User talk:LogicMaster777

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>, (new)

Good job[edit]

I'm not sure it's the most helpful edit in the world, but it's a start. Ikanreed (talk) 21:44, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Out of Morbid Curiosity[edit]

Do you believe in contracts? Where you and I make some sort of agreement; You perform service X in a timely manner, I provide compensation Y, penalties for partial breach A being Z, etc. CorruptUser (talk) 19:20, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah. That's what I call voluntary cooperation. Making agreements to divide up labor/capitol, trade various goods and services, etc. Capitalism. Offer/Acceptance/Agreement/Consent/Consideration/Voluntary. Would you agree a contact must meet these criteria to be valid?LogicMaster777 (talk) 19:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
You forgot Conscienable. Anyway. Do you believe in Implied/Quasi contracts, where you didn't have 500 pages for every conceivable possibility, but you made an agreement which implied other parts? E.g., you buy a car, it's implied that when you purchase the car the wheels come with it. You enter a restaraunt, and eat the food, it's implied that you agreed to pay the bill. CorruptUser (talk) 19:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Wait. Wait. WAIT! Hold the phone! Did LM just admit to believing in contracts???!? Holy shit, does he actually think contracts are "real"? o_O Guys, LM is a contractheist!!!! (talk) 18:27, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Contracts are abstractions. There is a huge difference between using abstract thought, as in 7+7=14, and reification, as in, "The number seven says you owe me 14 bucks". When you start making an idol to your contract and praying to it, I think we have turned it into a religion. But we generally don't do that.LogicMaster777 (talk) 19:27, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
But people say stuff like "The contract clearly says you should.." and "The system of capitalism dictates that all participants.." all the time. Don't deny it, LM! You reify contracts! It's obvious! You believe in the religion of contracts! I know you pray to your precious contracts when no one's looking! It's the only logical conclusion! (talk) 20:32, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
And what prevents me from reneging on my agreements? If only we had some sort of system of arbitration to handle this stuff. Something that would force us to honor our agreements, even if we didn't want to. While we're at it... CorruptUser (talk) 20:42, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
141: I think you have a point. I have been coming to the realization that some aspects of AnCap are themselves religious or quasi-religious. The "market" is treated as a benevolent deity anthromorphized as intervening in the affairs of humans with its invisible hand, etc. I have even witnessed an AnCap praying to "the market". The concept of "property" is a mental projection we project onto the world with magical thinking. There is no empirical property of "property" aside from social convention or articles of faith, such as case law, or some other religious or social convention/social "fact".

What we can prove: possession, inhabitance, use. If we apply the non-aggression principle to these empirical observances such as "I live in this house", however, we get a concept that looks alot like the idea of property. Although there is no empirical "ownership", the NAP as an imperative would preclude burglary/vandalism.LogicMaster777 (talk) 23:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Corrupt user: many of our social taboos evolved because they serve some sort of survival-related purpose. At least that is the theory of Steven Pinker. Like, the taboo against lying. It is an article of faith to say lying is wrong, but on the other hand, if one is known for being dishonest, it will effect others' willingness to cooperate or trust them. There is therefore an imperative to be honest.
The "something" to enforce contracts is a service, right? For example, if we have a contract and a clause is that we go to Acme dispute resolution in the event of a breach of contract, then Acme is providing a service to us, right? Von Mises' raised the issue: if this service is a valuable service, why should we expect such a service to be better provided for by a coercive monopoly rather than having Acme compete w/ others providing the service? Would we expect other services to be better provided on a monopolistic basis?LogicMaster777 (talk) 23:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I notice you haven't answered yet. Do you believe in quasi/implied contracts or not? How do you believe contracts are enforced? Because a government is a metaphysical concept made physical. An abstract made corporeal. AKA, a Corporation. It is made up of people that create and enforce rules, provides services, offers protection, and funds these activities via taxes or selling services. Please understand that that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. There are rules that only exist because we follow them. Yes, if everyone were to disappear so would the governments. So what? No one denies this. You may be "smart" enough to know that governments/countries aren't "physically" present, but aren't smart enough to know that that doesn't mean they don't "exist". CorruptUser (talk) 17:27, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I know the government exists and it in our current society it enforces a monopoly for itself on the enforcement of contracts. If people pursue private mediation, it is still considered to be "delegated" as such by the legal codes of government. This still doesn't prove there is an "entity", a higher power called "sovereign state". The government is that which does its business outside of the "contractual" framework of voluntary cooperation, by violently forcing others to pay(which it justifies with its religion). Voluntary, contractual interactions outside of any government involvement is agorism, or pure capitalism.LogicMaster777 (talk) 19:27, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Like I told the blacksmith, get to the point. CorruptUser (talk) 19:40, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
His 'point' is that he doesn't acknowledge governments as having legitimate authority and he thinks in order for people to act as if governments had legitimate authority they'd need to have been brainwashed into worshipping governments. (I think?) (talk) 21:07, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't even recognize there is such a thing as authority other than as a pure mental abstraction. In my opinion it is a medieval superstition and I am amazed anyone in this day and age still believes in it. How do you measure authority? Pounds? Volts? Decibels? Cubic inches? What color is authority? Can I count it? If we can't divide by zero, can we divide by authority? What is seven times authority?

Authority is the thought product of magical thinking. Other than referring to some dogma as an article of faith, give me any reason to believe any human has any authority. Not political POWER, political authority. The right to be obeyed, not merely the ability to force others to obey. Yes this belief in authority is a product of brainwashing. How would you ever have reached the conclusion anyone has any "authority" without inculcation? The point I was making though, is that although the church called "government" exists, the deity called "the state" is a figment of the imagination. Again, I am referring to the Leviathan, the "Juristic Person" called "the state". CU, you ask about contracts, to me a contract means an agreement to cooperate. So I believe two or more humans are capable of agreeing to cooperate. Can such a cooperation be based on an implicit agreement? Yeah, probably. Studying apes, they don't seem to be able to contract much but they do have an implicit cooperation to a limited degree. And a contract relates to the tangible physical world. So if a contract says I owe you five bucks, that can measured, counted, the money can be stipulated to be green, we can measure the money, etc. Authority, on the other hand is purely metaphysical, pure superstition, pure conjecture. If you are claiming an invisible substance called authority it's your burden of proof. What empirical observances prove such a substance or whatever it is supposed to be - an invisible force of the universe like magnetism maybe? (talk) 23:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't have to "prove" authority exists. I just have to force or coerce you to do what I want. That's what authority is; you doing what someone else says, or else. It's not magic; the king issuing an order doesn't cause angels to descend from heaven that convince people to follow his lead, the king issuing an order says "if you don't do this my guards will cut out your liver". Why is this so hard to understand? CorruptUser (talk) 00:25, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
It isn't always about force or coercion. Good bosses have learned how to get people to do what's needed, and do it willingly. The really good bosses can get people to be enthusiastic about it. The same goes for sergeants, captains, and kings. I suspect LogicMaster has very little experience in society's organizations, and may never have been exposed to genuine leadership. Slurm und Drang (talk) 00:48, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Ok. I think we're really talking about 3 different concepts and using the same word. Perhaps I should clarify: I'm talking about legal authority. Anyone has the power of coercion to some extent. Mob bosses have a certain power of coercion, but it is not recognized as a "legal right". Mob bosses may also have a certain type of leadership skill. I'm not merely speaking of the ability or power of coercion or the skill of leadership, but the perception that it is a "legal authority" by "legal right". For example, Obama is perceived as having "political authority" or "legal authority", whereas Charles Manson wouldn't be considered to have that kind of authority - "legal authority" - although Manson may exercise a type of "leadership" and "coercion" among his followers. If "authority" is merely the power of coercion, then sure we all have that to some degree. I don't really care to argue over what words mean, since they can mean anything we want them to. I just try to define the concept. "Authority" can also mean "expertise". And sure there really are experts or "authorities" in that sense. So really, that's what I'm speaking of - legal authority. Which, in Obama's case, is a scriptural article of faith in the constitution, based on a personal relationship Obama is presumed to have with the Leviathan - the supernatural juridical "entity" or "juridical" "person" called "The United States of America". He is "The President of the United States of America" - the avatar of the Leviathan, the living representative of that "entity", which is the source of his "legal authority". He may also have coercive powers and leadership skills, but that's not in itself what I mean by "legal authority". LogicMaster777 (talk) 02:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Think of it this way. The US is one giant mafia. Elections are how we choose the president. The president is our Don. We have a set of rules that we expect followed; if the president breaks those rules we remove them from office. Is that so hard to understand? CorruptUser (talk) 02:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Mafia + church = government. Government - church = mafia. Government - mafia = church. Church + business = corporation. Corporation - business = church. Corporation - church = business. If you take away the corporation, scientology is just a church. If you take away the church it is just a business. If you take away the supernatural "entity" or "juristic person"(the religious element) of McDonalds, you just have a hamburger business. If you take away the hamburger business, you are left with the church of McDonalds. I worked at McDonalds as a teenager - we went through an initiation ritual where we were presented the scriptures of McDonalds and shown a sermon on video where it was preached that if we performed the cleansing rituals with a pure enough heart we would "see McC" - receive a divine revelation from "McC", who was portrayed as an invisible spirit in the video, who would whisper to McDonalds employees while they cleaned. If you take away the hamburger business, you are left with a building with an idol - a statue of Ronald McDonald, the anthropomorphism of the invisible "entity" or "person" called McDonalds. 500 years from now how will anthropologists interpret the ancient ruins of the temple of the hamburger clown god? (talk) 03:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
What's the difference between a prince with a small army and the mafia that takes over a town and declares that themselves in control of everything as opposed to just some things?CorruptUser (talk) 03:15, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I would assert it is that the prince uses an element of faith in his "authority" as in legal/political/scriptural authority, typically by claiming to represent a super-human "entity" such as a god or "state" (Leviathan entity) whereas the mob uses naked aggression without the religious spin on it. There is no religious dogma of divine right. That's why Somali style stateless warlords aren't recognized as legit governments by other governmental cults. Isis similarly claims an "outsider" spin on their claim to authority. They claim their "authority" comes from Mohammad rather than "the state", unlike the Prince of Saudia Arabia who claims to get authority from the Leviathan - Saudi Arabia the personalized entity. Just the other night on Fox News one of their talking heads said, "Saudi Arabia is a friend of ours". I think the idea being expressed was that the Saudi government and the US Fed government are on friendly terms, but the way we describe it is: There is this friend of ours named Saudi Arabia as if he is his own personalized entity.LogicMaster777 (talk) 05:14, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── That... doesn't make any sense at all. "Leviathan"? Wut. Sure, some people foolishly believe that the Rule of Law is anything more than a social construct, but that doesn't mean that social constructs don't exist. Tell me, have you ever played a team sport? Do sports teams exist? CorruptUser (talk) 15:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, a sports team is a group of people. It's not an entity unto itself. The say the Lakers is its own entity is a fallacy of composition/division, projecting a "Whole" onto the parts with magical thinking. It doesn't make any sense? Ok, show me the exception. Show me a leader who does not claim to derive their authority from an abstract "entity" or deity, or else claim to be a deity. Show me a single historical exception to my theory. A king or prince-like(in the Machiavellian sense) leader who did not claim divine right to rule from a deity(or else simply claim to be a deity). From an abstract "entity" regarded as a higher power, such as a Leviathan - the "State" conceptualized as its own superhuman personalized "Entity". Show me a leader you would regard as a prince or King who did not specifically refer to themselves as the representative of a Leviathan or other type of supernatural deity. Surely if my theory is off, you can cite one exception?LogicMaster777 (talk) 03:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Genghis Khan. He never claimed any "right" other than "might". CorruptUser (talk) 03:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Ghengis' immediate successors would probably also fit, as would Tamerlane. Also, plenty of the pagan monarchs of late antiquity/early modern Europe who, unlike Christian monarchs, did not claim to be their gods' representatives/stewards on earth. Shaka and the Zulu kings might also be examples though I'll admit to not being especially familiar with Zulu notions of kingship. There are plenty of examples once we leave the framework of the modern European territorial or nation states, the out and out religiously sanctioned Islamic, ancient Egyptian or Christian monarchies, or the quasi-religious ideology of the Chinese emperors' "mandate of heaven". ScepticWombat (talk) 07:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Religious or quasi religious aspects of cults of personality[edit]

Bringing up sports teams is a good example of the type of cult of personality which can develop a religious or quasi-religious aspect to it: the idolatry, worship, ceremony, ritual, etc. The cult of sports teams can deify abstract "entities" as superhuman "beings". The main thing missing is the strong sense of moral dogmatism so for this reason I think this type of cult of personality is more quasi-religious than religious per se.

Property rights and other Legal rights of Deities and supernatural entities[edit]

"The court was hearing a petition filed by Sangli-based Ganpati Panchayatam Sansthan, whose presiding deities are Ganesh, Chintamaneshwardev, Chintamaneshwaridevi, Suryanarayandev and Laxminarayandev. According to the Sansthan's lawyers Anil Anturkar and Uday Warunjikar, the deities had PAN cards in their names, which makes them eligible for opening a demat account."

More Censorship Vandalism[edit]

I made a debate to debate the ethical implications of RationalWiki's censorship policies, and instantly the debate page was censored(deleted) by MieKal. Amazing the lengths "Rationalists" will go to to keep their cash cows in the dark.LogicMaster777 (talk) 17:02, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I'd like to reopen this coop, and instead raise the question of whether LogicMaster should be banned for intentionally(if badly) trying to sabotage the much-needed fund raiser. His fantasies of oppression are fine and dandy, but if we're willing to ban serious, if misguided, users for bringing legal threat to the organization, I think at least considering a ban for a non-contributor purposefully trying to sabotage the foundation in combating those problems is a good idea.
LogicMaster being completely unaware of the actual oppression of free speech represented by people suing organizations saying things they don't like, really ought to have shown restraint, even if he felt oppressed by us. I say working against the interests of maintaining online continuity is a valid reason for a long-term(6 month to permanent) ban.
A rein is a strap connecting the corner of a horse's mouth to the rider's hand(s). Reign is what a monarch does.
I further think there are no realistic mitigating circumstances to excuse this behavior. We've given him free-reign to post his off-mission stuff in relevant places, and removed his material only when working against that mission. Any other editors want to weigh in? ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 17:23, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm for it. This conspiracy concern troll has more or less ceased to be amusing. Dispense with him at will. --Castaigne (talk) 17:29, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
You lot have more patience than me - I'd have liked to have blocked him yonks ago. Scream!! (talk) 17:35, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
[EC] Not banworthy. Ignore him, other than to collapse/archive/delete anything outside his designated playpen(s). Alec Sanderson (talk) 17:41, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
When he's encouraging pillocks on the foundation's appeal page I think he's gone too far. He's an arch troll really. Scream!! (talk) 17:54, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough. Being a persistent annoyance, hard of thinking, is not worthy of a block. Trying to scare off the donors might be, especially if he does it any more. Alec Sanderson (talk) 18:09, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
My tolerance of him ran out a while ago, but I'll behave and let cooler, more patient heads rule this one. I may also be in a more agitated state due to life pressures. Just know that I see little-to-no benefit to keeping him around; he has no new thoughts to contribute and has proven himself incapable of learning or self-correction. Anyone who wishes to explore discussions of Giant Frog versus "Statism" can just read the few novels' worth of discussion that have happened since Thanksgiving.--Maxus (talk) 18:00, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
(EC) I am for vandal binning him. He really hasn't provided anything constructive to the site so far, he posts his off topic rants in every possible place when he feels ignored, and takes a significant amount of time from on purpose editors with these silly things for almost 6 months. If he really wants this crap online he can make his own site...I've watched a 12 year old put up a web server on a Raspberry Pi in a few hours. If he has the time to spend hours repeatedly editing the same thing over and over then he can do that. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 18:03, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
What rule do you allege I have broken?LogicMaster777 (talk) 18:04, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
It is not about rules. It is about most of the mob being tired of your bullshit. Alec Sanderson (talk) 18:09, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
So then,since it's not about rules would it be fare to say you are proposing to ban others arbitrarily with no regard for the rules of the site?LogicMaster777 (talk) 18:11, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
I challenge you to show me one off topic post by me to back your allegation. Give me one specific factual instance of an "off-topic" rant.LogicMaster777 (talk) 18:12, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Your post immediately above, where you attempt a distraction about "others" being banned arbitrarily. This is about you, not them. Stick to the point. Alec Sanderson (talk) 18:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
First one I plucked out at random: going on about "statheism" in a topic about Andrew Schlafly? Sure, it starts on topic, but it goes into a tangential rant on "secret agendas" on what is essentially a four-sentence paragraph. My two cents, at least. Noir LeSable (talk) 18:31, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
You see, what your cartoon fails to take into account is that this is a 501c which takes donations from the public at large. And the organization has taken certain policy positions.LogicMaster777 (talk) 18:14, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
It is beholden to donators to honor those policies.LogicMaster777 (talk) 18:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Or else it can be construed as donor fraud.LogicMaster777 (talk) 18:17, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Ah but according to you, government and regulations don't exist. Who's gonna stop big bad us? Santa? CorruptUser (talk) 18:18, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Since these corporate entities do not physically exist, I don't take your articles of faith seriously. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 18:20, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
(EC2)The donators donate to the company that operates the base functions of a user-generated website. They are the ones that operate under certain rules, but you are not interacting with anyone that is under these corporate guidelines. You are instead interacting with the "mob" editors of the website, and the decisions by these are not binding. If you have any problems with any actions or decisions made I'm sure you are free to take it up with the corporation behind it, if you believe corporations exist. Be that as it may, I too place my vote in with the mob. +1 much annoying. Trick (talk) 18:20, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
You are acting as the de-facto policy makers of the site. The site has the "official" PR policy, and then it has the "real" de-facto policy. Delegating to you its defacto policy making does not absolve the foundation.LogicMaster777 (talk) 18:25, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't believe words and syntax exist, since they are a creation of the human mind and disappear if we all die off. Prove to me they exist before we take your complaints seriously. CorruptUser (talk) 18:28, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
You aren't being censored, you are pulling a literal Galileo gambit. There is a page on this ON RATIONAL WIKI. (P.S I read your essay, why the part on doublethink?)Doublethink (talk) 19:30, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Bitcoin is more fake than Fiat[edit]

Bitcoins are even more fake than "Fiat". Fiat money actually DOES have backing; property tax. No one "needs" to use Bitcoin, but everyone who holds a chunk of property needs "Fiat". CorruptUser (talk) 17:29, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
K, we can debate this somewhere else; I want to know what kinds of money/currency(whatever we call it) they take and what payment options.LogicMaster777 (talk) 17:32, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
PRATT's are not up for debate. Just read the article on it. CorruptUser (talk) 17:36, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Where does the article prove "Bitcoins are more fake than Fiat", also the way you say, "Fiat Money actually does have backing" in a seeming context of distinguishing it as different from bitcoins seems to carry the implication that bitcoins don't have "backing".

Does the article say bitcoins don't "have backing"? Bitcoins are backed by a massive computer network. I admit it carries an element of faith like dollar value does, because bitcoin value requires faith in computers and the internet, which could theoretically be knocked out by a solar flare or some other unforeseen event. (People are working on solutions to this vulnerability though).LogicMaster777 (talk) 19:27, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

And fiat is backed by printing presses. Your point? The problem Bitwits have with "Fiat" is that there's no inherent value to it; if people didn't accept it it'd have no value. This is true of Bitcoin. But it's not true of fiat, because even if every merchant refuses to take dollars, you still need to pay taxes. Bitwits claim that Bitcoin is backed by all the electricity wasted in its creation; things don't have value based on what it cost to make them, they have value based on what they can do. I could spend 10 years hand crafting a car, but if it's a shitty car, it's not worth more than one off the assembly line. CorruptUser (talk) 19:31, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
I think it's more accurate to say that it calls into question bitcoin as a store of value. Which kind of gets into the difference between currencies or "cash" and "hard money". It's not "hard money" like Gold. I'm not sure the value theory or the production cost theory are mutually exclusive, I think both factors effect price to some extent(hard to prove how much)- along with a whole slew of other factors, many of which may not be measurable. Economics really isn't a science yet. It still hasn't made that leap from "philosophy" to science like chemistry did from alchemy (although they use mathematical models). Maybe it never will. They do lots of "experiments" like Q.E.(in my opinion we will see a "Q.E. crash" down the road(maybe in a few years) and it will potentially lead to hyperinflation or a depression) but that's not exactly a controlled science experiment. Also, you mention the electricity used to maintain the network, do you have a comparison to dollars? What is the electricity cost of the computational power necessary to maintain the computer-driven banking system and support the now-mostly-digital dollar? What are we comparing the electricity cost to? It's not just the cost of producing coins that gives them value, it's also the faith in the network and what it can do - it's utility as a cash transfer system(you say the value comes from what it can do and I believe you are right that is part of where its value comes from). A coin is almost like buying stock in the "bitcoin" money transfer "company"(a D.A.C.- a company run by robots/computers Similar to how stock value of Western Union comes from the utility Value of the Western Union cash transfer company (the service the company provides). LogicMaster777 (talk) 22:55, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Brake applied, accused with no evidence,when confronted can produce no cognizable allegation of wrongdoing, censored for purely ideological persecution/censorship,trumped up falsehood of "too many edit conflicts" used to justify admin abuse[edit]

You are unable to edit because you have been placed into the vandal bin.
You were put in the vandal bin by Alec Sanderson and the reason given was: "too many edit :conflicts, slow down, sport".
While we hope you had fun, we had to do something, so you can only make one edit every 30 :minutes now. If this is a mistake or you have turned a new leaf please alert any sysops.
You will be able to edit again in 14 minutes.
The block ID is #2344. Please include this in any queries.LogicMaster777 (talk) 20:15, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

What rule do you allege I have broken?LogicMaster777 (talk) 18:04, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

It is not about rules. It is about most of the mob being tired of your bullshit. Alec Sanderson (talk) 18:09, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
You now have thirty minutes between edits to think about what you want to say next. Alec Sanderson (talk) 18:30, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
What bullshit have I stated? Everything I have stated is factually correct to the best of my knowledge(outside of the parody fiction on my user talk page and parody religion page). Give me an example of "bullshit" backed by evidence to back your claim that it is bullshit, as you claim, to back your defamatory characterization to prove it has any merit whatsoever(if you think you can)from a rationalist pov. Otherwise, if you have no such evidence, then this vandal binning is pure admin abuse. I will be mailing notice to the address of the foundation with your admission that you are acting outside the scope of the official stated policies of RMF in your defacto policy decisions taken on behalf of the foundation as their defacto policy maker if the vandal binning is not revoked, or evidence produced to prove the allegation of "bullshit" within the next 30 days(so you have ample notice to produce such evidence if your claim has any merit). I try to keep all of my material as factually accurate as possible; if there is any bullshit in any of the facts I assert, I want to know and I want it brought to my immediate attention.LogicMaster777 (talk) 20:15, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
You haven't been understanding all the responses to your babbling, have you? Alec Sanderson (talk) 20:44, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm not entirely convinced he reads them at all. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 20:46, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Statheists trying to deflect from your lack of evidence with your logical fallacies, what's new? You accuse me of bullshit, show me one fact I have ever alleged that wasn't true. You repeatedly prove yourself acting in bad faith with your falsehoods. Lol I challenge you to present actual evidence you respond with ad hom to deflect from your lack of evidence. You realize Ad Hominems aren't evidence, right? Where is your evidence oh wise rationalist admin? Show me the error of my ways, provide me the evidence to enlighten us of less understanding. Show us the evidence. Is there any? LogicMaster777 (talk) 23:27, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Here's a fact that you've denied: You're a contractheist! Contractheist, contractheist, contractheist! Don't try to censor me, LM, you know it's the truth! (talk) 03:31, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
In the (probably forlorn) hope that LM might actually read and understand a response, let me put it simply:
  1. Mainspace is not your personal blogspace, LM. The deletion of your articles and collapsing your talk page rants are neither censorship nor contrary to RW's mission
  2. You have been free to post to your heart's content in "opinionspace" (essays/debates and their talk pages) without hindrance. Again, no censorship.
  3. You were blocked for using your ludicrous claims of censorship to try to scare away potential donors, compounded by your comments on this talk page which skirt very close to allegations of criminal behaviour on the behalf of RW, or at least the RMF. This is both rather stupid (since the money help maintain the platform you (ab)use) and assholish (don't shit were you sleep). Not to mention that during the block you were actually still free to post on your talk page for everyone to see (again, not much censorship there).
  4. The current vandal binning simply limits your number of individual edits, not what you can put in them.
Finally, I'd better repeat: Just because RW has an open debate culture doesn't mean that every pet idea gets to go into mainspace. Not getting to post your ideas all over mainspace does not equal censorship. LM, you seem to think that not getting your way is tantamount to censorship - grow the fuck up. You're neither the centre of the world, nor the fountain of wisdom (that's the self-image your posts suggest you have).
Numerous RW editors have already wasted plenty of precious time with you, so give it a rest, eh? By all means continue to post your ideas in "opinionspace", but if you want to contribute to mainspace, be aware that this involves being part of a collaborative effort. Mainspace is not just a venue you can use as a bullhorn. And don't go nuts over the fact that no one thinks your ideas or arguments have any merit which is why the get removed from mainspace - that's not censorship, that's how wikis work. ScepticWombat (talk) 07:43, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────For the record, the reason for vandal binning LM, "too many edit conflicts", was about a rapid series of edits to the coop, seven edits between 18:04 and 18:25 on 13 March. Regular users of the wiki will understand how that interferes with timely discourse.

If it please the mob, LM can be paroled out of the bin after a while. For now, I will be happy to let someone else do that. Alec Sanderson (talk) 13:21, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I know, and as I wrote on the coop, I suggest that someone pull LM out of the vandal bin in a day or two. If no one else does it, I'll do it myself. ScepticWombat (talk) 15:42, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
sounds fair. Not allowing a point of view in mainspace is indeed censorship, but so what ? the eiki is not neutral-point-of-view and no one said we wont delete stuff we dont like. The wikis mission is clearly stated , that is debunking crank ideas, so posting crank ideas is very much off-mission. If you come up with an idea like Marateanism I will support that, because that was entertaining and got a lot of demi-divinities joining the wiki. Hamster (talk) 15:52, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
As I wrote, getting crankery or merely off-mission or bad articles or edits removed from mainspace is not censorship, it's mobocracy and normal wiki-work at, eh, work... Otherwise, we might as well start claiming that correcting spelling mistakes or fixing/deleting bad prose is censorship (because it changes a pristine, if crappy, piece of text). Or that deletion of linkspamming is censorship. Just like the removal of graffiti or tossing out spam mail is usually not considered censorship, neither is removing crap from RW that is off-mission and/or substandard. ScepticWombat (talk) 19:01, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
SkepticWombat I appreciate your charity and I respect you and your ethics. Thanks for the participation in the debate I started and the feedback on the articles I wrote. Also thanks to King Skeleton for participating in the debate so extensively, and everyone else who participated. Special thanks also EmeraldCityWanderer and FuzzyCatPotato. And IkanReed, thanks for the extensive participation in the debate and the feedback as well as the awesome tutorial on formal Logic. And CorruptUser thanks also. Thanks to everyone who contributed to any of my articles or the debate I started or who helped me with my home page or talk page.LogicMaster777 (talk) 08:06, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

A smart feller like you[edit]

...would have realized by now that he and his contributions are not welcome here. It's a big internet. Consider finding another outlet for yourself. All you are doing here is wasting your time. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 13:05, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Can we archive this?[edit]

Pretty please? Maybe to shorten it down to, oh, just 10 or so sections. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 22:25, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

We could just forcibly do it for him. Worked with EE. Not taking care of your talkpage is like trashing your apartment.--Miekal 22:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

(moved from above) For bonus points, you should try archiving some of the older stuff here, even though that is totally censorship. PacWalker 03:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Done. It is down to 26584 bytes now. SmartFeller (talk) 22:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
152 kilobytes taken off, and it's still at that number. Hot diggity. PacWalker 22:56, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Anthropomorphism and equivocation in the government religion[edit]

In religion, we can violate the law of identity. It’s actually one of the most common features of religious dogma we can use to classify it as religious or quasi-religious. In logic, for an argument to be consistent, A=A. A doesn’t inexplicably turn into B halfway through the story. In religion, the father can be his own son, a person can turn into a bird or a burning bush. We don’t have to maintain A=A in religion, that’s partly what makes it religious. Other features of religion: ancestor worship (like Mt Rushmore, Lincoln Memorial, etc). Animal Totemism: In government religion we have Eagle idolatry, snake idolatry, bear idolatry etc. Another feature of religion is anthropomorphism. Anthropomorphism is where we turn a thing or an idea or a place into a “person”. Such as saying Mars isn’t just a planet, he’s also a person, or Jupiter is a person. We see this in the government religion where the United States is anthropomorphized as a “person”.

“Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”

So this is from the 14th amendment. Notice how at the beginning of the sentence the United States is a place, then halfway through it turns into a person. A starts out A then inexplicably A is also B.

More religious anthropomorphism and equivocation(violating the law of identity)from the scriptures of government(US Code 1127):

“The United States includes and embraces all territory which is under its jurisdiction and control.”

“The term “person” also includes the United States”

This “person” depicted as a graven image: (talk) 21:14, 25 July 2015 (UTC)


Are you an atheist? — Unsigned, by: Doublethink / talk / contribs