User talk:IntrepidSkeptic

Welcome

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

Carthage (talk) 10:20, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

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! Carthage (talk) 12:30, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Demotion

Message from the RationalWiki Ministry of Demotion and Personal Impediment Dear IntrepidSkeptic, We are gently informing you about how we have demoted you to the rank of sysop. You have received a mop and bucket to clean up messes here. No questions are allowed here. If you have any further inquiries, please refer to the enclosed pamphlet So you are now a sysop. At your leisure, please go to the dungeon Room 202 to see the reward mops and hammers you can work towards having! Sincerely,

Carthage (talk) 17:38, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Unprotect the Sinfest talk page at once

You claim "Some random guy keeps adding the same nonsense comment over and over again" in the context of protecting the Sinfest talk page so that only registered users can edit it. It was NOT a nonsensical comment, its meaning was entirely clear and vandals kept removing it because it hurt their widdle feelings. The comment, for the intellectually curious was

"I know, he’s really gone downhill this year. At first I thought that was him satirising anti-Semitic conspiracy theories but now I'm not so sure. I first learned about Tats via a hilariously hysterical thread about him on the far-left TV Tropes in which they likened him to Titania McGrath and actually meant it as an insult. I loved his work when I first discovered it. I learned that he was a former SJW who'd seen the light but in light of his recent rabid defense of Hamas, it seems he's slid back into bad habits with a massive dose of Jew-hate, par for the course for the Woke of course."

Neither you nor anyone else had any right whatsoever to remove it. You just did because it triggered you and your weak, pathetic buddies. The only reason I remember it at all is because I'm proud to say I've just been blocked by Tats on Twitter for calling him out on his disgusting antisemitism. --2A00:23C4:AA1D:4A01:B8A9:2C26:DFED:86ED (talk) 16:36, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

https://rubbercat.net/artduck/artduck03.gif IntrepidSkeptic (talk) 17:03, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

BoN, the talk page of this article was locked on Dec 1 last year by user Ioe bidome. What are you on about? ULTRACOMFY (talk) 18:24, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Response from H1lgadr

There is belief that the statement that "religious belief always entails some form of error in your epistemological framework" has invalidity, specifically in the clause "religious belief always entails". Self-assumed reasoning for this is that there is belief that religious belief can produce mental direction and guidance, though this is according to the statement-originator. To reiterate, the central point is a questioning of the value of the time frequency of religious belief having entailment. (There is belief that the statement that "claim X" (verb) (claim). Self-assumed reasoning of this is that there is belief that (reasoning or evidence of claim), though this is according to the statement-originator. To reiterate, the central point is (clause of the central point). (Belief Assumed-to-be-Nonaccusative Central Point Retutation Ensample: BANCPRE)H1lgadr (talk) 21:03, 29 August 2024 (UTC)H1lgadr

Are you fucking kidding?

You gave a welcome template to a fucking troll. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Try our pumpkin spice lasagna!} 03:21, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry to hear it. I only saw the first few edits which looked legit, so I tossed up a template. I'm not at all careful with who I give that template to, since it entails no privileges and thus has no risk of worsening any situation. IntrepidSkeptic (talk) 03:24, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

You mentioned this in Saloon Bar and now I'm curious

Why are you opposed to all religion? TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 18:12, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

There's a few reasons. First and foremost is that belief in the supernatural always entails some form of error in someone's epistemological framework, and that can lead them to do bad things. If it's someone's axiomatic belief that you need to sacrifice someone to Huitzilopochtli every month or the sun won't come up, how do you reason them out of that? While it's not as extreme, there's many forms of irrational harms that can come from this - sexism, bigotry, genital mutilation, financial exploitation, the list goes on. (Vaush has done a few debates on this if you care to listen to them.) Religious environments are also pretty much perfect for personality disorders of various kinds. Look at the NIFB, or the Mormons, or horrible televangelists like Kenneth Copeland. They can get their emotional supply out of religion and use it to justify their actions and beliefs. Another reason is that what is unique about religion is not good and what is good about religion is not unique. Religion has helped a lot through human development and charitable work, but there is nothing it can provide that you can't get through secular rational thought. All of this being said, this is just my own personal belief and I'm not seeking to force it on anyone, save for strong state secularism. IntrepidSkeptic (talk) 00:28, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

While I get what you mean, I do find it a bit unfair to say that all religion is like this; There are many religions and many divisions of those religions and many followers of those divisions which all have slightly different beliefs; Saying all religions suffer from these same problems seems like a hasty overgeneralization. TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 02:01, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

There's definitely degrees to everything; however, there is always some degree of harm involved. Religion is simply something humanity would be much better off without. I'm not saying the problems are all identical, just that there's always a non-zero amount of problems. IntrepidSkeptic (talk) 02:31, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I see, but what about the 'psychosocial control' part mentioned in the userbox template? I don't think you explained that. TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 02:52, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I didn't make the userbox, I just saw it and chose to use it because it looked cool. Many, if not most, religions do have very regressive, backwards ideologies which creates a lot of bigotry. Anti-LGBT and sexist, primarily though not exclusively. I don't exactly think that form of psychosocial control is good, either, and there's the previously mentioned bit about belief in the supernatural. That said, every theist chooses to selectively interpret their religious beliefs to at least some degree. Many just use it as an excuse to hate those who aren't like them. IntrepidSkeptic (talk) 02:55, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I know you didn't make it, I just wanted someone who uses it to explain it. Thank you for the explanation. TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 03:05, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

All things in moderation

A case involving you has been raised at All things in moderation. Feel free to comment.

Plutocow (talk) 01:54, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

On account of being blocked, I can't comment there. I don't know whether or not undoing my own block is frowned upon so I want to respect that. For my part, I was really stoned, saw a recent change regarding a user called Fuck and thought, "Hey, reminds me of this goofy-ass 1994 game I saw!" Fuckman is being pursued by the cops like User:Fuck is being pursued by the mods. I figured that it was basically on the same level as the heterosexual male userbox so it likely wouldn't be a problem. I can provide screenshots of the game if it would help. IntrepidSkeptic (talk) 08:44, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I unblocked you so you can comment on the main page. Plutocow (talk) 08:53, 2 November 2024 (UTC)