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 who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2020.
| Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.|
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with !
Because of your edits to and 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 ᴘᴏᴡᴇʀ — and these external tools:
- Rbutr shows user-submitted rebuttals to your current webpage.
- Google Scholar Button (Chrome, Firefox) searches your highlighted text in Google Scholar. Easily check academic citations!
- web.archive.org and archive.is 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. --220.127.116.11 (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. --18.104.22.168 (talk) 02:43, 19 October 2016 (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)
- Excellent, the dishrag I had used up till now was starting to smell. SolPyre (talk) 22:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
- kk SolPyre (talk) 04:11, 6 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)
- You should! I stole most of it off you. For the public good, of course. SolPyre (talk) 05:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)