RationalWiki's 2018 Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff — we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

If everyone seeing this today donates $5, we will meet our goal for 2018.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!

Donations so far: $3630Goal: $5000

User talk:Ryulong

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, (new)

You're nominated![edit]

You've got the chance for another shot at becoming a mod (a modshot?) in the upcoming by-election. ScepticWombat (talk) 06:09, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Since you're the expert[edit]

Can you please take a look at RationalWiki:Chicken_coop#User_using_the_Japanese_word_for_.22pedophile.22_as_their_username. According to a Google search, "shouniaisha" is Japanese for "pedophile". Can you please confirm if this is true? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:14, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


Ryūlóng, I am going to make a point-by-point reply to you here in the hopes that we can address each and every problem.
  • Firstly, I don't know in what sense you mean 'quibble'. If it is in regard to 'an argument about a trivial matter', then I would agree with you in one context, but disagree with you in another. The 'other' context is one in which this website claims to be a repository of information. It is, in effect, a kind of encyclopaedia. A rational argument often includes empirical data and, by changing a correct title to an incorrect title, you appear to have left rational thinking behind. If someone changed the President of the USA, in an article, to the President of Texas, would you feel that is accurate? What if many people used the title 'President of Texas'? Would that make it any more accurate?
  • Relevancy to you is not necessarily relevancy to others. By the same token, what is irrelevant to you, may not be irrelevant to others.
  • I like the way you call me a pedant, just after you (rather pedantically) exaggerate my intent to be accurate by quoting the full style of the British monarch. To be clear: this is not what I had done.
  • If it were common practice for people to stick their heads in fires, would you follow suit? It is, after all, what everyone else does. Many people use derogatory terms to describe gay people. Should we follow suit?
  • Your objection to using a more accurate term seems, in itself, to be pedantic. If it is 'trivial', as you have suggested, then why bother changing it back to a less correct form?
  • The biggest problem that exists with the term 'Queen of England' is that it reinforces another highly inaccurate habit that is also common - particularly, it has to be said, in the USA. That is the insistence of referring to the United Kingdom as 'England'. While the Elisabeth II is the monarch of England, she is only that by virtue of her being the British monarch. By the same token, England is indeed the largest constituent part of the UK, and the sovereign parliament is located there. However, we don't refer to the USA as 'Washington' or 'DC', despite the fact that the seat of political power being situated in Washington DC. Nor should we refer to the UK as 'England'.
When all is said and done, this website is intended to be a source of information. How good do we want that source to be? Do we want it to contain inaccuracies merely because "everyone else does it"?
It seems to me that the idea of disseminating information infers a certain penchant for pedantry.
My case for now rests, M'lud. -- (talk) 02:38, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Ryu is no longer active here. Why are you addressing him in this venue? Hipocrite (talk) 19:01, 19 October 2016 (UTC)