|
appropriatemetaphor posted:I like how the liberal lets go of "both" ends. Isn't it assumed that one end is already let go of? Or is the conservative actually holding both ends of the 50 foot rope, thus creating a 25 foot loop. Meaning when the drowning man pulls a 50 foot rope out of the ether he'll still drown. I think what they were saying was that the liberal throws the whole rope, giving the person who needs something more than they need but in such a way that it is completely ineffective and useless to them.
|
| # ? May 17, 2011 03:14 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2013 11:35 |
|
|
duck monster posted:Lensky in that was amazingly patient in the scheme of things. My first reaction would have been a sharp short "Dear sir, Get hosed looney! Sincerely yours". For all of shafly's indignation, he really was treated quite well by the good doctor. Granted he does engage in a little bit of owneage in the second letter. Lensky is an awesome human being in person as well, I've never seen someone so smart be so unassuming.
|
| # ? May 17, 2011 03:24 |
|
|
Fire posted:I think what they were saying was that the liberal throws the whole rope, giving the person who needs something more than they need but in such a way that it is completely ineffective and useless to them. Yeah I know what it's *supposed* to mean, but drowning is really terrible analogy.
|
| # ? May 17, 2011 03:32 |
|
|
Black Griffon posted:What the hell I don't even This just makes conservatives and liberals each equally look like dickheads
|
| # ? May 17, 2011 03:47 |
|
|
You guys are poking fun at their ridiculous attacks on "liberal" topics, but there is just as much fun to be had by reading their absurdly masturbatory articles on conservative heroes like Ronald Reagan. It's funny to note that they are always quick to point out all the juicy details of liberal sex scandals, multiple marriages/divorces, etc, but they leave out that stuff when writing articles on conservative celebrities. Rush Limbaugh's article paints him as being pro-family values, while not mentioning his many marriages. Also, I love how the first sentence of an article almost alway contains an attack on some perceived liberal idea before the topic is actually defined. For example, the Women in Combat article: quote:Women in combat are not only less effective than men, but they reduce the effectiveness of the men they serve with. This has been proven in Poland and in Israel. appropriatemetaphor posted:Yeah I know what it's *supposed* to mean, but drowning is really terrible analogy. It's a joke based on stereotypes, don't analyze it so much. I actually found it somewhat funny.
|
| # ? May 17, 2011 04:25 |
|
|
I wanted to find out what these guys thought of the actual teachings of this Jesus guy they claim to love so much, so I went and looked up their article on the Sermon on the Mount, the longest and most important report of how he apparently hoped his followers would behave. Two short paragraphs, about a hundred words, no commentary. Wow. Not really surprising, though, I guess. It does contain some rather ... you know, liberal ideas. Quick, get back to the Old Testament and all the juicy stuff about how angry God gets when gay men do gay things to each gay other gay gay gay! Stuff that matters, not all this wishy-washy give-everything-you-own-to-the-poor nonsense.
|
| # ? May 17, 2011 12:16 |
|
|
Have you guys seen their article on the Confederate States of America? It's surprisingly balanced and doesn't try to avoid the slave issue. Conservapedia posted:The main reason for secession was to preserve slavery--but all the slaves were emancipated with no compensation to the owners.
|
| # ? May 17, 2011 15:17 |
|
|
Deuce posted:You speak crazy fluently! Where did you learn? A second carrier has just hit The Overmind.
|
| # ? May 17, 2011 17:04 |
|
|
jojoinnit posted:Have you guys seen their article on the Confederate States of America? That's because the guy running the website would have no qualms with slavery today.
|
| # ? May 17, 2011 17:12 |
|
|
jojoinnit posted:Have you guys seen their article on the Confederate States of America? Conservapedia posted:The main reason for secession was to preserve slavery--but all the slaves were emancipated with no compensation to the owners. I like this interesting tidbit because: Conservapedia posted:Reparations are payments required of the nations who have lost a war to the nations who won, for damages caused by the nations who lost. Large reparations have sometimes caused extensive economic damage to the countries that have to pay them: for example, after the First World War the Treaty of Versailles obliged Germany to pay enormous reparations to France and the other allied nations. This compounded the already heavy costs associated with the war itself and thereby contributed significantly to the rampant inflation that afflicted the country during the 1920s and 1930s. Mr. D Bewildering fucked around with this message at May 17, 2011 around 17:36 |
| # ? May 17, 2011 17:33 |
|
|
Just for shiggles, I totaled up the word count from these two articles: Ronald Reagan: 13,668 The Sermon on the Mount: 118 That my friends pretty much sums up modern American Conservatism.
|
| # ? May 17, 2011 18:01 |
|
|
Strange, yesterday I could still access the page and now it's blocked. I didn't do anything 
|
| # ? May 17, 2011 18:11 |
|
|
IM_DA_DECIDER posted:Strange, yesterday I could still access the page and now it's blocked. I didn't do anything Conservapedia basically bans whole blocks of IPs if they contain "known liberal antagonists" or whatever the hell wording they use. I think there are entire states that can't browse the site because Schlafly got a bug up his butt about college kids or urban liberals or rap music or whatever scares conservatives these days.
|
| # ? May 17, 2011 18:21 |
|
|
Not that I'm complaining but it might be a tad more illuminating to talk about the conservative bias of the actual Wikipedia, since it's marginally more subtle and the website is basic the world's go-to resource for information these days.
|
| # ? May 17, 2011 18:25 |
|
|
CellBlock posted:Conservapedia basically bans whole blocks of IPs if they contain "known liberal antagonists" or whatever the hell wording they use. Yeah I'm the UK and can't access the site. Maybe he's blocked all non-American IPs?
|
| # ? May 17, 2011 18:56 |
|
|
Most of the world is banned, there was some talk about it upthread. (I'm in the UK too.)
|
| # ? May 17, 2011 19:31 |
|
|
WTBCzero posted:Yeah I'm the UK and can't access the site. Maybe he's blocked all non-American IPs? Accessing it just fine from Sardinia.
|
| # ? May 17, 2011 19:33 |
|
|
Wouldn't surprise me if he's blocked anyone who hits the site from an SA referral.
|
| # ? May 17, 2011 19:47 |
|
|
I can still view it in Southern Ontario. Maybe he is going easy on Canada because we just elected a conservative government. That has to be the only reason that a drat dirty socialist like me hasn't been blocked yet.
|
| # ? May 17, 2011 20:05 |
|
|
I can view it freely in Seattle - land of liberals and gays.
|
| # ? May 17, 2011 20:18 |
|
|
Unzip and Attack posted:Just for shiggles, I totaled up the word count from these two articles: I keep waiting for someone as crazy as Schlafly to make a competing conservative wiki so I can watch them duke it out with each other, accusing each other side of being liberal or nazis or whatever.
|
| # ? May 17, 2011 21:02 |
|
|
raezr posted:This seems pretty natural and reasonable? I'd expect a site about conservativism to have a ton of info about Reagan, and more information about biblical events is pretty much the last thing that conservapedia needs. I very much disagree - given that a vast majority of self-identified Conservatives base their values on Christianity and openly call for it to be integrated into government, it says a lot that Reagan has a section that is 130 times larger than the foundational text of Christianity. When you consider how much this site attacks atheism, Islam, and any other world view that isn't overtly Christian, it's doubly insane. This isn't some group that advocates a division between religious and political doctrine - they just don't like that their politics most often don't gel with the scriptures they are supposedly based upon, and it shows.
|
| # ? May 17, 2011 21:07 |
|
|
Unzip and Attack posted:I very much disagree - given that a vast majority of self-identified Conservatives base their values on Christianity and openly call for it to be integrated into government, it says a lot that Reagan has a section that is 130 times larger than the foundational text of Christianity. When you consider how much this site attacks atheism, Islam, and any other world view that isn't overtly Christian, it's doubly insane. This isn't some group that advocates a division between religious and political doctrine - they just don't like that their politics most often don't gel with the scriptures they are supposedly based upon, and it shows.
|
| # ? May 17, 2011 21:16 |
|
|
The sermon on the mount probably has less words because schlafly thinks it's "liberal claptrap" as he puts it, but isn't willing to lose every last one of his lackeys. I mean he removed the section of "he who is without sin" and "forgive them father, for they know not what they do", because Jesus was pro capital punishment or something. http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:C...rst_instance.3F http://conservapedia.com/Essay:Adulteress_Story
|
| # ? May 17, 2011 21:28 |
|
|
HappyHippo posted:In the same vein as the Atheism and obesity page (but even worse): Mystery: Young Hollywood Breast Cancer Victims. Particularly fun is the talk page wherein Aschlafly tries to defend his nonsense. Stalingrad posted:I mean he removed the section of "he who is without sin" and "forgive them father, for they know not what they do", because Jesus was pro capital punishment or something.  Isn't Schlafly Catholic? Has he talked to his local pastor or anyone about his reasoning for rewriting the bible, especially extremely critical lines like this?
tankadillo fucked around with this message at May 17, 2011 around 21:45 |
| # ? May 17, 2011 21:39 |
|
|
Stalingrad posted:http://conservapedia.com/Essay:Adulteress_Story This is an even better example of what I am talking about. The author of this "essay" does mental back-flips in order to justify both capital punishment and reserving the right to judge people, both of which run contrary not only to this passage, but the gospel message as a whole (love thy enemy, forgive 7 times 70 times,turn the other cheek, etc). That politically motivated diatribe is probably 20 times longer than the page detailing what Christianity, at its core, stands for. I mean, the guy actually says that the passage doesn't belong because it doesn't match the other part of John "stylistically".  As a bonus, this nit-picky, selective reading of a supposed holy text just shows how ridiculous the idea of a holy text really is. Yet these people are totally ok with simply omitting portions of their own divinely inspired Word of God in order to justify what Jesus himself preached against. These people have no shame. Unzip and Attack fucked around with this message at May 17, 2011 around 21:51 |
| # ? May 17, 2011 21:42 |
|
|
raezr posted:Just noticed this one. What exactly is he trying to say here? What's his point? I like how on the talk page Schlafly says how he just "observes facts ourselves and let the readers draw conclusions," but I have no idea what conclusion I'm supposed to draw other than "there were about ten female actors and singers who got breast cancer in their 30s." I guess I'm supposed to deduce that being a "hollywood" person, AKA a liberal, is the cause? The whole thing is just such a weird topic, I have to guess that Schlafly just opened up some gossip magazine once and noticed so-and-so got cancer and suddenly his conspiracy sense started tingling. It's because Hollywood types are godless liberals and he is obsessed with their suffering. quote:Personal health is generally kept confidential, and there are financial reasons for one not to publicize his or her health problems. The disclosure can cause a loss in jobs or income. This is particularly true for Hollywood stars who rely on attractiveness and sex appeal. Michael J. Fox, for example, understandably kept his Parkinson's disease confidential for as long as he could. I will bet you five hundred million space bucks that they won't make a peep about the fact that RONALD WILSON REAGAN also hid his Alzheimer's disease from the world. Only instead of having a worthless job without any real responsibilities like a folk singer or talk show host, he had nuke buttons. Anyone mentioning this will probably be banned in seconds. Snoggle fucked around with this message at May 17, 2011 around 22:17 |
| # ? May 17, 2011 22:12 |
|
|
Stalingrad posted:The sermon on the mount probably has less words because schlafly thinks it's "liberal claptrap" as he puts it, but isn't willing to lose every last one of his lackeys. Oh god this line just says it all. quote:LK, perhaps you've been misled by liberals. Jesus talked more about Hell than about Heaven. Repentance is a prerequisite to forgiveness. The Bible is crystal clear about this.--Andy Schlafly 20:01, 18 November 2010 (EST)
|
| # ? May 17, 2011 23:14 |
|
|
From that talk page:Andy Schlafly posted:The quoted phrase is false: many of Jesus's persecutors knew what they were doing. This man has the sophistication of a child.
|
| # ? May 18, 2011 01:27 |
|
|
Wheeee posted:From that talk page: A supposed Catholic is saying that he knows better than Jesus. Isn't that grounds for excommunication or something? Or at least denial of Communion?
|
| # ? May 18, 2011 14:43 |
|
|
Schlafly once had a large argument with a fellow admin entirely over what schlafly believed the pope meant, in contrast to what the vatican translated him as saying. Rationalwiki found a googlecache of it after an Admin deleted it all. http://rationalwiki.org/w/images/8/...EvolutionCP.png I would like to point out...that the other person he's arguing with (philip J rayment), runs his own conservative christian alternative to wikipedia and is also a ridiculously poor debater, but here he seems positively rational in contrast to Schlafly.
|
| # ? May 18, 2011 14:59 |
|
|
He is catholic? What the hell? Isn't it usually the protestants who are all about taking the bible entirely literally thus meaning the earth is 6000 years old and people lived with dinosaurs and evolution is false claptrap? I thought at least on this the catholics were slightly more sane. Ofcourse they make up for it by claiming AIDS goes through condoms.
|
| # ? May 18, 2011 15:52 |
|
|
jojoinnit posted:Have you guys seen their article on the Confederate States of America? Probably because Lincoln was a Republican. Conservatives love to point out that the Democrats used to be the pro-slavery party.
|
| # ? May 18, 2011 16:07 |
|
|
Woozy posted:Not that I'm complaining but it might be a tad more illuminating to talk about the conservative bias of the actual Wikipedia, since it's marginally more subtle and the website is basic the world's go-to resource for information these days. I'm sure it would be, but why don't you start us off? Other than Jimbo having a hissy fit about Cuba, what examples of conservative bias are there on Wikipedia?
|
| # ? May 18, 2011 17:00 |
|
|
Weirdest one is definitely Schlaflys belief that American english is more "economical" because it uses less letters in some words. http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:A...fense.2Fdefence Yes, even American English is more fiscally conservative than that socialist nonsense they speak in other countries.
|
| # ? May 18, 2011 17:18 |
|
|
Stalingrad posted:The sermon on the mount probably has less words because schlafly thinks it's "liberal claptrap" as he puts it, but isn't willing to lose every last one of his lackeys.
|
| # ? May 18, 2011 17:24 |
|
|
Riidi WW posted:but, schlafly is right in that this story is not thought to be authentically from the earliest texts. i didn't bother to read his whole essay about it but... Do you really think Schlafly takes that gay-communist "historical biblical scholarship" crap seriously? Not only that, but Schlafly sounds like he doesn't even grasp what that sentence is supposed to mean, in a literal way. If you take that quote as authentic, it probably refers to how the people killing Jesus did not understand that what they were doing was being done to the son of God, as for Schlafly, he seems to think it's supposed to mean "this quote is suggesting that they literally didn't realize they were killing someone."
|
| # ? May 18, 2011 17:47 |
|
|
Riidi WW posted:but, schlafly is right in that this story is not thought to be authentically from the earliest texts. i didn't bother to read his whole essay about it but... I went to a private Christian university and one of my profs was a very accomplished translator and expert in Koine Greek (what the New Testament was written in). Anyway, I have talked to him about this subject many times and he thinks that those advocating for removal of that portion of John are doing so for their own purposes, and that there is no real reason to doubt its authenticity. This is a guy who has been invited to Qumran on multiple occasions to translate new findings, so while he isn't perfect, he's someone I know and trust on the subject.
|
| # ? May 18, 2011 17:49 |
|
|
Stalingrad posted:Weirdest one is definitely Schlaflys belief that American english is more "economical" because it uses less letters in some words. According to this logic, isn't Chinese or really any language that uses a single symbol for a word the "best" language?
|
| # ? May 18, 2011 18:03 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2013 11:35 |
|
|
PsychoInternetHawk posted:According to this logic, isn't Chinese or really any language that uses a single symbol for a word the "best" language? I think you'll find that Chinese is communist and has a form of writing that shows its lack of freedom mister!
|
| # ? May 18, 2011 18:19 |
|
