User talk:Guidedog/Archive

Organizaed by date of first post

What is going on? World Blogs Clogs Elections The Bar (talk) (talk) (talk) (talk) (hic) Welcome to RationalWiki, Guidedog! 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!

Hi there. A couple of points.

1. If you're adding to a talk page then please do so at the bottom. It keeps the conversation in order.
2. Please sign your posts by adding four tildes ~~~~

Thanks and welcome. Bad Faith (talk) 16:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Guidewhat now? Are you serious? Sophie^Wilder 17:51, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Nice to meet you. I would answer your question, but I don't know the context. Guidewog (talk) 21:31, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I nearly had the same reaction as Sophie - but I looked closer and I think it's a transatlantic thing. In the UK calling someone a 'wog' is about as offensive as it gets - think nigger or worse. Imagine that my username is "I Hate Fags" - which I do. Oh my god, a homophobe you cry but you'd be wrong. I'm a Brit and the fags I hate are cigarettes which pollute my world. As for gay people, I like or dislike them much the same as any others. So, an inoffensive name in the UK is Fred Phelps in the US and an inoffensive name in the US is a little hard to handle here in the UK. I'm pretty sure Sophie is a fellow Brit.

Incidentally, whilst on the subject, when I was six I spent a year in school in the US. Imagine what happened when asked to describe a farm yard scene. What's that, little boy. It's a cock! My mother was called in. Bad Faith (talk) 21:39, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see now. Nope, I wish I had a funny story behind the name. I am sad to hear that it's so offensive in the UK. I can't please everyone. Well I could but it's so much effort and a lot of the good names are taken. It's funny the other thing I heard was that L. Ron Hubbard would call all of the people who wouldn't join Scientology wogs. Guidewog (talk) 21:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I had absolutely no idea that it was an innocent word in the US, but now our British English article has a shiny new section for it. Sophie^Wilder 22:20, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey I took the liberty of rewriting that, I think I gave you the wrong idea. Also, be sure to head on over to http://www.penisland.net/ for a laugh. Guidewog (talk) 22:34, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually

I blocked you for like 30 secs C₆₅₄₁ (T↔C) 20:57, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey, I am only reporting that I couldn't post for 30 minutes. I don't think the block command unblocks members the way you think it does. Despite your derogatory comment I am going to assume that you in fact had second thoughts and meant to undo the block. I am at the mercy of your moderation it seems. If your too incompetent to do your job then the community suffers just as much as if your too biased. Is that a picture of Lenin on your personal page? Really? The guy who couldn't keep Stalin from rising to power and killing 12 million people in camps after the revolution he was responsible for?

I do like your page, I hope to have mine tricked out like that. I admire it.

Guidewog (talk) 21:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I think maybe the IP address should have been unblocked as well. Sophie^Wilder 21:15, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey hey, dude I was messing around with the randroid comment, hence the rapid unblock. But it seems that didn't work well so I'll just do the 3 second block next time. For clarification I wasn't blocking you for a serious reason. C₆₅₄₁ (T↔C) 21:30, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Name Change

Done. Aceⁱ⁹ 00:13, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank You. Guidedog (talk) 00:14, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk pages

We apologize for the inconvenience and what may seem like "untidiness," but it is well-established policy here that you cannot delete any talk-page comments, either on your talk page or the talk page of any articles. Sorry for the difficulty.--^talk 05:36, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

You're always welcome to archive it though. (You do that by creating a page like User talk:Guidedog/Archive and pasting it all there.) Sam ^Tally-ho! 05:38, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again

...but it would be best to put a link to your archive at the top of this page. Thanks! Sam ^Tally-ho! 05:55, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

leaving topics up long enough to be discussed

I am curious why you are archiving everything? --GodotBe informed. Vote. 19:54, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Cleanliness, I was also done with the conversations. Guidedog (talk) 22:51, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Objectivist Virtues

• Rationality - this is the cardinal virtue, which leads to all other virtues. Rationality means using reason (and sensory, rational, definable, identifiable means of knowledge, but not “instinct,” “intuition,” “revelation,” or any form of “just knowing.”, ) to identify reality.
• Honesty - is the refusal to fake reality.
• Integrity - is consistency in the application of reason.
• Productivity - means working to create one's values.
• Independence - means being first-handed, or refusing to leave one's thinking to others.
• Pride - is the pursuit of moral perfection. Pride is related to self-esteem - the belief that one is capable of gaining and keeping one's values--and that one deserves them.
• Justice - is the principle of applying reason to the actions of other men, or giving other people what they deserve.

Posted by Guidedog (talk) 22:51, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

You know that "rationality" as you are defining it - a rejection of emotion, is not 'real". We do not ever reject emotions or we simply could not make any decisions in life. The example commonly used is going to dinner. You want to go to a good restaurant, but if you took only rationality, there is no way to choose between a plethora of positives and negatives in the 1000's of restaurants you can go to. People have emotional reactions when they say "ah, you know that does sound good" to a particular restaurant. Ethics, though Kant has tried hard to void them of emotion, are in fact grounded in emotion. Take a look at the issue of "child abuse". there are very few scientific studies to show why child abuse is wrong, yet virtually every adult knows it is, "in their gut". As for your other terms, as define, they are just as loaded with self-righetous crap. you know what you like, and you pretend that what you like is what is rational, honest, carrying integrity, etc., but odds are, on any given argument people from the other side could show you were you fail on each. --GodotBe informed. Vote. 00:16, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree, this is a good point and I'll tidy that up. I have often thought of this myself because a lot of people have this response. We can't live without emotion. Your also right that emotions can be used to make quick decisions. However, I always think ahead and think about the past, with regard to emotions. Especially when the past is difficult and the emotions are strong I go back and make sure I know where those emotions come from. What I've found personally is that my emotions follow my cognition. I have studied a little cognitive behavior theory and also find personally that just as there are contradictory linguistic thoughts, there are contradicting emotions. So rather than discard emotion I meditate and challenge my contradicting thoughts and my emotions follow. However, if there is an action or thought that is rational and my emotions are screaming, I must question those emotions before I question my rational mind. This is because I am fairly confident that emotions are laid by cognition, thus if I discover new evidence that contradicts my emotions I must integrate those thoughts and think about the implications. This follows for behavior as well. If I catch myself in a bad habit then I question the habit before I question my reasoning for why the habit is bad. Some might call this mindfulness.

As for the other principles, I don't expect everyone to understand what I mean by those word tags exactly, but I would hope they would give me the benefit of the doubt until they learn about the reasoning behind them. What I don't mean is that they would accept them and use them, but that they would interpret them in a fair light and be curious. Having principles that are abstract can lead to strawman attacks, but that's why rational debate is such a value of mine. Guidedog (talk) 01:12, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

STFU....

...and GTFO Aceⁱ⁹ 23:00, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

"RationalWiki does not censor opinions..." Which is not true, because this is a collaboration, thus individual opinions do not matter, only facts supported by evidence. However, in my experience that's not at all how it works here. Guidedog (talk) 23:26, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

What the fuck? Did you even click the link? I made you a sysop, doucebag. Aceⁱ⁹ 23:33, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah, Damn it! I did so just now. Yay?Guidedog (talk) 23:35, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Run along, skippy. Aceⁱ⁹ 23:40, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Hahahah--^talk 05:42, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Hahahah? Hah a hah?? Ha ha ha h??? Генгис^mutating 17:40, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Wrascally Wandals, now that is funny! Guidedog (talk) 17:43, 23 September 2012 (UTC)