User talk:ORavenhurst/archive

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
New logo large.png Welcome to RationalWiki, ORavenhurst!

Check out our guide for newcomers and our community standards!

Tell us how you found RationalWiki here!

If you are interested in contributing:

Welcome to RationalWiki! ТyTalk 15:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

You seem mostly harmless, welcome to the autopatrolled group! Scarlet A.pngbomination 16:18, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Excellent! thanks for the vote of pseudo-confidence! ORavenhurst (talk) 16:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


I have no idea who you are but I've looked at one or two of your edits and I figured that giving you the tools would probably do no harm. --MtDPinko Scum 19:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, appreciate it. ORavenhurst (talk) 13:36, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Terry's blog[edit]

Given that Terry and the equally reprehensible Pastor Bickel are now masturbating over the fantasy of the wholesale slaughter of radical Muslims, you aren't missing much over there. It's even better now that these are moderated comments too. --PsyGremlin말하십시오 16:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes. The day before comments went "fully moderated" I tried to post a suggestion that sr. Bickel might be more successful if he toned down the rhetoric a little bit. Apparently that was an outrageous suggestion as Terry refused to okay the comment. The next time I checked out the page it was locked down. I can only assume that he's actively trying to sabotage his own credibility. ORavenhurst (talk) 16:20, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Of course, it's also possible that he decided to look up my username on wikipedia and realized what was really going on. ORavenhurst (talk) 17:08, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


I am not cabbage. I am a mole. Thank you however, it appears I no longer have to answer questions anymore. Mole (talk) 17:12, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Your sig[edit]

rocks. Тytalk 19:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, glad it's appreciated. — Unsigned, by: ORavenhurst / talkDo You Believe That? 16:48, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


Thanks for the additions and changes to my section of the TF article. There were a few tricky parts in that text, and your chages have improved it noticeably. Gomer (talk) 20:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Deleting edition with no reason given[edit]

I would like some insight on why my editions on Lewis Carroll were deleted. "Fuck you" is not a rational argument. Read the name of the site: Rational wiki. Where does the "fuck you" enters in the "rational" part? Maybe you had several rational arguments, I'd gladly listen to them and we can come to an agreement.

BUT I THOUGHT THIS WAS CALLED RATIONAL WIKI!? heh --Revolverman (talk) 02:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Faith in the faulty human brain[edit]

Maybe the real problem is that it doesn't put enough faith in the faulty human brain -- if you're on board with the ecological rationality crowd. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

That works too. Thanks for the link, by the way. I've not had a chance to finish yet but it's getting at my issues. My issue is less with "rationalism" itself, but more the fact that every individual is in some ways correct to consider themselves "rational" regardless of how absurd their beliefs might be from an outside perspective. Maybe it's from too much time reading articles applying rational choice theory to religious conversion. Your comments here are also kind of relevant to my views on the subject. On a totally unrelated note, it's nice to see another Camus fan. — Unsigned, by: ORavenhurst / talkDo You Believe That? 15:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Loads more where that came from. The cognitive science of rationality is a boom business these days. I never liked the term "rationalism" to begin with because I had always associated it with either that thing Immanuel Kant debunked hundreds of years ago or Chomsky-an linguistics. That was until I discovered the manufacturers of transhumanist Kool-Aid.
Re: Rational choice models, I'm guessing that's the Rodney StarkWikipedia stuff? Pascal BoyerWikipedia has (justifiably, IMO) been ripping on the rational choice models for quite some time. I also recently read Amartya SenWikipedia's criticism (Rational Fools) and the Spiro Latsis case study of Milton Friedman and neo-classical economics. It foreshadows a lot of the criticisms that would come out of the behavioral economicsWikipedia school. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 23:58, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it's Rodney Stark. I'd agree plenty with Boyer's criticism. One thing that struck me about Stark's appreciation for Mormonism is how he seems to ignore the vast number of individuals raised in the LDS church who end up rejecting it. My experience with "Rationalism" has been largely limited to libertarians who say things like "You're a liberal and I'm a libertarian. The difference between the two of us is that I make sense" and such nonsense. That's one thing the Catholics have right - they acknowledge that poor brand ambassadors can sour outsiders on the entire institution. — Unsigned, by: ORavenhurst / talkDo You Believe That? 04:10, 27 September 2012 (UTC)