User talk:JubalHarshaw

Welcome to RationalWiki, JubalHarshaw! 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!

'Ello. Тy^{Bother me} 02:08, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. JubalHarshaw (talk) 02:09, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Mmh. How are you? Тy^{Bother me} 02:10, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Full of sushi. And it's cold. JubalHarshaw (talk) 02:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Always good, though the cold is regrettable. Тy^{Bother me} 02:13, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Not that Tyrannis would know. It's always warm in Louisiana. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 02:43, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Censorship

Call it whatever the hell you want, but I bristle at the paternalism shown in the template you used. It was unnecessary.

No offense intended. Phiwum (talk) 02:08, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

None taken, but what the fuck are you talking about, son? I used no template, have never used a template. Show me, please, where I deployed this "template" of which you speak so fondly. JubalHarshaw (talk) 02:26, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit war

You've been here less than a week, you don't fully understand this wiki. Please don't edit war. Proxima Centauri (talk) 19:16, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I understand it plenty. And I understand that it must be nice for you to feel like you can push someone around, seeing as how every established member of this community holds your contributions in scorn, so I'll let you revel in that. more importantly, I understand how to craft a respectable argument. You apparently do not. JubalHarshaw (talk) 19:20, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Sysop

Congratulations Тy^{Bother me} 19:18, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! JubalHarshaw (talk) 19:20, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Evil

Denying any role for subjectivity makes you evil. --Syamsu (talk) 14:03, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm doing nothing of the sort. I'm just removing poorly-written pseudo-intellectual tripe from what may be a decent article. JubalHarshaw (talk) 14:04, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not pseudo-intellectual, or intellectual, it is generic common understanding. And you are a liar who doesn't provide any role for subjectivity but says he does.--Syamsu (talk) 14:09, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Fuck you. JubalHarshaw (talk) 14:10, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

You be damned, and rational wiki be damned for not acknowledging subjectivity is a valid way to reach a conclusion--Syamsu (talk) 14:13, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

My/our reversions to that article have nothing to do with acknowledging subjectivity as a valid method for reaching a conclusion. I/we have been reverting you because the content you are trying to add is pseudo-intellectual crap. — Unsigned, by: ORavenhurst / talk^{Do You Believe That?} 14:17, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I know dozens of your sort. Regards love as some electrochemical brain thing whatever, asserts that it's a fact that love exists, so provides no role for subjectivity in identifying love, which means provides no role for subjectivity at all. I am just providing evidence for the fact that rationalists surpress emotions by my posting on the free will wiki, or actually you are providing the evidence by deleting the entry.--Syamsu (talk) 14:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

This conversation neither concerns nor interests me. Please continue it elsewhere. JubalHarshaw (talk) 14:28, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Straightforward acceptance of subjectivity requires to acknowledge a spiritual domain which choses, and the things in it are identified with a choice. Your take on subjectivity is a bunch of pseudoscientific social darwinist lies.--Syamsu (talk) 14:34, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

what the fuck is with this place? Yesterday Rob told me what my position was on porn, Obama and the Democrats when I never said anything about any of those things; now you're arguing with me about my take on subjectivity when I never said a single fucking word about it. look, I know you live in your mother's basement, smell bad and have never seen breasts before, so things look pretty bleak and boring from your end, but surely you can find something better to do than make up both sides of an argument and drag me into it. Stay the fuck off of my talk page with this nonsense. Asshole. JubalHarshaw (talk) 14:41, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

I can predict, with 95% confidence, that you are a liberal atheist who doesn't support Classroom prayer and ... Fuck I forget what else it usually is. Again, word of advice: do not talk to or take rob seriously, just use the templates made for him. --Mikal ^{Harass Follow} 14:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

There’s a great deal of scorn on this website and you’re quite good at the insult game too. Sometimes it’s hard to tell when the scorn is serious and when it’s just trolling. If you stay and bear it you could find the criticism improves your writing, I find that. Proxima Centauri (talk) 14:59, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

"...you could find the criticism improves your writing, I find that." Wait, what, your writing has IMPROVED !?!?!? Dear Lord. JubalHarshaw (talk) 15:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes RationalWiki has helped me learn a better way to do factual writing, I write creative fiction, see

The Aliens of the Flaming Red Sun

I bear the criticism of my writing here because I know many/most of my critics haven't got the creative writing skill that I have. Proxima Centauri (talk) 15:10, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh mother of god that was funny. Thank's for the comedey writing, PC. You're right, you write comedy so much better than your serious work. you should stick to it.Godotrien ne marcherait 16:11, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia

Are you User:JubalHarshaw? Proxima Centauri (talk) 09:24, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

No. I can only imagine it's a common online handle. You're a poor stalker. JubalHarshaw (talk) 13:16, 4 October 2012 (UTC)