User talk:Nullahnung

This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page:

<1>

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

Nice, constructive edits so far! Sorry about your CAPTCHA trouble though. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] 07:33, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! The captcha troubles seem to have lessened a bit, thankfully, as now I only have to retry the captcha an average of 3 times as opposed to the previous ~7. Might just be luck. Nullahnung (talk) 08:50, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Oops

Thought I was moving that talk page section to the bottom, but you beat me to it. I will keep my opinion to myself, regarding the missionality of most gender-related RW content. Especially Gamergate. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 16:40, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I see. That's fine! Nullahnung (talk) 16:44, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Over here

Have at it. Robledo (talk) 04:29, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Testerosterone

That was merely a fantastic typo I made while sleep-deprived. Thanks for catching it; I kept mentally filling in testosterone whenever I reread it. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 19:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Fantastic indeed! :) Nullahnung (talk) 19:37, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Funny thing...

A bit amusing, perhaps, but I believe your comment on that talk page is more likely to derail discussion than mine is. Perhaps it was wrong of me to say I invoked Godwin's Law when I actually did not, but to suggest that certain arguments should be left off the table because they may be controversial seems silly to me. I will also note that openly recommending that someone not respond to me seems sort of rude. I'm hard to offend, so it doesn't really bother me, but it's worth noting. - Grant (talk) 16:55, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

To avoid further derailing that discussion, I will shift my direct response to you here:

As an addendum, it's worth pointing out that despite my initial statement, I didn't actually invoke Godwin's Law either. I will also add that I have no idea why you feel that using analogies in a discussion is a bad idea, but "argument from analogy" is actually a thing, and it's not a logical fallacy unless the analogy itself is bad.

Anyways, replace the Holocaust with any atrocity in my post and the point still stands. If we're going to say that trash talk gives us a free pass on making offensive comments on rape or racism, where do we draw the arbitrary line in the sand that tells us what is and isn't appropriate? - Grant (talk) 17:00, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

That said, your comment did give me cause to reflect and realize that I'm just wasting my time by continuing that conversation, as I doubt we're going to be convincing the BoN any time soon. If you decide to continue the "discussion," have fun. - Grant (talk) 17:12, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

(EC)Sorry, I don't mean to be rude, it's just I've had very bad experiences with discussions becoming bogged down in red herrings and other silliness before when analogies have been made and the Nazis have been invoked as a comparison. It's a bit of a pet peeve. Again, sorry for being rude. Nullahnung (talk) 17:14, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

No problem; as I said, I'm hard to offend. Controversial comparisons can indeed lead to conversations being sidetracked, but there are times when it's appropriate to use atrocities in analogies like that. This, I believe, is one of them. The BoN's argument is effectively that trash talk gives a free pass to using unacceptable language/behaviour, and establishing where he thinks the boundaries are on that is important. Also yes, I do believe my comment is going to lead to the conversation being derailed, but I believe that has more to do with the fact that he's not going to be convinced either way (hence why I decided to stop my involvement). - Grant (talk) 17:26, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Theoretically there is absolutely nothing wrong with what you posted in that discussion, it's just, as I said, in practice I have found it to be a no-no. In the end I do think what you posted is a valid question illustrated reasonably well via the comparison to an atrocity and were I your only discussion partner I would not take issue with it but be happy to engage with it. Nullahnung (talk) 18:54, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Could I get your assistance with Rape, Genetic Engineering and my edits to presidential slavery? I'm also having trouble with Ryulong in the chicken coop. They are about to ban me for having no use, despite being on most of the pages on this Wiki. Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 00:40, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

You are nominated

Board thing. GØØBY PLS ^{Push the envelope, watch it bend} 07:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)