Difference between revisions of "RationalWiki talk:What is going on at ASK?"

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(→‎Voting: new section)
Line 151: Line 151:
 
:::::I'm sure he'll remove Asp's membership, which would be fine if he also implemented a sensible system of getting past captchas. {{:User:Nutty Roux/sig|}} 17:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 
:::::I'm sure he'll remove Asp's membership, which would be fine if he also implemented a sensible system of getting past captchas. {{:User:Nutty Roux/sig|}} 17:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 
::::::I have made [[Not Circular Reasoning|the side-by-side]]. {{User:ListenerX/sig0}} 17:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 
::::::I have made [[Not Circular Reasoning|the side-by-side]]. {{User:ListenerX/sig0}} 17:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 +
 +
== Voting ==
 +
 +
It seems to me that OscarJ's possibly (probably?) nipping in here & voting WIGOs down. 20:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC) {{User:SusanG/sig/sig}}

Revision as of 20:20, 9 March 2010

Template:AOTW Navigation

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

Cool (sticky)

Gonna have to remember this one next time Philip claims he never said there was an EVILutionist conspiracy. --Kels (talk) 15:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Mark it sticky? ħumanUser talk:Human 02:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
How do you do this magic? Does it involve sacrificing goats? --Kels (talk) 02:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
One does as I did above, fair damsel. PS No goats were harmed during this edit. --PsygremlinSprich! 02:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Not even evil goats? --Kels (talk) 03:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Heavens no! Then I'd have nothing to stoke whilst plotting world domination. --PsygremlinSermā! 03:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
"Whirled domination", hehe. You said "whirled domination". ħumanUser talk:Human 05:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
"I've said multiple times before that creationists are not claiming a conspiracy." Here's one. SusanG  ContribsTalk 15:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
“[Conspiracy is an] elastic, sprawling and pervasive offense, ... so vague that it almost defies definition. Despite certain elementary and essential elements, it also, chameleon-like, takes on a special coloration from each of the many independent offenses on which it may be overlaid. It is always ‘predominantly mental in composition’ because it consists primarily of a meeting of minds and an intent.” Krulewitch v. United States, 336 U.S. 440, 445–48, 69 S.Ct. 716, 719–20 (1949) PJR describes a conspiracy over and over and over and over again but objects to use of the word "conspiracy" and then deflects. I no longer have any doubt whether he has shit between his ears or is a liar. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 16:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
From the main page(!): "widespread suppression of alternative views and even efforts to deny believers of alternative views positions in academia." Jaxe (talk) 16:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
(I've reminded him of that, Jaxe - good spot) SusanG  ContribsTalk 17:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, despite the Demon-Haunted Bradley trying to be cute, it takes a special sort of liar to claim all that shit and then stand there and say he'd never suggested a conspiracy. But then, it takes a special sort of meathead to persist in Creationism after being slapped in the face with the sheer amount of evidence Philip has, as well. He's got his head so far up his own ass, he's looped around and started a second try. --Kels (talk) 16:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
@Kels - please draw us an ouroboros of head-assery to refer to in occasions like this. Kthxbai. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 17:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

How ...

... does one say "Bollocks" without being offensive? These people are totally loopy. SusanG  ContribsTalk 13:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for telling the truth. SusanG  ContribsTalk 13:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
That's a real convincing argument you used there, Susan. Ajkgordon (talk) 14:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I know & I'm slightly ashamed of it but they just get me boiling! SusanG  ContribsTalk 14:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I thought "Bollocks" WAS the polite term 8| Hamster (talk) 15:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
er, just why is OscarJ an idiot ? I have interpreted BradleyF as saying No english translation of the Bible is usable as a source, so I am claiming a temprary win until they weasel out :) Hamster (talk) 15:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
It was his "cleaning up" of John Woodmorappe (why do I always read "Mapplethorpe") that got my goat. Bradley's an idiot too but I got fed up wit him when he affirmed his belief in demons - don't really think anything needs saying. SusanG  ContribsTalk 15:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
crap, cleaned up ? I suppose all my perfectly correct references showing what a lying asshole he is are gone ? I spent well, minutes on that :( Hamster (talk) 15:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
OscarJ drives me nuts too. How many of us have gotten blocked because of him wheel warring or us flipping out and calling him even mild names? I propose we lay off him for the most part. We can't work on getting rid of the pseudoscience and lies if we're blocked. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 16:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Logic fail

...why don't you tell me where else is the evidence for the god of the bible aside from the bible. I think that question has been framed to be unanswerable by definition (i.e. not by my inability to supply evidence). That is, you are not asking about evidence for a god, but for the God of the Bible. To put that another way, you are asking for evidence for the particular characteristics of God that are known only from the Bible. But if they are known only from the Bible, then obviously there cannot be any evidence from outside the Bible! As such, it is a loaded question, and it is unfair to ask it.

PJR here

Remembering this is after a long diatribe about circular reasoning. Who does he think he's kidding? Šţěŗĭļė question mark 00:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

#Philip_J_Rayment is_a total idiot. SusanG  ContribsTalk 00:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
He's now removed some rather approving comments from Mapplethorpe[whatever] because they're "apparent parody". He obviously doesn't think that "He has successfully pointed out the flaws of radiometric dating methods, and has provided ample evidence to support the feasibility of the Biblical narrative of Noah's ark." SusanG  ContribsTalk 01:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Who put that in woodmoroppe ? doesnt sound like anyone here Hamster (talk) 04:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
oh I see, "successfully" and "ample" removed as parody. Well I wont object to Phil agreeing that Woody wasnt successful at the one or provided ample evidence of the ark. lol Hamster (talk) 04:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
either Phil doesnt get circular reasoning or I am wrong about my example , any takers Hamster (talk) 04:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
I haven't looked at the actually creationist stuff, but it seems that Philip doesn't understand interpolation or correlation, nor independent confirmation (ie, MORE evidence), nor the difference between evidence, hypothesis, prediction, and data and observations. Šţěŗĭļė question mark 15:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Or of theory, fact, premise, fallacy, argument, assertion, claim, proof or evidence. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 16:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Verily, oh ye of little faith, what it sayeth in the Good Book cannot be gainsaid by such things as "logic" or "science", for know ye not that these things were deviséd by the followers of The Nazarine and therefore are true through all eternity. (so sayeth the Book of Philip) SusanG  ContribsTalk 17:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Although a diverse group of human authors wrote the books of the Bible in differing styles over a long period of time, the Bible really has only one author — God. Since God is perfect, holy, and true, we know there are no real contradictions in His Word, no matter what it seems at first. So we must delve more deeply. As one expert says, “If the Bible is truly from God, and if God is a God of truth (as he is), then ... if two parts seem to be in opposition or in contradiction to each other, our interpretation of one or both of these parts must be in error.” Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 17:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Babble in the Bibble

I find the Tower of Babel at least as amusing as Noah's Ark, if not more so. WTF has the arguing over semantics in Hebrew got to do with the pure stupidity of the whole concept? SusanG  ContribsTalk 02:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

This last week of gems has me ever more convinced that it's time for a PJR quote generator. I want it to be able to tq random phrases and eviscerate them in his special way. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 02:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Let's make that the new RW/AWK project? Arguing with the IDiot got old years ago, let's build a Schlafly-quality quote gen thing. Much more fun than banging my head up against some mad bugger's wall. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
yes plez, a special Rayment quote generator.Hamster (talk) 04:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
  • thats a circular argument
  • thats not what CMI says
  • creation scientists proves radiometric dating is flawed
  • ad hominem!

Holy shit I get it now

Hamster: ...creation science ... has been largly refuted...
PJR: So you claim, but creationists disagree. So you are begging the question.
He doesn't know what begging the question means. Disagreeing with someone's claim is not begging the question. Begging the question is a fallacy that arises from a syllogistic assertion that assumes its conclusion. Hamster was making a simple assertion of fact that's not susceptible of PJR's criticism. Seems like things "beg the question" when PJR disagrees with them according to his "biblical worldview." I understand a whole lot more now why I keep asking him to take some science and logic classes. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 02:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

At best Philip doesn't use the terms begging the question, stawman argument, or circular reasoning consistently. At worst he doesn't understand them. Hell, I'm not sure he know what an ad hominem is half the time. He doesn't even distinguish premises/reasons from arugments all that well. It's critical thinking 101. Šţěŗĭļė question mark 02:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Ad hominem arguments can be legitimate if the characteristic of the person being brought up is relevant (i.e the level of trust you put in someone's statements depends on whether or not they're a habitual liar). It's also not a fallacy if it's not presented as an argument; sometimes insults are just insults. People aren't saying creationists are wrong because they're stupid, but that they're wrong and they're stupid. Jaxe (talk) 03:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
That's chicken and egg stuff, that is. --Horace (talk) 03:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Project Batbird moves along nicely. Hamster (talk) 04:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
If you can show that your opponent is lying or uninformed, that is not an ad hominem, it's an argument (largely an argument about character). And in rhetoric, any argument, fallacious or not, is OK, as long as your opponent doesn't get it, if it advances your cause. The problem is, Philip gets called on it all the time. Šţěŗĭļė question mark 15:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The truth

[1] No, detailing the truth accurately and honestly is not good enough because it won't be my version of the truth. Agree with me or go away. Jaxe (talk) 07:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not like he wasn't up front about rejecting reality in favor of what he read in the bible and CMI tells him. In his defense, he uses the term "biblical worldview" for a reason. I have a "reality based worldview." To each his own. Conservapederast Jerry 14:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
I've noticed something of a pattern in that all the most dangerous movements in world history got their worldviews from a book, rather than from reality. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 06:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

An evening at the Rayments.....

"What would you like for dinner, honey? Steak?"
"What would you like for dinner, honey?" This is begging the question
Steak? Non-sequiter"
Acei9 20:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

It's funny because it's true. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 22:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
"Dad! Me, Jimmy and Steve saw a kangaroo at the park!"
Dad! Me, Jimmy and Steve saw a kangaroo at the park! "That's argumentum ad populum, son." Acei9 22:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
"Now now, son. You know Jimmy's an athe...I mean, anti-Creationist, so you can't trust that he actually saw a kangaroo, even if you saw it there too." --Kels (talk) 02:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
"No son, he saw a mouse. Baraminology teaches us that kangaroos are mice that grew bigger due to their exposure to the volcanic plumes that transported them from Turkey to Australia." --ConcernedresidentAsk me about your mother 14:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Derailing 101

Your professor today will be Dr. BradleyF. Master of Creation Science (as much as any of the other frauds, at least) and Doctor of Demonic Studies. --Kels (talk) 12:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The post that starts that section is full of win. I'm agonna ponder that argument for a whilst, methinks. ħumanUser talk:Human 20:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I always thought, if I were Satan and I were opposed to God, why I'd put out a book full of all kinds of crazy shit, but tell everyone that God wrote it. And since I'm an expert on lies, it would be simple to put all sorts of justifications for that crazy shit, even if it contradicts other crazy shit within into the minds of the more prominent readers. That'd be an awesome way to subvert God's works. --Kels (talk) 20:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Trouble with WIGOaSK

No matter what is WIGOed, the sillyness cannot be beaten. He (I say "he" because it is [pace Bradley, Dan] very much a one man band) is just out and out idiotic. He's twisting, gishing and galloping even more as time goes by. gOD only knows what it'd have been like if we'd never found it. He is truly certifiable (IMHO). SusanG  ContribsTalk 20:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

He is a comic genius in my opinion. Acei9 20:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Remember, science does not work on him, as he rejects its philosophical basis. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 20:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
ACE: I did suggest to him that he take up stand-up: no comment.
LX: Wrong! Only he understands science: everyone else is wrong. What was the one about the old lady watching the troops go by? "They're all out of step but our Jimmy". 20:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)SusanG  ContribsTalk
I was referring to actual science, rather than PJR's misconception of it. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 20:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
<PJR mode on>
I How do you know you are you?
was So you were, presumably you've changed now?
referring
-well you get the idea. 20:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC) SusanG  ContribsTalk
I think the pretense of making an encyclopedia is gone. It's a weird discussion board with a parakeet from CMI now. Šţěŗĭļė question mark 22:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Recent changes

Is anyone else teed off with hitting "Random page" because of his (rational but non standard} positioning of the Recent changes link? 00:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC) SusanG  ContribsTalk

No because I am not a retard who continually clicks the wrong button. Heh. Acei9 00:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Excellent bit of Kenning there, Ace. What happened? Hit the wrong button? SusanG  ContribsTalk 00:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

LOL Marxism. --Kels (talk) 01:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

LOL kangaroos and choo choo trains. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Trolling!

How the hell was that trolling? 02:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC) SusanG  ContribsTalk

The GODDIDIT addition was probably what prompted his conclusion... Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 02:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't agree 10000000% with Philip, therefore Trolling. Nothing except the purest drivel straight from the CMI vats will do. --Kels (talk) 02:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
<snicker>Does size matter when trolling?</snicker> Šţěŗĭļė question mark 02:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

PJR conclusions

Is my imagination working overtime , or did Philip just admit that real science isnt wanted at his site. can he weasel out ? Hamster (talk) 23:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course he can weasel out. He's not limited by such quaint notions such as logic and honesty as his opponents (forgive me, "Anti-Creationists"). --Kels (talk) 00:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I would classify him as a thorough dupe with a poor grasp of logic, rather than a dishonorable sort of person like Terry Koeckritz. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 04:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree with LX. He is brainwashed and deluded, poor wee lamb. Acei9 04:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, LX, for stating the obvious. Punky Your mental puke relief 04:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I think he does have a dishonest streak but it's not a conscious choice, and he doesn't see it as dishonest. He just really really wants anyone who reads one of his articles to believe what he does, and he'll write almost anything to achieve that. Including things he doesn't actually believe are true. Jaxe (talk) 04:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't know if I can take ASK much more this week. Dumb, dumb, dumb; moreso than usual. Šţěŗĭļė question mark 17:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Circular reasoning about the Bible

I just noticed this CMI article, which PJR cited in one of the arguments on his talk-page. Unlike with several other CMI articles, I was immediately wondering precisely what Sarfati had smoked before writing the article. We should have a side-by-side for this one. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 06:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Nice find. ħumanUser talk:Human 07:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
RIP (for a week day) Teh Asp. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 07:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
PJR will probably lengthen Teh Terrible Asp's block now for overstepping blocking authority. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 07:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
SBS is a good idea for that article. Šţěŗĭļė question mark 17:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure he'll remove Asp's membership, which would be fine if he also implemented a sensible system of getting past captchas. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 17:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I have made the side-by-side. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 17:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Voting

It seems to me that OscarJ's possibly (probably?) nipping in here & voting WIGOs down. 20:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC) SusanG  ContribsTalk