RationalWiki:Saloon bar

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

Ruth Bader Ginsburg

I'm surprised no one at Conservapedia has put a spin on the Justice's cancer diagnosis. Will they be happy that a liberal judge may retire/die, or freak out that Obama will appoint Michael Moore to the high court? Czolgolz 15:04, 6 February 2009 (EST)

Question

How do you find out the IP of a domain on a Mac terminal? 16:28, 6 February 2009 (EST)

Ping, whois, tracert, etc should all resolve the domain for you. Neveruse513 16:30, 6 February 2009 (EST)

(EC) nslookup -- Nx ^talk 16:31, 6 February 2009 (EST)

Thankyou. Harmonic cubic Hoover! 16:36, 6 February 2009 (EST)

Rationalwiki's atheist bus campaign

Hot on the heels of the "God does probably not exist" campaign I have sponsored some new ads which are currently to be seen in London. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 17:03, 6 February 2009 (EST)

That's a great pic, and funny! :D Even more funny, I actually believed that was a real advert on a bus until someone else clued me in, lol. I'll be the first to admit, I'm gullible. :p Refugee^{talk page} 17:13, 6 February 2009 (EST)

Actually I made it here. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 18:45, 6 February 2009 (EST)

My version. --"ConservapediaUndergroundDiode^{'is a puerile idiot'} 18:50, 6 February 2009 (EST)

Block log

Can people please stop permabanning their own sockpuppets. The site has a good record of not blocking accounts permanently. Let's not ruin it for no reason. If you want to discard a sock, just sop using it. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:30, 6 February 2009 (EST)

Have a sense of humor, for Darwin's sake! --"ConservapediaSubwayResistor^{has no half-life} 17:34, 6 February 2009 (EST)

I has a sense of humour (have you forgotten NightModeBot so soon?). However, one of the defining things about the site is we don't block people for long periods. If we have a page full of blocked accounts, it makes us look bad, & if they're just users' own socks, it's pointless. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:50, 6 February 2009 (EST)

IN the News

This discussion was moved here from Conservapedia Talk:What is going on at CP?.

[Countdown to CP News:] 5 ... 4 ... 3 ... _and marmite 13:48, 6 February 2009 (EST)

May I just add that I hate how religious people think the whole world needs to adopt their standards and everyone else can go fuck themselves. SirChuckB^{Further bulletins as events warrant} 13:56, 6 February 2009 (EST)

That's a bit harsh. It was the Italian gov't that blocked the removal. The only mention of religion is how it appears that the gov't adopted the position of the church. If the US gov't decides it is in the best interest of the economy to have businesses close on Sundays are they being religious or happening to coincide with one religious belief? Jrssr5 14:51, 6 February 2009 (EST)

But that's the point... What businesses have the government ever concluded need to be closed on Sundays? If you said Liquor stores, you are correct. These blue laws are holdovers from a shame inducing period of church and state intermingling and the fact that they're getting repealed proves that. In the Italy case, the center-right government (which probably means religious) interfered in something they have no business in. There is no Government reason for them to step in except religious objections. SirChuckB^{Further bulletins as events warrant} 15:31, 6 February 2009 (EST)

oops, I didn't know there was going to be continued discussion about this here in WIGO, so I started a discussion on this over at Saloon... can the comments here and there be combined somehow, or moved or something? thanks! Refugee^{talk page} 17:49, 6 February 2009 (EST)

Re: blue laws - they aren't just for liquor, and some have/are been around quite recently. MA and ME have both had them within my memory on retail stores. ħuman 21:01, 6 February 2009 (EST)

- - - - - - - - - -

Saw this on WIGO: bbc news story

Recap:

• Eluana Englaro, a 38 year old woman, was in a car crash in 1992, and for the past 17 years, has been in a coma. She is said to be in a persistent vegetative state.

• Since 1999, her father has been battling with the courts in Italy to let her die, insisting it was her wish.

• Last November, Italy's highest court ruled that she had expressed a preference for dying over being kept alive artificially, and that doctors could stop feeding her.

• 3 Feb 2009, she was transferred to a private geriatric clinic, where doctors had agreed to disconnect her feeding tubes.

• 6 Feb 2009, Italy's government issued an emergency decree to prevent this from happening.

-- Your views?

• A: Should Eluana Englaro be kept alive, or should the feeding tubes be disconnected?

• B: If you were in her situation, would you want to remain on life support or not?

Refugee^{talk page} 17:40, 6 February 2009 (EST)

Are there accounts from people who have come out of a PVS? What did they have to say? I would have pulled it a long time ago, barring some amazing story about first-hand PVS experience. Neveruse513 17:42, 6 February 2009 (EST)

I don't know, but personally, I don't think there is much hope after 17 years. I think I'd rather not stay that way.. it's not really "living" to me. Refugee^{talk page} 17:45, 6 February 2009 (EST)

There is no life without movement and thought. She is a vegetable. I see no reason to keep her alive. Sorry. --"ConservapediaSubwayResistor^{has no half-life} 17:47, 6 February 2009 (EST)

I've never liked the phrase "She is a vegetable..." She's not a vegetable, she's a human being--saying "She is a vegetable" is like saying we put Rusty "to sleep." It's a little lie we tell ourselves when forced to deal with unpleasant truths. And the unpleasnt truth is that someone is going to have to decide whether or not this human being lives or dies. If it were me, from where I sit now, I'd prolly want them to pull the plug...but if it were my wife, let's say, I don't know; I can imagine clinging to whatever shred of hope that whatever miracle, whatever one-in-a-trillion chance, would happen and I'd have her back. Glad I'm not in those shoes today; but I think debates like this, on either side, tend to get reductionist and are ultimately futile because there's no conceivable consensus, compromise or middle ground...TheoryOfPractice 18:49, 6 February 2009 (EST)

Humans can think, can move. She cannot move, think, or anything else. She has no purpose in life. She was a human being- but now her brain is gone. Only her body is still active. How can you be human and have no brain? Note: This does not apply to teh assfly. He has a brain, he just doesn't use it. --"ConservapediaUndergroundDiode^{'is a puerile idiot'} 18:52, 6 February 2009 (EST)

(EC) You know what CUR--my normal annoyance with almost everything you do or say has been replaced now with burning rage...You do not, nor does anyone else, have the right to decide who is human and who is not. I suppose I should blame the line of shit you're spouting on your youth, but when I was young I never said anything even remotely that stupid. TheoryOfPractice 18:59, 6 February 2009 (EST)

<growls> I do not say that I have that right. I merely say that I have the ability to determine whether or not someone can think. Tell me: do you oppose killing plants? Because that is what she is like. I feel sorry for here, but the thing is, I am looking at this without emotion. If you have a problem with that, go someplace besides RationalWiki. The most rational thing to do would be to disconnect the tubes. There are other patients who may need those tubes, or could be helped by them. Should they die? --"ConservapediaUndergroundDiode^{'is a puerile idiot'} 19:03, 6 February 2009 (EST)

What you're describing is wp:Brain death -- Nx ^talk 18:57, 6 February 2009 (EST)

(unident)And she is brain dead. --"ConservapediaUndergroundDiode^{'is a puerile idiot'} 18:58, 6 February 2009 (EST)

That's not what the story says. TheoryOfPractice 19:00, 6 February 2009 (EST)

(EC) No, that's wp:Vegetative state -- Nx ^talk 19:01, 6 February 2009 (EST)

The two do not appear to be dissimilar. And TOP, she wanted to die. Got a problem with that? --"ConservapediaUndergroundDiode^{'is a puerile idiot'} 19:05, 6 February 2009 (EST)

I did not know you were a doctor...No, I have no problem with respecting someone's clearly-articulated right to die--I am a strong proponent of the right to die. However, once you draw a line that says "this is a human being," and "this is NOT a human being," the location of that line is open to debate and can conceivably move. First the "brain dead," then who knows. We are all human beings and continue to be so untl we are dead--and it's not up to you or anyone else to decide otherwise. Exercising somebody's right to die is an ultimate act of courage, compassion and respect. Calling someone "not a human," CUR, is exactly the opposite--but I sincerely doubt your ability to think in those sort of abstract terms. TheoryOfPractice 19:11, 6 February 2009 (EST)

I looked at the article. The two do not appear to be dissimilar. If I am wrong, correct me and explain why instead of swearing. It will only get you into trouble. --"ConservapediaUndergroundDiode^{'is a puerile idiot'} 19:18, 6 February 2009 (EST)

I'm not interested in debating the difference between "persistent vegetative state" and "brain dead" based on wikipedia articles because I'm smart enough not to get into debates I know nothing about. I'm not a neurophysician. My main argument with you is your moronic and callous disregard for the basic humanity of the woman at the centre of this debate. TheoryOfPractice 19:23, 6 February 2009 (EST)

'Basic humanity?' There is such a thing that makes humans different from all other species? We are no different from any other creature, big, small, or medium. Enlighten me as to this antrocentric philosophy of yours. When I said 'not human,' I did not mean that she was lacking of humanity. I don't quite know what I meant. But I did not mean what you think I meant. --"ConservapediaUndergroundDiode^{'is a puerile idiot'} 19:29, 6 February 2009 (EST)

When I said 'not human,' I did not mean that she was lacking of humanity. I don't quite know what I meant. If you don't know what you mean, then probably the best thing to do is to keep your yap shut. And "anthrocentric?" Yes, humans are different from other animals--For starters, we're nowhere near as tasty, I would imagine. TheoryOfPractice 19:36, 6 February 2009 (EST)

I do not have words to describe what I meant. I suppose the best way to say it is that I do not consider someone who hasn't moved, spoken, eaten, anything for 17 years to need tubes in her body. As for anthrocentrism, I sicken of it. It permeates too much of our lives, making us ignore the evils we do daily to other species. I consider myself to have an outlook on this different from your own- so I do not expect you to understand that all animals are sentient and deserve the same treatment. Except parasites. --"ConservapediaUndergroundDiode^{'is a puerile idiot'} 19:40, 6 February 2009 (EST)

Trust you to stake out a strong absolutist moral claim and then qualify it with an "except" in the very next sentence. I've said all I need to say about this...TheoryOfPractice 19:42, 6 February 2009 (EST)

(unident) Not good enough, unless you're ASchlafly. --"ConservapediaUndergroundDiode^{'is a puerile idiot'} 19:44, 6 February 2009 (EST)

The root of the problem is that we do not understand the brain yet, and cannot determine if the patient is still self-aware or not, except in case of total brain death. Maybe she's still alive, maybe she can still hear and see and feel, but she can't do anything. How would you feel in that situation? -- Nx ^talk 19:08, 6 February 2009 (EST)

I would accept my death. To our knowledge, she cannot think. She even wanted to die. Valuable resources are being used for someone that will not recover. If there was infinite space and resources, things might be different. But there aren't. So we must do something that is wrong, but right. --"ConservapediaUndergroundDiode^{'is a puerile idiot'} 19:10, 6 February 2009 (EST)

It isn't that simple. you would accept your death. (at least that is what you say now. I wonder what your position would be in that situation) But that doesn't mean that everyone would. You cannot make a claim that such a person is no longer a person, or that such a life is not worth preserving. That person is still alive. And you can't just take the life of another person because you think it isn't valuable. --CPAdmin1 11:53, 7 February 2009 (EST)

You should see this movie -- Nx ^talk 19:15, 6 February 2009 (EST)

That was a really good movie. --CPAdmin1 11:49, 7 February 2009 (EST)

Hey, if we're talking comas, you should also see this movie. --Marty 05:34, 8 February 2009 (EST)

Nnnnnnng. Ehhhhhhmmmng. --TerryS 05:36, 8 February 2009 (EST)

@CUR "All animals are sentient and deserve the same treatment. Except parasites." You know that you cannot even prove other humans are sentient, let alone animals; are starfish, which have no brains but are still definitely animals, "sentient". Are sea anemones? Why are parasites not included? Because they have such a strong "ick" factor? What differentiates a parasite that lives off another creature to your favourite, the cheetah, which kills and eats other, "sentient" animals? Harmonic cubic Hoover! 03:17, 7 February 2009 (EST)

I believe that parasites are sentient. I also beileve that any creature that sucks the life out of another creature does not deserve to live. --"ConservapediaUndergroundDiode^{'is a puerile idiot'} 09:40, 7 February 2009 (EST)

What does "sucks the life out of another creature" actually mean? Compare parasites like a tapeworm, which lives in another creature's system without actually harming it, just taking a little of its food, or a flea, which just takes a bit of blood, with a predator like a cheetah or a weasel which kills for food. Making moral judgements about an animals' survival mechanisms is pointless. The reason we kill parasites is that we regard them as pests & they can be harmful (to people, pets, livestock), but you can't make an animal rights argument & then exclude parasites from it on the basis of an arbitary moral judgement. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 10:02, 7 February 2009 (EST)

Weaseloid, I am merely saying that if a parasite sucks my blood, I will kill it. That is all. --"CUR^talk 10:05, 7 February 2009 (EST)

And you would kill a cheetah that tried to attack you? Parasites rarely significantly harm their hosts, except by transmission of infections. Harmonic cubic Hoover! 11:54, 7 February 2009 (EST)

Analog to Digital TV conversion deadline Feb 17

IN the U.S., all analog TV signals must convert to digital by Feb 17, 2009. This means that TVs that currently get "over the air" broadcasts will no longer work after that date. The options are: 1) buy a digital tuner (about $80) or: 2) sign up for cable, dish network or other service (more stations but much higher cost) or 3) buy a new TV that is digital ready. I have 3 TV's that are old and not digital ready, so I would need to buy 3 converters, or sign up for cable.. no idea what I should do and the deadline approaches.. any thoughts? Which would be better in the long run? Also, I'm curious, how do people outside the US get stations, do they still have free over the air broadcasts, or...? Refugee^{talk page} 19:28, 6 February 2009 (EST)

Which would be better in the long run? Library cards. NPR, CBC Radio and BBC World Service over the net. Subscriptions to Harper's, the Atlantic Monthly, Foreign Affairs, the Nation and the New York Review of Books. Sex--more tv =less nookie. Walks.Lots of things would be better in the long run. TheoryOfPractice 19:32, 6 February 2009 (EST)

You forgot Scientific American, National Geographic, Smithsonian, Discovery, Popular Science, Reptiles, etc. --"ConservapediaUndergroundDiode^{'is a puerile idiot'} 19:33, 6 February 2009 (EST)

Either forget TV or get 1 converter & a splitter box. don't you got satellite over that side the pond? _and marmite 19:42, 6 February 2009 (EST)

Here in the land down under we were suppose to start digital only begin of 2007, but digital box take up was so low they have scraped that indefinitely. I got a box just to watch NFL games. Other than one channel that uses it HD channel to show sports of low interest to the general public, there is nothing on. One network has 5 channels showing the same thing even during the Olympics where they could have just show 4 other sport uncommented at almost no additional cost. - User $\scriptstyle (6\sum _{n=1}^{\infty }n^{-2})^{1/2}$ 19:48, 6 February 2009 (EST)

We're phasing it in slowly. Everywhere can get digital now (I think) but they're switching off analogue area by area. Gives a load of "new" channels (we're used to 5 analogue terrestrials) There's also Freesat that gives HD (High def!) TV. _and marmite 19:54, 6 February 2009 (EST)

Actually Pi, they do plan to shut off analogue, they've just given us a few more years [1]. Bah, I ran out and bought a very expensive HDTV which I will be paying off for several years just so I wouldn't miss out, just to discover I don't need it. Still, at least now I don't need to buy a new TiVo until next year. -Redback^G'day 19:59, 6 February 2009 (EST)

Here in Her Majesty's United Kingdom, we have to purchase a TV license annually to own a television at all. If I was living alone, I don't think I'd bother having a TV. There's very little I watch, plus DVDs cost practicially nothing now & you can watch them through a computer. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:05, 6 February 2009 (EST)

We're phasing it in slowly. Everywhere can get Digital now (I think) but they're switching off analogue are by area. Gives a load of"new" channels (we're used to 5 analogue terrestrials) There's also Freesat that gives HD (High def!) TV. I watch about 4 hours/week though so as Ermine says, it's a pain buying the licence. _and marmite 20:08, 6 February 2009 (EST)

Sorry about that, Had an EC & copy/pasted the wrong bit: So it goes. (can't remember what I wrote before now. _and marmite 20:10, 6 February 2009 (EST)

A splitter! Thanks Toast, terrific idea - I hadn't thought of that - it would save me buying two boxes at $80 each.. but then I guess I would need to run long cable from one room to another? And yes, we have satellite, but it costs.. too much for me I'm afraid. I'd love to be able to buy a new HDTV! and sorry, that EC was me. :-< Refugee^{talk page} 20:14, 6 February 2009 (EST)

Our 1 & only TV (18inch) Digital & HD ready cost about £120. Satellite (Freesat) is free (about £100 for dish & box) if you can't get terrestrial digital. _and marmite 20:19, 6 February 2009 (EST)

Bonus though: Digital tVs pick up digital Radio too BBC 7 rules! _and marmite 20:23, 6 February 2009 (EST)

The digital signals are actually pretty cool, far better picture quality and you get a lot of subchannels. I haven't had cable for years, refuse to pay for it, so it's good to finally have cable-quality reception. I get several PBS stations here plus network TV from a few different markets, and now that they each have a few subchannels each with different programming, can't argue with the choice. Converter boxes: if you're lucky enough to live in the U.S. you can get a $40 coupon from the government, and if you're like me and refuse to buy anything at all made in China, the Channel Master is made in Bulgaria and Zinwell is made in Taiwan, but you have to look around to find either brand and don't bother with any of the big box stores 'cuz all they carry is the made in China brands. (If this doesn't sound like an important distinction, consider the difference between the people who made them being paid $4 an hour (Bulgaria and Taiwan) versus 40 cents (China). Neither as good as the $12 an hour they would have gotten in the U.S., Western Europe, or Japan, but under the circumstances it's a matter of choosing the least bad option. Shop around and don't buy the first one you see.) I was dubious about this whole forced digital TV switch until I found that you don't have to buy a converter box made in China, and this is like having cable without paying for it. I give cable no more than 8 years before it goes the way of the Betamax. I am, however, still dubious about the forced switch to compact fluorescent light bulbs, which is the stupidest thing since...well, that's another issue. Secret Squirrel 22:10, 6 February 2009 (EST)

In the US, as I understand it, after the "conversion", digital to analog boxes will be sold (roughly $40 ea?), and the government is issuing discount coupons (two per household max I think) to subsidize the cost. What's funny is that years ago I switched from my antenna to cable, in order to save about $3 on my cable bill (the discount for getting both service is more than "basic" cable costs). ħuman 22:17, 6 February 2009 (EST)

Actually the government is issuing coupons now, before the conversion, except they ran out of funding and you have to get on a waiting list for them. They will issue the next person on the list a coupon as soon as somebody's coupon issued 3 months ago expires unused. Not as bad as it sounds, I only had to wait about a month. sign up at http://dtv2009.gov/ . Congress is supposedly considering more funding for coupons but this may be on the back burner given the stimulus bill is priority right now Secret Squirrel 22:49, 6 February 2009 (EST)

So let me get this straight--the American government will pony up some dough so that people can have uninterrupted access to Friends but won't pay for socialised medicine? This country is weird. TheoryOfPractice 22:52, 6 February 2009 (EST)

The U.S. is weird. My weird meter only registers a high weirdness measurement on myself. I break my meter. The U.S. just strains it. --"ConservapediaUndergroundDiode^{'is a puerile idiot'} 09:54, 7 February 2009 (EST)

Dude, the economy's in shambles, but we gots our Teevees! Sterile^rationalize 22:54, 6 February 2009 (EST)

Correct. But you see, the difference is your taxes don't go up 30% if you subsidize TV converter boxes. With health care, they do. Also, this is a homeland security thing, I think. People have to be able to receive those Emergency Alert System things just in case the big one drops. Or something. Secret Squirrel 22:58, 6 February 2009 (EST)

30%, you are talking so much shit. We have universal health care in Aus and our taxes are only about 5% higher. - User $\scriptstyle (6\sum _{n=1}^{\infty }n^{-2})^{1/2}$ 02:09, 7 February 2009 (EST)

That's because Aussies don't have an aging generation of baby boomers who run off to the doctor demanding another prescription for every little ache, thinking they are entitled to have good health handed to them on a silver platter well into their seventies and eighties. Spoiled Americans would probably demand that Viagra, tummy tucks, and botox be covered under single payer if we had it. Geez, what was I supposed to do, put smiley faces in that last post? Secret Squirrel 14:41, 7 February 2009 (EST)

I think a bunchacash for the converters is in the stimulus bill being debated right now. ħuman 00:57, 7 February 2009 (EST)

TV is _vital_ now. if you think things are ugly NOW, try to imagine hordes of unemployed lumpenproletariat without the plug-in drug to keep them from rioting. --Gulik 01:09, 7 February 2009 (EST)

Hunting

On the board I'm part of, a discussion has recently come up over hunting, and I thought I would bring it up here. I will state my position:

1. Hunting for sport- bad
2. Hunting for food when not absolutely needed- pretty bad, but not as bad as hunting for sport
3. Hunting when absolutely needed- grey area, but acceptable

Feel free to shoot holes in my position. --"CUR^talk 10:23, 7 February 2009 (EST)

1. Generally agree, though I've known a lot of hunters, and very few hunt purely for sport; most fall into category 2, as they eat what they hunt.

2. I generally have no problem with this. We kill for meat all the time, what does it matter if it's a beef cow meant for slaughter or a deer. And the deer helps to control the population as well, which is also a good thing.

3. No problem with this. I don't even see how it is a grey area; nature is based on survival of the fitest. I would view it the same as a wolf killing a deer for food; the wolf didn't do it for fun, it did it because it needs the food. Same for us. Z3ro^talk 10:29, 7 February 2009 (EST)

2. The reasoning of population control could be applied to humans. As for meat, I'm a vegetarian. I also think that being a vegetarian is more moralistic, if possible, than eating meat. --"CUR^talk 10:32, 7 February 2009 (EST)

I feel a little pang when I crush a cat flee, but I like steak. Make sense of that! _and marmite 10:34, 7 February 2009 (EST)

The parasite is not deserving of life. --"CUR^talk 10:37, 7 February 2009 (EST)

Aren't we parasites? _and marmite 10:40, 7 February 2009 (EST)

If you suck someone's blood, yes, you are. --"CUR^talk 10:41, 7 February 2009 (EST)

Parasites again? Do we really need to discuss them in two places on the same page? Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 10:55, 7 February 2009 (EST)

Well, even with the vegitarian arguements, my points still stand. How is killing a deer for foor different than killing a cow? Oh, and I never said humans don't need population control (though that's usually called war). Z3ro^talk 10:45, 7 February 2009 (EST)

I am also against eating meat. --"CUR^talk 10:51, 7 February 2009 (EST)

If you are against eating meat, then this isn't really a good argument for you. You hold a position (no meat) that fundamentally alters your ability to see this issue objectively. If you want to argue against eating meat, go ahead. Just don't snipe one particular form of meat eating. When you bring up hunting, you aren't addressing the topic of vegetarianism v. carnivorism (for lack of a word). Your prior position eliminates the purpose of the debate. --CPAdmin1 12:02, 7 February 2009 (EST)

So much for retirement. And I'm well aware of that fact. But he was asking how killing a deer for food is different than killing a cow. It isn't, except that the hunted animal, is, well, hunted. --"CUR^talk 12:19, 7 February 2009 (EST)

That's great, but doesn't really invalidate my arguements. Z3ro^talk 11:04, 7 February 2009 (EST)

All right, here is my response...

1. Hunting for sport- I see no point in wiping out flightless poultry from atop a Hummer.
2. Hunting for food when not absolutely needed- I support allowing people to hunt for food, and I feel it would be ridiculous of me to regulate a person who wants to have deer for dinner.
3. Hunting when absolutely needed- If you need to eat, or you will die, I have no problem with killing an animal and eating (Exception of deliberate killing of an endangered animal!)

That said, I will admit that I have gone hunting a couple of times, gone out with a bunch of my buddies and taken down a few turkeys and a couple of deer, but I personally am too squemish to actually do the gutting and all that. However, if someone does not want to hunt, the simple response is... don't. Javasca₧ I know Anonymous user fumbles throughout furnaces.

In the UK, until recent legislation, one the most common forms of hunting was hunting foxes with hounds, which is cruel & almost pointless (there is a vermin control argument, but I don't think it's an effective means). Shooting pheasants etc. I have no problem with, as it's sport but also food, & they're often kept for the purpose (so essentially it's farming with a sport element). Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 10:55, 7 February 2009 (EST)

I am currently living in Quebec right now. They only allow each registered hunter to claim one buck and doe tags are raffled off. I think hunting in moderation is ok, but I have no reason other than that I am a participant. I eat what my family claims (as I have no luck whatsoever) and it is a great alternative with the rising meat costs, although the meat never lasts long. BTW, deer steaks are great on the BBQ. --Nate River 11:49, 7 February 2009 (EST)

Sentience of animals

This discussion was moved here from User talk:ConservapediaUndergroundResistor.

This discussion was moved to Debate:Animal sentience.

Yoga & Martial Arts

So I bought a couple of DVD's to try to learn Yoga and TaiChi at home. (as part of a general health-improving plan). The Yoga for beginners is turning out to be way too hard, but the Tai Chi is excellent, although some moves take a lot of practice to perform correctly. Just curious, is anyone else into Martial Arts of any type? Karate, Judo, Aikido, or any other sort? Refugee^{talk page} 14:52, 7 February 2009 (EST)

I always preferred street fighting. --"CUR^talk 14:53, 7 February 2009 (EST)

I actually take a couple of arts....

1. Black belt, Tae Kwon Do (6 years)
2. Black belt, Kung Fu (5 years)
3. White belt, Akido (1 year)

That is all. Javasca₧ I know Anonymous user fumbles throughout furnaces.

Were you in good shape already when you started out, or can people like me do martial arts too? I get winded thinking about going to the kitchen for more chips.... Sightblinder 16:18, 7 February 2009 (EST)

I had taken dance since I was 8, and had taken it for four years before switching to Tae Kwon Do. So yes, I was in good shape. Javasca₧ I know Anonymous user fumbles throughout furnaces.

Wow Javascap, that's impressive, and you made Black Belt in such a short time! I'm in average shape, but spend too much time working to get regular exercise. I wanted to get a little more fit, that's why I started with Yoga and TaiChi, I thought they were easier physical movements that I could do at home at my own pace. The Tai Chi is fun, it's slow, fluid movements are a good start for a beginner to martial arts - but the Yoga! The instructor twists herself into pretzel shapes and balances on one leg doing weird things.. it's definitely not easy! And the DVD said "for beginners" - hah! :p Refugee^{talk page} 16:46, 7 February 2009 (EST)

Haha, yoga is not easy physical movement, that's for sure. I'd love to learn, though. Maybe in the future, I'll give it a go. --Kels 16:53, 7 February 2009 (EST)

I want to learn drunken kung-fu someday, but at the moment, I only practice boxing on my sandbag.--Nate River 17:05, 7 February 2009 (EST)

My wife was into some yoga stuff for a while.... I wouldn't join in, because I like my kneecaps right where they are. That is pretty impressive, Javascap.... would you say that it's something a rookie could take up without killing themselves though?Sightblinder 17:34, 7 February 2009 (EST)

(unindent) If you want to take up an easy martial art to start with, in retrospect, I would recommend taking Akido or another deflection art, because it does not as much rely on the core muscles. Tae Kwon Do hurts from time to time, and Kung Fu... if you don't come home sore, you know you had an easy, rare practice. My favourite art is actually Akido because of its philosophy of causing as little pain to your attacked as possible, while still focusing on self-defense. You should work on flexing your ankles and wrists if you are going to take up any martial art, but if you are dedicated, even a complete couch potatoe could do Kung Fu. I am also considering getting into Muay Tai, so I will get back to you on that. Javasca₧ I know Anonymous user fumbles throughout furnaces.

I agree, Aikido is a good starter - I had tried it awhile back, but had to stop because I couldn't make time for the twice weekly class, and you need to do partner work. Tai Chi is a solo martial art, you don't need to practice with anyone, and it's perfect for a beginner. So I'd recommend that as a starter point - I also hope to progress to a fighting martial art in time. Refugee^{talk page} 18:04, 7 February 2009 (EST)

How long before we see you on WEC Wrekcage, 'Scap? ħuman 18:53, 7 February 2009 (EST)

Is Tai Chi decent excersize though? I'm all for flexibility, but I need something that will burn off beer and chicken wings..... Sightblinder 19:20, 7 February 2009 (EST)

Tai Chi is more of a relaxing art, more akin to a dance, but if done well, it is very good for burning off that aformentioned beer and chicken wings. but perhaps you would be best off just not having the beer and chicken wings. And to Human, I do not intend to enter MMA fighting in any way. I do padded sparring, demonstrations, lessons, and brick break marathons (58 in one minute is my personal best) Javasca₧ I know Anonymous user fumbles throughout furnaces.

First off, no beer and chicken wings is NOT an option! I'll have to look into the martial arts thing... now, in honour of your 58 bricks in one minute, I will go and attempt to eat 58 chicken wings in one minute (hopefully extra sauce will make them slide down faster).... Sightblinder 22:30, 7 February 2009 (EST)

The burn is the key. If you consume unwanted calories, you want to burn them. Running is what most people do. And, 'Scap, sorry to hear that ;) I was looking forward to it! ħuman 22:59, 7 February 2009 (EST)

My favourite art is actually Akido because of its philosophy of causing as little pain to your attacked as possible - You what? I went to Aikido class - there was the tutor, two black belts, and me. ow. Totnesmartin 16:57, 8 February 2009 (EST)

The Dreaded Tax returns

OK, I have been procrastinating starting on my tax returns all day, and have been posting here instead. More fun by far, but now I must face the inevitable. So, does anyone have their taxes done already? People outside the US, when are your taxes due? Do you file annually as we do? Pardon my ignorance, but that's one reason I like this wiki, people from many countries post here, and it is interesting learning about what goes on outside my limited sphere. OK, I'm off to get my tax paperwork together. Carry on! Refugee^{talk page} 18:12, 7 February 2009 (EST)

OH bugger, you had to go and remind me about tax time. No, mine's not done yet. "Now, where did I put all those taxi receipts?" "What's this receipt for?" "Why did I pay this person?" "How many meals are fair for 'entertaining clients'?" DogP 21:19, 7 February 2009 (EST)

Over here in Ausland, we get our "Group Certificate" (piece of paper that tells us how much we've earnt from our employers/welfare) at the end of the financial year. We have (I believe) six four months to complete a tax return, which most people do either through an accountant or by themselves over the internet, within six weeks we receive a letter telling us how it went. If we're entitled to a refund, they'll either send a cheque or place the money directly into our bank account. I'm expecting nearly $1000 (AU$ of course) back this year, I always pay more than I need to, and I haven't worked for most of the last year due to health issues, so I daresay I'll be below the tax threshold.
One of those nasty things you can do to someone you don't like, is to anonymously report them to the ATO (Australian Taxation Office) for tax evasion. Legally, the ATO has to audit them. I think it's just plain nasty however, so I've never done it, but I know it gets done a lot. -Redback^G'day 00:04, 8 February 2009 (EST)

Interesting, thanks. I guess the equivalent to your "Group Certificate" is our "W-2" form or "1099" if a private contractor, forms that detail our earnings for the calendar year ending Dec 31 - is your "financial year" equal to the "calendar year", or more like a "fiscal year"? (and in case anyone is interested, I did not get my tax paperwork together yet, instead I procrastinated the whole day, found other things to do, and added a few things over at RWW). lol. Maybe I'll get started on taxes tomorrow. Refugee^{talk page} 01:51, 8 February 2009 (EST)

Our financial year is 1 July to 30 June, so all the tax stuff is done around July or August. With the ability to do our tax return over the internet, we don't need to keep receipts for everything we want deducted so long as we don't claim more than $200 in work-related deductions (not including laundry expenses, telephone expenses, union fees etc, they're deducted in a different section of the return). However, we still need to be able to justify our deductions if they ask us about them, eg "My workboots were $100, uniforms cost me $50..." and so on. Now, get going with those taxes, I hear your IRS is rather nasty if you don't get it done in time! -Redback^G'day 03:01, 8 February 2009 (EST)

Firefox screen capture thingie

Slick!

A while back someone posted the "extension" for a FF screen capture thing, which I went and downloaded and installed. However, that was weeks ago, and I hadn't restarted FF until today. So, while I think it's installed, I have no idea how to use it... any help on this? Thanks! ħuman 18:58, 7 February 2009 (EST)

You have Screengrab? It is the bottom right corner of your browser you will see its logo. If you click on it it will have two options save and copy. Each has three options, full screen, visible portion and selection. Save and either screen or portion will be the best. - User $\scriptstyle (6\sum _{n=1}^{\infty }n^{-2})^{1/2}$ 19:09, 7 February 2009 (EST)

Or right click & it shows on the context menu. _and marmite 20:19, 7 February 2009 (EST)

Thanks! ħuman 23:02, 7 February 2009 (EST)

Antivax bombshell

(moved from Talk--Mainpage) Is there a news page on this site? This story should be covered:

• Antivax bombshell

  Summary: evidence that the original MMR-Autism study was faked. --Tony Sidaway 23:35, 7 February 2009 (EST)

See WIGO--world for news. We prolly haz a page on vaccine scare too. And hells, post it on CP. Andy'll love it. TheoryOfPractice 23:36, 7 February 2009 (EST)

RationalWiki:What is going on in the blogosphere? would cover that, add your blog to the list. - User $\scriptstyle (6\sum _{n=1}^{\infty }n^{-2})^{1/2}$ 23:37, 7 February 2009 (EST)

Thanks, Tony. I enjoyed reading your CP blogposts, by the way. ħuman 23:44, 7 February 2009 (EST)

We need to update vaccine hysteria? ħuman 23:47, 7 February 2009 (EST)

In reply to User:TheoryOfPractice, I think that's one issue on which RationalWiki and Conservapedia might agree to some extent (uncomfortable though that might make us feel), though of course Conservapedia finds a liberal scapegoat:

Despite the claims of certain high-profile figures such as Robert F. Kennedy Jr.,there is no link between the Measles, Mumps, Rubella (MMR) vaccine and Autism. Despite these claims being repeatedly proved to be false and the proponents' deceitful behavior (such as Andrew Wakefield, who received $623,623 from lawyers preparing to sue the manufacturers of the MMR vaccine without evidence), certain parties continue to push the MMR Vaccine-Autism link.

I think it would be great if the Huffington Post wouldn't carry this ridiculous nonsense to which Conservapedia gleefully directs its readers in their article Vaccine. --Tony Sidaway 01:33, 8 February 2009 (EST)

Wait, they hate RFK 'cause he's an evil liberal. We are troubled by him for his scientific illiteracy on this topic (and I've heard him wanking about this on my liberal talk radio, pisses me off). I'm not sure that's "agreeing"? ħuman 01:49, 8 February 2009 (EST)

And while you're at it, cover this case. Ben Goldacre has had another lawyer's letter, this time from the radio company of some antivaxer with a microphone in her hand and vacuum between her ears. The response on the blogosphere has been magnificant, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't all pitch in and help spread the word. --Tony Sidaway 03:48, 8 February 2009 (EST)

Meanwhile the children of the UK MMR scare are now of school age and, guess what, there's an alarming rise in the number of cases of measles. Silver Sloth 04:13, 8 February 2009 (EST)

This pig loads slowly

Is it just me, or is it perhaps the bloated header thingie? ħuman 23:45, 7 February 2009 (EST)

Templates are CPU time heavy. That is why when you have one as a sig it dumps all the code to try and save server time. - User $\scriptstyle (6\sum _{n=1}^{\infty }n^{-2})^{1/2}$ 23:48, 7 February 2009 (EST)

At present template:bartop uses four other templates. Would it help if they were all actually merged into the same template. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 07:13, 8 February 2009 (EST)

it's also a pig to load because it grows rapidly. I'm going to move the animal sentience section to a debate page, but really we need to archive the page more often - probably as often as WIGO CP. Totnesmartin 09:40, 8 February 2009 (EST)

Personally, I find the whole template to be incredibly tasteless, and wouldn't mind seeing it removed completely. The only reason we have it in the first place is because some people thought it was funny (it really isn't, by the way) to stuff as many bar/saloon-related jokes as possible at the top. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 16:40, 8 February 2009 (EST)

Fibonacci in the funny pages.

Foxtrot. Where else? TheoryOfPractice 01:22, 8 February 2009 (EST)

Sweet, thanks! I never replaced my newspaper subscription with devoted tracking of my favorite comix... I phail. ħuman 01:44, 8 February 2009 (EST)

Ambassadors

Who here thinks that we should have someone be an official ambassador to Wikipedia (definitely not me)? Or AthiesmWiki? Or someplace else? They would represent us and help forward our agenda. It expect this idea to be shot down within 30 seconds. Pile on. --"CUR^talk 13:33, 8 February 2009 (EST)

You are being very sluggish today. Yesterday I wouldn't even have time to blink before someone called me a fool. --"CUR^talk 13:35, 8 February 2009 (EST)

I vote TK or Karajou. 216.221.87.112 13:39, 8 February 2009 (EST)

Eh what? But I am Karajou. Actually, Karajou is me. Karajou is my sock. See, Karajou is a sock of myself, who is a sock of Icewedge, who, of course, is a sock of TheoryOfPractice. --"CUR^talk 13:43, 8 February 2009 (EST)

I'm of two minds. The first is (god help me for saying this...) "That's not entirely stupid, CUR." We could talk about working w/wikiblogs w/similar missions (but prolly not WP--too big and diverse...) to coordinate attacks on CP share links to interesting articles, borrow from each others' expertise to improve articles, etc....The second is "It's nice out, and I already spend too much time on the wikiblogs, and so do you. Surely there must be better things going on...." TheoryOfPractice 13:39, 8 February 2009 (EST)

I nominate <insert name here>. But what would the role involve? Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:40, 8 February 2009 (EST)

It would involve basic diplomacy and forwarding our agenda. Maybe Off Renosance? --"CUR^talk 13:43, 8 February 2009 (EST)

We has an agenda? I'm not sure we need a liaison for the small sites like atheismwiki. There are a couple of users here also edit on them, so links of a sort are already in place. & Quite a lot of us have a Wikipedia account. I don't think we often need to say things "on behalf of RationalWiki" at other sites. It might be entertaining to appoint an official Ambassador to Conservapedia (ideally somebody they hate). Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:51, 8 February 2009 (EST)

That is an interesting idea but I really don't see the need. The idea with ambassadors in general is that they represent their leader because their leaders cant be everywhere at once but with the internet it is easy enough for someone to just drop Trent an e-Mail. I can say for a fact that if you tried to send an 'ambassador' to WP you would be basically ignored and derided as silly and I imagine many other sites would have the same reaction. Is there any pressing inter-site politics that need to be addressed that cant be by the mob or Trent? I really don't think so. Perhaps a designated contact point on our side might be worthwhile, but sending out people to other sites who probably wont even care seems rather useless. Icewedge 13:50, 8 February 2009 (EST)

That's sort of what I meant. Like an embassy, for lack of a better word. --"CUR^talk 13:53, 8 February 2009 (EST)

We must send missionaries to these other sites & convert them to our religion. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:56, 8 February 2009 (EST)

Heck, I'm already spreading the word of the goat at that forum I once mentioned. --"CUR^talk 14:01, 8 February 2009 (EST)

(EC, damn you CUR)I think we'd need to designate a religion for that, FSM, IPU or ism? Also, who'd want to visit our embassy? We don't even have doilies to put under the saucers... oh the guests will be here at any moment and we haven't laid out the orderves hour durves food. -Redback^G'day 14:02, 8 February 2009 (EST)

My halfpennyworth: I think that anything looking like an interest bloc at Wikipedia would call into question the neutrality of all members of that bloc, and get us all labelled as POV-pushers. Pseudomonas 14:00, 8 February 2009 (EST)

It wouldn't exactly be an interest bloc. It would attempt to further relations between the two sites. And most of our members are more than capable of writing in a NPOV. For example, we could try making Alison an ambassador. --"CUR^talk 14:03, 8 February 2009 (EST)

First of all, thanks to some Weasel that gave this poor Noob a heart attack for about 1.3 seconds..... Second, I think that the stuff you guys do now is fine. We all found ourselves here, didn't we? And I can't count the number of other blogs and sites I've seen this fine literary masterpiece mentioned on..... Like minded people will stay (or Lurk for a year and a half first).... Sightblinder 14:14, 8 February 2009 (EST)

I think we have enough casual links with Wikipedia (i.e. plenty of people editing at both sites) but trying to forge stronger "official" links, or recruit at WP or anything like that would be kindof dubious & not good for RW's reputation. Actually, I think the only good thing about having an Ambassador is we'd get to have parties like this. Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 14:23, 8 February 2009 (EST)

Screw the wikipedos.DSFARGEG 14:25, 8 February 2009 (EST)

Let's send an ambassador to Russia! --"CUR^talk 14:26, 8 February 2009 (EST)

I see my name has been mentioned as a possible ambassador - or perhaps "missionary", it's not quite clear. I don't know if my clear atheistic views would really represent the slightly wishy-washy athiesm/agnosticism more commonly shown here but I should be happy to go forth and convert the heathen in the name of RationalWiki. Send me to Conservapedia and watch them quail; dispatch me to CreationWiki and see how they will submit; have me liaise with the various atheist wikis and watch how the fall in line. It's obvious that the word of an ambassador from RationalWiki will be like that of a Roman Senator in the provinces. Consider my ways ye mighty and be afraid!--Bob^{bing up} 14:30, 8 February 2009 (EST)

Perhaps I should mention there is an element of sarcasm there.--Bob^{bing up} 14:32, 8 February 2009 (EST)

Weasel used the name span. Oh, and we theoritically could send a liason to CreationWiki- they accept debate. We might be able to set up a successful operation. --"CUR^talk 14:35, 8 February 2009 (EST)

Curses - fooled again!--Bob^{bing up} 15:20, 8 February 2009 (EST)

Ambassador to Wikipedia? Now I'll never get that Chinese forest in my sandbox finished... what does the job involve? (clue: I'll accept if the job involves jaffa cakes). Totnesmartin 16:47, 8 February 2009 (EST)

RationalWiki moon mission.
Wëäŝëïöïď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:28, 8 February 2009 (EST)

A user account on both sites, and an ability to engage in polite, rational dialouge. --"CUR^talk 16:48, 8 February 2009 (EST)

User at WP since 2006, here since 2007 - check! Ability to engage in polite, rational dialogue - oh bugger. Totnesmartin 16:52, 8 February 2009 (EST)

I looked at your dialouge above. Your an ambassador now. Congratulations. --"CUR^talk 16:57, 8 February 2009 (EST)

Ugh, jaffa cakes. You sicken me. Harmonic cubic Hoover! 16:53, 8 February 2009 (EST)

Well if you don't want yours... (incidentally, shouldn't they be Tel Aviv cakes now?) Totnesmartin 17:00, 8 February 2009 (EST)

Rather than having "official" ambassadors we should all be ambassadors for RationalWiki. There is little point in trying to engage in debate with the likes of CreationWiki, they're never going to accept any argument or facts that runs counter to their ideology. What people can do is post links to RationalWiki in a non-spamming way if they are editing on bulletin boards or discussion forums. Nothing so crass as Ken's "Have you seen Conservapedia's Atheism/Evolution/Homosexuality article", perhaps something along the lines of "there was an interesting discussion about this at ...". However, you should only do this where you are already a regular editor so that it doesn't look like a drive-by litter drop. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 17:01, 8 February 2009 (EST)

You want me to help represent you? --"CUR^talk 17:03, 8 February 2009 (EST)

With all due respect CUR, a little subtlety is required for ambassadoring. Totnesmartin 17:15, 8 February 2009 (EST)

(unident) Therefore my surprise. --"CUR^talk 17:16, 8 February 2009 (EST)

Comrades! We will travel into space! We will travel to Mars! We will go to the moon! To boldly go where no. . . oh, forget it. <plays Star Trek: The Next Generation theme music> --"CUR^talk 17:32, 8 February 2009 (EST)

surely Babylon 5 if we're being ambassadors? better show, too. Totnesmartin 17:34, 8 February 2009 (EST)

Never saw it. Though The Next Generation was much more ambassadory. And it was a great show. I loved the cat. Data was my favorite character. Data's cat was my second. --"CUR^talk 17:37, 8 February 2009 (EST)

Did someone say OPERATION???? ħuman 17:45, 8 February 2009 (EST)

WTF was that????1??11? Totnesmartin 17:49, 8 February 2009 (EST)

Ambassadors: WP doesn't care

As someone mentioned above, attempting to recruit membership over at WP seems a bit shady. Advocating for rationalism in the name of RW, especially in mass could be mistaken for ( or in fact be) meat puppetry. That leaves organizing potlucks and I'm not preparing goat surprise for then thousand people. Attempting to contact WP "higher ups" just to say "Hi" seems pointless. 72.218.141.237 19:08, 8 February 2009 (EST)

Beating a theist

Anyone got some tips on how to beat a theist in a debate? We are discussing 'God's Love' of animals. I need evidence to help back me up. Help is appreciated. I need to pwn this guy. --"CUR^talk 19:18, 8 February 2009 (EST)

What is the debate about? Javasca₧ I know Anonymous user fumbles throughout furnaces.

I said above. Started in the forum. Bascially, it's your normal 'is god good' 'no he isn't' 'yes he is' type of thing. --"CUR^talk 19:25, 8 February 2009 (EST)

Ask this string...

Is god all powerful?

Default response:Yes, he is

Can god do anything at all that he wants to?

Default response:Yes, he can and does

Then why does god allow suffering in this world?

Tell me what his response is, and I will give you the gut punch to go with. Javasca₧ watches Republican peat bogs vocalise

'is god good' 'no he isn't' 'yes he is' Why even debate? There is no God, so debating his qualities is meaningless to begin with. Also--no-one ever wins debates between fundamentally incompatible worldviews. I had this debate to no end a quarter century ago, and someone told me he'd had the same debate to no end a quarter century before that. You're both wasting your time, TheoryOfPractice 19:33, 8 February 2009 (EST)