User talk:Neural/Archive 1

Sorry. And info on user 195.93.21.7

I signed 195.93.21.7 comment for him. I should of just deleted his comment instead.

I have info on him I added him to thelong term abuse list and I nicknamed him The Blasphemy Guy(I thought he should have an easy to rember nickname, escipally if he changes I.P.). I did put somthing about him making a personal attack toward you and others too.--Scott3 03:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, Scott3. You did the right thing by signing him and leaving me the decsion to delete him. Thanks for doing that. He is either the same guy from the Dinosaurs article or somebody reacting against my comments on the Genesis talk page (probably the same person).

Thanks again! -Neural 03:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rik Mayall

I have added the Rik Mayall article to the "requested expansion" list. I think his article should be much bigger and better. If anyone has any info about Rik and/or ideas to improve any aspect of the article (including layout, etc) please give it a go. See the talk page on Rik Mayall for my comments there. Have fun... -Neural 05:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Age of consent

Hi, actually I think "assumption" is more POV than "belief" and "common" means pretty much the same as "most". Either way these are somewhat weasel words only backed up by the loads of legislation on the subpages. ;) Do you think that perhaps we in the realms of "common knowlege" here? I guess it remains that most of the existing legislation was based on motives that have been lost to us. Who knows? lol --Monotonehell 09:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Monotonehell. I'm not sure what would be the best combination of words to make that part NPOV and less weasel-wordy. Perhaps the word "assumption" backfired and made it seem even more POV, but in the opposite direction. I was stuggling to find a word or term better than "belief" - is it really a genuine belief or something nobody questions in public because of the huge taboo? It seems difficult to prove either way. It seems a form of "accepted wisdom" or a sacred cow for sure - whether people hold it as a genuine belief in their heart of hearts is another matter. The word "assumption" seems technically correct to me, but I agree it may seem more POV than "belief" on the surface. Is there a way of getting around this? - Neural 11:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC I wrote that passage originaly and agonised over how to walk the line at the time. I didn't have a solution. Everything I came up with sounded like I was either supporting or protesting the position. Heh sometimes you can't win on NPOV. All I wanted to say was that the current general "opinion" of the bulk of legislation is that children need to be protected and that was the motivation behind the laws. But as I said, it's a minefield. lol --Monotonehell 12:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AOC Link

I'd put the Moral Outrage link back in. None of the other links list accurate AOC info. While AVERT does a decent job at it, it is inaccurate/misleading as it does not account for age-gap provisions in AOC law. For example, although the aoc in Texas is 17, that age only applies with a 3-year age span. In other words, if you're 21+, the aoc is then 18. In addition AVERT does not list aoc info for washington dc. -- 12:08, 17 July 2006 Joluko

That's not really the place for a region specific link. You could place it in the US section on the AoC N.American sub page Ages of consent in North America. Or better yet, check the validity of the information on moral outrage and add it to that page. If you can find links to official legislation... --Monotonehell 14:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I considered adding it to the AoC N.American page but I think that page is attempting to cover more than a Wikipedia article should (IMHO). I verified about 1/3 of the info on the Moral Outrage link and it all looks current, most of which appears to have been taken from various state websites. --Joluko 17 July 2006, 11:18 (CST)

All the sub pages used to be part of the main page. You can imagine how long the article was even with the limited coverage back then. So it was decided to fork off the region specific information to sub pages and try to keep the main article a general, international discussion. I think it's better to err on the side of WP:V and have all that info there, backed up with refs; than to only link to places like www.ageofconsent.com who are terribly out of date or www.avert.org who are trying very hard, but you can't present this stuff in a table (and who refer to our article for info anyway). As you said, you can't just say "the AoC in Xlania is X" when there are many close in age or other exceptions. If you do add it to the N.American page make sure you put it within the USA section and not down the bottom. (Hello Neural this is no longer YOUR talk page XD) --Monotonehell 16:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been busy doing various anti-vandalism edits all over the place and Recent Changes patroling, so I haven't been paying much attention to this for a while... The main reasons I removed the links: there are already stats, such as on the N.American page, that can be updated from any sources with a ref or two for validation, and I have no idea how up-to-date and accurate the Moral Outrage stats even are anyway. I just think it better to have stats on wikipedia than have to link out to some partisan website to do the same job. However, if you all decide that the link is somehow vital, I won't get into an edit war over it. And... don't worry about using this talk page for these discussions. You can always use this page or Talk:Age of consent [hint, hint]... :) ---Neural 17:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another UBox for you...

?	This user is disinterested in apathy.

) --Monotonehell 16: 36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

lol :) Thanks Monotonehell. I'm just a bit obsessed with these userboxes at the moment. It'll pass. - Neural 16:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paradigm is good. --Monotonehell 20:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help, Monotonehell. I hate red links... -Neural 19:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monty Python TfD compromise

There is a compromise now posted on the TfD if you are still interested in this debate. One question, even though you are against this TfD, have you even taken the master template out for a test drive?
Lady Aleena talk/contribs 08:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have done so. Congrats. -Neural 13:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Hitchens on Wikipedia

Right-wing journalist and commentator Peter Hitchens (the Mail on Sunday columnist) is an editor of Wikipedia, I've discovered. He has posted on the Peter Hitchens talk page as Clockback, and has done some article-editing. I have been discussing religion, evolution, and some other things on his user talk page. To view the discussion so far, click here. -Neural 11:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enjoyed the discussion and will catch up on his user page. I just wondered if it was only his own entry and his brothers article he's edited or do you know of any others?? 62.30.76.194 22:43, 13 August 2006

Hi. Umm... looking at his edit history, he's also made contributions to the Serious Organised Crime Agency and Debates on the grammar school, among a few others. I think he's a critic of the former and an advocate of the latter. Most of his work seems to be on his own article. He also posted a message on the Christopher Hitchens discussion page, about the possibility of CH's antitheistic views softening in tone. Blimey, I feel like a KGB spy writing a report on somebody. Glad you enjoyed the debate, futile as it may have been. I join Peter in hoping that truth eventually triumphs over delusions, although he and I are in opposite camps as to what the truth likely is. -Neural 23:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, I find Peter's arguments and points of view interesting even if I don't always agree with them. I also wondered if he was shedding light on other subjects - there's some discussion on the Orwell page for example. I didn't realise Wiki hosted debates so I'm glad I asked - I'm new to this. Thanks again. Miamomimi 00:47, 14 August 2006 (signed for you).

It's the same with me - I find his views interesting although I'm very often opposed to them. By the way... to sign your comments, add ~ ~ ~ ~ (without the spaces) at the end. It will sign your username, time and date. - Neural 00:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!! Miamomimi 10:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neural - I hope you don't my posting here that I agree completely with your comments on Clockback's talk page. Theism IS a fascinating subject to me and I'm not the sort of person who just wants to hear my own point of view, that's why I enjoy the forum that's been started as you no doubt saw by my comments. Miamomimi 14:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yo Neural - just found details of a study that claims religion fosters bad behaviour Well I had to put a link on the swearing section, just had to! And you might find this amusing too. (the comments cracked me up) Regards Miamomimi 18:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matt, I read the Hitchens articles' repeated vandalism as someone trying to wind up the subject. Naearly impossible not to do admittedly, but PH has not responded to my comments on the Clockback talk page ...

Take care. Philip Cross 15:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: my 'swinging from the gallows' piece on the cultural reaction to Blairs wake: what now? Peters 'turn-the-clockback' policies or more NuLab? Matt/Neural - I can't think of a better title. I wanted it to be either/or so used ';' separator but I don't think it's clear. Think up a better one if you like. This vandalism - isn't there a policy or mechanism for dealing with things like this? Peter is a professional and is used to such stuff and would probably help if he has the time. But surely there's a barring procedure? Miamomimi 20:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Philip and Miamomimi.. re: the vandalism of the Hitchens article. It could just be somebody who dislikes Hitchens or his views, or somebody trying to be funny. Then again, who knows? I can't imagine it was Peter Hitchens himself, as the vandal claims, unless he has dramatically cracked up or something. Luckily, the vandalism appears to have died down. If there are any more anon edits posting slurs about him, we'll have to see about protecting the article.

Take care. Matt, logged in as -Neural 20:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steal some Banners? :)

Hey, man. Looking at your profile page, you're a pretty awesome dude. :) Mind if I steal some of your side banners for my page?--Rookiee Revolyob 07:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Rookiee Revolyob. Thanks for the kind words. :) Feel free to copy all/any of those userboxes that you want to. There are an almost infinite variety of them floating around on Wikipedia, btw, if you want to hunt around for them. -Neural 11:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

laissez-faire Capitalism

Ideal laissez-faire capitalism is not responsible for "the obscenely vast gap between richest and poorest". Get your facts right, socialist. Also, just in case you're wearing a Che Guavara T-shirt, Fidel Castro has robbed many people -- rich and poor alike -- of their wealth or land or both. He has murdered (with help ogf his lackey Che) many homosexual men, and dissenters. He is one of the richest men alive. CaptainSurrey 21:37, 26 August 2006

Who said I was a socialist? Not me. I admit that socialism does not appear to work - for various reasons including human nature. However, I reserve the right to criticize any economic system that I want to. To pretend capitalism is some flawless system that creates no social injustice anywhere in the world (let's compare ourselves to a peasant in any 3rd world country) seems rather silly. I was refering to the tendency, under capitalism, for the rich to grow ever-richer and the poorest at the bottom to grow poorer by comparisson. Btw, I'm no fan of Castro or Che. I have no time for people weople who willingly ignore their crimes either. Thanks for the message. -Neural 11:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've just realized that, indeed, the wording on my user-page implied that globalized capitalism itself was somehow solely or chiefly responsible for all/most social injustice out there. Obviously, that is wide of the mark. I've now changed the wording so capitalism is not mentioned at all. I don't want to hint that I advocate socialism. Socialism and communism are deeply flawed ideologies that I don't want to associate myself with. Communism would work if we were simplistic logical robots, but humans are never going to be like that.Btw... check out my Che Guavara userbox on the main page. -Neural 13:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I was having a bad day and needed to lash out at someone, I suspected of the grave sin of being involved with communism. You're okay really.--CaptainSurrey 04:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligence

Referring to yourself as "bright" will only convince many people of the opposite. Wait for other people to make that assertion, and then gracefuly accept their comments. CaptainSurrey 21:40, 26 August 2006

A bright isn't an "intelligent person". It is a term coined by Paul Geisert to describe anyone with a naturalistic worldview. Check out the link. Thanks for the warning, but I'm not describing myself as intelligent anywhere. Otherwise, your criticism would have been valid. -Neural 11:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Well. I've decided that you're quite smart, anyway. Kudos.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Atheism

Just wondering... would you be interested in collaborating on this project. It includes many forms of Atheism. Even though I am not a member of this project, but I am a nontheist ("near" atheist). Thankyou. Moon&Nature 03:45, August 29, 2006 (UTC)

Hey Neural, glad to have you along! Rashad9607 16:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to be along! Thanks for the welcome. Also thanks to Moon&Nature for the invite. -Neural 14:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neural I noticed this and remembered your debate with Hitchens. He seemed to believe that atheists could never be naturally inclined to good for it's own sake if they were affluent. Once you had something to lose you had to fear a deity to effectively force your behaviour to be altruistic. Therefore religion seemed to him to be necessary to the State and those who govern. As you probably know, Christopher Hitchens has been both an atheist and an antitheist, and he has always remained a believer in the values of secularism, humanism and reason; and he is an Honorary Associate of the National Secular Society. You might, as I do, dismiss Peter's claims as nonsense but I just thought I'd mention the political angle to atheism. What higher power than those who control the Church? Please excuse me and delete comment if you've already been there, done that, got T shirt etc. Miamomimi 02:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are a range of arguments people use to explain why they think religion is necessary, even if it is based on falsehoods. None of these arguments ever bear much close scrutiny, except perhaps the claim that religion can bring a sense of comfort or happiness to believers. Yes, maybe it is a crutch for people to lean on, but this psychological support comes at a heavy price when we consider religion's wider impact. But, anyway, I find being free from religion is extremely liberating. A naturalistic worldview is life-affirming in a way that religion can never be. Does David Attenborough strike anyone as a depressive? Stripped of all the silly myths that curtail curiosity, nature is even more wondrous and compelling. As for altruism, I believe there is natural human kindness and compassion in people - these qualities would exist with or without religion. It is also more moral to be good for good’s own sake than being charitable as a means to a selfish end (to reach Paradise or avoid hell).

According to the Nobel Prize winning physicist, Steven Weinberg:

"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."

Thanks for the message, Miamomimi. I think Christopher Hitchens has a very rational view of religion. It's odd how the two brothers ended up with such opposing takes on this.

-Neural 14:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic last point, I'm going to steal it if you don't mind :-) Miamomimi 11:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BGII voice actor for Irenicus

The actor who vocied the character Jon Irenicus is called David Warner ... David Warner (actor)

In real life he's a super cool dude, but if need be his face is perfect for evil characters.--CaptainSurrey 06:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, he's the one. He seems to get type-cast as sly villains because of his face and voice. Will Smith had a theory that British actors always get cast as "bad guys" in American films because a (slightly posh) English accent somehow suggests higher intelligence to American viewers - a character trait distrusted by a lot of people over there, apparently. Considering the President who has been voted into office twice now, I'm inclined to think there may be something to his theory! Thanks for the info Cap'n. -Neural 14:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Hofstadter wrote a book in which he made a powerful argument that anti-intellectualism is the main current in American life. So, yes, I think that theory IS more than just hot air. Millions of Americans not only pride themselves on obstinate willful ignorance, but actively fight against knowledge and intelligence themselves. 195.93.21.97

Tsk. Here are some quotes about America by Sam Harris to cheer us all up:

Unreason is now ascendant in the United States—in our schools, in our courts, and in each branch of the federal government.
Only 28 percent of Americans believe in evolution; 68 percent believe in Satan.
120 million of us place the big bang 2,500 years after the Babylonians and Sumerians learned to brew beer.
Ignorance in this degree, concentrated in both the head and belly of a lumbering superpower, is now a problem for the entire world.
Our circumstance is abject, indefensible, and terrifying. It would be hilarious if the stakes were not so high.

-Neural 20:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy

I saw your comments in the discussion for WikiProject Atheism, and I appreciate your willingness to help, as much as I appreciate sharing most of the views you expose on your userpage =). If you wouldn't mind, I would like to ask you to check out the article Secular ethics and drop us a few suggestions, since the editors working on it, myself included, have apparently ran out of ideas. All we need is a guiding light of reason. Any help is appreciated, although no help is alright too, and I already thank you in advance for putting up with these annoying requests =). Cheers. Starghost (talk | contribs) 16:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Starghost. It looks as if I share most of your likes and dislikes, except that I think hippes are mostly harmless good guys, if rather misguided on the issue of drugs. Peace and free love are better ideas than repressive Christian "family values" and spreading the word of Jesus through war anyway.

The secular ethics page actually looks pretty good as it stands. What did you have in mind? What do you see as its shortcomings? -Neural 16:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the hippie stuff is just 'cause it gets kind of tiresome since it's full of them where I study and sometimes you want to have a serious non-stoner conversation, but I do agree with you on the right-wing-christian part. Regarding the secular ethics page, my personal issues with it are that the tenets are kind of bland, Nietzsche's section is nothing more than a list of books he wrote. Plus there's the to-do list on that page that list a few other things. However, it has already brought me satisfaction since it's the first outside confirmation I got that says the page it's at least decent. I guess only time can help it now. Anyway, welcome to the project, if you need any help with another article you can drop me a note as well =). Starghost (talk | contribs) 16:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proselytism

Hi. I was going down your page when I came across something in your personal dislikes; The "big three" Abrahamic world religions - Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, especially all forms of religious fundamentalism. Absolutely nothing wrong with that, I quite often feel that way myself, but then I saw: The constant proselytising of the above. Proselytism is - although I find a lot of things about religion annoying - probably the most annoying thing for me, and I just wanted to note that Judaism does not Proselytize. Quoted from the article: Some religions such as Islam share the Christian belief that they should convert people. Others such as Judaism do not, though they will accept converts (traditionally after discouraging the one who wishes to convert; See Ger tzedek). I mean no disrespect (please, by all means delete this if you find it at all offensive), I just felt I should point that out. :) 82.27.19.57 21:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct of course. This is a case of sloppy wording on my part. I've now corrected this. No offense taken whatsoever. -Neural 22:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the name of.....

Hi Neural. Looking forward to getting Dawkins book. I've featured it on my religious discussion blog and hope that's ok. Came across this today and some facts there took my breath away. Thought you might be interested in seeing it if you haven't already. All best. Oh BTW I think PH's writing is adopting a more religious bent by the day and is attracting comments like this eek! Miamomimi 17:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you enjoy the book! I hope to pop by your blog soon and have a look around. I noticed the invite when I looked at the history - thanks; I'll take you up on it. As for the other point... more and more I get the impression that PH is either flirting with lunacy or that he is cynically allying himself with religion because religion tends to reinforce certain Right wing views he is overly fond of. -Neural 14:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Atheism

Hello Neural. I don't mean to be rude, but I'm curious. What's the difference between weak and strong atheism? Nontheism and atheism? M&NCenarius 04:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You seem polite enough to me. Technically, weak atheism is the lack of any theistic belief. Strong atheism, is when you actively disbelive. It is mostly a technical difference; the difference between saying "I have no belief in God" and saying "I believe there is no God". Weak atheism is the less dogmatic version, basically. Both both weak and strong atheists have rejected any belief in God that they may have once had. Agnosticism, meanwhile, is having no opinion on the subject or viewing the subject as permanently unresolvable. Presumably, though, agnostics are still non-believers, or they would call themselves unsure deists or confused theists. -Neural 14:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are buddhists (which I am) considered atheists? They don't believe in a deity. M&NCenarius 00:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhists who don't believe in any gods are indeed atheists. Buddhism is far more sophisticated than other religions, most of which a childlike belief-systems. There's an argument that it isn't a religion at all, but a philosophy, aimed at eliminating suffering and moving towards enlightenment. I'm not a buddhist, but I respect buddhism a lot. -Neural 14:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]