User talk:Ikanreed/Archive1

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
New logo large.png Welcome to RationalWiki, Ikanreed!

Please see our guide for newcomers and our community standards.

If you are interested in contributing, please read what our articles are intended to be.

Tell us how you found RationalWiki here!

So far, you seem to appear only to answer drive-by trolls on the Saloon Bar. I hope it's a coincidence.--ZooGuard (talk) 17:29, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm finally going to reply to this, as solve-media has stopped bugging me. I'm a sucker for deconstructing bad arguments. I love it too much. Ikanreed (talk) 21:49, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

About time[edit]

It's about time you got the tools to help take care of the place. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 01:20, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

"I gotta know"[edit]

You may find the website unsavory, but as far as places to get info on chan and troll culture go, ED is top notch--"Shut up, Brx." 20:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Not really. I don't see a scrap of "info" on that page, just a bunch of unpleasant comments & images about anal rape. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:27, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
If ED places the link to anal rape, that means the link is anal rape. ED articles stem from the root of memes. They are not written by journalists fumbling over "sources." They are written by people at the heart of the evolution of internet culture. ED touches the soul of the ass of the world wide web.--"Shut up, Brx." 21:03, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Because when we consider the meanings of words we should all be looking at how the ass of the WWW uses it first and foremost? Nullahnung (talk) 21:06, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
If that's where the word came from--"Shut up, Brx." 21:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Bullshit. ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 07:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Userpage[edit]

I would like to request that you un-red it, please. THE GREAT RIGHTEØUS DESTRØYER Keeping myself alive, through your EMPATHY.Dolan.png

My Agenda[edit]

is that there is overwhelming evidence that MSG does not cause migraines, which should trump a single 1991 study. http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/msg-myth-versus-science/ PatrickJS (talk) 20:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Telling the BoN to make an account[edit]

He DID make an account, which was promptly indefinitely banned from posting anywhere after it identified itself as that one BoN.

As for me, I've promised myself I'd stay away from this whole thing, so I'm not going to say much more. My advice to you is to ignore that whole thing. Nullahnung (talk) 19:24, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh, alright. Ikanreed (talk) 19:26, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Actually, the Drotsky account took a while to be banned. The very first account I made to start posting (yes, I started with an account) was immediately banned after the first post though, by Miekal. 46.165.250.235 (talk) 19:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
I wish you wouldn't confess to felonies on my talk page. It's not a gray area. Get counseling, get a lawyer, and stop turning rationalwiki into evidence. Ikanreed (talk) 19:33, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

"Yeah, okay, your pretending evolution means X doesn't mean evolution means X. Go away, you are boring"[edit]

What does this mean? Do you call people who debunk you "boring" so you can avoid factual refutations? 123.141.65.36 (talk) 15:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Waah, why won't you mindlessly accept my terrible ideas directly refuted by science, that also result in horrible injustices?!?!?! Because there isn't a debate, you're just being wrong. You could stop the elaborate fantasy that you're making anything even remotely resembling cogent points, and cease throwing around the word "Jew" as if it insults anyone. But we're bored of it. So we vandal bin you to give us time to focus on actual discussions. Ikanreed (talk) 15:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Your words are gratuitous abuse easiy applied to anything and detached from the facts of the matter and the points under discussion. You are a fraud and you and your co-conspirators are publishing lies. 123.141.65.36 (talk) 15:49, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
You should all hang ASAP. You hate White people, so White people should kill you. Have a nice day. 123.141.65.36 (talk) 15:51, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
I take it back. You're back to entertaining again. You're just so amusingly quick to go "conspiracies and lies!!!!!!" at the slightest provocation. It's kinda cute. Ikanreed (talk) 15:52, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Note how you fail to explain "Yeah, okay, your pretending evolution means X doesn't mean evolution means X. Go away, you are boring". You just make ad hominem attacks. What a fraudulent asshole. 123.141.65.36 (talk) 15:53, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Oh no! A racist shitheel is accusing me of argumentative impropriety. What if I act trite and dismissive of you again? What are you gonna do? Let's make this clear. This isn't a debate. Nor an argument. You haven't even remotely constructed any sort of case outside of one instance of misrepresenting the words of some scientists. And you've been called on it, and only persisted in "nuh uh". Ikanreed (talk) 15:56, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm simply asking you to explain your meaningless nonsense. And you can't. because it's meaningless nonsense. 123.141.65.36 (talk) 15:57, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── No you aren't. Ikanreed (talk) 15:58, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Doxxing revert[edit]

I saw you revert something as doxxing. After reverting it, you can also hide the change in the fossil record to further undo any damage. Try it, it's fun! Remember, you're changing it's visibility, not permanently destroying it. MarmotHead (talk) 18:33, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

An apology.[edit]

You were not insulting Hypatia. I'm sorry for saying so. --TheLateGatsby (The end of the dock )Moderator 20:29, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I didn't even assume you were talking about me. It didn't even occur to me. No offense taken at any point. Ikanreed (talk) 20:36, 9 October 2014 (UTC)


You can call me what you want[edit]

I really don't mind. However, I'm far from Transphobic. I'm merely adding what's actually happening in Wikipedia in the appropriate place on this encyclopedia.  DeadMan Wonderland   15:44, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Problem #1: you're clearly feeling hurt by someone on wikipedia. That's not a good mindset for making good edits.
Problem #2: This isn't an encyclopedia, and it's also not the place for settling grudges against wikipedia admins. Ikanreed (talk) 15:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Bare:bear[edit]

Was that intentional? Excellent if 'twas. Not bad if not :-) Scream!! (talk) 15:20, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Definitely an accident. Ikanreed (talk) 15:21, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Tech rights[edit]

Since you offered to help me monitor the abuse filter, I've given you tech rights so that you can access the abuse filter log for things that are hidden from "the public." If you have any questions, please e-mail me and I can help you out. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 23:42, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Some BoN about Austrian economics[edit]

to user Ikanreed, the reason for the edits were to clear up inaccuracies and accusation with no back up. The reference at the bottom for anti-semitism are to an op-ed piece that uses an 80 yr old pamphlet that is never mentioned or that talk of Austrian based economics as somehow being inherently anti-semetic?? There is nothing but conjecture to even make that accusation... If the author or authors don't like the film that is fine, but anti-semetic tie in is absurd and blatantly inflammatory.. Also don't think the references at the bottom back up the footnoted statements. I was just under the impression that the bar for back up and support was higher when making statements on this site? If you have better edits, go for it, but the review should have accurate references and the anti semetic links are garbage blog posts with nothing but stone throwing as back up...— Unsigned, by: 66.68.77.31 / talk / contribs 23:24, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Rednames[edit]

Great term! Bravo. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 16:51, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Why I did it[edit]

I understand the point you were making. I unblocked that guy so he could continue the discussion, which I am grateful to notice is still confined to that one debate page. Go ahead and block me for a while if it will make you feel better. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 01:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

But my salient point! Ikanreed (talk) 03:39, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Javascript comments[edit]

Does <!-- this wiki markup --> work in javascript? I would expect to see comments delimited like this instead. Flux gate gamma (talk) 18:12, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I am more interested in how you managed to edit a page that I can't. I don't think there's a difference in user rights.--ZooGuard (talk) 18:24, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
It wasn't in my userspace. I screwed up when I renamed my account and will have to manually move everything over. Nutty Roux (talk) 20:47, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
You know, I was perhaps being too antagonistic over a damn pseudostylehseet. I think I better apologize, even if it's a silly thing to do. Ikanreed (talk) 19:05, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for editing my page. I remove entries from my recent changes listing for a variety of reasons, few if any of which have anything to do with disagreeing. I find your hostile comment to me puzzling since you have no idea what my position is on so very many things because I don't share them. I challenge you to substantiate your insult. Can you? One reason I remove people from recent changes is that I don't think they're reliable discussants and I generally don't care what they have to say. That's why you made the list. I remove articles and some other pages that are getting a lot of edits because I don't care about them and they're clogging up RC, they're morasses, or I don't think they're missional or that I can do anything about it. None of those reasons has anything to do with any substantive disagreement. Nutty Roux (talk) 19:56, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
I can't substantiate any insult. I was needlessly antagonistic. Sorry again. Ikanreed (talk) 19:58, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Hey Ikanreed. Thanks for the logic tutorial that was great. When you have a chance can you look at the argument presented on my talk page "The nitty gritty truth about statism" section and maybe give us your analysis on it? I think you could understand some of the logic issues going on and it could help us understand the truth value of the argument.LogicMaster777 (talk) 23:28, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

You Tube BoNs[edit]

FYI: I do remove "Forums" that consist solely of stupid BoN you tube links. I also never respond to them reasonably - it just encourages them. Scream!! (talk) 21:16, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

But but but, our policies! Ikanreed (talk) 21:17, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Every rule has an exception. :-) Scream!! (talk) 21:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I just noticed something[edit]

You said you hate bigots..........Waiting...Waiting... Are you not being a bigot to the bigots? Irony at its best. Of course, someone will contradict this immediately, but I found that entertaining to think about. Pitzy 20:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

No, I'm not a bigot for hating people explicitly for the harm they bring. Thanks for your concern, though. Ikanreed (talk) 20:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Is it safe to make such a broad generalization that says all bigots cause harm?

Given a cursory examination of history, yes. Ikanreed (talk) 20:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
All broad generalizations are false. Trick (talk) 20:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Spare me. All electrons bear a negative charge. Ikanreed (talk) 20:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Self refuting joke, ignore me Trick (talk) 20:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't ignore people. You never know when they're going to snap. Ikanreed (talk) 20:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough. Then to explain, lest you think me unduly insane, the statement itself was a broad generalization, circular logic and such. Trick (talk) 20:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, okay, this is a pretty long conversation for me just refusing to acknowledge a joke for what it was. Ikanreed (talk) 21:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Too many gender redirects?[edit]

I don't see why you find it objectionable that I would redirect the term "agender", "genderqueer", "two-spirit", and so forth to the article that explains what non-binary gender is. Its not like these terms are commonly known yet. Asarelah (talk) 01:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, okay, fair. Ikanreed (talk) 01:25, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
P.S.- Thanks for the heads up about the trans article. I'll add it as an external link to the "Causes of transsexualism" article on Wikipedia. Asarelah (talk) 01:26, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

You blocked me?[edit]

Did you block this guy? http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:Queex

He deleted my comment here instead of simply rehatting it:

http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anita_Sarkeesian&diff=1417910&oldid=1417909 (he also marked it as a "minor" edit when he deleted my response to him which proved he was lying)

He did it intentionally since I unhatted after making the comment. Additionally, the hatting was against policy since it did not improve readability and I was not blatantly trolling (I was using a snarky voice though). Not only that, but you guys hatted other people against policy on that page. The previous hatted topic was said to have been done by "user request" but the user said they did not request it.

No point in you guys having rules if you are just going to do what you want and ignore them.

Yeah, to get your attention. For a duration of five whole minutes because I had warned you already. Just be more careful. Ikanreed (talk) 20:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Did you block the other guy for actually deleting my comment? No? Then you should fuck off as an admin in areas where you are emotionally invested.
Policey: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki:Collapsible_Comment_System "The collapsible comment system is a series of templates designed for adding commentary to text that is too long to be amenable to the side by side system, or in which commentary is too sparse to make a side by side document interesting. It consists of bodies of commentary that are initially collapsed to preserve as much readability in the original text as possible"
I'm... not too concerned about this problem. Policy isn't guiding this. A troll wanting to get attention is just not going to be this big rule-driven deal. Ikanreed (talk) 20:42, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm not a troll. I'm calling attention to the fact that the article is shit. You link to tumblr blogs that don't even say what the wiki sources them as saying. More policy: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki:Community_Standards#Page_maintenance " The obviously vile trolling comments may either be deleted or enclosed in a collapsible box using the "trolltop" and "trollbottom" templates. "
Talking about how she grifted a cool half million bucks from gullible SJWs is not "vile trolling." It is a different point of view. That means the hatting is invalid and against policy.
Moreover, there is no reason, according to policy, to block me: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki:Blocking_policy

You didn't answer my question either. Did you block the other guy for deleting my comment? That actually is in the blocking policy.

Pretty sure calling her a "grifter whore" in the first post constitutes vile trolling. Trick (talk) 20:49, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
No, it is descriptive. "Grifter" is a con artist. A "whore" is an unscrupulous/venal person ( http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/whore ) both are descriptive of a person who would exaggerate or fake (in the case of Brianna Wu) death threats in order to get people to donate massive amounts of money to them.
And salt is commonly defined as "a mineral substance composed primarily of sodium chloride" and yet you've proved there's more than one definition. Neat how the English language works isn't it? Trick (talk) 20:56, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
So my words are "vile trolling" based on your unstated definitions which wouldn't make sense in the context of what I wrote? Fuck off.— Unsigned, by: 67.42.177.3 / talk / contribs
For christs' sake, no one is buying this line about the definition of whore. Feel free to feel persecuted by not being allowed to troll. Ikanreed (talk) 21:06, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
So I use the dictionary definition of whore, a "venal or unscrupulous person," which completely makes sense in the context of her grifting of half a million dollars, and you think I'm using a different definition of the word? Do you know what "venal" menas (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/venal )? "Willing to do dishonest things in return for money" - that's the very definition of a person willing to exaggerate death threats in order to rake in the cash. "Vile trolling" is not calling someone accurate names in the context of presenting an argument.
Pro-tip for you: "Vile trolling" wouldn't need such mental gymnastics in order to justify. Even if I used a different definition of whore, which would make no sense in the context, that one word wouldn't be "vile trolling" unless you are the most thin-skinned person on the planet.

If you can't admit that I wasn't engaged in "vile trolling" then please direct me to the sysop board so we can escalate this conversation.

Boring. Trick (talk) 21:15, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
cluck away at the sysop board if you'd like Ikanreed (talk) 21:19, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Oh I see how it is from the history. This wiki appears to be a collection about about ten OCD fucktards who'll wank each other off rather than engaging in anything resembling rationality and reason. I'm done with this shithole.— Unsigned, by: 67.42.177.3 / talk / contribs
Okay. "So oppressed" it is. Enjoy your persecution complex. You were hoping for a bureaucratic morass where rules are the guiding principle and not reasonableness. Ikanreed (talk) 21:27, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
"Reasonable" would be blocking the other guy who actually deleted my substantive comment. You blocked me for unhatting. In case you didn't notice, most of my comments had an actual fucking point. Many of their comments were just pointless spam. Also, I could tell from the history of that chicken coop page that there is no point in engaging with your little cult here. Tribal thinking in the rule, so don't pretend like "reasonableness" is the guiding principle when you said yourself it is mobacracy.

Yeah, okay. You haven't even made an attempt at using the chicken coop. You decided since I was helpful and straightforward about it, everyone would immediately take my side. One can't actually satisfy conspiratorial thinking of this sort, so I'm stuck with being midly amused at how indignant you are over a 5 minute ban for explicitly pre-explained reasons. Do you know how many minutes of both mine and yours you've wasted over it now? Ikanreed (talk) 21:46, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

For the record, I rolled back the unhatting without noticing that a comment was in there as well. Rollbacks are always marked (m), and revert all the contiguous edits by a particular user. Queexchthonic murmurings 16:17, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Dystopia[edit]

Blade Runner is most certainly dark cyberpunk...would Dick's origional book be a dystopia though? I am more wondering myself since it was a pretty dark world. Not one of his best compared to The Man in the High Castle or A Scanner Darkly. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 22:19, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm gonna confess. I've seen bladerunner, but I have not read do androids dream of electric sheep. I can't offer insight into the answer to that question. Ikanreed (talk) 22:20, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
how is 'do androids dream of electric sheep' not dystopic? AMassiveGay (talk) 22:38, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Sorry to address this out of sequence, but yeah. I was thinking dystopic was more along the lines of Logan's Run with more order...rather than rich folk giving the finger to Earth after a nuclear exchange, scampering to Mars, and letting the rest rot. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 23:01, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
that would seem like an overly narrow view of what constitutes dystopian literature, but even with that DADOES would still fit. There is order and government and religion. AMassiveGay (talk) 23:34, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
(EC)It's an interesting read. If you ever do you will wonder how they got a flawed masterpiece like Blade Runner from it. Then you realize at the end people are just fighting over the scraps of Earth's last death gasp. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 22:42, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

"Being an osteopath is not the same as being a doctor"[edit]

Learn something about what you're talking about. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 16:39, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osteopathy#Effectiveness I'm going with no. Trick (talk) 16:40, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Fine, but you're wrong. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 16:44, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
A DO (Doctor of Osteopathy) is an actual physician, an osteopath is not. Confusion in tricky language sucks. It's what the hope is for alternative med quacks though. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 16:46, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Assuming you are correct, and assuming Mercola is the former and not the latter, then the issue is settled. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 16:54, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia has sourced statements saying that Mercola is indeed a DO. - Grant (talk) 16:55, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Grant. Always the voice of reason. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 16:56, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
(EC) That's a lot of assuming without some basic research into the point you are championing, but if non-assuming sources show he is a licensed DO then he is a doctor. They go through the same clinicals as MDs. There is concern, even by other DOs, that many more seem to go into quack medicine than MD's (in the Wiki link). -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 17:01, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Did you read what I posted just above, perchance? - Grant (talk) 17:02, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
I did, but just now as I remeber there being an EC that I forgot to label. I corrected the front part of the post to reflect that. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 19:31, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Cool. Your statement seemed a bit odd without that bit of information in there. - Grant (talk) 16:36, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
It's my talk page and I'll pointlessly reply to finished conversations if I want to. Ikanreed (talk) 16:39, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Check your email[edit]

- David Gerard (talk) 19:21, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Am I seriously blocked?[edit]

I don't want to cause trouble, but I honestly can't tell if it was intended as a joke. Ikanreed (talk) 20:31, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

No really. Ikanreed (talk) 20:38, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Would you like to be unblocked? Acei9 20:45, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, I want to understand, first, if I've done something that requires remediation. I understand blocks that have a reason(even if a year is forever), but "hush now sweet prince" seems like a joke I could deban myself for. But I prefer understanding what's going on. Ikanreed (talk) 20:47, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Ssshhhhhh, there's a good boy. Acei9 20:52, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
I take it that's a no? Ikanreed (talk) 20:54, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Oh, yeah, okay, that's a no. Ikanreed (talk) 20:55, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Ace blocked you because he's an unproductive hanger-on who's loyal to Nutty Roux. This sort of tactical insincerity is his calling card (is he serious or "just joking and you're overreacting"? Whichever gives him an advantage in this particular moment!) Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 21:04, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Does that reflect poorly on me, Stabby? Don't get too big for your britches there, buddy. Nutty Roux (talk) 03:52, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
I can just accept it as "a joke" without muddling it with concerns over motivation. It was more confusing than funny, but that's some peoples' sense of humor for you. Ikanreed (talk) 21:11, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Stabby is a weird mutant with shit for brains and a pile of snake fangs and pig hoofs where his heart should be. A desperate loser with no friends, he frequently launches into petty crusades at perceived wrong doers due to his lack of social graces and inability to make friends in the "real world". Ignore him as no good will come from engaging him in anything. Mark my words - he has the sign of the beast tattooed on his forehead and The Book of Revelation references him several times. Acei9 21:19, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Awwww. Does that mean the job role as antichrist is already taken? Oh well. At least there's still anti-pope. Ikanreed (talk) 21:20, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Don't let that freak get you down. You do good work here.— Unsigned, by: 198.58.109.179 / talk / contribs

It's cool, this issue is completely sorted. I see no reason to conclude freakishness either. A joke is a joke. Ikanreed (talk) 23:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Seriously though, you do a lot of work on RW and that crap was uncalled for. Nutty's communication style has always been vile in every interaction that I have witnessed, to the point I've read more nice things written by TK. If he's so angry that RW is not getting, what in his mind, quality editors then maybe he should stop acting like an raging out of control asshole. Few people have the tolerance to stand that crap even with a worthwhile endevor. Certainly not in their free time. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 00:12, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Double Dragon needs to go.[edit]

He's a abuser of whatever power he's been given, Ikanreed. Arbcom threw him out (for reasons that I'd disagree with, as he had pulled far more severe bullshit before the GG bullshit) , and he's going to continue here if allowed to. I can smell his conflict of interest bullshit from a mile away once I've read his Wikipedia Review topics thoroughly.--Madman (talk) 22:57, 3 February 2015 (UTC)The Madman

Oh yeah, 'ryu' and 'long' both mean 'dragon'. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 00:09, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Okay, so MadmanJohnson is just being a cock for the sake of being a cock. Is this something I use the chicken coop for?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:14, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm tired of seeing people bringing up whatever you've done on wikipedia, as if it's particularly relevant. That's pretty clearly offsite harassment, and if they're actually wikipedia editors, they should know that's against wikipedia's rules. Ikanreed (talk) 04:20, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Did you see what he posted at the chicken coop? He literally summarized my ED page, took shit out of context (saying that someone explicitly known to have autism is "autistic" is ableist according to MadmanJohnson) and he linked to the archive.today saved archive.org saved tweet that caused Gamergate to come down on me like a sack of bricks. The chicken coop is the right place to go to say "MadmanJohnson is an asshole harassing me" right?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:22, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't know. I mean, it's the only form of conflict resolution board rationalwiki has, other than settling things yourself. Ikanreed (talk) 05:21, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
So I need to settle this like adults. With a children's card game.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:35, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Dude, relax[edit]

I get your point, but seriously, I'm not making this up out of thin air. Besides, the overarching point is one I'm almost certain you agree with; the whole point is that fixating on individual cases that blow up in peoples' faces is a bad argument. And on another broader note, this minor observation. I know nothing of you, nor you me, but I can see that you hate people you consider racists, bigots, etc. It's very easy to forget that a lot of those who hold such views were, at least initially, coerced into doing so. If you were born to white supremacist parents and told for the first 18 years of your life that the punishment for associating with anyone of another race was to be beaten, you'd probably develop a severe aversion to associating with said people. Such things are often quite difficult to overcome, even with an active effort; if you're a sports fan just imagine how hard it would be for you just to change what team you root for, which most would consider fairly trivial in the grand scheme, and then think of how much harder it would be to change your fundamental worldview even knowing it's wrong. Hardly an apologia for racism, more a suggestion that 1. you consider that you usually won't know the life story of any of these people and that 2. you're more likely to catch flies with honey rather than vinegar. That said, also just fine to use that fire on the obvious trolls. 24.186.49.177 (talk) 05:56, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, but the implication of your phrasing was that he was an affirmative action hire, and that's just unsubstantiated. He was a crummy writer who cheated. Ikanreed (talk) 14:35, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Vaccine Origins/So apparently I made an un-friend[edit]

First off, sorry about the BoN. Anyway, so I figured that it'd be fun to point out that one of the most important parts of "Western" medicine, vaccines, has origins in China. Because vaccination is pretty much derived from variolation, which made its way to Europe through the Ottoman Empire (the original "East"), from China (the "far east") and that in full irony the people denying vaccines and "western" medicine are also denying some of the things that "traditional chinese medicine" actually did indeed provide. I'm not making the statement that "since some chinese medicine worked it all works!". It's the equivalent of pointing out that aspirin came from willow bark, so denying all of "big pharma" in favor of "big herbal" ironically requires denial of the effectiveness of herbs. But after I posted that, you removed that and apparently included the summary that you wanted me banned. Not trying to make any more enemies, I got enough of those in meatspace. I just want to know, what exactly did I do to piss you off? Did it belong somewhere else instead?

GEORGIA GUIDESTONES!!1!1?!!!one[edit]

IF THERE'S STONES THERE THEY WERE OBVIOUSLY PLACED FOR A REASON. CAN'T YOU SEE THE SYMBOLISM AND THE FACT THAT THE NUMBERS MEASURE UP TO MATCH THE TRUE VALUES OF THE BURG KHALIFA WHICH IS OBVIOUSLY THE NEW WORLD ORDER HEADQUARTERS TOWER OF BABEL? How'd I do? Trick (talk) 20:14, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

For questions and concerns regarding the new world order and project babel, please contact the Satan foundation at 123 Fake Street, Made Up City, Illinois, 66666. Ikanreed (talk) 20:33, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
K in "fake" has triangles. .Half-Life Three Illuminati confirmed. Trick (talk) 22:28, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Motif[edit]

I know about motifs and such (I go to an art school) I just hadn't had my midday coffee so i was too tired to think of words for musical patterns. 'Legionwhat do you want from me 00:34, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Dust77[edit]

Is Conversion Therapy not discredited, along with any endorsing it? --Madman (talk) 20:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)The Madman

Conversion therapy is absolute bunk, and feel absolutely free to say that. Don't mix it up with people endorsing it. Get a specific cite for them being discredited in their professions that alleges exactly that from a clear position of authority. Ikanreed (talk) 20:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Refutations[edit]

Hello. You indicted that I copy pasted my "Refutations to Common Pro-choice Arguments". I actually came home one day and decided that, instead of contributing to another animal rights article, I would contribute to the abortion article, since the right to life is central in both domains. Finding the Abortion article overwhelmingly pro-choice, to the exclusion, and as I have now discovered, deliberate exclusion of the other position, with only flimsy pro-life counter-arguments sprinkled in (primarily to deride the pro-life encampment), I decided I would contribute to a section entitled "Arguments Against Abortion", since that is the natural consequent of "Arguments in favor of legal, safe Abortion". The list I generated provided connected, brief, and general refutations to other arguments in the article, the only refutation of its sort. It could use revision, and did in fact deride the pro-choice movement, but with good reason, and I ask you to reconsider it, and tell you that those arguments, at least the writing, came from my own brain, and I am offended that you would suggest I copy pasted it, particularly when I am very intelligent and often reach apt conclusions with minimal information, mostly on my own--I have never read a single book against abortion, I had never read a book against animal suffering, yet I became vegan when I was 12. I borrow ideas and I reach more apt conclusions with less information than most others. My writing has changed the mind of at least one of my philosophy professors, and passed beneath the nose of some very intelligent people. I am upset when my work is ascribed to a religious lunatic.--Animalian (talk) 21:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll keep engaging you on the article talk page. I'm not opposed to sorting this out. Ikanreed (talk) 21:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Ikanreed. I was feeling very sick yesterday--I was ousted from my school by Jehovah's Witnesses and a christian girl who I shattered by destroying their every argument in favor of god, and I was afraid they would call the cops or get me suspended for not believing in bullshit and being superiorly correct. I was also very tired--ran out of medicine a week ago, my insomnia unabated. I am back and I will craft stronger arguments today without mocking people for a lack of intelligence, moral sensibility, and common sense.
For a wiki written by rationalists, I have found people here very unreasonable. They won't even let me post pro-life arguments to the pro-life page, which is still devoid of any pro-life arguments, and serves just to mock pro-life advocates. I find it appalling that, myself long accused of being an armchair rationalist, that these people dismiss such common sense claims as "the maternal bond between mother and child is among the strongest in nature". Even when I cite reputable sources, my writing is still not good enough. When I write articles as free of snark and as neutrally as possible, such as the numerical argument, they reject it. These people sicken me in that they allow only their viewpoint to be heard, that they censor me simply because I do not agree with them, that they edit out everything I write, no matter how well-written, sourced, or in the spirit of logical inquiry. And when I refute their objections, they go back and quarrel about a line they don't like, as if that justifies destroying all my other work. These people are biased, fuck-shit editors--instead of destroying work entirely, eliminate the objectionable parts, improve it. A huge distinction between myself and them is that I am trying to adequately represent the pro-life position, which is currently next to non-existent, and that, in the process, I am not editing their pro-choice arguments, let alone excising them entirely. I would not compromise the integrity of sound arguments, nor should they. I am sick of their unjust revisionism wherein dissenting voices cannot be heard because they do not allow it. You win debates by deftly refuting arguments contrary to your position, not by SILENCING others. What dickwads, quite frankly.--Animalian (talk) 21:44, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
(Again, the they that removed it being me because I found the changes to not be up to snuff) Ikanreed (talk) 21:48, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Mohenjo-daro[edit]

Mature period started from 2600 BCE.[1][2][3] 1900 (close to 2000) was near the end. Contractor (talk) 05:12, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Animalian[edit]

Now, that was some wall o' text! --Castaigne (talk) 21:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

My god. That was long.--Madman (talk) 21:23, 17 February 2015 (UTC)The Madman
At work; still going through it. --Castaigne (talk) 21:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Why would you bother? Do you expect to learn something from it? Or be entertained? WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 21:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I presume to maintain their own internal sense of intellectual credibility. If someone directs an argument towards me, I typically try to understand it, even when I know it's going to be painful(see: logicmaster). Ikanreed (talk) 21:32, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Speaking of which, he's back and he seems to have noticed that he's being ignored. So, he's posting to a bunch of talkpages, trying to start another argument.--TiaC (talk) 03:44, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Wer sind Sie? I don't see any edits by him since the Pro-Life talk page. --Castaigne (talk) 03:54, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
TiaC's talking about LogicMaster. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 03:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Ah, ich sehe. Mach dir nichts draus. --Castaigne (talk) 03:57, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
@Weasel: Entertainment. Pure entertainment. Also, I like to poke bears. WITH STICKS. Kid's a real wanker, though. --Castaigne (talk) 21:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
That IS long. And...so much bull, but hey, that's philosophy for you. --Castaigne (talk) 21:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Full trace[edit]

Here are two different things that occur depending on whether or not I start with "python"

 C:\Users\Test\Desktop\wikibot\compat>login.py
 Traceback (most recent call last):
   File "C:\Users\Test\Desktop\wikibot\compat\login.py", line 59, in <module>
     import query
   File "C:\Users\Test\Desktop\wikibot\compat\query.py", line 30, in <module>
     import wikipedia as pywikibot
   File "C:\Users\Test\Desktop\wikibot\compat\wikipedia.py", line 6062, in <modul
 e>
     versionrev=(version.getversiondict()["rev"])
   File "C:\Users\Test\Desktop\wikibot\compat\pywikibot\version.py", line 70, in
 getversiondict
     (tag, rev, date, hsh) = getversion_git(_program_dir)
   File "C:\Users\Test\Desktop\wikibot\compat\pywikibot\version.py", line 188, in
  getversion_git
     hsh = open(os.path.join(_program_dir, '.git/refs/heads/master'), 'r').read()
 .strip(" \n")
 IOError: [Errno 2] No such file or directory: 'C:\\Users\\Test\\Desktop\\wikibot
 \\compat\\.git/refs/heads/master'
 
 C:\Users\Test\Desktop\wikibot\compat>python login.py
 Traceback (most recent call last):
   File "login.py", line 59, in <module>
     import query
   File "C:\Users\Test\Desktop\wikibot\compat\query.py", line 30, in <module>
     import wikipedia as pywikibot
   File "C:\Users\Test\Desktop\wikibot\compat\wikipedia.py", line 169, in <module
 >
     import simplejson as json
 ImportError: No module named simplejson
 
 C:\Users\Test\Desktop\wikibot\compat>

I should also probably say that I have no experience with Python at all, except for what used to be needed to get Blender working. Also, Python version is 2.7.9 Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyarnyar~) 16:31, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

First stack trace: you didn't check out with git. You just downloaded it. The module appears to be built around git-based installers.
Second stack trace: so the thing I note almost immediately, is that on the bar you said you had "json" under /lib/, but what you're trying to import is named simplejson. Could that be it?
third thing that might possibly help: type on the command line: "python --version", gotta make sure you're running the right version. Ikanreed (talk) 16:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
For User:ZooBot, I use the /core/ version with the pwb script. So for example running the login script looks like "python pwb.py login". AFAIK, this allows the script to be used without having to deal with installers. Any reason for using "compat" instead of "core"? --ZooGuard (talk) 16:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
(EC)It tries json and on failure it goes for simplejson.
However, that might not matter at all, since python --version says it's running... Python 2.5.2, somehow. That version doesn't have json, and I didn't even know I had 2.5.2
Using C:/Python27/python login.py gives the git error, so I guess that one's using 2.7.9. Should I just try to download it via git, then? Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyarnyar~) 16:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
That'd be my guess, yes. And just shuffle your environmental variables to get python25 off the list, and then you can invoke by python instead. Ikanreed (talk) 16:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
How do I do that? Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyarnyar~) 17:05, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  1. Right click Computer(windows 7+)/My Computer(earlier)
  2. Click properties
  3. Select advanced system settings tab/submenu
  4. Click the Environmental Variables button.
  5. (typically this is found under system variables, not user) find the entry named path.
  6. This is semicolon delimted list of places the system looks for exes. Ensure that only one python folder is present in the list, and that it's the version you want. Ikanreed (talk) 17:09, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Oh, my computer had Python pre-installed on it, it seems. That explains some of the issues I had been having with Python, then. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyarnyar~) 17:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
(EC)In response to Zoo: I was using compat because core was just outright breaking for me. But... Now core is actually giving an error instead of breaking to pieces (rationalwiki family not found, but I do have a rationalwiki_family.py) Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyarnyar~) 16:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

   File "C:\Users\Test\Desktop\wikibot\core\pywikibot\family.py", line 910, in lo
 ad
     raise UnknownFamily(u'Family %s does not exist' % fam)
 pywikibot.exceptions.UnknownFamily: Family rationalwiki does not exist
 <class 'pywikibot.exceptions.UnknownFamily'>
 CRITICAL: Waiting for 1 network thread(s) to finish. Press ctrl-c to abort
Maybe my family file is bad? This error is from this, which may be out-of-date. Using a family generated by the script gives a different error. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyarnyar~) 17:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, this has to do with the particulars of the script. Looking over the source, there's two possibilities here. One is a keyerror, that your family was never registered, meaning in the families folder, you didn't have a rationalwiki_family.py.
I'm guessing it's the other though. ImportError. ImportError happens if your rationalwiki_family.py file doesn't compile. Try just running "python rationalwiki_family.py" and seeing if it has it's own errors. Ikanreed (talk) 17:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

 C:\Users\Test\Desktop\wikibot\core>python pywikibot\families\rationalwiki_family
 .py
 Traceback (most recent call last):
   File "pywikibot\families\rationalwiki_family.py", line 2, in <module>
     import config, family, urllib         # REQUIRED
 ImportError: No module named config
 
 C:\Users\Test\Desktop\wikibot\core>

This. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyarnyar~) 18:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Well.... um... should that be "from pywikibot import x,z,y" not just "import x,y,z"? Ikanreed (talk) 19:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
That seems to be the case according to the "how-to," but now it's saying that it can't import pywikibot. Maybe I can just use Zoo's family file, since this one is clearly outdated. I really don't know enough about how RationalWiki is set up to make one. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyarnyar~) 19:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot to say[edit]

Thanks. Narky SawtoothNarky.png (Nyarnyar~) 19:54, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

You're more than welcome. Ikanreed (talk)

To be 100% honest[edit]

that BoN link dump edit was fucking amazing. It seriously tried to link Usain Bolt, Eazy E, an anime nobody cares about, J-Pop and fucking Super Mario Bros to the Illuminati. It's one of the most amazing, most jaw-dropping rants ever. |₹Λ¥$€₦₦ Red rose 02.svg My life I trade in for your pain 21:58, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Be a good wiki-citizen...[edit]

When you're interacting with a new arrival on a talk page, see if they haven't been welcomed yeat, and think about slapping the template on their talk page... Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 16:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

If you've got time[edit]

Apparently ZG doesn't, pritty pls halp. FuzzyDogPotato (talk/stalk) 21:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

So... a quick glance says that these articles just have the text of the Quran, and there isn't particularly much to reclaim. Do you still want them restored? ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 21:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
It's a lot easier than manually pasting in the Qur'an, adding sections, etc., so it'd be great if someone could restore them. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 22:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Pedantry corner.[edit]

"...cut the mustard muster." When it comes to things like that, I expext everyone to tow toe the line. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 15:04, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I have no recollection of when I might have (mis)used that phrase. It was me? ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Invoking plausible deniability isn't gonna cut it this time. ;) 141.134.75.236 (talk) 15:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for clarity. My mind is at ease ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:15, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
What's "the muster"? I prefer cutting the mustard; yummy. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 15:10, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Muster is when you gather a squad of soldiers(or soldier-like professionals) for duties after some period of rest or leisure. Cutting the muster means being ready for the strictness the job demands. I knew that, but I wasn't thinking. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:15, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
'cut the mustard' is fine. Saying it's derived from 'cut the muster' sounds like folk etymology to me, particularly given that the latter seems to be very rarely used. Queexchthonic murmurings
huh, you're right. Well, then. I retract my apology. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
While I'm here, ask me about 'less' versus 'fewer'. Queexchthonic murmurings 15:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Nah, I'm gonna just chalk that one up to the fluidity of language, and that people who insist on treating language like technical jargon deserve the loneliness they clearly suffer from. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
'Less' implies a lack and 'fewer' is the superlative comparative of 'few'? 141.134.75.236 (talk) 15:27, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Okay, now I'm gonna be the pedant: "fewest" is a superlative, "fewer" is a comparative. The distinction picky people drive between less and fewer is: amount versus (countable) quantity. "Less people" would mean the total mass of volume of human meat is lower, where "fewer people" means the headcount is lower. Regardless this is a pointless distinction to argue about, because context almost always tells you what is meant. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:32, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Whoops, got my terminology mixed up. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 15:33, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
(EC) 'Fewer' can only be used with countable objects, 'less' can be used with discrete and continuous quantities. So, if in doubt, use 'less'. There can be shades of other meaning (like those you suggested) which can colour how the sentence is interpreted, but they're not hard and fast. Some people like to try and correct people using 'less' in thing like "There are less birds this summer", but the correction is wrong, there is nothing wrong with the sentence as it stands. It's probably the deepest-entrenched hypercorrection in English grammar; even some otherwise reliable usage guides make the blunder. Queexchthonic murmurings 15:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful, interesting, nuanced opinion over on the debate page[edit]

Actually, quite a lot of good and important decisions in this world are made subjectively. For example, the choice of which person is more attractive, or how they should be rated on a scale of 0-10, or whether they're worth banging, consumes an incredible amount of human thought and attention, yet is largely subjective (e.g. which should be weighted as being more important, size of ass or facial features, and what's the optimal ass size?) Apparently, it's really important because people will often choose a life partner based largely on these judgments.

One could tally up individual opinions and conclude, "Society says your butt is too big" and then perhaps the person would have reason to feel self-conscious about it, knowing adverse judgments are being rendered all the time. But the subjective nature of the decision is evident in the fact that standards change over the years, and vary from culture to culture. It's the same way with opinions; definitely on that topic mentioned in the debate, the standard of what opinions are acceptable to express has changed over the years, and I've been to countries, and spoken to people from countries, where there's much less of an emotional reaction when it's brought up. Landmartian (talk) 18:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Puberty[edit]

Can the puberty article be related to the site mission in any way or should it go?--PBustion87 (talk) 13:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't know, that's why I didn't post in the deletion discussion. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 13:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Called out[edit]

Just a note letting you know that you've been mentioned by name in an edit I made, at RationalWiki:Saloon_bar#Assume good faith, please!, discussing one of your edits to the blogs page. Nothing uncomplimentary to your own self, just a heads up. - Smerdis of Tlön, If you burn with an inner fire, you are already damned. 02:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

"Liberal fascism came out in 2008. 7 years ago"[edit]

Good catch. One of these days I'm going to search for the term "recent"/"recently" and fucking expunge it from the wiki, unless we're talking fucking geological time scales. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 22:10, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Nali War Cow[edit]

Why does this exist?! Zero (talk - contributions) 20:28, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Because, you get tired of shooting endless hordes of humanoid enemies? ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:30, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Better question: Why hasn't this been in UT since? I want to play it in UT (the new one) now! Zero (talk - contributions) 21:21, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

I actually wanted to talk to you. I guess the hella post did come close to being a scotsman but I stand by it. Growing up in Southern California I never heard the word. When I went to college in Northern California I heard it all the time. They have decidedly mixed feelings about Socal up there.Shocker55119:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:27, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Rome Viharo, ISHAR, Deepak Chopra[edit]

RE: ISHAR, Deepak Chopra: I also see plenty of editors here using my association with Deepak Chopra and ISHAR as evidence that I deserve to be shamed on Rational Wiki. I've disclosed my history with Deepak Chopra transparently. I've developed a collaborative digital library which ANY organization could use. Even Rational Wiki could use the aiki atheneum. I'm a problem solver. I like solving online problems. I'm obviously very passionate about online collective editing. Perhaps I was naive as to the pushback I would receive, but hey, I live in Southern California - we tend not to be so reactive to people when they do yoga and meditate. I've created media plans for Jennifer Aniston, that doesn't mean I endorse her films personally. I've developed media plans for Brazil, that does not mean I endorse their politics. Additionally, I've developed technology for brands and publishers to use to promote or advertise content. That doesn't mean I endorse their content, it means i create a manner of facilitating it. If I endorse something, I blog about it. Deepak Chopra is a very famous and well connected person. He also hired me to apply my work. I worked with him because he contacted me and paid me. 104.175.42.84 (talk) 18:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I get it man, but I've got one vote here. At a certain point, wikis reflect the wills of their users, and I'm just a small part of that. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

A question[edit]

First off, you know there's this thing called archiving your talkpage rite? :P

Second, RW's put a few arguments into Category:Fallacious_arguments that, while they might contain logical fallacies or be examples of logical fallacies, aren't types of logical fallacies (which is what the category is for). For example, Banana fallacy or Bumblebee argument. In what category should these go? oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 14:18, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

The talk page is eternal, may it be everlasting!
And... I wouldn't worry overmuch over the categorization of those things, myself. To me, all fallacies are examples of the non-sequitur, and examples of specific fallacies are just even more specific fallacies. That mental model keeps me from suffering excessive anguish. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 14:43, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree. I was just wondering if there was a category (eg, "Really Stupid Arguments") that these could be slid into. 32℉uzzy, 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 14:47, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
I dunno. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:15, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
It is done!!! Fallacies and stupid arguments. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 15:34, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Animalian[edit]

Hello, Ikanreed. Sorry for the past. And though I never publicly admitted it, I do now believe that I have good reason to side with the pro-choice conviction, though I am unsure whether there are other moral concerns which might perhaps demonstrate some wrong committed in the name of abortion. However, I have something far more respectable to advocate than the pro-life drivel I formerly wrote--namely, animal rights. Unlike the arguments I have advanced in the past, these are actually valid, and have earned me recognition beyond rationalwiki--where I must be hated by now. That said, I would like to know how to add an article to rationalwiki. For, after peering over the new article page many times, I still cannot figure out how to add an article, and I am afraid that I have been silenced for being obnoxious in the past, in which case, I would request to be rehabilitated. The particular article I am trying to upload is the argument from marginal cases in regard to vegetarianism. You may find a draft at the bottom of my talk page.

Thank you for your help--

--Animalian (talk) 22:12, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to convince you of my position, just alert you to problems with the particulars of what you were arguing. You don't need to agree to fit in. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 13:17, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, I still apologize for being obnoxious in the past. Fortunately, I am more stable than I was then--I am on balance, and arguing, at last, a valid position. Namely, I am examining the arguments for and against vegetarianism/veganism, a hotly debated topic only marginally covered on rationalwiki. I would love to spur a series of articles, at least as a starting point, but I still cannot figure out how to post articles. Could you please tell me how to post articles?--Animalian (talk) 22:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Go to the page url you want to add. Click edit. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 13:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

What's going on with the BON?[edit]

You blocked 141.30.210.129 then unblocked them, can I ask what's going on if you don't mind? I just came on and want to understand the situation. eVil áτheIsτ CO∏SPî®aÇ¥ (talk) 19:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm in an extraordinary foul mood for reasons that aren't their fault. That explains both the banning and the unbanning, but they're dicks about antisemitism, and I'm sick to hell and back of it, either way. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 19:40, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
You sure were angry lol. Snap out of it. Wake up, sheeple. eVil áτheIsτ CO∏SPî®aÇ¥ (talk) 19:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
That's not too likely right now. My life is in pretty shitty shape. I'll just step away from the admin tools. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:05, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
This is getting off track from the initial purpose, sorry, so I'm going to end it, but I genuinely care about your life. I need not further clog your talk page with irrelevant topics but life seems to be troubling you greatly and I hope you recover man. If you ever need somebody to just talk to about your problems or vent my email is xenocwa@gmail.com, I genuinely don't care who reads that. eVil áτheIsτ CO∏SPî®aÇ¥ (talk) 20:35, 30 July 2015 (UTC)