User talk:SolPyre

Welcome

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

Because of your edits to and time on the wiki, Autopatrolled has been added to your user rights. This lets you bypass most of the abuse filters, bypass the CAPTCHA, and edit more frequently. If you have questions, bleat ask away.

We hope you enjoy your newfound POWER — and these external tools:

• Google Scholar Button ^{(Chrome, Firefox)} searches your highlighted text in Google Scholar. Easily check academic citations!
• web.archive.org and archive.today, among other tools, can save permanent copies of webpages. Never lose a crank website or racist Tweet ever again! FuzzyCatPotato™ (talk/stalk) 13:06, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Queen of England

Hey, man. I noticed you reverted a lot of my edits concerning the idea of a 'Queen of England'. In fact there hasn't been a Queen of England since 1707, when Queen Anne had her title changed. --98.122.20.56 (talk) 01:37, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Hey. Yes I realize that the royals probably aren't officially titled 'of England' anymore but the thing is that Queen Elizabeth is called the Queen of England in common parlance and I think it would be better for the articles to say it that way too so its clear to the more casual reader who/what is being referred to. I'm pleasantly surprised that you've returned to defend your edits so levelheadedly, many bunches of numbers edit things and are never seen again and/or get angry/nasty real fast. SolPyre (talk) 02:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I think it's important to debate, though I wouldn't claim I am perfect!

I would counter your argument but, in the interests of not having to repeat myself, I would like to draw your attention to my responce to a seemingly less level-headed user. I am probably going to be a little more .. blunt.. in my responce to them. Please feel free to weigh in. --98.122.20.56 (talk) 02:43, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Why...

Does the Thomas Jefferson quote say something about him? Are you implying it speaks to his character? It is considered an important quote about slavery. Burkean (talk) 08:37, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

It does speak to his character a bit but more to his position and attitudes toward slavery, he didn't think it was moral(seems like) but he was very pragmatic about it politically, only pushing for what he calculated could pass without hurting his electability(my take) and in his own life profited from slaves but treated them well. And then there's his attitude towards Haiti. That's why I like the quote better as part of his article. But... eh, if you want it on the Slavery page I won't oppose that or move it again, just let me know why you think that, I don't feel strongly about it.SolPyre (talk) 12:50, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I think in that quote, Jefferson is lamenting the fact that in order for his country to be rid of slavery, it may very well have to be destroyed, something which he very much does not want to happen, after all that he and his comrades worked for. It should be seen within the context of other quotes where he talks about fearing God's justice (in the metaphorical sense). And as many have already said, it isn't as though it was within Jefferson's power to end the institution of slavery and he then sat on his hands and did nothing. It wasn't as if Jefferson was taking a Calhoun position and saying "Hey, slavery...shit happens...whatcha gonna do?" If you push for something that would mean the constitution would not be ratified or that he would no longer be able to serve his country, what good would Jefferson do by martyring either himself or the constitution? Practicality and immorality are not necessarily synonymous. Jefferson certainly profited from slaves in terms of their labor, but he was deep in debt most of his life.

Admittedly, a lot of this was his own fault, but he also inherited a great number of slaves whom he could not take care of and had a lot of difficulty selling off, not only from an economic but a moral position, as Jefferson tried always not to break up families. So, ultimately I think Jefferson is lamenting that a country must choose between risking total destruction or continuing to have slavery. And when you consider all the tensions and divisions in the expanding America, and the attendant instability, it's very unclear whether America could have survived a civil war had it been fought earlier.

It most likely wouldn't have led to the outcome we saw in the actual civil war, but rather a disintegration into third world division, war and factionalism. This would not have been a desirable outcome for either slave or free. Very much like when radical revolutionaries destroy reform movements. Lincoln himself understood this too. Hence, the world by the ears metaphor is born. I think because Jefferson is expressing a genuine moral concern at the heart of the slavery issue in America. That is why I believe it should be on the slavery article. There are many other quotes which are more definitively Jefferson which could go on his page, IMO. I hope that was a satisfactory explanation. You seem to be okay with me putting the quote back so I'll go ahead and do that. Burkean (talk) 23:07, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Congrats

You've been demoted to mopwielder. Wield it well. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 22:15, 14 November 42015 AQD (UTC)

Excellent, the dishrag I had used up till now was starting to smell. SolPyre (talk) 22:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

History

Feel free to delete sections that you've ported over to the main article. :) 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 04:09, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

kk SolPyre (talk) 04:11, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Hey, Man

Which side do you think is the disruptive party in all this and why? I'm still trying to get a better grasp of what's going on. 𐌈FedoraTippingSkeptic𐌈 (talk) 04:18, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Ryulong's side, mostly because of the repeating trouble. The GGer's are quiet (for now) but trouble starts elsewhere just as easy (take MLP for example), when other people are hostile he can't keep his cool, fine, but then there's also when he's the initiating hostile person and then I have trouble seeing things his way. The collateral damage is beyond my patience. Other users handle themselves in ways that don't stir up this much shit even when they get mad. Ryulong is often on the right side of conflicts up against a bunch of assholes (GG) but he's just as often up against people who can be reasonable if he would calm down and engage them. Ryulong makes being reasonable hard, and even when he's in the right he tends to go too far. I hope this is the kind of answer you were asking for. SolPyre (talk) 05:09, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Sack

Love it. Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 05:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

You should! I stole most of it off you. For the public good, of course. SolPyre (talk) 05:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

Who are you accusing of being a sockpuppet, if I may ask?--Hastur! (talk) 03:59, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

DocYankem^{Prevent Truth Decay!} as a sock of nobs or nobs as a sock of Ariel, either way round. Maybe I'm just paranoid, I am documented by legit professionals to be thusly inclined. I could, at this point, try to play it off as a joke given my shaky evidence and punny tone, but... nah, I legitimately believe there is a sock atm. Perhaps I will wake up tomorrow and think myself a fool. SolPyre (talk) 04:48, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Dear fellow. As you are my senior on this wiki (by a year I think) I do want to be respectful. The last article I wrote for this wiki is Anti-intellectualism in American Life. I not only think Nobs could not write such an article, I don't believe he is capable of reading it. Give it a try.Ariel31459 (talk) 04:58, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Please, don't be respectful of your seniors just because they are your seniors, especially when one of those seniors is me. And please, don't tout your intellect as evidence of not being a skillful sock, in the eyes of a paranoid man such as myself you are only providing evidence of your capacity to perform more intellectually demanding deceits! But more seriously, --- I withdraw my accusation and I apologize --- I am a paranoid man but my paranoid streak isn't strong enough to overcome my doubts when I compare the contribution logs of you and nobs. I let myself get carried away and I'm sorry. Please give me a few hours to figure out how to appropriately apply the collapsable template and a retraction to my mistakes in the coop. SolPyre (talk) 05:33, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

My mistakes have been amended. Hopefully the next time I come out of hibernation I will be more cautious with sock accusations and less eager to let paranoia get the best of me. Again, sorry Ariel31459. SolPyre (talk) 06:24, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Really wasn't necessary. Thank you though. I hope you will come out of hibernation and help us out more often. Ariel31459 (talk) 06:44, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

'Very Bad Username' versus 'Unacceptably Bad Username'

What one is worse? What differentiates a 'Very Bad Username' from an 'Unacceptably Bad Username? ^{— Unsigned, by: Towers VS Plane / talk / contribs}

What? A difference in degree eventually becomes a difference in kind I suppose, but why are you asking me? SolPyre (talk) 16:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Beer

I opened a discussion on the talkpage. Aceⁱ⁹ 22:32, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Alright, I see it. SolPyre (talk) 22:36, 2 March 2023 (UTC)