User talk:Steel

Click here to leave a new message

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)

Archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Spaghetti, and Monsters.

Hello, dear fellow.

I'm afraid I think you, sir, are not grasping the implications and arguments claimed by Pastafarians. I am very aware, I assure you, that reductio ad absurdum does not use absurdities to make a point (this being an appeal to ridicule), but that is not my aim. And, lest you assume, I am not one of these fellows to adamanly assert the FSM's existence. I will make no claims as to His veracity, so just follow me here.

The premise of reductio ad absurdum is, as you said, a sort of 'hijacking' of arguments used by the opposition to reach a certain end. When the argument is left incomplete, you get your standard "Hitler liked art, so art must be bad." But when complete, you get the same argumentative set leading to a conclusion that either makes no sense, or makes so little sense that its inherent ridiculous quality is realized.

This is the case with the FSM. Pastafarians use many arguments used by creationists to demonstrate an inherent faith that must be required to make the statements, in effect reducing the statements to subjective determinations and making them useless for use in a classroom. The Omphalos hypothesis is one example; Henderson said that, like God, the FSM created the fossils, earth strata, mid-route light from stars, carbon-dating readings, etc. to point out the baseless statements made by creationist opponents. The association between pirates and global temperature mocks experiments in which ID advocates have claimed to find causational prohibitions to certain events, without accounting for various other influences that may or may not have been deliberately ignored (take into account the fallacy of specified complex information).

Essentially, the arguments for the FSM are a sample of arguments otherwise used for God. The whole point here is to demonstrate that many ID claims are without foundation.

And, if you don't mind, discuss the change in the FSM discussion board, not on my Talk page. That will permit the input of other users, and will help create a consensus opinion. Until you discuss it, the statement concerning a reductio ad absurdum will remain on the page.

Regards, EarthRise33 00:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The ground is there, but you seem to not want to stand on it. The contradiction lies in the fact that an alternate god, besides the Christian-Judeo one, was supported in the 'logical' arguments. Indeed, any creator can be substituted into the equation with these declarations; the FSM was the most absurd example Bobby Henderson wanted to pull. It does have to do with the topic at hand, but if you wish to feign ignorance at everything I say, I can't really help that.

Here is the topic at hand: FSM is a reductio ad absurdum. Here is your claim: FSM does not actually assume the same position to reach a contradictory conclusion. Here is my assertion: FSM does assume this position, and pulls off statements, from the same reasoning, that support something completely separate from what was intended.

'Original research' is not so original when the conclusion is apparent. The FSM fits into the mold of a r.a.a. argument. Try a quick Google search if you must, but the glove fits.

And stop changing the article without discussing the change on the discussion board! You have no right to modification unless a consensus on the change has been reached. Otherwise, reversions will be repeated ad infinitum, until you are banned for not following wikipedia policy. -EarthRise33 16:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

One: There are few sources when conclusions can be derived easily and logically. The relationship between the FSM and a reductio ad absurdum is apparent; when such is the case, there is little need to reassert it.

Two: You seem to forget that you are the one disputing content that is already present. The burden of this argument rests on your shoulders, not mine.

Three: Aye, no previous discussion to remove a piece of information already present. When removing a significant point, discussion is warranted. This is why you must provide reasoning and reach a consensus.

Four: I beg your pardon? Petty threats? I am making references to past occurrences, whereby users have removed content consistently with little reasoning and, as such, been removed from the community. I have no incentive to ban you. On the contrary, I'd prefer you actually get a common agreement before acting on that which is already established.

Good day. -EarthRise33 20:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey,

Listen, I'm apologize for the way I acted. It wasn't very dignified a treatment, I recognize. As way of explanation, TMLutas above you had gotten my blood pressure up rather high, so I was slightly twitchy at any other suggestions.

Sorry about being an ass. -EarthRise33 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 01:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi Steel, thanks for looking into the issues I brought up at ANI, and just wanted to let you know that I've replied further at that page. R. Baley 19:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

SotC

Theres a refference and fine, no bullet points but if that mentioned piece must go then wouldn't the film refference also have to go? It seems to be the same piece of info. I can see your concern but I doubt it will become a trivia section, those 2 are probably the only ones the game is going to get. Stabby Joe 15:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I suppose so, but you'll have to check back and post in the disscussion considering other people will want to include anything new. Stabby Joe 17:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't what