RationalWiki talk:What is going on in the blogosphere?/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 5 November 2010. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>

, (new)(back)

Should we make it "newest additions at the top", or list them in strict descending order of posting date? ħuman 16:27, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

More importantly...

How is this different from Clogosphere? _{↳ ↑ ⇨ ↕ ▽ ←} 16:28, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

Oh shoot. I guess the title ;) Please go mention this at talk:main so the bloggers know where to add there posts! I'll kill this off once the bloggers get settled in where they belong, I guess. ħuman 16:41, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

I'm confused now, which page should we be testing out? The Lay Scientist 17:00, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

Okay, having found Clogosphere, surely that's not the same at all? Clogosphere seems to be about blog entries from nutters... The Lay Scientist 17:06, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

Yes! You're right. Double doh! Please use this one for the sane blogs! ħuman 17:45, 8 July 2008 (EDT)

WIGO tag

Just a heads up: It looks like the wigo tag wasn't designed for multiple simultaneous use. I added the starlight entry as wigo number 1 and it pulled the voting from the CP wigo page for entry number 1 there. Jim Rational 12:38, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

Yea, the WIGO voting system was back in my earlier days of learning to program for the modern age. I stopped paying attention to web programming about the time WYSIWYG was developed. That was when website designed got taken over my people that actual knew and cared about color clashes. I have been working diligently on leveling up my mysql, php and perl skills and can do much more interesting things these days. There is a lot of momentum behind the way WIGO is currently done and so I haven't gone back to rework it. Perhaps this is a good excuse to sit down and write from scratch a whole new voting extension that doesn't have all the limitations and drawbacks of the WIGO one. tmtoulouse ^pester 12:51, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

Hey Jim, can you add the date of the post? Thanks... ħuman 13:32, 10 July 2008 (EDT)

PZ Myers

I always like to give people the benefit of the doubt, but I'm afraid I must now consider Dr Myers officially out of his mind. That's a pretty long and incoherent rant if ever I saw one. Fourth Lateran Council, anti-Semitism, desecration, Othering and a bunch of generalization all tied uf in one little big, convenient package. And even I'm not sure what he's talking about here: "... last time a Catholic nation rose up to slaughter its non-Christian citizenry was a whole 70 years ago, after all..." I wonder if he knows himself. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 19:20, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

So enlighten us, what in it is false? What conclusions does he draw that you disagree with. I had no difficulty following the post at all, so I find criticism that it is a rant and incoherent lacking. I will admit that history is not my strongest suit, so I will listen with an open mind to specific criticism. tmtoulouse ^pester 19:23, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

I was wondering what his "70 year" thing was also. I've been deciding whether to write anything on this,but despite the fact that it's good for traffic, it's damned boring. I think he's being an ass. The point about "only a cracker" is half right. It is an object, and as such should not be compared to a human life. It also should not be weighed as a "super-material" object. HOWEVER... any object exists both as an object, and as an object that interacts with the human world. If a cracker were all there was too it, there would be no reason for PZ to nail it. It's ridiculous to think so. Symbols are very important parts of human behavior, and cannot be ignored (or can be, but then a lot is missed).-- -PalMD ^{--goat--the other white meat} 19:29, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

Well, at least with it here, you can vote it "thumbs down"... ħuman 19:49, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

w00t! (irrational

irrational
redneck)-- -PalMD --goat--the other white meat 19:58, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

Hey, aren't there any bad adjectives left??-- -PalMD ^{--goat--the other white meat} 19:59, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

I (obviously?) agree with PZ's sentiment, but his method looks theatrical & "rabble rousing" - he's playing to the gallery and it's probably Over The Top.   ^Contribs_Talk 20:03, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

'Kay. Brief overview of the many and different ways in which Dr Myers fails - again - to earn my respect:

• "...Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus, that the Eucharist was the sacrament that only properly ordained priests of the Catholic church could give" - Factually incorrect. Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus is the general doctrine that the Church is the means by which salvation is received. This was reaffirmed at 4 Lateran, as it was many times before and since, but goes all the way back to St. Cyprian in the 3rd century. He could have looked this up on Wiki; inexcusable.

• "...formally decreed the Jews to be inferior, and a target of hatred." - Factually incorrect. 4 Lateran most certainly did not "formally decree" anything of the sort. They decreed that Jews had to wear special clothing, which of course reflects that they had a lower social and legal status, but this was not exactly anything new. Personally, I'd argue that Jews had been considered of lower status at least since their rebellion in 70 AD.

• "Declare something cheap, disposable, and common to be imbued with magic by the words of a priest, and the trivial becomes a powerful token to inflame the mob..." - Factually incorrect AND ridiculously biased interpretation. The consecrated host had already been considered sacred for hundreds of years. Fourth Lateran changed nothing here, it only established that the faithful should receive communion at least once a year. The use of the word "magic" is questionable from an anthropological point of view, but I guess we'll let that pass. The "inflame the mob" thing is merely his interpretation, and an unsupported one at that. However, I hardly think that creating a pretext for the persecution of Jews was exactly the first thing the participants at the Fourth Lateran had in mind when they established new rules for the Eucharist.

• "Now you could invent stories of Jews and witches taking the communion host to torture, to make Jesus suffer even more, and good Catholics would of course rise in horror to defend their salvation." - Factually incorrect AND ridiculously biased interpretation. No one "invented" anti-Semitic stories, in the sense that some identifiable individuals or group of people consciously made them up.

• "...thereby providing a pretext to encourage massacres." - See above.

• "...the last time a Catholic nation rose up to slaughter its non-Christian citizenry was a whole 70 years ago, after all..." - Unspecific, probably factually incorrect. Again, I obviously can't be certain which particular nation he's referring to here, but I'll assume that he means Germany. For one thing, Germany has hardly been "Catholic" at any time since the Reformation, and claiming otherwise shows a serious level of ignorance. Also, I guess this is supposed to tie into the old hat that the Catholic Church was somehow responsible for or at least complicit in the Holocaust. This is not supported by current, serious research. In fact, the Church in both Germany and Italy made a significant effort to help the Jews - saving, I believe, some 4,500 people in Rome alone - often at significant danger to the lives of priests and religious. But I guess Dr Myers can't be bothered with such minor details.

• "Catholicism has been actively poisoning the minds of its practitioners with the most amazing bullshit for years..." - I'll be charitable and call this "unsupported opinion".

That was about three paragraphs. I can go on if you really want to, but honestly... it boggles my mind on how many levels of abstraction this man completely fails so hard.

So far, he gets an "F - see me." --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 20:19, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

That said, the hordes of screeching fans that are swarming all over the comments section are actually worse. Faith in humanity: Down 10 points. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 20:19, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

I agree with Susan. He is wasting far more time on this than it deserves. If he wants to go after the RCC it should be for substantive issues, not transubstantive ones. After all, as he said, it's just a cracker. So write about something that matters and quit pissing off our friend Andreas. ħuman 20:30, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

It's descended to boredom now - 2204 comments. As I said OTT.   ^Contribs_Talk 05:50, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

Yeah. I just skimmed through some of those comments, and I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your always tolerant, nuanced and understanding way of criticising religion, Susan. Those people are crazy. It's a madhouse! ... Excuse me, I think I need to go hide in the library for a while. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 10:04, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

A Suggestion

Here's a thought to try to help us ever-so-slightly expand our remit and postings. Why not create a section of the Main Page called What Is Going On In..., followed by a list of our various (uhm, 3) WIGO pages - and we could grow those. Effectively, it would be an entry portal into various mainspaces. Eh? DogP

You might want to go to talk:main and see what we're getting ready to spring on you... ħuman 23:02, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

BIzarre, I just went there and blundered into the same idea over there. Excellent! Please ignore this thread so! DogP 23:05, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

Re Date

Does this mean the date of the blog post or the date it's posted here (an oldish post might be found by ascident)? Also, if the latter, can you use ~~~~~ (05:48, 25 July 2008 (EDT))?   ^Contribs_Talk 05:48, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

Susan, as the page is called What is going on I think we should concentrate on recent postings and therefore put the date of posting of the blog. Maybe older stuff of note should be put elsewhere (but not another vote). Genghis^unbelieving 06:13, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

So far it's always been the blog post date. The fossil record keeps track of when things were added... ħuman 16:49, 27 July 2008 (EDT)

9/11 truth post

The popular mechanic's article and the live debate linked from the blog post are quiet excellent for anyone familiar or curious about this particular niche of cranks. tmtoulouse ^pester 00:08, 28 July 2008 (EDT)

The PM and debate link should be added to the WIGO. Don't make us chase after this stuff if you know where it is ;) ħuman 01:39, 28 July 2008 (EDT)

not cool?

I love reading blogs, and would like to explore from this page. I don't want to put up links to my own blog because it's maybe too much self-promotion even for me. (also, i can't very well judge what's important enough). What's the thought on self-linking?-- -PalMD ^{--goat--the other white meat} 10:47, 28 July 2008 (EDT)

Stick it up there doc. with a "self promotion" disclaimer.   ^Contribs_Talk 10:53, 28 July 2008 (EDT)

Hey, that blogroll at the bottom...any relation to our Blogroll page?-- -PalMD ^{--goat--the other white meat} 11:12, 28 July 2008 (EDT)

Ows that doc? linked to Blogroll.   ^Contribs_Talk 11:18, 28 July 2008 (EDT)

Pal, I'll self promote if you do. I think it's okay with a disclaimer-caius (blackguard) 22:30, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

If we don't self-promote our blogs here, the page will never take off. I'm self-promoting for the good of the community. Honestly. It has nothing to do with getting my cushy spot at ScienceBlogs when PZ is assassinated by crazy Catholic cracker cultists. The Lay Scientist 22:10, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

For the record, I absolutely agree that self-promotion is beneficial to everyone, it is win-win for us and you hopefully. So promote away. tmtoulouse ^pester 22:11, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

Thanks TMT! I like having a built in choir to preach to. You're right, we're symbiotic :-)-caius (blackguard) 22:25, 31 July 2008 (EDT)

Auto-voted high?

I just posted a new entry to the WIGOBlogs page, but upon completion, the entry already showed a vote of +4. I know that's not right - nobody can read/vote in the space between when I click "submit" and when the page reloads - so how do I fix that? Not that I don't like vote inflation...-caius (blackguard) 09:38, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

Erm, yeah... that was my fault. I got the numbering completely wrong, everyone else then continued with my new rogue numbering, and so several posts had the same number, hence the confusion! The Lay Scientist 14:38, 5 August 2008 (EDT)

Did anyone manage to fix the damage yet? ħuman 15:34, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, I undid my error :) 81.102.156.177

McCain Low blows & the Anti Christ

I'm not sure what type of articles you typically feature, so I'm setting this link from Kos here first. I was shocked at this particular act by McCain. He basically infers (of course, in his typical rhetoric "i was just joking") that Obama is the Anti-Christ. No kidding. [[1]]. If anyone thinks this is worthy of WIGI Blogiy land, would you link it or let me know to link it? --Waiting for Godot 13:57, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

What about going to the source(s) and putting it at WIGO World? Rather than the secondary thing of a blog? Or do you think the blog link is better because people can comment? (I bet they can comment at Time or wherever, too?) ħuman 15:40, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

Do put that in, and I think it'd be better as a blog thing, b/c commentary. Kos isn't MSM yet.-caius (blackguard) 15:40, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

No, he isn't - but Time, which he extensively quotes, is. And what he quotes is the commentary, really. This is news and in the world, not just on a blog. ħuman 15:44, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

You make good points. I do like the comments on the blog, but the story itself is what I really want to highlight. Thanks, to the source I shall go. --Waiting for Godot 16:30, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

Whoah... there's some crazy subtext going on in that shit fo' sure. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 16:48, 8 August 2008 (EDT)

Solar power

I'm not really sure what the point of this entry is. OK it features Flippin but the actual blog entry itself is rather facile. In fact I wonder if it shouldn't be in clogland. Genghis^unbelieving 13:18, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

I've commented it out until some senior person says otherwise... I really don't get why this was added. The Lay Scientist 03:32, 17 August 2008 (EDT)

No follow

Mediawiki automatically places a no follow tag on EL links. For things like blogosphere I think that is unfair. If I wrote up a way to do EL links without a no follow tag would people use it? Is it even needed? tmtoulouse ^pester 16:30, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

Can you write a magic tag that does it for an entire page? ħuman 16:49, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

Well all the text is only accessible by the parser, I couldn't do a tag for a whole page. I might be able to do some sort label that can be added to the page and then go into the mediawiki software where it generates the ELs and stick a couple if statements..... tmtoulouse ^pester 17:01, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

What about a whitelist for approved sites for which there is no 'no follow' generated? This would allow linking to those sites while avoiding Newton/Kenservative and his acolytes in google spamming from attempting to drive up rankings? --17:15, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

Upon deep reflection at 4 in the morning I have decided to turn off 'no follow' site wide. tmtoulouse ^pester 13:02, 14 August 2008 (EDT)

RationalWiki award?

Okay I know it follows in line with some of what CP has been proposing, but forget that, instead I think we should have a yearly web award for websites/blogs/wikis, whatever, that are 1)under appreciated by the internet community (IE probably not things like Pharyngula or Bad Astronomy), and 2) represent the goals of our site. What say you people? tmtoulouse ^pester 14:01, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

Sure. I nominate an obscure hate-filled blog called "RationalWiki"! ħuman 22:15, 25 August 2008 (EDT)

Giving up on the Democrats

My motivation to support the Democratic party is weakening daily now. I was "born and raised" on the Democratic party, but their kowtowing to the Religious right, the luke warm leadership they shown in Congress, and the complete betrayal to their constituents in regards to the Iraq war has brought me nearly to the point of abandoning them. What do you do when you can't tell much difference between the "lesser of two evils"? tmtoulouse ^pester 20:54, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

• Supreme Court abortion. ħuman 21:05, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

Check out the blog that I posted from Pharyngula. Event that is no longer a given. tmtoulouse ^pester 21:26, 27 August 2008 (EDT)

What, which, where? ħuman 22:52, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

Supporting the democrats because they're not as bad the raving lunatics in the Republicans has been the way of things for any intelligent American since the eighties. That or emigrating. Totnesmartin 08:03, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

I'm starting to feel the same way, I've lived abroad for three years so I can't really know what it's like, but honestly, how long will we stand by the same corrupt and useless politicos? Why an intelligent third party candidate can't succeed in this day and age is mindboggling, Is this America. I think the only way to shake it up would be to have either a revolution or an alien invasion.... δλερνερ ^{διαλέγομαι | συνεισφέρω} 08:18, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

Plutocracy is bad. A lesser evil is still evil, and evil can only win as long as good co-operates with it. Yet if the lesser evil is simply a puppet held by the same person as holds the greater evil, can it any longer be called a 'lesser evil'? The Democrats and Republicans have held power for too long, and y'know what? I want Change. -Judas Reward 08:46, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

Is the US becoming anti-intellectual?

"becoming"? It's been a hallmark of this empire for so long it's not even funny. ħuman 22:50, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

Basic population stuff. The more people you want to sway, the dumber your message needs to be. <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!^{That isn't science, that's Pac-Man!} 22:58, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

Back that up with facts, "jellybaby"! ħuman 23:11, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

Never! :P <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!^{That isn't science, that's Pac-Man!} 23:17, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

Well, then, would you like a jellybaby? ħuman 23:21, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

Yes, provided that isn't a euphemism.

In fact, I would like several. Leave them in the train station at quarter past five and your turtle housemarten shinigami greenhouse will be returned safely. <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!^{That isn't science, that's Pac-Man!} 23:23, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

It's a Whoism, you silly invertebrate. I'll leave them - many - near the police call box. ħuman 23:26, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

What in the name of the divine Benvenuto is a "Whoism"? <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!^{That isn't science, that's Pac-Man!} 23:28, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

If you don't know, are you sure you are cool enough to play here? I am a Doctor... I walk in Time. ħuman 23:33, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

Blech :P <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!^{That isn't science, that's Pac-Man!} 23:41, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

Does a football/baseball/basketball/icehockey player rate higher than a Professor in the US? Is that what Andy's promoting with "Professor values"?   ^Contribs_Talk 23:31, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

I'm impressed, Susan, that you not only know the four major US sportz, but you know them in order of importance. I will mock you in future for this knowledge! And what does this comment refer to? Surely not the good Doctor? ħuman 23:34, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

Reference is not to teh Dr. but to the lauding of physical prowess over mental achievement.   ^Contribs_Talk 23:50, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

I'll see your "mental achievement" and raise you a sonic screwdriver! ħuman 00:37, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

It's not just the US, the UK isn't too far behind considering Big Brother contestants become the most reverred celebrities (even if just for 15 seconds) while genuine scientists are reduced to having to make sciency-sounding soundbytes for beauty comericals and their doctorates are reduced to "it's our most concentrated pentapeptide complex yet". We might not be raving YECers but brainboxes the proles are not! :S Armondikov 07:48, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

And which country pray tell is full of smart and intellectual people (besides Israel, of course)? I live in Australia now, nice people, yes, but not too many bright bulbs either. δλερνερ ^{διαλέγομαι | συνεισφέρω} 08:21, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

Gentlemen at this website! Please maintain the proper perspective and do not succumb to sentimentalism. Historically speaking, never before have we seen illiteracy rates as low as we do now. And never before have so many people had a realistic opportunity to get a higher education than now. Our societies are better educated now than they ever have been before. By comparison with that, what does it matter if some people like to watch Big Brother as well? And not so many years ago, only the tiniest percentage of the population would ever have had the opportunity to hear what the scientists had to sasy, let alone have even a chance of understanding what they said. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 08:58, 31 August 2008 (EDT)

It's the denigration of learning I mean. We have it here in the UK: people are seemingly proud of their inability to do maths - as if it were a mark of distinction somehow, you see newsreaders and HISTORIANS <dig> doing it.   ^Contribs_Talk 15:43, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

of course a basketball player or football player is waayyy better than a college professor cause the get paid way better , and the professor may have done their homework when they were sporting in college , though that may be a nasty lie by jelous students, you dont often get 50,000 people sitting in the cold to watch a college prof do his thing either , feetsball plyas is the aleet of US college successes an ma spelin is activist english, we rites liks we speeks Hamster 17:15, 23 November 2008 (EST)

Voting looks broken....

just posted that last one, it shouldn't be 10.-caius (blackguard) 11:54, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

Should this be "Septemberised? I don't wanna mess with it 'cause it's looking a tad delicate (see above)   ^Contribs_Talk 15:39, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

The tags aren't listed as "blog", just as numbers... Sterile^snore! 16:56, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

I dropped the "month" header since the ex edit button bot moves the second subsection header each night - do we really need month headers as well? ħuman 18:26, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

Fear and Loathing

I wanted to click this one about 20 times, it is so damn accurate. Schlafly is the perfect example of this conservative "enemy" complex. It does not matter what lies you tell about him (Obama, liberals in general) you believe them because he is the "enemy". I have often thought conservatives are the way they are (conservative) because they never move above the bas level. I can't remember its name but it is something like the 7 levels to self-awareness, I always thought conservatives and the ideology in general rarely moves above the lowest 2 or 3 levels of thought. - User $\approx$$\pi$_{For best results also use RationalWiki moisturizing conditioner} 03:01, 14 October 2008 (EDT)

Well, it's not like they can brag about their success catching bin Laden, the thriving economy, our victory in Iraq, or how they've reduced the National Debt, so fear, greed and bigotry are pretty much all they've got to get elected with. --Gulik 15:40, 18 November 2008 (EST)

Here and clogosphere

What happens if something gets posted both here and in the Clogosphere one? I see someone point to a Candid World post about a WSJ post that I linked to in the Clog spot. Researcher 00:59, 23 November 2008 (EST)

Raving Atheist conversion?

Did anyone follow his blog? I just WIGOBlog'd it, and the Pharyngula response, and I can't tell if it's a joke, a true conversion story, a deep-cover Christian finally coming clean to make it "look" like a conversion, or just a milquetoast atheist losing his way. Any "insights"?-caius (blackguard) 02:11, 24 December 2008 (EST)

Thanks to everyone who improved my entry. I'm leaning towards "it was for a chick," slash "this was his plan all along."-caius (blackguard) 02:45, 24 December 2008 (EST)

I checked the blog itself, and the person in question seems to have been quite clear about being an anti-abortion nut even when professing to be an atheist. --Tony Sidaway 01:50, 20 February 2009 (EST)

No reason an atheist can't be anti-abortion. It's just that the ones who are usually aren't as shouty about it as the religious ones. --Gulik 04:18, 20 February 2009 (EST)

There is no universal code of ethics for atheists. An atheist can take any moral stance they please - even bigoted ones that may align them with religious groupings. Генгис^unbelieving 06:57, 20 February 2009 (EST)

My blog

I am thinking of starting a blog. Would my blog be elegiable for inclusion here? --"CUR^talk 21:04, 19 February 2009 (EST)

Will it suck? ħuman 01:38, 20 February 2009 (EST)

Hopefully not. --"CUR^talk 16:47, 20 February 2009 (EST)

If it's interesting to the community at large, then yes. ArmondikoV^gnostic 05:51, 20 February 2009 (EST)

That means writing about something other than therians. Генгис^unbelieving 06:52, 20 February 2009 (EST)

It will not. It may have a few musing on that, but mostly it will probably be about recent scientific discoveries. --"CUR^talk 16:20, 20 February 2009 (EST)

Don't go there. There are already a ton of science blogs, and you would be overwhelmed by them. Blogs generally need their own angle, and the only new one you could really do is on therianism, which we would never link to. Harmonic harmonic Hoover! 16:24, 20 February 2009 (EST)

A blog could have a variety of subjects. And my blog would focus on new technologies emerging, particuarly biotechnology. --"CUR^talk 16:35, 20 February 2009 (EST)

Almost certainly done by someone else, and unless you write in an amusing style it wouldn't be very interesting to read. Harmonic harmonic Hoover! 16:38, 20 February 2009 (EST)

(unident) And it would be amusing. And it would also report on going ons on teh innertubes. --"CUR^talk 16:46, 20 February 2009 (EST)

You haven't been very amusing here; but anyhow, I don't really care; you can start your blog, and in the event that it is any good, we'll link to it. Harmonic harmonic Hoover! 16:48, 20 February 2009 (EST)

One can always hope. . . I am calling it the Irrational Rationalist. --"CUR^talk 16:52, 20 February 2009 (EST)

I look forward to reading the comments. Harmonic harmonic Hoover! 16:57, 20 February 2009 (EST)

Do you really? --"CUR^talk 17:05, 20 February 2009 (EST)

Better think of another name. DogP 21:50, 20 February 2009 (EST)

Wow, it's funny. I was considering doing a blog for fun, and came up with that same name (Irrational Rationality). I didn't even realize it already existed . Although I think I settled on calling the blog Pangloss which is essentialy the embodiment of that quality. But hey if yours turns out good I could use advice on mine too :p User:Ttony21/sig2 22:49, 20 February 2009 (EST)

I was planning on "Everything You Know Is Wrong!" or something like that, focusing on how science often clashes with people's percieved common sense. But I assume that's already taken too... ArmondikoV^gnostic 07:13, 21 February 2009 (EST)

So anyone got a better idea for a name? Maybe something zoology centered? --"C, U R^{a(n) bad, affiliateing binder.} 12:23, 21 February 2009 (EST)

Just a little tip from experience, no one reads a zoology centered blog unless you are a professional in the field. Z3ro^talk 12:34, 21 February 2009 (EST)

The name would be zoology centered. Though you have a good point. How about the eclectic rocket? --"C, U R^{a(n) bad, affiliateing binder.} 12:38, 21 February 2009 (EST)

Maybe the affiliateing bad binder? ĴάΛäšςǍ₰ XqxPLIYBHOgdOCSkXAYO

No thanks. --"C, U R^{a(n) bad, affiliateing binder.} 12:40, 21 February 2009 (EST)

Old story

The one about Wikipedia being edited by IPs from companies is from 2007. Comment it out? Totnesmartin 19:27, 13 March 2009 (EDT)

Dodgy Link to Village Voice

I have just had to restart my computer after clicking on the top link to theVillage Voice story on Randians. I believe a program called DesktopRepairPackage is highjacking peoples browsers through the advertising links. I'm not going to risk clicking on there again. Everyone else beware!

That's odd. I had no such problems using FF (with AdBlock, of course), or Opera. Dendlai 14:17, 30 March 2009 (EDT)

It did grab my computer for a while, I ended up restarting it - the only possible sources were the Village Voice website and an email from a client.

That sounds nasty, the people who write malware are getting craftier. It used to be that all you needed to do to avoid all the crap out there was not to open any attachments and now just plugging your computer in is a risk. ArmondikoV^gnostic 14:27, 31 March 2009 (EDT)

Getting out of bed in the morning is the real risk. It's all downhill after that, I'm telling you. DogP 23:06, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

Well, the drinking can help with that. Just ask Ace. ħuman 01:27, 22 April 2009 (EDT)

Happy, happy

I'm really, really happy to see all these new blogs popping up on the RW blogger list!-- -PalMD ^{--goat--the other white meat} 22:55, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

Doc! Hi! Nice to see you. My liver hurts. Why? ħuman 01:28, 22 April 2009 (EDT)

Science TV

Any thoughts on that from RW guys? I'm kind of agreeing with Ben Goldacre. Even if the headline "DARWIN WAS WRONG!" got more sales, misrepresenting stuff in headlines like that is just not acceptable in any media. ^sshole 10:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Sinfest (the missing link)

Maybe the author of the Sinfest item wanted to place a link to this strip? -- 85.178.132.130 17:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Oops, yes, I did. Thanks. --Gulik 20:36, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Should this goes here, or other sections?

It's official. Athiests are not fully human, at least some prominent church member says it. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 14:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Pimping your blog

For those of us (especially the new bloggers) who have our own warble-spaces out there http://www.condron.us could be handy way to get noticed (besides the usual Digg & Stumble). It seems to cycle through a whole bunch of blogs and let's people choose. And any resemblance this post has to ken is purely coincidental psst. double update on mine--PsyGremlin_Whut? 18:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Pretty Shaved Ape

Once more, I wish I had five (+) votes. ħuman 03:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

PSA's stuff tends to be pretty thoughtful and detailed. The owner of the blog, CC, is more towards insulting stupid people, and Lulu has her own much shorter style, plus awesome boots. It's a regular read for me. --Kels 03:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, awesome boots pretty much tell the tale... ħuman 03:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Memo to the Right

Fantastic WIGO entry. Robinson is right on the money with this. I'm tired of the Hannitys and Limbaughs of the world spewing sulfuric acid in every direction, and then taking zero responsibility for the people who are nuts enough to act on their hatred. "You don't seem to give a damn about the future of this country, either. You're just in it to win the next election, increase profits for the next quarter, or boost your ratings in the next book." A truer statement has never been made.--PitchBlackMind 19:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The "seat at the table" bit kinda throws me. From what we can see of the spectrum from nutters like Andy and Hannity to the much more canny operators like Rove and Cheney, they don't want a seat at the table. They want the freakin' table. Nobody else gets a spot. --Kels 20:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

There's a joke I heard as a kid that applies here.

Mom: "What are you kids fighting about?"

Billy: "Moooom! Timmy wants the whole cake, but I think we should split it in halves!"

Mom: "Well, Billy, you'll just need to compromise. Timmy gets 3/4 of the cake, and you get 1/4."

And this is why I don't want to "compromise" with conservatives any more than they want to compromise with me. --Gulik 16:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

LOL, and great joke. Yup, that's their MO. ħuman 03:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Best line for me: "You cannot assassinate your way back into power..." Brilliant. The Foxhole Atheist 14:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Election numbers WIGO

Here is a countering thought: are these guys so incompetent that they never manage to get a computer to generate the numbers for them? Shouldn't ministry of interior employ competent people if they want to rig elections by numerical manipulation (I am not suggesting the numbers are legit, but it is probably results from other election irregularities)? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 19:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Why go to the bother of getting a computer to generate them when it's easy enough just to fiddle with the numbers on sight (or on site too) by hand. Not everyone realises the bias towards 5 and 7 that exists when people generate "random" things themselves, so they won't think about it. ^sshole 20:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Heidi and Spencer WIGO

“”Somehow I missed the part in the Bible where Jesus spoke about the dangers of microchips. Must've been right after his sermon on the virtues of fake tits, posing for Playboy and drunken gun ownership. Yeah, that sounds like Jesus

Can we get that on a plaque or a t-shirt or something for the site? SirChuckB^{One of those deceitful Liberals Schlafly warned you about} 07:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

"in order to even stabilize the population right now, each woman would have to have three children," ! ¿err... what? ! ^{This message brought to you by: respond}_and honey 08:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Brilliant, isn't it? Those two fucking morons are just some of the most hideous examples of humanity we've ever seen. And now they're spewing far-right spooktalk, it just doesn't get any better. --DogP^{Marmite Patrol} 17:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I barely know who these people are, but wow. That some big-time wingnuttery. On the microchip note, she is right about nightclubs doing that to gain entrance to certain areas. There's one in my hometown that started it last year. Of course, she had to refer to it as the mark of the beast and make it completely lost credibility. --PitchBlackMind 17:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I personally love how Christians that think the mark of the beast is microchip technology forget that, as a mark, that's pretty bad. The mark is supposed to be an obvious signals, not something that needs to be scanned before you even know it's there.... Oh well, win some lose some. SirChuckB^{One of those deceitful Liberals Schlafly warned you about} 18:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Signature in the Cell wigo

http://www.humanthoughts.org/cgi-local/specific.cgi?filename=idiots3.htm

Yeah, baby. ħuman 02:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Order

I noticed we had more activity back when RationalWikian's blogs were above the Wigo. Is this just coincidental correlation or should it be moved back up to the top to stimulate interest? - π 05:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

PZ Meyers Creation Museum WIGO

Did anyone else notice he linked RW in his blog? Web (talk) 03:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

No. Where? - π 03:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The Gish Gallop article. Web (talk) 03:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I just found it and gave it a quick dePCfication seeing as we will have increased readers of it. - π 03:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Mertvaya Ruka

Thanks whoever, but the WIGO about Perimeter gave me a Capital Wasteland size hard-on. I now think that 9 consecutive months of playing Fallout 3 may be just a bit excessive... The Foxhole Atheist 19:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

May I just Say

I LOVE SENATOR AL FRANKEN. Thank you. SirChuckB^{One of those deceitful Liberals Schlafly warned you about} 08:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Frank Schaeffer

His last sentence. Anyone we know? (smiles sweetly) Totnesmartin 16:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

PZ's pointless polls

Get out there and vote! It's already made a surprising turnaround. --Edgerunner⁷⁶ 13:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Those polls scare the hell out of me because of the ease with which the results of the Time poll were manipulated. 16:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

We have a small section on why to take such polls with a pinch of salt under Spotlight fallacy. ^sshole 17:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

This one isn't the best pointless poll PZ's ever done. I just wanted to spread the message because turning it around did seem rather daunting. I rather like the ones from religious organizations that ask a leading question to get the answer they want, only to have PZ's minions skew it "all wrong".--Edgerunner⁷⁶ 17:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Comfort vs Scott

How does everyone feel she did? My impression was this was like the thunderf00t debate, Ray was never really in it, but the opponent never went in for the kill. Both Scott and thunderf00t didn't win, rather than lost. It seems to me that Comfort has now managed to Gish Gallop his way to two draws now because his opponents have been unwilling to draw blood. They seem more flabbergasted at his stupidity more than anything. - π 04:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I see your point, but I never viewed the TF v Comfort thing as a "debate that needs to be won", TF always said it was going to be a discussion more than anything else. It's definitely the case that these two have just been struck dumb by the sheer stupidity of some of his arguments and they know they can't beat him because of this. You can't go up against stupid people by being clever - they'll just drag you down to their level and beat you with experience. So with Comfort, he's just got this airtight "the Bible is always right" thing going on, until you can convince him to view that as an actual circular fallacy (and you won't) then there's no point in arguing with him on a higher intellectual level, all you can do is put forward these views and hope that people can see through it to some rational sense. ^sshole 13:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I am a bit perplexed by one of Ray's recent blog posts where he says that he is not trying to convince people that evolution is false, but trying to save their souls. So is his strategy to bullshit people long enough to get them to convert? - π 22:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Get out of jail free...

Time to jump into "shrill angry atheist" mode and satisfy the stereotype that so many people seem to hold. But this is for good reason - this pisses me off royally:

“”I do not regret trusting truly in the Lord for my daughter's health. I am guilty of trusting my Lord's wisdom completely... Guilty of asking for heavenly intervention. Guilty of following Jesus Christ when the whole world does not understand. Guilty of obeying my God.

So they get let off. Basically, that's what it is. These people are pretty much guilty of manslaughter and they get off and THAT'S the excuse. Just because we're all about the "tolerance" and "respect". You know what? FUCK to tolerance and respect. A child is dead because of this bullshit, there is nothing to respect and tolerating it would be a crime. If we take that little speech, which I'm sure will have Christians around the world crying their eyes out with how much "faith" someone could have (since when the fuck has faith been virtuous anyway?) but think about it. What if we replaced all the references to "God" and "Jesus" above with "The FSM", "the Invisible Pink Unicorn" or "My mate Terry down the pub"? Would people respect that as an excuse? Unlikely. Anyone saying something like that would be declared a monster. What if it read like this:

“”I do not regret trusting truly in Charles Manson for my daughter's health. I am guilty of trusting Charles Manson wisdom completely... Guilty of asking for Manson Family intervention. Guilty of following Charles Manson when the whole world does not understand. Guilty of obeying the Manson Family.

If they'd said that, the judge would be like "yeah, you're insane, you're getting more time behind bars for this". It's a belief just the same way, why the difference? Why the unprecedented amount of protection and defence for these excuses compared to other ones, which if you were truly "tolerant" and "respectful" you'd accept just as much as any other. Thinking that there's a difference between what I wrote above and having "God" in it because Manson is a criminal? Well, RationalWiki has an article on how much of a dick the Lord can be and this thing is pretty damn psychopathic. Or failing that, what if we said "Stephen Hawking" instead, or just replaced it with our {{noun}} template; that'd produce some seriously interesting reading. Let's take another god-bothering quote:

“”The secular government is afraid of God because they have to have control of the people at all times. Once you take away God, you can do anything to the people. You give them an inch and they take a mile. I believe we are slowly turning into a atheist government. The government is continually growing bigger and more powerful and the people need to prepare to trust God to defend themselves against secular control.

Yippie for the religious cause! Right? Well, maybe, if you want to read it that way. Except those on the ball who will realise that what I did there was take a quote from Timothy McVeigh and swapped all the socialist/gun based rhetoric for atheist/god based rhetoric. You have the exact same reasoning, but isn't it all nice and better when I'm quoting the Big Sky Monster that you have to "tolerate" and "respect" instead?

It's about time that faith stopped being a reason, yet alone a legitimate one for killing and maiming, there's nothing in it worth "tolerating" or "respecting". ^sshole 19:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The idea of seeking divine help instead of taking the child to the hospital reminds me of the story about the man who dies in a flood waiting for God to save him, and when he goes to the pearly gates God says to him, "Well, what more did you want? I sent you two boats and a helicopter!" ListenerX^TalkerX 19:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Very much so. Which is what I think Judge Vincent Howard was getting at when he said: "God probably works through other people, some of them doctors." ^sshole 19:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I expanded that slightly and put it in the essay space instead: Essay:Get out of jail free. ^sshole 20:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Need Atheism offend

My Security software Id'd the website as harmful for my computer. Maybe someone should inform the website.

It's Ames' site so it should be secure and clean. There aren't any problems popping up with my stuff so it's likely your software being over-zealous. ^sshole 12:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Internet Law

Here's where the arbitray nature of the law annoys me. This is about whether games are suitable for kids under 12. It must not contain the following:

“”depictions of violence towards human or animal characters, whether or not the violence looks realistic and whether or not the violence results in obvious harm,

Which makes me wonder. "...whether or not the violence looks realistic..." is pretty interesting. Does Mario jumping on a turtle count? That's pretty damn violent if you think about it.

“”depictions of activities involving illegal drugs or the misuse of drugs,

coughPacmancough But I was wondering about Pacman, he powers up on pills and eats the ghosts. Do ghosts count as animals? They define the human and animal character as "(a) human being, or (b) an animal that exists or has existed in real life,", so if you think that ghosts exist IRL, then they may well count! And considering some government positions on promoting alternative medicine, defending spirituality and promoting religion (see their response to the e-petitions regarding bishops in the House of Lords and collective worship) I do wonder whether they officially say that ghosts and spirtis exist in reality. Obviously, this is a very loose interptretation, but still, it makes you think! ^sshole 15:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Handwriting

Interesting blog post, and I totally agree with the point about "romanticising" the old and keeping it out of tradition alone, such people piss me off (I'm currently freezing my arse out at home because the building is grade A or B listed, so we're not allowed to replace the archaic windows with good double glazing, what the fuck is with that?!?!). But I disagree with the point of dropping handwriting, while I can type much faster than I write (and importantly, it's legible), typing requires something to type on and a large chunk of the argument in the second piece is lost because typing is also unnatural and needs to be taught. Voice recognition is nice, but you need to talk out loud, need to be in a quiet place and from what I've tried of it, it's actually slower than typing; not through any fault of the "recognition" part of the software, but because of the inability to correct and edit stuff easily, fluently and instinctively. Perhaps one day it'll all be done by thought recognition, but I personally think that's going to be truly impossible - and definitely not going to happen anytime soon. Anyway, I'd also say that the entire thing largely ignores the usefulness of being able to write with a pen. You can switch easily between annotations and diagrams, basically combing drawing with words. It would certainly take me longer if I had to use some other method for marking or correcting work; even if the result is less legible than pixel perfect printed fonts (I try a little harder when others need to read the scrawl). As an artist I use my digital stylus almost more than my mouse and keyboard - and learning to write with a pen/pencil is certainly a key step along the way to drawing. While I'm sorry to see the guy get flamed for it, it really is a rather stupid thing to suggest. ^sshole 20:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I was teed off by the proposition for a large number of reasons: (1) I write a great deal in cursive myself, and I find its slow pace and the permanence of the ink to be very good "psychological aids" to the writing; (2) I often like to go to places without a handy electrical socket to do my writing, and the pen is the only instrument then available; (3) I sometimes had to ask my instructors what in blazes their handwritten remarks on my papers actually said; (4) later, when I had to do paper-grading myself, the students wrote so poorly that it was left up to me to puzzle out what they had said. ListenerX^TalkerX 20:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Just checking...

as I seem to be the only one still doing it. Is self-promotion still acceptable/encouraged? Researcher (talk) 04:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Not enough people are doing it. That was why we created this page, so people could share their ideas. - π 23:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

What Converted Convinced You?

What converted other people to AGW? For me it was back in 1990 when Mrs Thatcher took it seriously in Rio. I'm not a fan of hers, but she was a scientist and knew enough to take action on the ozone hole. I thought if some one with her politics sees a problem, then there really is one. P.S. - Is LGF suddenly getting a lot more sensible? ^{— Unsigned, by: 95.150.14.153 / talk / contribs}

Ozone depletion =/= global warming. Two entirely separate issues. ħuman 20:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

They do seem to be taking a shift to the centre, although it could just be that the Republicans are moving to the right and they are standing still and are now distancing themselves. - π 11:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The writer has said that when he started LGF, he wasn't really that politically aware. It wasn't even a politics blog until 9/11. Over time, he's grown more mature, and moved to the center, as the rest of the Republicans have moved away. Researcher (talk) 08:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how I was comverted. No one alerted me. Real first name and last initial (talk) 09:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

As for the actual question, back in my days as an "Objectivist" (meaning: Rand cultist), I was pretty sure that global warming was a great big mistake. (I didn't go so far as to say hoax; I just thought that well meaning people were drawing conclusions from too little data.) But, it quickly became apparent that the data was pretty damn certain. I think the final blow was astronomy, actually; Venus, despite being further from the Sun than Mercury, is significantly hotter, due to it's high concentration of greenhouse gases. Researcher (talk) 15:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

What, belief that global warming is happening is a religion to be "converted" to now? ListenerX^TalkerX 16:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you just read way too much into it. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse513 / Talk / Block} 16:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Is that wording better? ^sshole 17:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes. ListenerX^TalkerX 17:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I remember seeing political cartoons mocking George H. W. Bush for insisting on "Further Study" of global warming...that was, what, 18 years ago? I'm no climatologist, but the science seems pretty solid to me. But of course, the real convincer was looking at the dingbats and greedheads who seem to think a good enough PR campaign will beat the laws of physics. --Gulik (talk) 19:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

New Abortion Wigo

I'm really not understanding the anger that seems to be seeping from this WIGO. Is it a double standard? Of course it is, but you know what... I have no sympathy. There's a very simple way to avoid becomming an unwanted father: Don't have sex. As my grandfather used to say "don't plant the corn if you don't want the stalk." (Yes, he was southern.) SirChuckB^{One of those deceitful Liberals Schlafly warned you about} 21:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

That is also an excellent way to avoid becoming an unwilling mother. ListenerX^TalkerX 21:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Listener beat me too it. Actually following that logic, abortion should only be available to women if they are the victims of rape. - π 21:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Not even then, really. If a fertilized egg is a human being as much as you or I (and that seems to be what a lot of people are saying) then aborting that is no different than murdering a kid because he was the result of an "unplanned sexual incident". DickTurpis (talk) 21:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not seeing how your arguments pertain to this situation. All I'm saying is that, in most cases, a child is obvious a much larger disruption to the mother's life than the fathers (particularly if the father isn't involved in the child's life) so why shouldn't she have the ability to make a unilateral decision? This whole situation sounds like somebody bitching cause they have to send a child support check. SirChuckB^{One of those deceitful Liberals Schlafly warned you about} 21:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Why should a woman be allowed to unilaterally make a decision that impacts the father financially? I can't see how anyone should have the right to make decisions over your personal finances. - π 21:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

(EC) What Π said. Also, although it is true that pregnancy carries a greater health risk than paying child support, the WIGO instead addresses the underlying question of exactly who should be made "responsible for the consequences" of their own rolls in the hay. ListenerX^TalkerX 21:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

(EC)Pi, Because you made the choice to engage in unprotected sexual activity to begin with. If you don't want to have children, there are many steps you can take to prevent it (now of course there will still be accidents, but that can't be prevented). You can't engage in activities that have obvious consequences and then complain because you have to deal with them. And to LX, it's not just health risks, it's a complete disruption of life, which may involve losing a job, having to quit school, etc, compared to having to miss a few poker games due to child support. I think both people should have the right to make that decision, but in reality, it doesn't always happen, and if it doesn't, the father has a legal duty to provide for the child he helped create. SirChuckB^{Obama/Biden? 2012} 21:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

"If you don't want to have children, there are many steps you can take to prevent it" That goes straight back to my point that abortion should then be banned for women that are not rape victims. If a women chose to engage in unprotected sex then she be able to not ware the full consequences? - π 21:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

What about women for whom carefully used birth control methods fail? ħuman 01:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Not that I am arguing against choice, I think women should have the choice to kill their unborn babies if they want, but isn't that a risk you take when you have protected sex? The reason the bank pays you interest when you leave your money in your account is their is a chance the bank will fold. Life is about risk. - π 01:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

(EC) "...it's a complete disruption of life..." And why must such burdens fall exclusively upon the mother? The hypothetical situation is that the mother does not want the baby, but the father does, and is willing to take care of it alone (possibly with the help of child-support payments from the mother). ListenerX^TalkerX 21:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Pi, I understand what you're saying, but that's not part of this argument. I'm not arguing for or against abortion in general, I'm arguing about the specific instance cited by LX. As for your point, I disagree that abortion should banned, I simply think that is a decision that should be left to the female. And LX, the problem is that pregnancy inherently falls exclusively on the mother. Even if the father is willing to raise the child by themselves, the mother still has to go through the experience of carrying the child and the birth itself, while the father does..... well, he really doesn't have to do anything. You complain that nobody should be able to control your finances, but why should you be able to control another person's body? SirChuckB^{Boom Goes the Dynamite} 22:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I was addressing your claim that there were other issues beyond the pregnancy involved. But if the woman willingly got herself pregnant, she entered the pregnancy of her own accord. If it is argued that for some reason men are not allowed to "change their minds" later about wanting the child, and therefore must pay child support, by that argument a woman should not be allowed to "change her mind" either, and must carry the pregnancy to term. ListenerX^TalkerX 22:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

(unindent)My apologies, but I don't understand what you're saying here..... If I'm getting your point (which is probably not likely) you're saying that if men can't change their mind and have to take care of the child, then women can't change their minds either? Is that correct? SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 22:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

To me, the killer argument still seems to be that it is the woman's body that is used as an incubator. She has considerable hardships to bear, considerable health risks to face, and considerably more work with raising a child at least in the first time after pregnancy. It therefore seems pretty straightforward that she should have more say, and I'd think the final say, in what happens with the fetus. Many men have an easy time arguing about this from their armchairs, safe in the knowledge that they can never be forced to carry out a pregnancy. To paraphrase a saying from the feminist movement, abortion would pretty much be on demand if men were the ones to become pregnant... That is the true asymmetry here, and not the question whether somebody has to pay alimony because they did not use contraceptives - women would also have to do that if the baby were born, the father raised it and the mother had the better job. --Mintman (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

If the choice is the woman's and the woman's alone, then she must carry the full consequence of the choice. If you proportion the responsibility, than all thing being equitable, you should proportion the choice. It is the welfare state mentality that gets me the most - you make a decision and someone else pays. - π 01:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

If a man does not want to father a child with a woman, he should make damn well sure that conception is avoided. That can range from the obvious (condoms, vasectomy) to the more subtle (trusting her birth control method, or that she would abort in case of accident). He is very capable of avoiding fatherhood. ħuman 01:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Same argument applies in reverse for women, it takes two to horizontal tango. - π 01:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Correct. Both partners are capable of avoiding pregnancy if they don't want chilluns. PS, that article at the Nation is a year old, I thought it seemed familiar. ħuman 01:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

PPS, hote to human, it's not 2009 anymore. The article is two years old. ħuman 01:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

(EC) Probably, but it is an on going debate. If women should (and they should) have complete choice whether to have an abortion or not, then every pregnant women, directly or indirectly, makes that choice. If the choice is theirs and theirs alone, why should others pay? - π 01:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Like I said earlier, in a perfect world, it wouldn't be there choice alone, but we all know it doesn't work like that sometimes. Let me rephrase the question. Do you think it's ok for a man to impregnant a large number of females ala Travis Henry (9 different children with 9 different mothers) and then say "I don't want them, the women should've had abortions" and completely excuse himself from the legal responsibility of assisting in the upbringing of his child? I understand what you're saying, but your argument doesn't hold up to the plain facts of life: women get to make the choice because of the larger risk and commitment they make to having a child, a man should at the least help provide for them. SirChuckB^{Leave Death Threats Here} 08:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Call me cynical, but I suspect some of those women got pregnant to him because they would get a lot of money. - π 08:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, you're cynical, but that still doesn't answer my larger question. SirChuckB^{A product of Affirmative Action} 08:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The only other question I could find (excuse the PJR here) Do you think it's ok for a man to impregnant a large number of females ... and then say "I don't want them, the women should've had abortions" and completely excuse himself from the legal responsibility of assisting in the upbringing of his child?. That question implies that she was somehow impregnated by his choice. She had a range of options available at the start; the pill, requiring him to ware a condom, both, or not have sex with him at all. She choices to have unprotected sex knowing full well that unprotected sex leads to pregnancy, she choices not to have an abortion after she becomes pregnant, but if he does not want to raise the child as his own he has to pay? It does seem out of kilter when he made one choice that she agreed with right back at the start. - π 10:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

(EC, UI)As the "father" of four abortions, can I chime in with real world experience? The first two were birth control failures (not very well used) with women who did not want chilluns. The latter two were birth control "failures" with wimminz who did not so much want my babies but wanted a new famly unit. To them I said "It is your body and your decision. I will honor my legal obligations whatever they may be. But I am not interested in playing 'Daddy'". Both of them also chose abortion, almost immediately. A few years later I got a vasectomy, because it makes life so much simpler. The wimmins who got themselves pregnant by me weren't chasing money, they were chasing love (not that I have so much to offer, but there I was). They were chasing love in a very wrong way. Anyway, I fixed myself 'cause I'm taking responsibibility for all time as to what "mistakes: I might make with my little thingie. Apologies to any and all that this post appalled or disgusted. ħuman 09:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Not appalled or disgusted, you wanted to take responsibility, that is the responsible thing to do. - π 10:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

If women should (and they should) have complete choice whether to have an abortion or not, then every pregnant women, directly or indirectly, makes that choice. If the choice is theirs and theirs alone, why should others pay? Why is that so difficult? Yes, the ultimate choice to bear the risks and disadvantages of being pregnant and giving birth should be hers in my eyes, but that does not mean that the man did not have any choice. His choice was having unprotected sex, and that is where responsibilities come from, easy as that. Yes, the same goes for the woman, and nobody is saying she does not have any responsibilities out of giving birth to a child. You are treating this as if a woman has absolutely no work and costs from raising a child, as if a woman can make a simple whim-of-the-moment decision to pop out a baby that costs her nothing at all and then the father is the only one who has trouble because he has to pay alimony or something while she sits there twiddling her thumbs. This is a very one-sided view.

It would also be interesting to take a look at the presumable consequence of certain rule changes in the light of what we plainly know about human behavior in general. If the woman had to foot the bill alone for all babies that the father would have liked to abort, then some men who are now a bit more careful out of fear of the financial consequences would in fact run around and impregnate everybody they can. There are actually people who would get a kick out of that, and others who actually see many children as manly. This just as an aside. --Mintman (talk) 09:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not acting as though they have no cost involved, I am saying they should pay the cost of their choices. You twice refer to men having unprotected sex, but I assume that means the woman is having unprotected sex too. She in fact has too stages at which to make a choice, three if you count abstaining from having sex right back at the start. - π 10:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you cannot see the difference between paying alimony and being forced to nourish an internal parasite for nine months, putting your health and professional career in jeopardy, then forcing a melon through an opening the size of a pear, AND then afterwards also having the same responsibilities as the alimony-paying father on top, I cannot help you, sorry. You will have to figure that out on your own. --Mintman (talk) 15:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Global warming

From the comments, I thought this just had to be brought up:

i am feeling very sad at the state of infomation thigs are now happing at great speed i beleive we are heading for a total change in global perspetive i believe within the next 2 yrs this planet will be shaken in a massive way some will survive meny will die lets not be nieve at what is comming at us soon this world needs to wake up dont blame people or what we are doing to the planet we cannot change the world not yet maybe them that survive will this 2012 thing i feel it to be very real lets be ready when i read about the glacias on everest melting not just the pola ice caps i fear for the people that live of india and the lower regions of the himalaias i see massive floods i am no educated genius as you can see but it dont take much to understand this world is on its last legs

all i can say is brace your selfs and be ready i am saying this not to frighten any one i just want to make a point i love this world but the only thig i see is alot of sadness but we cant give up thats nature i am just sad that people are not looking at the whole picture God bless every one and this is real

andrew logan, Newport South Wales

I thought that sort of post only really existed in people taking the piss... I guess I was wrong. ^sshole 22:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Objects on the Internet are dumber than they appear. --Gulik (talk) 22:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

some of those posts are sadly very real. They come from younger people or those older but without the skills to research the topics and get a more balanced opinion. Just dealing with life, and a poor economy is hard enough. Hamster (talk) 16:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Glenn Beck

That really is all. Glenn Beck is so crazy we could make a whole freaking wiki devoted to dealing with his crazy. Researcher (talk) 22:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Shelley The Republican

Has STR ever been firmly outed as parody?

The recent post of Homeopathy beign a cure for homosexuality is surely something of a giveaway? --Worm^{(t | c)} 13:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

My favourite bit - "Elms are amongst natures most homosexual trees." WTF! Bob Soles (talk) 17:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Facebook "We can find 1,000,000..." WIGO

If you're especially bored, open the Evolution page in one tab and the anti-evo one in another and click refresh on each every 60 seconds or so to see the fan counters go up. (Or NOT go up, as is the case with the anti-evo page.) (25 JAN 10 10:35 EST DO: 55,387 - DO NOT: 13,191) The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 15:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Whatever... The only reason people aren't flocking to the anti-evo page is because they don't want to get blackballed by academic elites hellbent on covering up the controversy. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 15:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

What a pointless exercise - since when was truth a popularity contest. Bob Soles (talk) 16:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Since 33AD? ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 17:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, not really that pointless. Creationists like to go on about how they have so much public support, that the majority are in their favour, this just proves the to be very, very wrong. Let's face it, reality is very much winning this one. ^sshole 17:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

As the one who posted that particular WIGO, I put in the same category as the Oregon Petition vs the Steve's Petition. --Ravenhull (talk) 11:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm getting 404s for both links. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 11:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Nvm, my DNS server was playing up. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 15:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Just had a chuckle... went to see what the counts were up to (70k vs 16k if you are interested), and glanced at the ads on the left. I wonder how many of the anti-crowd appreciated an ad for D&DOnline on their page. - Ravenhull (talk) 02:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

That made me laugh. In two days time, the Evo page picked up an additional number of fans almost exceeding the Anti-Evo page's total fan count. <sarcasm>THIS is going to end well for the creationists.</sarcasm> The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 03:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

For those who care, PZ Myers pharyngulated the DO believe (BTW, the page creator agrees that it was a lack of judgement using the phrase "believe", but that it needed to run contrary to the anti-evo statement, or something) page, bumping the current tally to: DO - 111,000 and some change to DO NOT - 25,000 or so. The Foxhole Atheist (talk) 18:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The forums on the pro-evo group are interesting, like this thread, and "John" made a very nice argument:

“”Max, it is patently obvious that in a world without religion the concept of Creationism and Intelligent Design would be absent (redundant and absurd). On the other hand, in that same world the concept of evolution would remain, equally supported by the data and unaffected by the absence of religion. Darwin's words no more affected evolution than Galileo's words affected gravity. They both preceded their respective "authors" and they both continue after them. Unchanged, unmoved.

Nice. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 11:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)