|
Nominations and Campaigning for the 2024 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now open |
User talk:Glamour Sickle
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
|
Welcome to RationalWiki, Glamour Sickle!
Check out our guide for newcomers and our community standards! Tell us how you found RationalWiki here! If you are interested in contributing:
|
—ℕoir LeSable (talk) 15:18, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Autopatrol[edit]
Because of your edits to and time on the wiki, Autopatrolled has been added to your user rights. This lets you bypass most of the abuse filters, bypass the CAPTCHA, and edit more frequently. If you have questions, bleat ask away.
We hope you enjoy your newfound POWER — and these external tools:
- Google Scholar Button (Chrome, Firefox) searches your highlighted text in Google Scholar. Easily check academic citations!
- web.archive.org and archive.today, among other tools, can save permanent copies of webpages. Never lose a crank website or racist Tweet ever again!
DuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictatormoderator 17:22, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- Autopatrol has been revoked due to the suspicious nature of some of your recent edits. DuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW
dictatormoderator 18:00, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Your article[edit]
I moved your article to draftspace. Since we have a smaller community, articles take a longer time to reach substantial size. That's why we try to only include relatively complete articles in mainspace, so unfinished articles won't show up in general searches. Once it's finished, you can move it into mainspace or else ask someone to do it for you. Thanks for contributing, and hope you have a good time! If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask me on my talkpage. 
DuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 17:25, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- Cool thanks. GlamourSICKLE 17:48, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Warning[edit]
Quit vandalizing my Biogeography page. I'm leaving you with a short block. Further violations will mean a referral to the Chicken coop.Summa Atheologica (talk) 17:12, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
- More edits like that, into the vandal bin you go. --It's-a me,
LeftyGreenMario! 17:58, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
- What did I do wrong? There is more variation within groups. GlamourSICKLE 19:23, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Glamour Sickle Look if you would just kindly write about 200 words on the subject of whether you think race is a social or biological construct I am sure this can be sorted out easily enough. ta — Dysk (contribs) 19:29, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
- 200 words? There is more variation within groups and also there is a cline. How is it possible to make a biological construct in that case? What else do you need to know? Do you not understand elementary biology or something? GlamourSICKLE 20:09, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
- I just found that your addition of that information on a mostly unrelated article, choppily and hastily added, and on someone else's draft very strange. And you are making those bland statements repeatedly. Maybe it was a mistake. But go back to editing to relevant articles. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:18, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
- We have a bit of a short fuse for this kind of stuff because there are a lot of Nazi trolls who pop in to start adding racist/racialist garbage into pages. It's nothing personal. DuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW
dictatormoderator 20:53, 25 April 2019 (UTC)- I don't understand what is garbage. There is more variation within groups so race doesn't exist. Does that not apply to other animals who are in the early stages of allopatric speciation? GlamourSICKLE 09:37, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
- no EK (talk) 10:27, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
- Why not? GlamourSICKLE 10:38, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
- We do agree that more variation within groups means race doesn't exist. That also means subspecies of sparrow don't exist. It's all an illusion. What's controversial about this? This is mainstream biology. GlamourSICKLE 12:01, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
- Show a study that measures genetic differentiation between putative subspecies of a Sparrow (there are over 40 species). Patten & Unitti (2002) did a phenotypic differentiation study of 7 putative subspecies of Sage Sparrow (Amphispiza belli) to discover there are 3 diagnosably distinct subspecies, e.g. "There is no overlap between mantle darkness of A. b. belli and the pale subspecies. In that respect alone the subspecies is 100% diagnosable" & "Discontinuities of variation in the Sage Sparrow allow recognition of only three diagnosable subspecies".
- no EK (talk) 10:27, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
- I don't understand what is garbage. There is more variation within groups so race doesn't exist. Does that not apply to other animals who are in the early stages of allopatric speciation? GlamourSICKLE 09:37, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
- We have a bit of a short fuse for this kind of stuff because there are a lot of Nazi trolls who pop in to start adding racist/racialist garbage into pages. It's nothing personal.
- I just found that your addition of that information on a mostly unrelated article, choppily and hastily added, and on someone else's draft very strange. And you are making those bland statements repeatedly. Maybe it was a mistake. But go back to editing to relevant articles. --It's-a me,
- 200 words? There is more variation within groups and also there is a cline. How is it possible to make a biological construct in that case? What else do you need to know? Do you not understand elementary biology or something? GlamourSICKLE 20:09, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Glamour Sickle Look if you would just kindly write about 200 words on the subject of whether you think race is a social or biological construct I am sure this can be sorted out easily enough. ta — Dysk (contribs) 19:29, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
- What did I do wrong? There is more variation within groups. GlamourSICKLE 19:23, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
ye so GL is blocked for doing a racism tho they can still respond here if they want EK (talk) 14:31, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
- There is more variation within groups though. That means classification is not possible. Also this is wrong and not possible because there is more variation within groups. Once the variation is over 50% then they are different. Otherwise they are the same. GlamourSICKLE 14:48, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
- You're making a parody of a straw man. "They are the same" is the same straw man you've used here plenty of times before. Also, classification is possible for populations with low quantitative differentiation if they are qualitatively differentiated, e.g. it appears subspecies of Amphispiza belli have low genetic quantitative differentiation, but are highly qualitatively differentiation with zero overlap between subspecies in certain genetic/phenotypic characters (i.e. subspecies x has a character not found in subspecies y) This has all been explained to you countless times on the racialism talk-page, see the old archived discussions.Tobias (talk) 15:58, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
- When it comes to living humans, there is both low quantitative differentiation and no qualitative differentiation hence there are no subspecies ("races"). Why exactly is this hard to understand? You've struggled with this for past 6 years.Tobias (talk) 16:05, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
- Yes there is no qualitative differentiation between humans. They are all exactly the same. So why do people write things like this? GlamourSICKLE 16:11, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
- You do a very bad job at hiding your true positions on this stuff. It was suspicious then but I think it's pretty clear now. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 16:13, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
- What are you trying to imply? That all humans are not exactly the same? What kind of hate-filled moron would think something like that? GlamourSICKLE 16:14, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
- You do a very bad job at hiding your true positions on this stuff. It was suspicious then but I think it's pretty clear now. --It's-a me,
- Yes there is no qualitative differentiation between humans. They are all exactly the same. So why do people write things like this? GlamourSICKLE 16:11, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
- When it comes to living humans, there is both low quantitative differentiation and no qualitative differentiation hence there are no subspecies ("races"). Why exactly is this hard to understand? You've struggled with this for past 6 years.Tobias (talk) 16:05, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
- You're making a parody of a straw man. "They are the same" is the same straw man you've used here plenty of times before. Also, classification is possible for populations with low quantitative differentiation if they are qualitatively differentiated, e.g. it appears subspecies of Amphispiza belli have low genetic quantitative differentiation, but are highly qualitatively differentiation with zero overlap between subspecies in certain genetic/phenotypic characters (i.e. subspecies x has a character not found in subspecies y) This has all been explained to you countless times on the racialism talk-page, see the old archived discussions.Tobias (talk) 15:58, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
- @LeftyGreenMario Glamour is another Mikemikev sock. He's been blocked on about another dozen accounts in past few days, but I think we've left him to access his talk-page here so he can make more of a fool of himself.Tobias (talk) 16:20, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
- @ Mike, I've argued for an anti-racialism position for past 7 years. In contrast you impersonate both anti-racialists (like now) and racialists. So I've always found your claims I suffer from mental illness to be your own psychological projection. Do you even hold a consistent position on anything? Tobias (talk) 16:29, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
