RationalWiki:Saloon bar

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

Welcome, BoN
This is a place for general chit-chat about virtually anything that doesn't fit anywhere else.
For previous conversations, see the automagic barchives.

edit

Ongoing Catholic pedo discussion...

Where on the wiki was somebody talking about a defense of the priests because the victims were technically not "children?" Need it for a blog post. P-Foster (talk) 21:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, don't know, but see this:

"Pope Benedict's personal preacher has compared criticism of the pontiff and Church over child abuse to "collective violence" suffered by the Jews.

[...]

"In his sermon, he quoted a Jewish friend as saying the accusations reminded him of the "more shameful aspects of anti-Semitism"."

Green Giant (talk) 21:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Dang, one of the blogs I follow had something about that recently, but I can't seem to track it down. --Kels (talk) 21:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Here's a story on it, if that helps. DickTurpis (talk) 21:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah right! It was on Pharyngula! I couldn't find it since I was looking in the political blogs section. --Kels (talk) 21:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Who rocks? Kels rocks!--coulda sworn it was here. P-Foster (talk) 21:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

←click. ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 12:47, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

He appears to be arguing that the Church as a whole shouldn't be held responsible for the actions of a significant number of its clergy. There was me thinking that the Church was rather keen on the hierarchy thing. Silly me, it's clearly an anarchic collective with no clear line of responsibility or power between it's various cells and its leader claims no authority over anybody in his church. Yaay, perhaps the church is the best weapon we have against itself. --^{Ask me about your mother} 12:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The church wouldn't be held responsible if it wasn't culpable; if it had been unaware that these crimes had taken place, or had referred them on to the proper authorities. Nobody's saying that all catholics or even all priests are responsible, as these spokespeople & defenders seem to be inferring, but there's no shirking the fact that bishops & archbishops, including the current pope, knew about this stuff & actively concealed it. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

One is tempted to say that they should just shut up & get on with the Augean Stable clean up but look what happens when you do Some eejit'll say you're ignoring it. ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 13:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

And now it's petty: At Easter Mass in St Peter's Square a top cardinal said the faithful were not affected by "petty gossip".

Am I correct in thinking I heard that the Archbishop of Canterbury called on the RCC to clean up its house? On like Good Friday? ħuman 23:47, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

It appears he made some comments about the scandal in an interview, but then later apologised. Not a direct challenge to the RCC, but enough to sour relations. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

more

The "Pedophile's Paradise" ^{Hat tip yummy} &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 15:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The Moonies of the Wash Times don't like poor old Benedict being picked on ^{Hat tip} . ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 14:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Fucking hELL! ^{Hat tip} Bishop of Tenerife blames child abuse on the children ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 15:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Tennessee

Tell me, is Tennessee a "creationist" state? I have my reasons for asking. (I is Brit btw) ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 16:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I think most of the South is creationist. Birther too. And people in Tennessee think Deliverance is a documentary. --PsyGremlinPraat! 17:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

There's not really such thing as a "creationist" state. It probably does have a high(er) ratio of creationists to evolutionists, as most southern states do, but I wouldn't come close to classifying everyone in the state (or even the state government) as creationist. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 18:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Mmm. What's a "Board of Regents"? ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 18:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

It's a bunch of people who are in charge. I remember that from the old BSD licences. --^{Ask me about your mother} 19:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Most of the South is not creationist or birther. That's a ridiculous notion. There may well be more per capita birthers and creationists in the south but it is not some sort of requirement. The intelligent design debacle, by way of reference, took place in Pennsylvania. It is true that everyone in Michigan is in a fuck wit militia. ^Me!Sheesh!_Mine! 19:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

New York is the best state. teh rational ghey(talk) 00:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Remember, Pennsylvania is Pittsburgh in the west, Philadelphia in the east, and Alabama in-between. --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Your views are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter} 13:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

As a not so proud resident of Tennessee I would argue that most people do not have an ongoing opinion about creationism. If asked though, I am certain a very high percentage (of Tennessee residents) would IDentify with creationism. This is a little tid bit I picked up on the way to work today http://www.wbir.com/news/watercooler/story.aspx?storyid=117914&catid=141^{— Unsigned, by: 208.65.40.97 / talk / contribs}

The BoN brings up a good point: not every creationist is vocal about it. There are people who don't really think about it but would say that they are creationists when questioned. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 18:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I grew up in the Knoxvile (spelling intentional) suburbs. It's a hell-hole of right wing politics and religious fundamentalism. MDB (talk) 16:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe Karajerk calls Tennessee home. 'nuff said. --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 17:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Eh, we've produced worse. Heck, we had one governor who could have made Tennessee look like Illinois or Louisiana, if he just had the common sense to be flamboyantly corrupt, and not just a crook. MDB (talk) 18:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Three words: Scopes Monkey Trial. The Baptist force is strong with this one. Secret Squirrel (talk) 12:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

My TV show tonight:

The channel you dont want to miss tonight [[1]] Exclusive Previews of the next WP debacle... You sure want to be added to the involved parties!Alain (talk) 01:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, Rob. You really won't give it a break, will you? You're going to end up just like Uncle Ed. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 01:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

See also

[2] for further commentary. ħuman 08:06, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

No discussion of the wikileaks "collateral murder" video?

Or did I miss where anybody here talked about this video of two Reuters journalists being killed by a US helicopter due to standing among possibly armed individuals (and a van that attempts to rescue one of them being shot at, killing the would-be rescuers and injuring two children)?

Following the range of internet rhetoric (from "this just shows how stupid and trigger happy Americans are" to "perfectly understandable mistake, none of you armchair generals know what it's really like to be in a battle") is a bit dizzying (and sickening). But I'm surprised that there's apparently no mention of it here at all yet...? Megaten (talk) 04:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Want to start an article on it? Sometimes we don't catch all the news. For instance, I still don't know who won the Presidency in 2008. Oh, wait, no, I do. No mention at wigo:world yet? By the way, speaking of the fifth wall, you realize that by asking you started a discussion of the wikileaks thing here, so now there is one? ħuman 05:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I still don't see the AK-47s in the vid. To be honest, I haven't spotted the bit where he shoulders his camera but I did see the camera bags, and if you think those looked like RPGs you shouldn't be in charge of gunships. ^narchist 09:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

That's quite a chilling piece of footage. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 09:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Creepy in seven different ways. Only watched the first few minutes. What are these gunship operators and their bosses, fucking stupid? ħuman 10:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of wither the thing looked like an RPG or not, the fact is that it shows that there's hardly any more thought behind said rules of engagement than "he holds a thingy". We are talking about killing someone here, right? We are talking about the act that if you kill one or two in texas or something you are supposed to get the death penalty for. But apparently if you are in a helicopter and someone holds a thingy doesn't count...Sen (talk) 12:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The Pythons really put it best, " Here is better than home, eh, sir? I mean, at home if you kill someone they arrest you, here they'll give you a gun and show you what to do, sir. I mean, I killed fifteen of those buggers. Now, at home they'd hang me, here they'll give me a fucking medal, sir." I also think we should make an article about this incident, and keep track of it as more info comes out.Ryantherebel (talk) 15:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

At least a note needs to be made about it on some relevant articles. Although I can't for the life of me think what those articles would be. ^narchist 15:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

War on Terror would seem appropriate - when you fight a war where the enemy are often unidentified civilians who might just be doing something or plotting something or carrying something, incidents like this, or like the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes back in the UK a few years ago, will tend to happen. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 16:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Apparently this whole thing is on its way to becoming a meme. http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/rpgRyantherebel (talk) 16:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Rough quote of from a college I.T. class today: "Raise your hands, have any of you ever been in war? ...No, a real firefight? Yeah, I don't think we can judge this kind of thing." I'd attribute this mostly to avoiding conflict/job loss, but the attitude bugs me a bit... ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 19:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
..."even if they were cameras, they often film their attacks, so they still could've been...bad guys." Sigh. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 19:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

1. lol, ur in an I.T. class
2. I await comment from our resident Foxhole Atheist. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 19:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

wtf? respect plz. (Was a tangent from "whoa why didn't they encrypt better", for the record.) ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 19:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I have no respect for IT as a discipline in and of itself. My lol stands. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 19:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Olympics

It occurred to me today that dogs playing "fetch" with their owners should be an Olympic event. ħuman 04:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

As should be turtle racing, in my opinion. But I am biased, because I own a turtle. The Goonie Punk ^{Can't sleep, clowns will eat me!} 05:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think "animal only" events would make the cut, but "fetch" is like horsey jumping and stuff. There's a line x meters from the start line, which the owner/trainer must stay behind. Object is thrown, and the doggie must grab it past the X line, then return it. Scores based on time from throw to successful saliva-laced return of object to owner. ħuman 05:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Cat Training. If you can get your cat to perform a task other than sleep and eat, you get a gold, no matter what... (and yes, I am a cat servant owner) - Ravenhull (talk) 07:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

My cats shit every now and then. Do I get gold? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 07:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

If you can get them to let themselves out the door, shit in some sand, and cover it up, all without eating houseplants, AND get them to catch a bird and bring it inside and eat it next to you at your desk, AND get it all on video, yes, definitely. ħuman 08:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

My cat plays fetch with one particular kind of toy mouse. It is sort of slow motion. It takes him a couple of minutes to bring it back sometimes. When he was a bit younger (last year) he could be pretty ruthless about forcing you to play with him. He could go for an hour. ^Me!Sheesh!_Mine! 02:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Cryptic message

Any guess what this website is about? - π 07:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Joystiq has some spoilerish info. It's an ARG, it seems. --Arcan ¡ollǝɥ 07:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

OMG you let the aliens into my brain! I will never forgive you! ZORBOTZ RULE. ALL RASHNUL WIKI WILL OBEY MY COMMAND! ħuman 08:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

rights

Can I have my sysop rights that I lost for unblocking TK back? It was admittedly stupid, but at least a template and clear policy arose because of it Tweety (talk) 08:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Take your time. Best way to get them back? Start a "case" at RationalWiki:Administrative Abuse and fully link the steps of the process. Chances are, if you unblocked TK after what was going down, you won't get a sympathetic ear, but you never know. ħuman 08:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe give it a week, you are still making n00bish mistakes, e.g, deleting WIGOs. (EC) Ignore Human, starting an AA case is just going to piss more people off at you. - π 08:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Pi's right, you have no case to make at AA anyway. You just did something stupid, and weren't aware of anything when you did it. ħuman 08:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

No, Human is right, you should go to AA, you have a problem and the sooner you admit to it the sooner you can be healed. - π 08:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

"more lulz this way" is not a way to show that you are/were following the conversation. I'd recommend waiting a month before whinging for 'sopery again, since you made a rather embarrassing error - a big one, at an important crux. ħuman 08:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I missed it

Why is TK banned for 2 years? Ajkgordon (talk) 08:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

He threatened to sue Trent + others. - π 08:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Basically, threatening RationalWiki founders and members with lawsuits. ħuman 08:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

On wiki or off? And sue for what? Ajkgordon (talk) 08:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

In private, see here. And here ħuman 08:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, right. What fun he's having. Isn't this what TK does best? Ajkgordon (talk) 09:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Yup, and we finally blocked the fucker for it, and in the end, no one complained. If anyone unblocks him they'll get demoted. If there is disagreement, I suspect I speak for the majority of the Lost Jackals that we would enforce the mob's will. But who knows? ħuman 09:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I'd complain but it looks like I missed the debate. And I can't be arsed. Ajkgordon (talk) 09:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

As in giving TK more attention. Ajkgordon (talk) 09:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

A metric for stupid - Stupid Fight

Presenting Stupid Fight. Using stuff like the law of exclamation, you can analyse celebrity Twitter fans to see who has the dumbest following. Of interest to RW would be the suggestion of comparing Glenn Beck to Rachel Maddow (it's closer than you think), and for a good laugh, check Kim Kardashian^Who?, which goes off the scale. (I also need to shamelessly plug Tom's TV show) ^narchist 09:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Loving big guv'mint?

This discussion was moved here from Conservapedia_Talk:What_is_going_on_at_CP?#Loving_big_guv'mint?.

If this isn't the right spot to post this, please accept my apologies, but I thought this article from the UK's Economist was worth sharing - http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2010/04/political_economy

In short, the redder (more conservative & TEA-partying) states tend towards greater enjoyment of federal handouts than the bluer states. Steve Kay (talk) 11:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I can't be bothered to dig up any references right now, but believe it or not this is old news. Paranoid anti-tax rednecks have always received above-average shares of government assistance. Paranoid Galt wannabes, in particular, have always been the worst of the leeches. Kevin Drum has had a link to a comprehensive discussion roughly twice a year since at least 1998. mb 12:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it has more to do with the states they live in than them just being ignorant and backwards. Red states tend to have more federally-administered land/natural resources and more poverty, which means more welfare. ^{— Unsigned, by: TKEtoolshed / talk / contribs}

Aaaand they're off...

This thread has been moved to Forum:UK General Election 2010. 00:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Time Traveler with proof

This is just fucking amazing, totally convincing even. Aceⁱ⁹ 21:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I hope I never experience something incredible like that which can't be proven. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 21:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Just ensure that you decapitate your future self and bring the head back. You'll become a millionaire, and can in the future hire bodyguards to protect yourself from your psychotic past self intent on chopping off your head so they can become a millionaire and use the money to hire bodyguards to prevent their future-self from being decapitated. --^{Ask me about your mother} 21:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I have been sitting under my sink for 3 hours now but nothing happened. Do you think I have a defective sink? :'( Sen (talk) 22:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

It has to be leaking for this to work. ħuman 02:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

related xkcd strips. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 16:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

His older self's tatoo looks suspiciously 'fresh' Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 10:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Utilitarian morality

There's a philosophical problem I think we should all have a go at concerning utilitarian morality. Consider the following two scenarios:

1. An out-of-control train is racing down a track, and you are standing at the fork of this track, meaning that you can decide whether it goes left or right. If it goes left, it will kill one person. If it goes right, it will kill 5.

• Most people, I think, would choose "left" in this case, since it minimizes the amount of death and suffering.

2. An out-of-control train is racing towards 5 people. You are standing by the track, and there is a very fat man in front of you. If you throw him in the path of the train, it will stop, saving the 5 people but killing him.

• In this case, most people would let the train go, since there is something abhorrent (and illegal) about picking someone up and throwing them to their doom.

The point I want to make is this: what makes the two situations so different? Why do we consider them to be different, and, more importantly, should we? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 01:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

It's a false chidotomy. I'd tell the idiots to get off the fucking train tracks. Anyway, the difference is that the first action is a relatively "passive" action. The second one is more "active". It's also incredibly unlikely that one fat person would "stop" a runaway train. Need better thought experiment. ħuman 02:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I admit, it isn't too realistic, but you see the point I'm trying to get at. In any case, I'll try to think of a better example. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 02:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

A classic "button" example is that you have a button that will kill A. If you don't push the button and kill A, then a machine will automatically kill B,C, and D. You cannot communicate or interfere in any other way. If you need a reason why you can't interfere, then it's because Jesus and Buddha have you all trapped in magical silence boxes and are trying to settle a bet.

How you answer depends on your flavor of utilitarianism, really. It's a pretty broad approach to morals.

• Law-based utilitarianism would argue that you should do nothing, in order to adhere to a consistent moral law that will lead to the greatest good: don't kill other people. In this instance it will result in more death, but as a broader law it is better to follow it.
• Act-based utilitarianism suggests that each action must be judged individually and its consequences weighed, and so you should push the button.
• Justice As Fairness (a la Rawls) would demand that we place ourselves behind the veil of ignorance and thereby push the button, because it's the fairest thing for all concerned as a whole.--^talk 04:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

You left one out.

• Schlaflyism: Pray that Jesus will save everyone! Only a libb-burr-ull would deny that solution. MDB (talk) 14:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

It's a bit of an oldie: Google Train Fat Man. See e.g. here for a NYT article about it (among other things). ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 14:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The NYT article is where I saw the example originally. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 11:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Another variant

You have one button. If you push it, the person you love most in the world will die. If you do not push it, you will die. (Assume, for purposes of argument, that if the person is dependent on you for survival -- your infant child, an invalid parent, whatever -- they will be properly cared for without you.)

That's obviously completely hypothetical, but there's a reasonable parallel that is more practical. I doubt I would be capable of killing someone to save my own life. However, I think I could be capable of killing someone to save the life of someone I love. MDB (talk) 16:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Moar info

How these related to neuroscience. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 16:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

ALLAH ACKBAR!

everyone get in gear! its prayer time! Goonie the Imam want to speak to you after prayer , Human our morality police told me you were hanging out with liberal is that true? i expect everyone to be good! or i will have to whip you all into submission! Waronstupidity (talk) 02:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Ta guele, hostie. P-Foster (talk) 02:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Parle francais hostie.Waronstupidity (talk) 04:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Heille mes petits tabarnaques! vous allez faire sauter notre couverture.. personne sait qu'on est 3 quebecois qui ont infiltrés une bande de dangeureux socialisses athées... Alain (talk) 15:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

何? --PsyGremlinSprich! 17:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

on est infiltrer? personne men a parler :-( mais bon si tu le dit patron!Waronstupidity (talk) 17:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The Pwnage Olympics Have Begun!

Anyone else entering? I've done my first entry: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnd5dYreuOY --Mustex (talk) 03:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Kill Me Now.

Yahoo! recently introduced public comments on all their news stories. I weep for the human race. I mean, are people really this stupid? We need to start some kind of list of dumb comments with snarky comments. Here, I'll start with this one, linked from this story about cameras fighting crime in Chicago some genius writes:

"it is unconsitiutional to put a camera in your house...have ia IQ higher than 15 before you speak"

Does it matters what the constitution says? It doesn't say anything about pedophilia being wrong. Does that means it's unconstitutional to jail pedophiles? Can't you people think for yourselves without looking at what the constitution says? It's like people who always point at the second ammendment whenever gun control is mentioned. Ok, many of us realize gun control does not work and we won't ban guns. But bullet control does. People need rubber bullets. And whatever your IQ is, it has no point or value. What if it's over 100? Does that mean you're a genuis? IQ is nonsense. If you can see a pattern in 4 pictures (you know that typical IQ question), that won't make you smarter if you're still narrow minded. And your spelling is also horrible. Can't you use more punctuations? Your comment is hardly comprehensible."

These people are allowed to vote. Please excuse me if I sob out loud. SirChuckB^{I brake for Schukky} 06:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Did you point out that he shouldn't be speaking, being one of the people having an IQ of 15? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 13:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

What interest me more is how these people determine other people's IQ without administering a well-controlled IQ test. And so they claim to be partially psychic. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 21:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

That's relatively sensible and coherent for an internet comment. Try checking ifyoulikeitsomuchwhydontyougolivethere that looks at the BBC's Have Your Say section, they're all fucking imbeciles. ^narchist 21:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Anyone who uses "The Constitution doesn't ban X, why should we make it illegal?" instantly loses all credibility. SirChuckB^{Call the FBI} 07:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Matsuo Basho, stand aside

Shambling down the street

"Millennium hand and shrimp.

"Bugrit! I told 'em!"

^{— Unsigned, by: EddyP / talk / contribs}

Heh, I've used that as an imprecation for years now. ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 10:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Mother of cHRIST!

Mary's coming back. ^{Hat tip} She's due back - on my birthday! ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 14:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll make sure I have clean underwear. I think the guy behind the Mary thing is the same guy linked to that great idea to look for visions of Mary by staring at the sun. Ooh, it's Mary. Bugger, I'm blind! ^{Ask me about your mother} 21:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

A reason for greater State power?

Collateral damage? Coal mining is an unavoidably dangerous occupation, but it seems Massey Energy, owner of the mine, was far behind where it should have been in safety compliance. The U.S. Mine Safety and Health Administration cited the mine for 1,342 safety violations from 2005 through Monday for a total of $1.89 million in proposed fines, according to federal records. The company has contested 422 of those violations [Washington Post]. The citations at West Virginia’s Upper Big Branch mine included some for the improper ventilation of methane.[3] Poor regulation enforcement - that's why we (don't) want small government! ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 14:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Bloglink ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 22:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Can coal mining ever be safe? Honest question. ConservapediaEditor (talk) 04:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Nothing is ever 100% safe. However, open-cast mining is a lot safer than shafts and underground tunnels. Ultimately we all play the risk game. While I might venture down a mine for a visit I wouldn't want to spend my working life down there, but people need a job and will take the risk of possible early death or contracting miner's lung in order to put food on the table now. What's important is that pit owners take reasonable care to protect their workers as much as possible and not exploit them, and that's why you need government regulations and inspections.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 08:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

No matter how you look at it, coal mining is fraught with danger. Who would have thought to tell the owners not to pile the slag up in heaps uphill from the village school? ħuman 08:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

What would you call this?

Ok, idea for another article, but I’m not sure what to call it, or if it should be listed as a “logical fallacy,” although it is often related to ad hominem attacks. Basically, it’s when you find out some unflattering fact about a person, and release it publically, but milk it for more disrepute than it’s worth by implying that it was somehow covered-up simply because the person never advertised it, even when it was totally irrelevant. So, it would NOT count if someone had failed to tell their prospective employer about a medical condition that affected their ability to do their job. Things that would count, however, would be Grover Cleveland’s bastard son (never denied it, paid child support, just didn’t advertise it), and Obama’s smoking. What would you call this article, and would it count as a logical fallacy?--Mustex (talk) 18:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Strawman? Sen (talk) 18:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Not a fallacy on its own as such. It's a type of ad hom, and similar to how certain people work where you take things that people specifically haven't denied and use them (like how Glenn Beck still hasn't denied that he raped and murdered a young girl in 1990, for example). ^narchist 21:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Poisoning the well + red herring the fish? [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 21:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Poisoning the well would certainly be part of it if you were dragging this sort of thing up repeatedly prior to an argument, say in the introductory remarks, something along the lines of "well, I'm sure my oponent will give some good responses, but please remember that he never came clean about having sex with that horse back in 1983". But that would be poisoning the well and nothing new or different. I think Mustex has just identified a specific type of ad hom but I'd be interested to see specific examples that could be put into the article. The "Obama is a Muslim" thing certainly would count, although I don't think it's used in professional political circles, just with the crazy fucknuts. ^narchist 12:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the "Obama is a Muslim" thing would NOT count, because its NOT TRUE. The issue of this type of ad hom attack is things that ARE TRUE, and are somewhat embarassing, and for that purpose the person being attacked never advertised them, but never denied them either, and upon being questioned about them freely admitted to it. As for examples, Grover Cleveland's child and Obama's smoking. Cleveland did, indeed, have a bastard child before he got married. He never denied it, and was paying child support (in the day before such things were mandatory) to take care of it, and freely admitted it when questioned. In the same way, Obama never denied that he used to smoke, but he didn't advertise it either. More importantly, though, neither of these things have jack shit to do with how qualified either man was to be president.--Mustex (talk) 21:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Bastards

Remember the school that cancelled its prom 'cause a girl wanted to go with her girlfriend? Did you see what they did? They organised two proms, one for the girl & co and the other for the rest of the school. [4][5][6] etc. There's lots o' links & stuff on these blogs. Bastards! ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 22:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Go figure. What a bunch of homophobic pieces of trash. I have always wondered what homophobes could possibly have against gay people that isn't garbled in religious mumbo-jumbo. Every gay person I have ever known kicked ass. The Spikey Punk ^{I'm punking my punk!} 22:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Or at least kissed them. I'm kidding, I'm straight, and I love kissing ass...SJ ^Debaser 23:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Considered writing an article for this? Seems like something we should cover, and the narrow-minded arses behind this shouldn't easily forget what they've done. --^{Ask me about your mother} 22:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Goonie, I'm flattered Tweety (talk) 22:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Homophobia's the "in-thing" in British politics this week after the shadow Home Sec Chris Grayling got caught saying private B&Bs should be able to refuse gay/lesbian couples on religious grounds. It was just discussed on question time and Ming Campbell bought up a good point about it: Don't run a fucking B&B if you're not gonna let gays in. SJ ^Debaser 23:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I was in Provincetown (San Francisco east) with a girlfriend many years ago, and the first night we hadn't found our friends yet and just needed a place to drop our bags. There was a lodging where all the rooms were named after famous women like Sarah Bernhardt, and we felt distinctly "unwelcome" so just went and got a normal boring motel room. Later we managed to hook up with her sometimes co-worker in the Filene's Visual Dept., Vanilla, and took in a wonderful annual drag show (mostly fairly old men) and had some nibbles somewhere, oh yeah, where some big fat hot chick (?) was hitting on me... when we got back to our "straight people's" motel room and clicked on the TV, to a mainland channel, there was some drag show or something on. Weird. The next day we packed up and went to the hotel recommended by Vanilla, where by flirting with the desk clerk I got us the best room at the cheapest room's price. It was a real freak out when Saturday came (we went down there Weds night) and the Tourists arrived. You could spot them from 200 yards - the women were all painted up with red stuff on their faces, and the men were all wearing horrible acid washed blue jeans and poorly chosen shirts. Vanilla gave me an awesome torso and head from a male mannequin, and a couple pieces of restaurant "anti fatigue" rubber mats that I still use. I also got what I think is an ex-Russian army coat (very long, very heavy wool, olive drab, cheap buttons) for $12 and several fistfuls of brass buttons (literally sold by the fistful) which my gf replaced the cheap buttons with. All in all a great mini-vacation. What were we talking about, again? ħuman 02:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that Vanilla had a rather "silly walk" due to having been severely beaten by some assholes at some point in his life. :( ħuman 03:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Homophobia vs Religious Conviction

I've had Question Time on in the background (I'm playing with my shiny new netbook so can do such things in the living room now) and just caught some interesting stuff on human rights "colliding" in this case when the right to express religious belief comes up against the right of people to practice their sex life as they wish, and thus, which is more important. Dimbleby seems to be taking the "well, one's the law, the other isn't" and the conversation seems halfway through as I'm typing. But it seems interesting - at least better than the dry bullshit on tax that they were slinging around previously - and I suggest checking it out on iPlayer or Pootube later. ^narchist 22:22, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I caught the second half of that after Destroying All Humans on PS2. I came in on the bit about the contradiction of human rights, which is a difficult question, especially when one has to decide if one's discriminating based on religion or plain ole homophobia. I also enjoyed the bit about that student who said, "actually David, socialists aren't great people!" as if that won the argument. SJ ^Debaser 23:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the contradiction is interesting and it's certainly true that the law has decided (rightly, IMHO) to say that one is more worthy than the other. However, I think the main difference, and the reason why the law is subsequently right, could be summed up in what Janet Daley (I'll paraphrase, emphasis added) said; "it's the human right to have whatever sexual orientation you like vs the human right to act on your religious beliefs." She summed up here the main difference (and she's also wrong because of this) you do not have the right to act on your beliefs in the same way that you have the right to freely hold them. It comes back to the "your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins" thing. If it was a basic human right to act on religious conviction then why aren't dangerous cults actively endorsed and fully tollerated and why do we persecute rather than praise Islamic suicide bombers? So given this, while it's perfectly fine to allow people to hold beliefs that say "x is wrong" they can't be allowed to stop it if it infringes on other people's rights.

Also, I was facepalming a bit when that guy who basically said "I'm a practicisng and while I don't mind gays and have gay friends, my religion says it's wrong" - I mean, how much can you summerise what is wrong with religious interference in one sentence? If the guy disagrees with that thing - clearly he seemed to - then why not either A) dump the religion, even the believers know it's BS deep down or B) realise what everyone else does and just forget that aspect of it as it's both outdated and something you disagree with. ^narchist 12:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

oldie but goody

who like old music here?

here mah favorite :http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZujuYiweht8 (this isn't a rick'roll while rick might be a old singer he aint in my top 3) Waronstupidity (talk) 22:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

slick, boring and bloodless . . . ^Me!Sheesh!_Mine! 22:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

wow thanks for the nice feedback...Waronstupidity (talk) 22:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

That reminds me of [7] for random reasons. Mei (talk) 22:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I was a fan at the time, but these days I prefer the older Genesis stuff. It was a bit quirky. --^{Ask me about your mother} 22:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh man, Genesis sans Gabriel? Tell me its an American Psycho joke :P Alain (talk) 23:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Oy5J7VoKZU is my response. ħuman 02:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

As is this, so I guess thanks are in order for the great idea for something to search for on gootoob, WoS. ħuman 03:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

PS, that gold Les Paul is exactly what my Hohner looks like, except for some reason my pickguard is missing. ħuman 03:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

For some reason this reminded me of some other lead singer with poofed up hair and a need for some sun. ħuman 03:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Blog against theocracy

Loads o' blogs. ^{Hat tip} Some good uns in here. ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 23:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Glenn Beck attakcs Obama's family, classy

http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/maybe-scummiest-glenn-beck-show-ever I can't tell if he's doing this for attention or if he really believes this. Either way, it's not cool.Ryantherebel (talk) 23:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

He does it for ratings. He knows their is a group of hardcore Obama haters out there that want to hear bad things about him, whether they are true or not. - π 00:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Slight amendment: he does it for money, which of course is tied to ratings. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 00:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I read a history of Glenn Beck (linked to from awesome Tom Moore's blog) a while back, which makes this extra priceless. I'm only two minutes in, but I love it. Mei (talk) 00:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Referenced post is here (I never get a chance to pimp my blog, awesome - I should start just making new sections and demanding comments on it like Mustex does with his videos, maybe).--^talk 00:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Holy shit, I just about gagged reading that. - π 00:41, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Read all three parts! It's gold! Mei (talk) 00:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

There's also this. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 00:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

That was pretty surreal. Can we quote that as his policy on economic stimulus? "Wwwwruff-ruff-ruff-ruffruff." -- Glenn Beck. Mei (talk) 00:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Beck himself seems pretty surreal. However, I will say this: he is a master of emotional appeals, even bizarre animalistic ones. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 01:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

If you think that's surreal, check out his thoughts on Net Neutrality. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2NLXFx7KSM&playnext_from=TL&videos=VlY4-6Y_aCc&feature=subRyantherebel (talk) 11:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Awesome essay

I just read this, and it is a very inspiring piece. It is also written in a thought-provoking style (what I assume to be a parody of Eastern philosophical essays translated into English). I definitely recommend it (along with many of the other essays on the website). Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 01:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, pretty cool and something we should look into spreading around. Though I think it's a little verbose, it certainly could be condensed (I'm not sure how "perfectionism" and "precision" are that different when you want to call them something as broad as a virtue) but I assume that's because the "12" thing is mystic and it's based on something like that. ^narchist 12:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok So I have an idea (Please consider it!!!)

So, I was thinking. Since RW is essentially the antithesis of CP, why not start a "In the news" column to the right, kinda like CP does. I mean, every time I read the news I can't help but think how crazy the crazies are on the right. I mean, you could make a news article simply disproving everything CP has in their "news" column. Tanx teh rational ghey (talk) 01:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I sometimes get around to updating Fun:Conservafake, which is kind of what you're talking about.--^talk 01:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

We also have WIGO World. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 02:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I LOVE IT!!! teh rational ghey (talk) 02:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

"Some underachieving asshole" hahahaha teh rational ghey (talk) 02:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I am indeed pretty goddamn funny. There's a holiday to honor me, although for legal reasons they refer to me by the unofficial epithet of "Martin Luther King Jr."--^talk 02:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

MLK wasn't funny. Now Ace McWicked, now he's a fun loving funny fucker thats for sure. Aceⁱ⁹ 02:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, a fun loving bunny fucker, at least. Just correcting typos. ħuman 06:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Tell yeh about that SuperJosh though - he may be a big effin' n00b, but he's done a few classic one liners. SJ ^Debaser 12:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Main page revamp

Come to think of it, does anyone think the front page may need a little bit of a revamp? The random cover articles and WIGO list are great, but does anyone look at the portals and featured conent lists? I'm wondering if we're packing too much stuff onto it whereas a more streamlined page that consists of just the featured article, news and highlights would be better. Anyway, that's just rambling vaguely on the topic, feel free to ignore. ^narchist 11:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, AOTW is dead. -- Nx / talk 11:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I like the idea a lot. I feel like it's too busy.--^talk 12:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

We used to try and have a sample WIGO on the front page but it broke. Nx, with the new WIGO storage system would it be possible to say have the last 3 to 5 WIGO Worlds stories appear on the frontpage without the voting arrows? - π 12:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Based on the vote id, yes (i.e. list wigos with vote id >= max(vote id) - x, so you'll have to take extra care not to screw up vote ids). Note that the date option in Bestof actually uses the timestamps of individual votes, so it's broken (for a certain value of broken). When you select a date, it lists wigos that have received votes in that (month and) year, and only counts votes from that (month and) year. -- Nx / talk 12:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good, can you make it happen or should we check with Human first? Also what about commented out ones, we don't want them appearing on the main page. - π 13:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

They will. Problem is, once something has been added to the bestof database, it's there to stay. -- Nx / talk 13:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, another pet peeve of mine is the way cover stories are transcluded into the main page. I'd much prefer if we transcluded, for example, a subpage that is specifically crafted for the main page, instead of hacking the article with noincludes and crap like that. -- Nx / talk 13:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Wait, wait... I'm channeling Human from the Other Realm of the "offline" he says... I can just about make it out... he says "Why are you trying to break my wiki?!?!?" ^narchist 15:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

But on a serious note about your pet peeve there, it was suggested I think, but was probably shot down on grounds of "too much work". I'd favour that idea, on account of being able to get around some of the odd introductory remarks made on articles and the fact that images (which I personally like being transcluded) need to be rescaled - it'd certainly be easier than the noinclude and includeonly hacks. ^narchist 15:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Too much work? For most of the articles you just need to take the lead section (perhaps just part of it, but then you could cut it sensibly instead of in the middle of a sentence), add some formatting and that's it. It's easier and less error-prone and more maintainable than the fugly noinclude hacks. -- Nx / talk 16:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, exactly. ^narchist 21:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe the expression is, "holy crap"

Well, I just did my final presentation for Scriptwriting class today, a quick one-term intro to the subject, which was a group project to produce a one-episode (or first 20 minutes of a feature) script for a story of our choosing. So out of the three in my group, we chose my idea and I did up a quick draft in about a day. I passed it on to the other two members for editing and additions, and I made a few alterations here and there at the end of the week. Pretty simple, pretty straightforward. Well, after we did a reading of the script, the instructor tells me that what I've come up with is actually a marketable idea, and worth pitching to studios at the Animation Festival this October. Apparently this isn't something that he comes across very often in his first-year classes, so it's kind of a big deal. So I'm going to be working on developing the story and script over the summer, and if all goes well, I'm gonna try going for it. Who knows, maybe I'll actually get a film made of my own work. Wouldn't that be rad? --Kels (talk) 02:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Congrats, Kels! I expect you to be running Pixar's art department in a decade. Get to it!--^talk 02:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

We'll see about that, but if I could be a part of producing something on a level with, say, Last Airbender, then that would be time well spent. --Kels (talk) 02:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

If that's your taste. I'd rather work on something akin to the great mindfuck that is the End of Evangelion. That aside, good for you!--Thanatos (talk) 02:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

True, but at the moment I'm working with a somewhat more straightforward adventure story. I think I'd need a bit more experience before I get into complex territory like that. Although first thing I need to do is pass my Animation and Design finals. I've only got a little over two weeks for one and a little over a week for the other. --Kels (talk) 03:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Just promise me you will not create a Naruto-clone, 'k.--Thanatos (talk) 03:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I will drown myself in a bathtub before I create a whiny little bitch character like Sasuke. I like anime, but I'm not interested in writing it. I'd rather pattern myself after the French BD artists. --Kels (talk) 03:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Congrats, Kels, glad you had us to share it with ;) ħuman 06:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

WOOOT! Triffic, Kels. I knew you were talented! ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 10:48, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, there had to be talent somewhere in the RW userbase, I suppose it's all concentrated in Kels. ^narchist 11:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Congrats, Kels, keep us updated! SJ ^Debaser 12:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

ditto! :-) Refugee^{talk page} 13:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, guys! Won't be any updates to speak of for a while, since I wouldn't even be pitching until September or October, but it's exciting since it's my first time 'round. Who knows, maybe I'll have a few other ideas on the way and can pitch multiple projects. --Kels (talk) 14:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for RationalWiki theme video slogan like thing

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJcrHzHmMi0&feature=related ħuman 04:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

What are ye suggesting laddie? RationalWiki need a song? I love Rudie Can't Fail. SJ ^Debaser 12:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

My new satellite TV.

For some reason or another I get no TV signal where I live. I am smack damn in the middle of Wellington central, a busy motorway offramp lays 3 minutes walk away however my place is surounded by native bush and against the side of hill so the signal gets lost somewhere. I am too cheap (and don't watch much TV anyway) to get cable or a satellite dish and don't wanna pay a monthly bill. So what I have finished now is the completion of 2 days work. Using only speaker cabling I have set up a sophisticated network of wiring that is sellotaped to the aerial port in the back of the television. It runs along the floor, up the side of the deck doors, through the frame and outside. From there it runs along the right side of the house, where it the connected to an ordinary set of bunny ears which are sellotaped to the high point of the roof. Its quite elaborate and I am pleased with the results. Aceⁱ⁹ 04:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you go the whole hog and use a metal rubbish bin lid, pointing the concave inside towards the sky, and attach the bunny ears to the centre. Hey presto, satellite TV.Rad McCool (talk) 05:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I need to plunder the stereo for more wire first. Aceⁱ⁹ 05:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Argh! I be doin' the plunderin' around here mateys! The Spikey Punk ^{I'm punking my punk!} 05:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Still, twas a grand idea.Rad McCool (talk) 05:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Argh! We mechanical engineers frown upon grand ideas, as they take away the need for us engineers! Otherwise, we'd be useless! Gooniepunk2010 ^{Oi! Oi! Oi!} 05:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I hope you don't get "wind" where you live, M. One Mc"Wicked". The wind has been the downfall of many of my reception schemes. ħuman 06:52, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Everyday occurrence

Avalanche! ^{Hat tip} So what? It's on Mars! ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 13:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

There's no way you can prove that that's actually a picture from Mars. In fact, I'm 98% sure it's not. Will liberals ever admit the possibility of deceit? Just once? ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 14:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Is the American desire for everybody to own a home fucking this country over?

The homebuyer tax credit will expire at the end of this month. The Fed just stopped buying mortgage backed securities that were propping down interest rates for home buying. Interest rates are at an all time low. Is this country's pursuit of home ownership for its citizens going to fuck this country over economically again? ConservapediaEditor (talk) 19:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I would say probably not, since credit is still tighter than it was before the recession and the banks will probably be a bit more careful about who they give loans to. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 21:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I read a book recently entitled Deer Hunting With Jesus and there is a chapter about how the housing markets cause economic collapse. Interestingly the journalist who wrote the book called it way before it actually happened. Aceⁱ⁹ 21:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Births, Marriages and Deaths

Malcolm McLaren RIP. ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 22:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

In remeberence....Aceⁱ⁹ 22:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Question about copyright

I posted a picture of the Cover art of a game on a wiki and i wondered if it were copyright infringement ?Waronstupidity (talk) 22:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)