User talk:Innocent Bystander

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
New logo large.png Welcome to RationalWiki, Innocent Bystander!

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.

Pull up a goat and have some fun!

Any questions? Please see the help page or ask me on my talk page.

How innocent, exactly? Peter Subsisting on honey 08:56, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

  1. I was nowhere near at the time
  2. Someone else must have dropped it
  3. A big boy did it and ran away
  4. It was like that when I found it
  5. It was my identical twin sibling
  6. Why is everybody always pickin' on me?
Innocent Bystander (talk) 09:07, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Stop pretending you're all innocent, are you a sockpuppet of .... ? Proxima Centauri (talk) 09:40, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

He certainly knows his way about a wiki. Shall we open the betting? SophieWilder 09:46, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
No, he's clearly a sockpuppet of …
.... pretends not to know about the undo button. Peter Subsisting on honey 09:48, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Aren't we all socks of AmesG? Or is it Icewedge? Innocent Bystander (talk) 09:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Everybody always forgets Horace and Doggedpersistence. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 10:13, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Silly assumptions[edit]

"Oops, you're [sic] underlying prejudices are showing. "

Actually, you could not be more wrong (see comments on talk page), my god daughter (or whatever the secular equivalent is) was born to a fifteen year old working class girl. My god daughter has a loving mother, but it has been very hard for her economically, especially since the biological father is a waste of oxygen and contributes nothing whatsoever. (He has four other children by different women and is unemployed)

It's always bad to jump to conclusions.

"So, you're saying that birth control is wrong 'Professional' people and yet it's OK for teenage single mums"

We have the highest rate of teenaged single mothers in Europe here. Some of them get pregnant by accident, some by naivety and some in order to get a council house (you get priority if you have a child). The majority of these are from lower income backgrounds so their children are automatically born into poverty. Professional couples on the other hand, can afford good childcare (most expensive in Europe here) and most other expenses. They also have double the income, plus savings. They have advantages the teenaged single mother does not. Yet much of this demographic doesn't tend to want to have children because they're obsessed by their careers.

Result, more children born into poverty, and more concentration of money amongst the wealthy.

"(who are never, ever the offspring of professional people, oh no.)"

We're talking about single teenaged mothers, not the grandparents. Category error.

"Also, we 'right minded professionals' need to out-breed the fundies."

Are you assuming I'm a professional? I'm a graduate but come from a working class background with a job whose pay gets me by, but is unlikely to be enough for a holiday away this year. I'm also in debt to the gas company for several hundred pounds, and had my landline cut off because I couldn't afford it. So there goes another assumption.

"Fuck directly off. Do not pass go and do NOT try to put this anywhere in this article."

That's emotion, not rationalism. Thanks for your assumptions, they were wrong.-Albannach (talk) 21:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

And all I'm hearing is "only the right sort of people ought to have children". Innocent Bystander (talk) 23:32, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
That's because your fingers are in your ears (metaphorically)... and you didn't read closely enough. - Albannach (talk) 23:48, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
If you say so. Have it your own way, if that's what you want to believe. Now, this conversation is over. Please don't post on my talk page again. Innocent Bystander (talk) 23:57, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Inner logic[edit]

Thanks for the heads-up on signing.

Keene's logic is not some kind of inner fascist logic, it's pure logic 101. If A and B, then C, with A and B being true. Inner fascist logic would be: Blacks are inferior to whites. The President should be a superior person. A black person should not be President. Perfectly logical, but based on a false premise.

Exposing fascism is an important thing to do, but the NRA should be exposed as evil, not as congenitally irrational. After all, they have that damn 2nd Amendment to cling to. Now that's an example of both inner logic and sloppy reasoning: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

(I've never understood why the gun control lobby has not seized on "well regulated" to make its point.)

Anyhoo, the 2nd Amendment should be rewritten. It will be, some day.Rev. H. Carlton Earwiggherd (talk) 18:09, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Just testing[edit]

Nothing to see here, move along. (talk) 08:16, 22 November 2013 (UTC)