|
In the SC2 single player campaign, you play Jim Raynor, a terrorist who violently resists and eventually overthrows the large Terran Federation. Since all Muslims are terrorists, and this game has the terrorists winning, clearly this game sends pro-Islamic messages.
|
#
¿
May 17, 2011 01:50
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 02:06 |
|
|
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 16:52
|
|
|
Hovind isn't funny. Dude's been a teacher for 30 years. He's denied education to (at best) or corrupted (at worst) thousands of minds over the years.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2011 21:09
|
|
|
Angry Avocado posted:How do you even measure this? Is there some kind of big, ancient spreadsheet of English words divided in a LIBERAL and CONSERVATIVE column? Yes, it's on a page of Conservapedia.* *May not be ancient, or big, or true.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2011 22:00
|
|
|
ShadowCatboy posted:And Bill O'Reilly apparently believing that the regularity of the tides proves the existence of God. Yet once it was pointed out that it was the moon that caused the tides, he called the lunar tide theorists "pinheads" and asked "well how'd the moon get there?" Holy poo poo, I can only partially believe he actually doubled down on that when he got called on it rather than just ignore it.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2011 22:25
|
|
|
Bel_Canto posted:Hell, loving St. Augustine wrote in the early 400s that anybody who privileges the literal sense of the Bible over what's plainly demonstrable by reason and science is an idiot. The Catholic Church has a whole lot wrong with it, but it's never been the kind of anti-intellectual poo poo hole that the American Evangelical movement is. Heh this reminds me of a thing a Dutch Catholic comedian said in a show a year or two back. "Protestants know the bible better. But catholics understand it better."
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2011 14:14
|
|
|
Amarkov posted:They had an episode explaining that "fag" is actually not a homophobic slur anymore because people occasionaly use it without literally meaning that the subject is gay. I mean, they're more rude about everything than is accepted in polite discourse, but the things they mock the most are entirely too correlated with mainstream acceptable targets. Also if you mock both sides this clearly means both sides are equally wrong and the truth is somewhere in the libertarian middle.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 16, 2011 03:40
|
|
|
Sarion posted:This appears to make no sense to me, basically saying that the Free Market frees slaves. Common sense would seem to argue that it's cheaper to have slaves work for you since the cost is only the most basic levels of shelter, food, and clothing. The only way hiring a free worker could be cheaper is if you're paying them less money than it would take to buy those most basic levels of shelter, food and clothing. At which point you're essentially exploiting a poor person to the point they're hardly more than a slave. But I've never been much of a fan of "common sense"; so maybe there are some facts that I'm not aware of that would actually support this claim? Or is it just total bullshit? I recommend checking out the thread on unpaid internships. Also the minimum wage qualifies for the bolded statement and a fuckton of people are exactly in that position. Not to even mention the unemployed. I didn't realize Conservapedia was so progressive as to touch on wage slavery though.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2011 15:46
|
|
|
jojoinnit posted:Huh. I'd always heard there were more Muslims now due to the secularisation of Europe. There's a ton of missionaries in sub-saharan Africa.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2011 18:31
|
|
|
Third Murderer posted:This was years ago, so I don't remember how I responded I'm afraid. This same person also thought Catholics weren't real Christians though, and I'm pretty sure if you separate "Catholics" and "Other Christians" into two different groups as he did, then Islam is indeed the most prolofic religion. If this person didn't think Catholics were real and was a Protestant, he probably didn't think very highly of Orthodox Christians either.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2011 18:37
|
|
|
jojoinnit posted:If you're cutting out orthodox sects and Catholics, then true Christians are mostly in the British Isles and north America. You're forgetting about a whole lot of Protestants there, and there's the whole Anglican Church thing to consider as well, but yeah, the numbers start dwindling fast.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 22, 2011 19:22
|
|
|
That all green flag sure is neutral. Doesn't really stand for anything significant. drat those liberals for replacing it.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2011 20:56
|
|
|
Tartarus Sauce posted:And it's atheists (and Jehovah Witnesses, interestingly) who consistently bring home the trophy in the Bible Trivia Bowl. I bet that has something to do with them having to go out and try to convert people. You can only look completely ignorant about your own beliefs so many times until you start reading.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2011 22:52
|
|
|
The crux of the matter of debating creationists isn't engaging with their points and concerns and so on and exposing them for the frauds that they are, but it's about the format of debate. Because of the way debates work, as others have pointed out, the advantage is overwhelmingly with the creationist. Basically, in an oratory contest, having the truth on your side doesn't guarantee poo poo. That doesn't mean creationists should be completely ignored. On the contrary, I think precisely because they've been ignored in the past for too long because serious people figured they were insignificant (and besides, they're wrong, who is ever going to listen to them?) that they managed to grow their movement to such numbers. But it is important to pick the right format to engage with them and expose them, and that format has to be one where every claim and fact can be rigourously sourced, the discussion is able to move extensively and at length into the fine particular details and relevant experts can be brought in when necessary. So basically, books, articles, even an internet forum or seemingly paradoxically an informal discussion are the kinds of formats that are suitable to engage with creationists and have a chance of not only not looking like a fool, but even convincing people that creationism is dumb.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2011 14:30
|
|
|
Bruce Leroy posted:But isn't that format basically the Kitzmiller v. Dover case? Yeah, as someone else said, you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into in the first place. But a trial like that or other exchanges in similar formats can and I believe do succesfully convince those who were undecided that creationism is wrong and evolution is right. To get the convinced creationists to reconsider you probably need two things. Firstly you've absolutely got to teach them how to think critically. Obviously you can't right away do that by trying to force them to critically examine their sacred cows like creationism or religion in general and so on, but it can be introduced in other parts of their life. Then for most of them, they probably need to move away from the social structure that reinforces that creationism at every turn. Even if you can think critically, you are unlikely to start critically examining beliefs that are central to your social structure: family and friends and so on. Some people still will, and will probably end up in a very difficult situation because of that, but most won't. This does mean that sadly the vast majority of those indoctrinated with creationism won't ever give it up. That's sad, but doesn't have to be a big deal if you can prevent the belief from spreading and slowly but surely chip away at it by teaching critical thinking and having a lot of patience. Eventually, over generations, enough will give up the beliefs that less and less children are indoctrinated with it, and with good education nobody will adopt the view later in life. Then eventually the last person clinging on to those beliefs dies off, and it goes the way of bloodletting and geocentrism.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2011 14:05
|
|
|
I will never understand why Americans are so immensely hostile to bicyclists.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2011 14:55
|
|
|
Amarkov posted:I'm sorry, but you don't have any parking in front of the place you live? I'm legitimately having trouble visualizing it. Are you like... not on a road? Are there things not on roads in other countries? If you want your mind blown, go watch google streetview in Frankfurt am Main. Parking here is so horrible that there are plenty of streets that are supposed to be 2 lane each way where an entire lane is instead used just for parking.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2011 01:30
|
|
|
mllaneza posted:Conservative fundamentalists just want a government small enough to fit into our bedrooms. Smaller actually, it hs to fit inside wombs.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2011 21:58
|
|
|
trandorian posted:I think the clearest thing is English Socialism is meant to evoke National Socialism. Of course Conservapediafolk think the Nazis WERE actual socialists so they wouldn't get that. It's because Conservapediafolk know in their guts that politicians never lie. So when the Nazi's say they are socialits, it's true. You wouldn't accuse Nazi's of lying, now would you you dirty liberal hippy?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2011 19:24
|
|
|
The human brain IS liberal, which is why we should take great care never to use it. -Schlafly
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2011 16:12
|
|
|
That right there is some purestrain crazy. Edit: Referring to the discussion on flooding.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2011 17:45
|
|
|
Four corners = square. OK then...
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2011 15:33
|
|
|
OneEightHundred posted:But what if it's... a pyramid!? The whole universe is an Escher drawing and Escher was a man inside an Escher drawing drawing an Escher drawing.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2011 18:03
|
|
|
Amarkov posted:I wish that were all of it. But there are some people who, as far as I can tell, just literally think God is a sky wizard trying to bring us away from hell. He gave the Jews some animal sacrifice spells as a stopgap, but the Jesus sacrifice spell he cast was the only one powerful enough to actually bring people to heaven. He'd like to bring everyone to heaven, but the Jesus spell has specific requirements and if it isn't properly cast you're bound to hell. In this conception, Satan is more powerful than God. That's quite amusing.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2011 12:36
|
|
|
ShadowCatboy posted:Jonathan Wells was a member of the Unification Church of Reverend Sun Myung Moon, and the cult leader had directed him to go to Berkeley and get a PhD in biology so he could destroy Darwinism from the inside. On the other hand there's a German guy whose name escapes me who was a convinced anti-evolutionist and decided to study biology to prove evolution wrong. Fast forward a decade or two and he's now got a PhD in biology and has changed his mind based on the evidence and now believes the theory of evolution is perfectly compatible with Christianity and is an outspoken critic of anti-evolutionism and young earth creationism.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2011 14:16
|
|
|
ShadowCatboy posted:Shoot. If you could figure out his name I'd love to read about him in depth. Unfortunately I can't find it. I know exactly how I read about him originally though. A dutch popular science magazine used to have a feature where they promoted an interesting blog every issue, and they had one run by a Dutch pastor/minister (can't remember which) who wrote about how evolution and christianity are perfectly compatible and I think also some other science related stuff and he mentioned said German. I can't find either the blog or the name and I don't have access to my old magazines 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2011 17:16
|
|
|
Not a single reptile except crocodiles on that arc. Also no dinosaurs.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2011 01:41
|
|
|
Bruce Leroy posted:Jesus said a bunch of things that many Christians plainly refuse to follow, like forsaking wealth and praying in private. It's pretty fascinating how blatantly contrary many people are to the literal words of Jesus Christ, but still claim to be faithful, devout Christians. Yeah, honestly if you look at what JC supposedly actually said, he's a pretty swell guy. Unfortunately nobody gives a poo poo about what he had to say, least of all Christians.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2011 16:06
|
|
|
VideoTapir posted:Didn't Friedman advocate basic income? He did. That always gets conveniently ignored though. I think it's a pattern all economists are doomed to fall into. The same happens to someone like Krugman now. These guys are professional economists who spend a lifetime studying and analyzing that stuff and come to a whole bunch of conclusions. Some of them horrible wrong or just plain horrible, but that's not my point right now. My point is, economists are always tools to be used by politicians. The politicians want to do what they want to do, economic insights or studies or whatever don't have an impact on that. Instead politicians will pick and choose out of the conclusions reached by big name economists to support their ends, while ignoring the other things those economists also said. Look at the criticism of Keynes from Conservapedia. It's a common criticism. Keynes did indeed say governments ought to run surplusses in the good years. And every single time Keynesianism is turned to is during crisis, ie. in the bad years. And then during the good years, virtually never is a surplus run. That's not necessarily a problem with Keynesianism, but it is a problem with politics and the way it relates to economics and it fits this pattern I'm talking about. I think the root problem here is the artificial split between economics and politics. In the 1800s, this split didn't exist. Smith, Ricardo, Marx, etc weren't economists. They were political economists. The reason the split between economics and politics is artificial, in my views, is because both fields are about exactly the same thing: allocation of scarce resources. The economist studies how this is done and what the effects are, the politician decides how it is done. As an aside, economics is even further split up into business studies and pure economics, another weird split on top of all that (you don't have this kind of split between applied and theoretical physics, for example). They are two parts of the same coin, but we pretend politics is a matter of ideology, and economics is a science, and therefore objective and thus non-ideological. What's worse, a politician can pretend that he/she is just following the studies and conclusions of the objective science of economics, and thus his/her *politics* are non-ideological. This leads to the widespread assumption/belief, which is often just below the surface, that capitalism is not an ideology, but merely the natural order of things. Orange Devil fucked around with this message at 17:29 on Nov 12, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2011 17:18
|
|
|
Bruce Leroy posted:Marxist anarchists (conservatives don't seem to understand that words have meanings) While I agree with your sentiment, it's perfectly possible to be a Marxist anarchist.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2011 22:52
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 02:06 |
|
|
OneEightHundred posted:She isn't, but you can look back at some of her initiatives in Alaska and she had some sane (I won't say moderate) positions on stuff like climate change, all of that evaporated when it was time to appear on national television and sell books. Then there was stuff like the various flirtations with running for president and the Tea Party, all of it a blatant cash-in. Any time there's a difference between what she did as governor and what would please the Rush/Hannity crowd, she'll say the latter on camera. I think the absolute best example of this phenomenon is when the Daily Show did that segment on Gretchen Carlson. http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-december-8-2009/gretchen-carlson-dumbs-down
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2011 20:06
|
|