User talk:Neonchameleon

Welcome to RationalWiki, Neonchameleon! 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!

Welcome to the most Rational of Wikis! Тy^{GO AWAY} 23:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Your joke in the omnibenevolence article was taken out but I moved it to Problem of evil at Atheism Wiki so it won't be lost. Proxima Centauri (talk) 07:34, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

That joke was hardly worth squirreling away on your crappy wiki. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 07:41, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I also added your joke to the Heaven article, Try looking at Atheism Wiki, then you can decide if you agree with the Misanthrope or with me. Hell is hellishly frightening. Proxima Centauri (talk) 10:08, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

That is indeed a hellishly frightening article. I haven't written a whole piece as clunky as that since about 1980. Sophie^Wilder 16:22, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Constructive criticism and advice how to improve the article would be appreciated. Proxima Centauri (talk) 19:30, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Here's some: delete it, then wait for someone else to write a new one, and don't let Proxima anywhere near it. -- Nx / talk 19:57, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

+1 - David Gerard (talk) 20:02, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Serious constructive criticism for your atheist articles. You write so much better, Proxie, when you are not trying to "write then add, then add, then write". When you find something you think you want to "toss in", it looks exactly that, "tossed in". but when you start from scratch, your writing is actually consistent and flows. Were it me, and I wanted good articles on atheist wiki, i would read what had already been written, then totally from scratch, rewrite them. it will make them sound like someone who isn't in 5th grade wrote them. GodotCalibrated! let the voting begin! 20:51, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

A good example would be the page on Heaven you (Proxima) linked. The paragraph starting "Also..." wasn't my best writing ever but it flows in the Heaven page here. Copying it so you start an entire section with the word "Also" in your version makes it obvious it was copied and pasted from somewhere else because in order to have an also you need there to be a first point this is supporting. Neonchameleon (talk) 21:13, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to RationalWiki, you may enjoy it here - David Gerard (talk) 20:02, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I believe I do so far. Neonchameleon (talk) 21:13, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry that the first conversation on your talk page is people pettily snipping :-( We're not always like this. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 00:28, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes we bloody are - David Gerard (talk) 11:20, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Gentlemen. You can't argue in here. This is a wiki talk page. Neonchameleon (talk) 12:47, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Pst

Refs after punct. Still, that is a nice article :) Тy^... 15:57, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Doh! And thanks. Neonchameleon (talk) 16:50, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Genitals

Hi, I was wondering if you could back up your claim made here; http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Men%27s_rights_movement&diff=1104125&oldid=1098881 Omni314 (talk) 11:43, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

You mean the claim that cutting off the clitoris and sometimes a large part of the labia is a whole lot worse than cutting off the foreskin? Or you mean that cutting off the clitoris and sometimes part of the the labia is involved in female circumcision? For the first, use your imagination. For the second, start with the wikipedia page on female circumcision. Neonchameleon (talk) 19:19, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you think it's a possibility that you can't see that both are genital mutilation because one is socially acceptable? Omni314 (talk) 19:14, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Female Genital Mutilation comes in multiple forms - removal of the clitoral hood (1a), removal of the clitoris and clitoral hood (1b), removal of the clitoral hood, clitoris, and inner labia (2), removal of labia and clitoris, tying the victim's legs together for 40 days to let everything fuse, and creating a hole with a matchstick to allow the victim to pee (3), and assorted other practices. Male circumcision is removal of the skin covering the glans - which is approximately equivalent to a type 1a female circumcision - i.e. a small subset of the mildest type. A regrettably high proportion of FGM is type 3 (more than a third in some countries), and very little is type 1a due to the fiddly nature of such an operation. Neonchameleon (talk) 20:01, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

So because one is a more invasive operation that makes the other ok?Omni314 (talk) 18:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Who said it made it OK? It simply makes people attempting to claim that a comparatively minor thing like male circumcision (unless carried out by fuckwits who don't give a damn about the possibility of the child dying or being brain damaged) look like ignorant fools who will turn any conversation into one about them. Neonchameleon (talk) 08:57, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Wow, what a fuckwit you are - David Gerard (talk) 00:40, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Dear Omni314: If you're going to start a section entitled "genitals," please make it more pleasurable next time. Nothing's more disappointing than finding someone defending female genital mutilation. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 21:16, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I do apologise, I'll try to think of something better next time, maybe defending male genitals and not defending female circumcision.Omni314 (talk) 18:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

How about you accept they are not comparable and simply work to prevent circumcision without trying to compare it to female circumcision - something that simply undermines any attempts you are then going to make? There's no good reason for you to be trying to play misery poker in the first place - and especially none with an obviously losing hand. Neonchameleon (talk) 08:57, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Draft article on history of Christianity

I've added a note on the draft talk page regarding the Great Schism; will add more stuff as I ready through. Thus far looks like a good start. Arkady (talk) 15:57, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks :) Neonchameleon (talk) 16:07, 15 June 2014 (UTC)