Talk:Earthland
From RationalWikiWiki
Contents |
[edit] Abortion war debate
This is why EL is successfully turning Rational Wiki into Abortion Debate Wiki.Bob Soles (talk) 15:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
A word about that (and the flamewars) should be appropriate.
--Kaka 16:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- Make it so. weaseLICIOuS Bite Me 01:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
What is the penalty for removing that offensive "concern troll" label? (If I do it myself...)?
And why is one's sexuality that important to even mention it? Why not anything else from the "191 facts", for example?
RWW is a ridiculous project.
Btw, "school" can also mean university.
--Earthland 12:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- RWW exists to ridicule RationalWiki, Earthland. Ergo, making fun of you for taking a staunch pro-life stance is right up its alley. I do, however, agree that your sexuality shouldn't be a focal point here. I also think that labeling you as a "concern troll" is harsh, but that it was put in with a sense of humor. Everybody from RationalWiki takes their licks here, however, and learn to take them with the humor for which they were intended. One needs only look at some of the other scornful articles here to draw similar conclusions. As far as the homosexual point (which I agree is irrelevant), what do you suggest we put in its place? MNpunkboy 16:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- It's not a focal point, but it's no more or less irrelevant than anything else here, like users' gender or location. Most of the RW editors who have identified as gay/lesbian/bisexual are noted as such in their RWW article (usually only in the info box). Things that editors reveal about their real world existence, including sexuality, job, age, nationality, religion, hobbies, etc., tend to say as much about them as their online behaviour does. I see no reason for this info to be removed. weaseLICIOuS Bite Me 18:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Ok.... But why do you need to take a stance on abortion? "restrict women's reproductive freedom" is far worse than "pro-life". I am not telling you that we should restrict reproductive freedom. I'm telling that reproduction takes place at fertilization and therefore, abortion has little to do with reproductive freedom (of course you can say that women should be free to control their reproductive lives or whatever, but few people would agree with that). Therefore... this edit is factually incorrect. --Earthland 19:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- Shut up. Keep your concern trollery where it belongs, over at the other site. RationalwikiwikiUndergroundResistor 22:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- I asked a reasonable question. Be polite. (Or fuck off.) --Earthland 08:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
[edit] OK
"women's reproductive freedom" covers more rights than the so-called "right" to abortion. I am only talking about abortion. Therefore, the opening sentence of the article is factually incorrect because it gives false impression. I'm so unhappy about it. --Earthland 13:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for your input. RationalwikiwikiUndergroundResistor 14:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
[edit] I insist what
I do not insist that there has been a "noticable lack of serious discussion" any more, although it is still true. There could be even ten archives and still no serious discussion. --Earthland 14:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
[edit] More mistakes
The article doesn't explain why my essay is "controversy", whatever you mean by that. Furthermore, it doesn't mention the outcome of the "debate" Irrational started. It gives impression that my permanent block was considered seriously, but that would be a joke of the year. Rationalwikiwiki, if you want to pursue a career in the comedy business, don't... --Earthland 21:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
[edit] It's still funny that
...the reference to my age (17) says that I'm "damned 16". --Earthland 19:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
[edit] I actually
explained why I think RW is like a conservapedia. It was not "because you disagree with me". You can't write even one sentence without a mistake. --Earthland 17:44, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
