn't work. Because it did. On me. As in, I think you have a very good point that ridicule is rarely helpful to the (very commendable) cause of promoting truth and reason.

Now, there are some qualifying factors to that: I am very receptive to reason because I often try to doubt myself and others and anything and everything and then get rid of that doubt with reason. (Because I believe that truly solid personal growth can only be achieved by thinking about things. This is why I dislike thought-stoppers like outright refusal to consider the "ridiculous".) So in conclusion winning me over with reason isn't all that difficult, but hey, if it gives you more confidence in your mission to make the world a better place, then that's good.

On a somewhat related tangent, I was thinking about how far reason can go and whether it can't treat certain topics adequately. Human beings are not only rationally inclined by nature, but also irrationally inclined by nature (if you've ever been smitten with love, you'll know what I'm talking about). There are probably some things in this world that cannot be treated with reason (such as some components of love). In such cases it is best to "follow your heart", whatever that means (probably something relating to emotions, chemistry, instincts, biological determinism, quantum physics, etc. etc. ;p). Probably. Or maybe I'm just a stupid romantic! Nullahnung (talk) 03:56, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

State of Sysopness

Hurray! Aceⁱ⁹ 20:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Ooh, more buttons. Thanks for the good faith. :) Fyrius (talk) 20:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC)