|
kissekatt posted:The point you are missing is that E=mc^2 does not mesh with m=Ec^2, it should be m=E/c^2. I think the real question is this: who the gently caress eats a pound of cake? It's all I can think about. Well, that and the fact that the word "jibe" exists and is available for use just in case anyone wanted to use it for anything.
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2012 17:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 18:14 |
|
|
kissekatt posted:The point you are missing is that E=mc^2 does not mesh with m=Ec^2, it should be m=E/c^2. How about we just split the difference and say that E=m? 
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2012 18:11
|
|
|
kissekatt posted:The point you are missing is that E=mc^2 does not mesh with m=Ec^2, it should be m=E/c^2. That isn't even what he's saying. He's saying adding 1 to m increases the value of E by c^2, and he can't fathom how a pound (well, it should be kg) of cake could contain that much energy. It's still really stupid bit he isn't just swapping variables or saying that eating a cake should turn you into superman.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2012 18:37
|
|
|
I hate to interrupt physicschat but I have a feeling Conservative is losing it. Before I get to that, a discussion about taxes came up:quote:See, most of us understand that the reason the rich pay more taxes than a lot of people is that stuff needs to be done and the rich can afford to pay for it. Or are you seriously endorsing taking money from people at or below the poverty line? Perhaps instead of simply saying how much of the tax the rich supply, you should also mention the specific amount they pay as opposed to how much they can afford. (For instance, 50 percent of the Gate's fortune is going to cover a heck of a lot more than fifty percent of a construction worker's income). KomatsuToriko 20:35, 24 April 2012 (EDT) Just forget about ARE TROOPS, infrastructure, education and health care, right? quote:Did you even read the link you posted? The conditions you speak of are true for the richer citizens living in the urban areas such as Nassau. However, the poorer islanders live in situations that would not be considered living comfortably, which amneties lacking. Again, you are talking about a polar world where the rich are rich enough to make it look like an overall healthy place and covering up the poor. The poverty rate is again up to 9 percent as of 2004. Again, this is an example of a very divided nation in terms of economic status. Your mined quotes don't provide for the totality of the situation. And quite frankly, I wouldn't trust your knowledge of those on welfare, considering the knowledge you have displayed on other subjects (hint: being overweight is a sign of poverty, as the food that is cheapest and easiest to get in the United States is high in fat). KomatsuToriko 21:43, 24 April 2012 (EDT) Now it gets good. Behold, the word of the lord: quote:Beans, rice and vegetables are inexpensive and exercise is free. Nobody forces overweight people on welfare to sit in front of their tax payer payed cable television programs and eat fatty foods! Given your posting above though, I can see you have a political lottery mentality and are hoping to strike it big with heavy taxes on the incomes of Bill Gates and others. I suggest getting out of bed earlier instead because judging the size of America's debt, the austerity budgets that are happening in Europe are coming to America! Weep and wail liberal, there will be no economic free lunches for you! Conservative 22:00, 24 April 2012 (EDT)  Enjoy your beans and rice, fat atheist liberal nerd.Lately Conservative has been talking like a dom/sub forums user and has been referring to himself as I/we or my/our in his rants. I think he's hearing voices quote:Since Obama’s election, more people are choosing to leave the country. Last year, a record number renounced their citizenship."[19] Lastly, no true skeptic knows if User: Conservative is a male or female or a collective! Conservative 22:38, 24 April 2012 (EDT)
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2012 18:48
|
|
|
Does Andy just leave Conservative to his own devices? I know they share a lot of weird delusions, but it's going to be harder and harder to ignore him as he gets more out there.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2012 19:01
|
|
|
mintskoal posted:Lately Conservative has been talking like a dom/sub forums user and has been referring to himself as I/we or my/our in his rants. I think he's hearing voices Okay, which one of you motherfuckers is actually Conservative? Own up, people.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2012 19:02
|
|
|
mintskoal's quote posted:being overweight is a sign of poverty, as the food that is cheapest and easiest to get in the United States is high in fat Ergo, most liberal atheists, in addition to being fat, are poor. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2012 19:21
|
|
|
My high school physics teacher was called David Edwards, and he was awesome. I hope he hasn't got crazy old man disease 
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2012 21:10
|
|
|
It'd be hilarious if someone called Conservative out on the Bahamas thing by using his own logic against him. "So, wait a minute, are you saying that the Bahamas is better than the US? That sounds like liberal thinking to me..."
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2012 03:52
|
|
|
C.C.C.P. posted:It'd be hilarious if someone called Conservative out on the Bahamas thing by using his own logic against him. "So, wait a minute, are you saying that the Bahamas is better than the US? That sounds like liberal thinking to me..." "The Bahamas are better than what the Liberals have done to our once great nation, clearly you should just move there instead of trying to make America the best once again, I/We/It feel/feels."
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2012 04:25
|
|
|
quote:Lastly, no true skeptic knows if User: Conservative is a male or female or a collective! Not that I think this the case, but if Conservative were a collective, that'd make the trolling theory a bit more reasonable. Barring mental illness, nobody is serious enough about trolling such a small group of people as to put in the endless hours that Conservative does contributing to CP. But I suppose theoretically a collective of some 20+ people, working in shifts, might be persuaded to put in a few hours each per week writing endless variants of the same jokes. Still really a stretch, but setting aside the "very well organised troll shiftwork" theory, the only other possibility is that Conservative is dead serious. And if he is, I again submit there is something genuinely mentally wrong with him.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2012 05:17
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:I think a good troll, if you have some microbiology background, would be to argue against the distinction between archaea and bacteria. That would totally jive with their worldview. Eh? I've been following this thread on-and-off and maybe some of the horrible thing from the Free Republic, Idiots on Facebook and Politoons thread blend in my head, but I can't remember this particular difference being important to the conservative mindset? Is there something important between archaea and bacteria? In the context of evolution, maybe?
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2012 07:06
|
|
|
toanoradian posted:Eh? I've been following this thread on-and-off and maybe some of the horrible thing from the Free Republic, Idiots on Facebook and Politoons thread blend in my head, but I can't remember this particular difference being important to the conservative mindset? Is there something important between archaea and bacteria? In the context of evolution, maybe? There isn't anything specifically about archaea and bacteria (or e=mc2 or anything they're obsessed about), really, to the casual observer. However, it'd be met with adulation on Conservapedia. It all stems from the following: 1) A need to politicize ANY topic. If you have a strict, black/white worldview then, by definition, EVERYTHING has to be on "a side"; a thing is either conservative, or it is liberal either by virtue of being liberal or, as is more often the case, by virtue of being deemed "not conservative". 2) Rampant anti-intellectualism (mixed with the above i.e. "anything my enemies are for, I'm against"). "Colleges = liberal therefor professors = liberal therefor anything professors say = liberal so open your mind to the fact that sub-atomic particles may be liberal propaganda since professors believe in them, etc." and most importantly 3) Conservapedia is an echo chamber with people vying to be the most conservative person there. It's a bit like the Republican primaries, really, in that people feel the need to prove their conservative credentials and how they're more conservative than everyone else. This turns into a downward spiral of insanity, much like the Republican primaries. Unlike the primaries, however, conservapedia never "ends" and never finds everyone scrambling back towards the center. It just gets worse and worse. First, you start with conservative tropes like "abortion is evil" and "gays are evil". How do you out-conservative that, so as to stand out in the crowd and get Assfly's approval? By saying that public education is evil or that British spellings (theatre, favour) are liberal and evil. You get your kudos for coming up with that, but you set yourself up for someone coming along and upstaging you. Eventually, you reach peak insanity. Suddenly, General Relativity is a hoax, vaccines are full of liberal mind control bots, sub-atomic particles are liberal hoaxes, all atheists are fat limp-wristed queers, etc. In that mindset, "ARCHAEA AND BACTERIA: SEPARATE DOMAINS OR LIBERAL HOAX???" is actually the PERFECT troll because it's just inane and stupid enough to pass for real, politicizes something no one else has touched yet, is ragingly anti-intellectual and will no doubt score you points with Conservative/Andy. Seriously. Someone needs to get on this ASAP.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2012 07:26
|
|
|
Let me try, I think I've been reading this thread long enough to get the gist of what they want: Archaea and Bacteria form the same baramin, descended from the original infected pustule on Noah's rear end that brought all microorganisms through the flood. It is liberal propaganda to suggest that archaea are in any way different from bacteria. You scientists trust on faith that  DNA or cell membranes really exist, unless you've actually seen it with your eyes (microscopes don't count, they are Satanic illusion machines).
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2012 07:52
|
|
|
TapTheForwardAssist posted:Still really a stretch, but setting aside the "very well organised troll shiftwork" theory, the only other possibility is that Conservative is dead serious. And if he is, I again submit there is something genuinely mentally wrong with him. There are plenty of possibilities, not least of which is that setting up the idea that there may be more than one person contributing under the "Conservative" moniker now means that he has a potential "overzealous staffer" argument up his sleeve for later on should he need to backtrack on something. Even chronic bullshitters start to notice the bullshit if they've spewed so much that it's reaching the top of their wellies. He's just shopping around for some waders.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2012 12:27
|
|
|
Perfectly Safe posted:There are plenty of possibilities, not least of which is that setting up the idea that there may be more than one person contributing under the "Conservative" moniker now means that he has a potential "overzealous staffer" argument up his sleeve for later on should he need to backtrack on something. Eh, I think he just thinks he's honestly pulling a fast one on liberals and infuriating them by being "mysterious". Full stop. This guy is either extremely stupid or mentally ill and I think attributing any motivation to him beyond "make dumb liberal fatties mad" is giving him entirely too much credit. Conservative clearly suffers from the same sort of thing that O'Keefe, Limbaugh, and other rightwing blowhards do: they always start from the default assumption that they are the smartest motherfuckers in the room and then move forward from there regardless of if they ARE the smartest motherfucker in the room (hint: they usually aren't!) which leads to hilarious stuff like this when the poo poo they do is so goddamn DUMB that a 5 year old could see through it. Seriously. Everyone - Conservapedians, Rational Wikiers and everyone in between - knows that Conservative is Ken DeMeyer, mid 40's white dude. Most people are "extremely convinced" that he's ShockOfGod, too, since he is very, very bad at hiding it. I mean, the thing I said about him assuming he's the smartest motherfucker is basically a truism: the guy spends literally every waking minute (and also minutes he should be sleeping; see his marathon editing sessions) online bashing liberals, atheists, feminists, Democrats and everyone else on his "enemies list" as being big dumb stupid fatties or ruling his internet fiefdom (more like fiefDUMB) with an ironfist. Here is a guy that thinks, as his ShockOfGod persona, that he has disproved evolution and objectively proved Christianity - something no Biblical scholar in history has been able to do. He thinks he is leaps and bounds smarter than Dawkins, Myers, most college professors, etc. In his own mind, he is the smartest, the most conservative, the most macho, etc. In reality, he is either breathtakingly stupid or mentally ill (or both!), yet extremely self-assured and confident in himself, so of course he's going to be dumb enough to think that WE'RE dumb enough to fall for his extremely childish ruses. I'm sure he sees himself as a Limbaugh/Coulter/etc. type figure that just makes liberals FURIOUSLY MAD, but in reality, he is just so goddamned DUMB that the only reaction he gets from 99+% of "liberals" is either bemusement when the dumb conservative man says dumb conservative things or discomfort when the clearly mentally ill man says extremely crazy, disjointed things (depending on which camp you fall into; I find myself increasingly in the "discomfort" camp).
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2012 15:34
|
|
|
mintskoal posted:Someone suggested that Conservapedia put up an article about a study done by some Australian university that states "Physically strong men are more likely to hold right wing political views because they believe society should be geared to personal struggle and self-preservation, an academic study claims." Its a bit rude to say, but I have no doubt the person who wrote that is probably sexually frustrated and underequipped. Petty, yes, but so very true. quote:The United States operated fine when it had no federal income taxes. Generally speaking, when you tax something it suppresses that activity. Suppressing income generating activity is not intelligent during a time of high unemployment. The Bahamas are some of the most prosperous islands in the Caribbean and they have no income tax, no corporate tax, no capital gains tax and no wealth tax. Besides having a tourism industry, the Bahamas has a well established financial services industry. In terms of GDP per capita, the Bahamas is one of the richest countries in the Americas. Hey mon, it's time you recognized the great benefits of economic conservatism! Conservative 20:56, 24 April 2012 (EDT) Has education gotten so bad in this country that people don't even realize anymore why the labor movement came about during industrialization? These people don't even understand why income taxes were first levied. Its like, to be a conservative nowadays, especially a hard right one, one has to drop any pretense in even understanding the concept of cause and effect. TyroneGoldstein fucked around with this message at 17:05 on Apr 26, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2012 16:12
|
|
|
Lemme see if I can whip something up over the weekend or early next week. I have a background in this area so I can make a real shitfest of it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2012 17:42
|
|
|
C.C.C.P. posted:In his own mind, he is the smartest, the most conservative, the most macho, etc. In reality, he is either breathtakingly stupid or mentally ill (or both!), yet extremely self-assured and confident in himself, so of course he's going to be dumb enough to think that WE'RE dumb enough to fall for his extremely childish ruses. This has probably been posted before, but just in case: Dunning-Kruger Effect
|
|
#
?
Apr 26, 2012 23:36
|
|
|
I thought there was a great new article linked from the main page: Prominent atheists whose wives believe in the existence of God There are two names on there. Hardly seems worth it's own page. Anyways:  It's a good thing the medium hasn't grown into a massive industry that will provide jobs to thousands. I like to imagine there was a similar concern when they started Film Schools. "Our children will waste their lives, as these Film Schools attract thousands of applicant, mainly celluloid-addicted drones." jojoinnit fucked around with this message at 01:50 on May 1, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2012 01:47
|
|
|
jojoinnit posted:I thought there was a great new article linked from the main page: Prominent atheists whose wives believe in the existence of God Just wait until they find out that Charles Darwin's wife was very religious and that he spent a considerable amount of time after returning from his voyage on the Beagle on convincing her that his theories about evolution were true. jojoinnit posted:Anyways: These idiots really don't understand that all video game fans aren't interested in actually making video games, kind of like how most movie fans aren't aspiring filmmakers.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2012 02:05
|
|
|
Also on the front page:quote:Simple arithmetic predicts Obama's defeat: control of the White House by political party and term of office was 2-2-2-1 (through Jimmy Carter), and then 3-2-2-? (through today). The pattern has never alternated between the parties as a perfectly level 2-2-2-2; Obama will lose reelection to complete the inevitable 2-2-2-1 cycle. 
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2012 02:51
|
|
|
quote:Simple arithmetic predicts Obama's defeat: control of the White House by political party and term of office was 2-2-2-1 (through Jimmy Carter), and then 3-2-2-? (through today). The pattern has never alternated between the parties as a perfectly level 2-2-2-2; Obama will lose reelection to complete the inevitable 2-2-2-1 cycle. Hmm, now where have I heard anything like this befo- Gene Ray, wisest and most cubic human posted:Fraudulent ONEness of religious Ahhhhh.....
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2012 02:59
|
|
|
From "In The News"quote:An activist asks: Why are Russian troops training on American soil? Did that have anything to do with Barack Hussein Obama's "open mike" episode? Are he and the Russians planning a "Red Dawn"? [2] Hah, what?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2012 22:36
|
|
|
Fandyien posted:From "In The News" I've trained on Thai soil twice, so I guess we better get ready for Operation Thailand Freedom.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2012 00:48
|
|
|
Fandyien posted:From "In The News" WOLVERINES!
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2012 00:50
|
|
|
SO ANGRY posted:I've trained on Thai soil twice, so I guess we better get ready for Operation Thailand Freedom.  I agree with you wholeheartedly! Conservative media are absolutely correct. Clearly allowing Russians to train on US soil is a preamble to an invasion. Because, you know, it has nothing to do with building relationships between militaries or even training in an environment not commonly found in your home country. Nor does it have anything to do with developing and refining orders of battle. As for the right answer to why Russians trained on U.S. soil, I defer to you.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2012 01:28
|
|
|
quote:The publicly homosexual Richard Grenell resigns from Mitt Romney's campaign amid anger from social conservatives. Grenell declares that he resigned for "personal reasons".[2] I like how they make light of the whole "family reasons" thing when literally, within two lines of that, they refer to "personal problems". Maybe that seems petty but why the gently caress can't Conservative/Schlafly distinguish between personal and family problems? Is...is it because they've never had a friend before? [edit] For a quote on keynesian economics from the Obama page, because it's hilariously concise and represents basically the entire conservapedia analytical process: quote:Barack Obama advocates the use of Keynesian economic concepts despite the fact that John Maynard Keynes was incompetent and a fraud.[54] The citation is two wordpress things, something from the "Indepedent Women's Forums", and a crappy website whose url is the name of it's sole piece of content. [edit 2] Okay, I'm done after this, but I was stunned by how boring their page on unions was. Nobody at CP gives a poo poo about non-social political issues. quote:A labor union or trade union is an organization ostensibly formed for the purpose of collectively representing the interests of a group of workers, but in practice supportive of electing pro-abortion politicians. Only one negative line! Frog Act fucked around with this message at 02:41 on May 2, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2012 02:00
|
|
|
LuiCypher posted:As for the right answer to why Russians trained on U.S. soil, I defer to you. Mostly because the Cold War is over, the Russians aren't the Soviet Union, and we bring lots of other foreign militaries to the US to train. Hell, 3 years ago I got into a car accident with a Canadian military officer who was working at Little Creek.  Canadian Bacon for reals!?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2012 02:43
|
|
|
LuiCypher posted:As for the right answer to why Russians trained on U.S. soil, I defer to you. Once they learn the secrets of our soil, we'll be defenseless!
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2012 14:23
|
|
|
Heh I guess conservatives haven't ready any books by John Steinback because I can't find anything on him or The Grapes of Wrath.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2012 14:57
|
|
|
Orange_Lazarus posted:Heh I guess conservatives haven't ready any books by John Steinback because I can't find anything on him or The Grapes of Wrath. It helps if you spell his name right. .. oh my. Conservapedia's article on John Steinbeck posted:John Steinbeck died in New York City on December 20, 1968 of heart disease and congestive heart failure. He was 66, and had been a life-long smoker. An autopsy showed nearly complete occlusion of the main coronary arteries. At the scene of his death was found a short story involving male eroticism. It has been speculated that this sudden change in subject matter may have triggered the heart failure. I think that's vandalism (been there since February). But it's Conservapedia, so who can tell? edit: Oh my. Denying that Steinbeck was liberal? Parahexavoctal fucked around with this message at 19:53 on May 3, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2012 19:48
|
|
|
From the main page:quote:Three cheers for oil speculators and capitalism. It is impossible for an oil speculator to increase prices today without also reducing prices in the future. I, uh, are you seriously that blind to the past five years? I know, Conservapedia, but this is like claiming the sky is green.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2012 01:05
|
|
|
TinTower posted:From the main page: I have a friend who literally believes the mortgage crisis is the fault of homebuyers taking on loans they couldn't afford. Never underestimate stupidity.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2012 01:10
|
|
|
TinTower posted:From the main page: In the right context, futures contracts are extremely useful. They were originally developed for farms. They let a farmer buy the seed, tools, fertilizer, etc on credit with a definite return even in the event of the unforseen. The problem was when someone on Wall street applied this to other things.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2012 01:59
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:In the right context, futures contracts are extremely useful. They were originally developed for farms. They let a farmer buy the seed, tools, fertilizer, etc on credit with a definite return even in the event of the unforseen. Speculators may have some residual place in certain commodity markets, but to argue that they have any place left in the energy industry is insane. There's never any lack of demand for oil and oil producers never need to worry about there being no consumer requiring their product when they bring it to the market. I don't think there's any way a speculator could be said to have helped the energy market be efficient in the past 50 years. All they do is exacerbate price fluctuations now.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2012 02:10
|
|
Binowru posted:I have a friend who literally believes the mortgage crisis is the fault of homebuyers taking on loans they couldn't afford. Never underestimate stupidity. "Why were they able to get the loans?"  Listen for the synapse pop.
|
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2012 02:57
|
|
|
Loving Life Partner posted:"Why were they able to get the loans?" "Because the government forced banks to give out loans" Possible mention of the CRA if they're a slightly well-read idiot.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2012 02:59
|
|
|
Doctor Spaceman posted:Possible mention of the CRA if they're a slightly well-read idiot. Nope!
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2012 06:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 18:14 |
|
|
Ron Paul! (Kill ur parents)quote:In the May 3, 2007 GOP Debate, Ron Paul stated that as President, he would seek the immediate abolition of the IRS and the abolition of the income tax. As Congressman, he has long fought for the prohibition of direct taxes by repeal of the 16th Amendment which created the income tax. Ron Paul supports a return to the gold standard of currency particularly newer theorized pure strain gold. Wasn't "pure strain gold" created here by TolberoneTriangle to parody Ron Paul and Libertarians? Is a goon trolling Conservapedia, or did this meme take on a life of its own?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2012 04:50
|
|