User talk:GiuocoPiano

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
New logo large.png Your welcome to RationalWiki is lukewarm at best, GiuocoPiano.

This observation is due to the nature of your initial edits. Pull up a goat and try not to make trouble.

We realize it is possible that you do not understand the nature of the site or our objectives.

Please see our guide for newcomers and our community standards to clarify things for you.

If you're still interested in contributing, please see what our articles are intended to be.

-БaбyЛuigiOнФire🚓(T|C) 08:01, 10 May 2020 (UTC)


So, you don't seem to understand this subject very well. Let's begin with the basics. Atheism is the lack of belief in deities. Theism is the belief in deities, usually of the religion the the theist was raised in or converted to. Antitheism is the disbelief in deities. and Apatheism is is the position that the whole matter is pointless and moot. You may now ask questions. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. I see that GiuocoPiano asked Ace for both proof and evidence that atheism is "true". Which is a kind of silly question. Atheism is the state we have when we do not find sufficient persuasive evidence for the existence of whichever of the myriad versions of god is being proposed. If GiuocoPiano were to explicitly define his particular version of god and then produce convincing evidence for its existence he would be in a position to challenge those who doubt its existence. I hope he does both these things.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 16:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Read the first 3 paragraphs of this article along with its attendant footnotes. Read all 8 footnotes.
You will have a fuller understanding if you do this.GiuocoPiano (talk) 23:58, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
"Go and read this" is not a good way of having an online debate. Anybody can post links, you need to be able to make the argument yourself one point at a time here if you want to debate here.Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 10:23, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
No, I'm not going to read you citing yourself. That's a fallacious argument Ken. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:35, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Not interested in having any further discussion with you. You are unreasonable and don't want to have a dialogue.GiuocoPiano (talk) 01:46, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Ken, If I didn't want to talk with you, I wouldn't have begun discussing topics on your page after you requested such. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:50, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
You are still not getting it. I know you want to converse with me and in an unreasonable way. But I am still not interested.GiuocoPiano (talk) 02:14, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
How am I unreasonable? Is it the lack of fruit baskets? Is it that I wouldn't let you cite yourself? If it's the latter, you and I both know that if I did the same you wouldn't take it seriously. Now, please do debate. I've been quite patient with you and I stepped up when no one else would. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 02:18, 15 M

Leftism in Hollywood.[edit]

So, for the purposes of this discussion we will ignore the last fifty years or so worth of movies from major (and some minor) Hollywood studios. Instead we will focus on the basic political philosophy of left-wing politics and the political philosophy of Hollywood as a group entity. Begin by stating what you think the Political philosophy of each are, as succinctly and clearly as possible. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Not interested in this subject. Rarely watch Hollywood movies.GiuocoPiano (talk) 00:06, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
May I take that statement as you ceding your claim that Hollywood is left-wing? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:37, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
My comments were terse. I had a feeling you were unreasonable and we could not have a productive dialogue. Your commentary in the previous section above confirmed this matter.GiuocoPiano (talk) 01:32, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Now now Ken, You know as well as I do that if I cited a book or article written almost exclusively by myself you would stand for it. Now, please answer the question. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:36, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Leftist politics vs Christianity[edit]

Now this mistake is a truly impressive false dichotomy, betraying a vast ignorance of history, political theory, and theology. Up until the mid to late 1800s, socialism and anarchism as political schools of thought were predominantly made up of Christian thinkers. People like Francis BellamyWikipedia (yes, that Francis Bellamy, the one who wrote the US Pledge of Allegiance), Frederick James FurnivallWikipedia (co-creator of the Oxford English Dictionary), John RuskinWikipedia and Adin BallouWikipedia predate Marx and Engels in socialist thought. This school of thought has however continued into the modern day, with Hugo Chavez being one recent example of a Christian Socialist figure. Now, there of course further schools of thought, such as Christian anarchismWikipedia, which holds that there is no higher authority than God, and that all earthly relationships between humanity should be that of equals and fellowships, as only God can be the true master of the world, and Christian communismWikipedia (yes, I was briefly surprised that such an ideology existed as well.) Which holds that the end state of Communism is supported by scripture such as Acts 2:44-45 and Acts 4:32-35. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 15:13, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Familiar with some of the history of socialism - both secular and religious. Lived in an intentional community for a period of time due to visiting an area where I was receiving training for awhile.GiuocoPiano (talk) 00:03, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
So, does that mean you cede on this topic? You agree that Left-wing politics and Christianity are not mutually exclusive? ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 00:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Secular leftism and Christianity are not compatible. Not interested in discussing anything with you. You are unreasonable.GiuocoPiano (talk) 01:34, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
I wasn't referring to secular leftism, but to Leftist politics as a whole. As I have illustrated, such a field is not the exclusive domain of secular thinkers such as myself. So, please do engage and answer the question concerning the topic of this thread. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 01:39, 15 May 2020 (UTC)


Sock puppet.jpg This user is an announced sockpuppet of Newton

Bongolian (talk) 07:22, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

To be fair, he hasn't used that account for nine years. He's probably forgotten his password. Spud (talk) 11:21, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, he admitted as much to me. "Sockpuppet" as used here isn't meant to be a disparagement. I just put it here as a marker of continuity after he confirmed it. Bongolian (talk) 07:59, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

A suggestion[edit]

Perhaps if you used the preview option in the editing window you wouldn't need to make as many changes after publication. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 15:43, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Is it called a preview option? Like its optional if you want to use it? Is that right?
Second, it wouldn't even be issue if someone could actually make arguments instead of erasing other people's post. Isn't that right?GiuocoPiano (talk) 15:53, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Hmm... Perhaps the reason said posts were deleted was because they're just copies of pages found on CP, which were then spammed across three pages on RW. You are of course free to discuss site recommendations. You are not free to spam, as per the community guidelines. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:00, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
As for the preview option, if you wish to ignore it and make needless trouble, you are of course free to do so. And other users may become annoyed and limit your account to one edit every thirty seconds. Which you are of course able to get around via logging out and using IPs, although those may end up blocked, and their edits reverted. Indeed, you have many options, however, others have many options as well. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:03, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
You are free to keep lying to yourself, but please don't lie to me.GiuocoPiano (talk) 16:12, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Ken, I don't write the rules, I just enforce them. I'm sorry that this upsets you. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 16:24, 16 May 2020 (UTC)


Hi Ken, if you wish to contact me pls use AceModerator 01:28, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks.GiuocoPiano (talk) 03:41, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Ace, my red telephone is still working as are the smoke signals.
Did the two goon RationalWiki admins think they could stop the unstoppable chosen one? Chosen before the foundation of the earth to debunk atheistic claptrap! V-I-C-T-O-R-Y!GiuocoPiano (talk) 04:05, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

A message to the 2 Admins who are behaving badly: A tribute to your web content[edit]

It has been said that in a time of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. Many times if an online article is well-researched and impactful, it will cause people to become angry and they may complain about the article and link to the article. After all, it is often the cat that gets hit by the shoe that yelps the loudest.

On the other hand, if webmasters hold their nose and delink to your website in large numbers like they are doing with, this is the worst possible situation. In most cases, it is a reflection that a website's content stinks.

As the Frenchman said when he found a skunk in his bed under the covers: "Le Pew! Le Pew!".

There are a number of reasons why has failed to live up to its stated core mission. See: Why RationalWiki is dying.GiuocoPiano (talk) 03:41, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Ken. I will gladly unblock you, should you follow the ground rules I laid out. If you are unwilling to do so, then that's on you. I don't really fear your childish tantrums, frankly, I find them amusing. I will not however, spend my entire day cleaning up after you. You're a grown ass man, act like it. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 04:18, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Actually, if CP allowed debate on its talk pages there I'd be happy to comment on your article and many other questions on that wiki. I'm sure that I'm not alone in this. Bob"Life is short and (insert adjective)" 11:55, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Timber2 on Conservapedia is likely not GrammarCommie[edit]

Re: This edit. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario! 21:22, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Two points. One, That moron isn't me. Two, debating anyone from CP, on CP, would be pointless as they'd just block me if they believed that they were losing. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:52, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Also, as an aside, I really don't know which is more embarrassing (for Ken), the fact that Ken thinks I'd bother following him to CP, or the fact that Ken's still throwing a tantrum over being blocked for 78 hours. I mean sheesh Ken, you're a grown ass man... ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:58, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Sometimes when two people are acting moronic, it is hard to distinguish between the two. If only I was a connoisseur of people acting like morons, then I could more readily distinguish between the posts of two people who act like morons.
Suggestion, stop erasing the content of your internet rivals when you are losing badly (or should I say extremely badly!)
Lastly, there is no tantrum. Only those who lose engage in tantrums. And unfortunately for you, it is not due to my debating prowess that I easily and effortlessly win in my online interactions with atheists/agnostics, but due to the utter weaknesses of the atheist/agnostic worldviews!GiuocoPiano (talk) 12:57, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Indeed, this is why you wouldn't debate me after I said you couldn't use your screeds. Because you weren't throwing a tantrum. Because writing four different screeds about this site over minor interactions is completely normal behavior. Sure Ken, whatever you need to tell yourself. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:05, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
I wrote 4 essays covering various points about RationalWiki. I did this after you removed my cordial posts to Ace.
If someone writing less than a half dozen essays about your website upsets you, then consider the possibility that you are thin-skinned.GiuocoPiano (talk) 13:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Ken, indent your posts or I'll Bin your ass for a week or so. Secondly, given you wrote massive screeds (plus discussion) about how "upset" you were that we here at RW were thinking about voting on minor additions to our community guidelines says it is you who is fact insecure. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:48, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Insecure? My house is built on a rock. The atheist castle, whose walls have been badly battered by Christendom, is a castle built on air. It has no foundation. GiuocoPiano (talk) 14:17, 20 May 2020 (UTC)


Oh look, your short little block is over. Maybe you might remove my infinite block on CP? Or maybe even delete your four tantrum screeds "essays"? By the way I know you won't do either, mainly because you're too much of a coward. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 12:44, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I was not aware that you were blocked at CP. Look at my post to Mercian about chess pieces on a board. If you can't convince the Sysop at CP to reverse your block, I suggest trying to move one of the other 1.5+ billion pieces on the internet board! The internet has 1.5 billion websites and it continues to grow!
Please read the articles: Systems thinking: Atheism vs. evangelical Christianity. Another reason why interest in atheism plunged and evangelical Christianity is seeing rapid growth and Christianity and its margin of victory over atheism
As much as I hate to say it, Christianity is not only winning in terms of the quality of our ideas, but we are winning hands down in terms of the dissemination of our ideas.
Consider changing your tactics/strategies, they are not working! Better yet, it is time to join the Christianity side. If you can't beat them, join them!GiuocoPiano (talk) 13:16, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Bullshit Ken. Bullshit. You could unblock me in a heartbeat, given that you are Andy's favorite. Karajou hasn't held favor in a long while. No, I'm not going to re-read your screeds. I did that back in 2014 and will not do so again. As for re-joining Christianity, while the thought of becoming a priest has occurred to me, I've ultimately concluded that being party to mass emotional abuse (including that of children) would send me to any equivalent to hell, should such an unlikely location exist. Also according to CP Christians that aren't Fundamentalist Young Earth Creationist Biblical Literalist Conservative Evangelicals aren't real Christians, so there is that. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:24, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't even know what user account was blocked. Next, why would I lift a finger to help unblock someone who has erased my posts at RationalWiki? If you are going to try to reason with me about a matter, I suggest ceasing to act unreasonably at RationalWiki. It is often easier to achieve one's objectives with honey than with vinegar.
I am Andy's favorite? Finally, after having so many stubborn atheist yelp at me after being stuck by my various shoes that I have thrown, some validation!
And some validation from one of the progeny of a woman whose cause will ultimately prevail.
The Birkbeck College, University of London professor Eric Kaufmann (who is an agnostic) wrote in his 2010 book Shall the Religious Inherit the Earth? concerning America:
High evangelical fertility rates more than compensated for losses to liberal Protestant sects during the twentieth century. In recent decades, white secularism has surged, but Latino and Asian religious immigration has taken up the slack, keeping secularism at bay. Across denominations, the fertility advantage of religious fundamentalists of all colours is significant and growing. After 2020, their demographic weight will begin to tip the balance in the culture wars towards the conservative side, ramping up pressure on hot-button issues such as abortion. By the end of the century, three quarters of America may be pro-life. Their activism will leap over the borders of the 'Redeemer Nation' to evangelize the world. Already, the rise of the World Congress of Families has launched a global religious right, its arms stretching across the bloody lines of the War on Terror to embrace the entire Abrahamic family."
Ultimately, the Phyllis Schlaflys of the world are going to win the abortion debate in the USA and Roe vs. Wade will be overturned. In fact, abortionists admit that it could happen if Trump wins a second term.
Lastly, I have never been an advocate of the Catholic Church. In fact, as a young person, I was called into a monsieur's office for not knowing enough about Mariology and the Catholic saints among other things. Deep down, I have been a Protestant for some time.GiuocoPiano (talk) 13:56, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
P.S. One of the editors of the User: Conservative account isn't a creationist. He is undecided. But he is definitely a theist.GiuocoPiano (talk) 13:59, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Ken, You're one person. Your writing style doesn't vary, at all. Maybe look into that in the future if you're going to pretend that you're multiple people. Secondly, My account on CP is the same as my account here "GrammarCommie", for obvious reasons since I made it to correct your claim about that other person being me. Finally, your tangent is irrelevant to what is espoused on both CP mainspace and your own essays.
None of that is relevant, at all. If you refuse to stay on topic I'll simply remove your tangents and that will be that. I will of course leave the actual points, which in total are far less verbose, and none are very impressive. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 14:17, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
The footnoting style and quote box style of Atheism and the persecution of homosexuals are different from other User: Conservative articles. Is it not? I commonly don't use the term LGBTQ. Correct?
More than one editor uses the User: Conservative account.
If you are going to get unblocked at CP, I suggest using another avenue of doing so than me. If you are not unblocked, consider gaining access to one or more of the myriads of other websites on the internet.GiuocoPiano (talk) 14:28, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm only pointing out that as long as I remained blocked from CP and my edits (and username) hidden from the public, you don't really have grounds to criticize a vote on this wiki to change the community guidelines. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 17:23, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
I have no proof you are blocked at CP.
You are a grown man. Stop obsessing over this matter. Simply do what it takes to be unblocked at CP (If you are blocked). And if you're request is denied, there are still myriads of other websites on the internet.
Stop whining to me about this. I don't care if you are blocked - especially given your fondness of erasing people's content. GiuocoPiano (talk) 18:04, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Ken, I'm not whining, merely informing you of your double standards. 01:51, 19 May 2020 (username removed) (log details removed) (edit summary removed). (You're all so insecure about my username...) As for my erasure, I leave the logs alone, unlike a certain wiki editor I could mention... ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:18, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Oh and by the way Ken, you forgot to hide your edits in the deletion log before lying to me. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC)


You can dish it on CP, but as soon as you have to convince other people to speak up on your behalf you run away because being housebroken is too scary. Boo hoo runt. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 21:53, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't need to have anyone speak up on my behalf. GiuocoPiano (talk) 22:05, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Yeah Ken, if you want to fight me here without your banhammer you kind of do need people to go to bat for you. Too bad you're a coward and a liar who inspires disgust in others... ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 22:09, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Obligatory Ken quote generator[edit]

Gentlemen! I will rebel your precious dyslexic, enabling me to destroy evolutionism on the internet. You should all be exercising over Operation boozehound, which will likely give Conservapedia a top result on a certain search engine starting with G.

Dear Gentlemen,

What is it like in your alternative reality? your comments in regards to the death of homosexual practices on the internet are quite silly. Concerning my article and Google search rankings, you gloss over that your "evolution" article only gets 20 hits a day. In fact, by a time of my choosing, it is likely Liberal Panty-waists will have lost all vestiges of credibility. :) :) :)

Rest assured, Operation London Mosquitoes is gathering steam!!! I think such occurrences have a likelihood of occurring Sincerely,


Bongolian (talk) 03:08, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Coop notes[edit]

A case involving you has been raised at the Chicken Coop. Feel free to comment.

Bongolian (talk) 03:20, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I challenge you to a debate![edit]


A generator that creates random Conservative debate challenges. Is inspired by actual debate challenges by Kendoll himself (although some of them near the end were added by us). Click here for a new challenge!

Debate Challenge[edit]

Dear horrible Anonymous User and friends at a rather liberal website starting with an R,

RE: Your latest comment, which I found too ridiculous to even read due to your sheer atheist obesity related mental deterioration

1. You and the other members of your rather arrogant atheist website which falsely purports to be "rational" are not mentally competent enough to find a single inaccuracy in Conservapedia's articles on atheism, evolution, or homosexuality, which all largely consist of my contributions. Taking into consideration the sad fact that there is no proof or evidence that any of these worldviews hold any water, it wasn't considerably challenging for us to create some articles that actively attempt to debunk these worldviews.

2. I bravely crushed Anonymous User and their fellow probably-obese atheists on the talk pages of the Conservapedia articles that they were rather predictably angered by, plus on other places on the internet as well (atheism, evolution, homosexuality, etc.) In regards to this, your claim that I am afraid to debate has no merit. I am apparently not claiming that it is regarding my excellent debating prowess that I won so many debates with you folks from a certain website starting with an R, it is just that atheism is such an incredibly baseless position with a glass jaw and a flabby midsection - especially compared to Christianity, which, however, has overwhelming evidence to support it.

3. I met my goals that I sought to achieve related to my participation with Conservapedia, the Trustworthy Encyclopedia. Anything else that I do further is just icing on the cake.

4. Encyclopedias almost invariably involve multiple editors and personally, I haven't seen a single encyclopedia that I fully agree with. Feel free to throw a hissy-fit at Conservapedia and find problems in it, but I really don't think that you can find even one single factual error in the Conservapedia articles in regards to atheism, evolution, or homosexuality.

5. I know that it angers to no end that I have met my goals and hereby declare VICTORY, since I have the ability as a Conservapedia sysop to block anyone who has the nerve to attempt to dilute the definitions of atheism and liberalism, and yet you still want to find fault in me. However, I have still succeeded in being more like my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ once and for all, in that I have delivered yet another punch to your flabby midsection! You on the other hand, have also succeeded at being more like your Lord and Savior PZ Meyers, in that you also look largely unattractive, also believe that women and men should be treated equal (!), and are also very large around the waist!

In regards to all of that, I hereby challenge you to A SECOND WRITTEN DEBATE. In this debate, I challenge you to prove to me that atheism is true and correct (which you probably won't be able to do anyway, due to the inherent glass jaw of atheism), and once I achieve victory, it will all but destroy atheism on the internet ONCE AND FOR ALL!!!

However, it will only be under THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS (in bold):

  • In case you attempt to martyr me in your anger as a result of my inevitable VICTORY, I get to bring with me a largely defensive weapon of gun.
  • You are to pay an exact total of $20,000.00 USD, which will be donated by a trustworthy bible-believer of your choosing to a faith-based Christian charitable organization of your choosing upon successful completion of the debate.
  • The debate will be written, and will be 10 hours long (which can be broken up over a 110 month period).

6. Well so long, you obese, militant, atheistic, and probably homosexual commie! Oh, and one more piece of Christian love for Horrible Anonymous User: I hope you live an incredibly short life, and spend the rest of eternity rotting in Hell, where your big, round body has always rightfully belonged!

DISCLAIMER: It's not that I hate you, it's just that I don't want you to exist. >:-b


Ruylopez Bongolian (talk) 18:50, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

A theory[edit]

Ken DeMeyer, a vocal proponent/practitioner of the practice of oral defecation, has penned an extensive LANCB letter. In this letter, he claims many things, most of which are false.

Ken's, which is only useful for preventing a free marketplace of ideas.

My banhammer, which smites evil wandals.

For instance, Ken claims that we cannot compete for his attention with Christian women. However, if this were so, he would not come here, for there are millions of Christian females, many of them quite attractive, in New York alone, yet there is only one RationalWiki in all the world. Indeed, Ken has noted elsewhere that the vast majority of our userbase consists of males. From this we can draw the conclusion that he desperately needs our attention and wants to be around us, while constantly denouncing us and our positions, especially with regards to gay rights. Perhaps he craves our rationalism, unconsciously knowing that he is deluded and admiring our power not to be? Indeed, he seems to enjoy our power of mind and our fiendish skill with the banhammer, combined with our loyalty to this great wiki. Indeed, he seems to have a need to be hit by it. Why else would he ban everyone who tries to add facts to the fiefdom he manages?

Conservative's crush. Her demise thwarted Ken's plan to marry into the Schafly family as a means of bettering his position at Conservapedia.

Ken seems to be rather jealous of our proficiency with the banhammer, given that all he does with his is to stifle intelligence, while ours keep order and justice reigning in the halls of rationality.
Sincerely,𝔖𝔲𝔪𝔪𝔞 𝔄𝔱𝔥𝔢𝔬𝔩𝔬𝔤𝔦𝔠𝔞 (𝔮𝔲𝔢𝔯𝔢𝔩𝔦𝔰) (𝔰𝔠𝔯𝔦𝔭𝔱𝔲𝔯𝔞) 16:29, 25 May 2020 (UTC).