|
So, I knew about coservapedia in some vague way before reading this thread, but you people have exposed me to what is perhaps the worst use of the wiki model ever made. I though the ridiculously specific fandom wiki's were as bad as it got. How wrong I was. So, I clicked random page to see what I could discover and came up with the page for dogs: Conservapedia Dog Page posted:Dogs are known for their loyalty, making them one of the most conservative pets. Dogs represent Real America; they are often found on farms in red states and not in cities, where liberal apartment rental agreements often prevent renters from having dogs. Dogs are an important part of family values, as the quintessential American family is often featured with a dog. Dogs also are often used to search out Muslim terrorists, serving America honorably in the army and police forces across the county. Troll or not? I can't tell. That last line makes me think troll, but Poe's Law and all that. Also, gently caress those cats for letting Pharaonic Egypt worship them. It's not like cats ever earned their keep, or dogs were ever worshiped as gods. Also, Atheism and Beastilaity has it's own page, which includes this: quote:In an article entitled Stalin’s ape-man Superwarriors Creation Ministries International declares: I want to say this is crazy too, like most of that page is. But I'm guessing there's some horrible kernel of truth here, isn't there? Political Whores fucked around with this message at 06:10 on Feb 27, 2012 |
#
¿
Feb 27, 2012 05:57
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 1, 2024 20:35 |
|
|
Shima Honnou posted:In all frank likelihood, that whole "link between atheism and bestiality" line sounds legit based on what I've seen of the userbase on Conservapedia. I just love the part about "liberal apartment rental agreements" keeping city folk from owning dogs. drat those landlords for imposing rules on their property, somebody should make a law preventing them from stopping dog ownership. But, you can't let government infringe on a businessman's rights with excess regulation... Conservative paradox...
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2012 06:18
|
|
|
andrew smash posted:He's not even an idiot exactly, whatever he is he's intelligent enough to finish an electrical engineering degree and get into harvard's law school, yet he also managed to produce conservapedia. He is a bizarre man. I would feel sorry for him if he wasn't such a piece of poo poo. Being educated isn't a sign of not being an idiot. I remember reading a research paper on a study conducted on education and belief in climate change; it showed that more education, even in related fields like physics or chemistry (but not climatology itself), did not translate to a greater certainty that anthropogenic climate change is happening. Rather, more education seemed to polarize people even more, with the educated using their acquired skills to justify pre-held biases. Schafly seems to me to be a classic case of an intelligent person faced with the possibility that everything he has been taught is false. Instead of adapting to a new mode of though, he uses his intellect and education to rationalize and justify why he is right, and everyone else is wrong.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 2, 2012 05:53
|
|
|
FoiledAgain posted:It's like these guys. So wait, those guys were saying the wanted to teach real (creation) science, which is all about questioning everything, except you shouldn't question God's word, because that is true, end of story? I don;t understand how someone could stand that level of cognitive dissonance
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2012 08:56
|
|
|
Binowru posted:Uh-oh, Conservative/Shockofgod just discovered the 1970s TV show "In Search Of..." But it's got to be true, Spock said so! Who would you believe, scientists or Spock?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2012 20:10
|
|
|
Rawr Dinosaur posted:I'm not really sure which thread to post this in, so I'll try here. Considering it says conservatives are silent about their opinions, I think you can safely say it's BS. Also, the American Enterprise Institute isn't known for its moderate, unbiased stance on issues.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2012 00:46
|
|
|
I just want to point out that no one should ever trust a one-off, non peer-reviewed piece of research, ever. Even peer-reviewed pieces of research are problematic. We humans like to think we understand things a lot more clearly than we do. So in the case of something like this, where the person is obviously massaging language to fit his definitions ("open-mindedness") and is using suspect methodology (self-reported liberals and conservatives), even his apparent discovery of a trend doesn't necessarily mean anything. VVVVVVV Very true, but I think people above pointed out the serious flaws in his assumptions. I just hate it when people bring up something like this, or some other variation of  which purports to explain how people function in easy clear cut terms. So often the research is terribly flawed, but people seem willing to accept it because SCIENCE!
Political Whores fucked around with this message at 09:31 on Apr 15, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2012 08:16
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:This is what I don't get. The answers are out there, and surely the people who read/write these things have been confronted at least once with answers to these questions, especially if they actually bother to ask someone who knows something. How does this persist? Willful Ignorance. Humans have the ability to delude themselves into believing almost anything. These people aren't even the pseudo-mainstream ID people who are continuously forced to deal with evidence contrary to their model, and try to explain it away using scientific reasoning (Which is next to impossible, which is why a lot of them have given up). These fringe people can simply ignore any data contrary to their claims, treating it as propaganda. And this is assuming that they have the wherewithal to find this data, or the comprehension to understand it, which based on the questions doesn't seem likely. Just pure scientific illiteracy can explain why they don't respond to refutations of their questions. You can't play Chess against someone who doesn't know the rules. Political Whores fucked around with this message at 22:46 on Apr 17, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2012 22:43
|
|
|
Small Frozen Thing posted:It's pretty much the exact opposite, though. The trust and faith the Nazis had in their leaders is what allowed them to overcome the natural aversion to killing. Faith in religion has been exploited to do the same thing for all of recorded history. Sort of. I mean, if we're going to get right down to it, religion was just a socialization and normalization system that evolved with society. The fact that a lot of people have the same ethics is due to the fact that a society needs a system like this in order to function. We have natural empathy for people because we grow up socialized with people. If you look at kids who have grown up in warzones, or who suffered abuse and neglect, depending on the case, they can display a distinct lack of empathy, because they were never socialized for it. It can take years of rehabilitation to help them out of it. The only problem with socialization is it gets mixed up with all the hangups of the people in power, or is used to direct the mob towards a goal the people in power want. Every time something like that happens, stupid moronic things get hardcoded into the social contract that people base their lives on, and you end up with poo poo like the crusades. And then, people eventually get fed up with the old system, and make their own, and you get poo poo like the Protestant Reformation. It's why conservatives parrot stupid poo poo about the free market without understanding it either. There just as much uncritical acceptance of "the invisible hand" being uniformly good as there is of Jesus Christ, and it's because these memes are pervasive and really good at spreading. I can't blame religion, because there are plenty of examples of priests and ministers being the ones to call society on its horrible acts, like Bartolomé de las Casas, who was advocating for the rights of South American Aboriginal Peoples in 1550, desperatly writing the King of Spain to tell him to please send someone to stop the conquistadors from raping everything in sight. Christianity has a lot of the same ethics as modern western society because a lot of our ethics evolved out of it. But it's really easy to take any on piece of Christian mythos, take it out of context, or forget that some of it is 3000 years old and has probably lost relevance (or was crazy to begin with), and uncritically use it to justify whatever nutso evil thing you want it too. Just like free market economics. Political Whores fucked around with this message at 23:50 on Apr 17, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2012 23:46
|
|
|
Lord of the Llamas posted:There are still innate structures in the brain that predispose people towards certain ethical judgements, but obviously abnormal upbringing can let these areas fall into disuse and die. To say ethics are purely due to upbringing would be wrong. That is true. I wasn't trying to argue for a pure "nurture" explanation for behaviour or anything. It's incorrect to assume, however, that someone without socialization will innately consider something like killing wrong unequivocally. I was just pointing out that it's not religion that necessarily drove the various massacres throughout history. Religion did play a big role in socializing people towards norms and standards. These weren't always good, and many certainly shouldn't apply now, but myths and imagery present in Christianity constitute a big part of the western cultural lexicon, and a lot of what people consider explicitly secular values, like liberal tolerance, evolved from a Christian viewpoint. I just dislike the Dawkins "religion is the source of all the world's problems" explanation as much as I hate the fundies think secular society is. VVVVV I pretty much agree, especially since the religious instinct seems to really be an instinct pushing you towards concluding that maybe life is more than just nihilistic consumption. I find it funny that New Atheists seem totally certain that without religion, everyone would get along, when a lot of them (Dawkins included) explicitly talk in terms of selfishness and profit-maximization. Political Whores fucked around with this message at 07:12 on Apr 18, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2012 00:54
|
|
|
modig posted:I like how there is actually one interesting and very hard question buried in here. As if a high school teacher not being able to outline eye evolution in excruciating detail off the top of her head is evidence against evolution. Yup. Most invertebrates have what are termed "simple" eyes, or pigment pits, which just detect the difference between light and dark. That's why they have them in a compound structure, since they need several to build a single image. Box jellyfish actually have eyes, complete with retinas, and corneas, that can distinguish between different shapes and colors. These are simple in comparison to our eyes, but they still show pretty clearly the different evolutionary steps something like a an eye could take to develop.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2012 16:38
|
|
|
Pesky Splinter posted:It must have been later than that, considering literalists are basically saying that mankind hit incest a generation in. What I find hilarious about the whole "design" argument is that watching any organism grow from a single cell would seemingly refute it. Like the watch comparison. The reason we know a watch had a designer is because gears don't form through cell mitosis, you idiots! We have watched a human embryo develop! At what point did God walk in and replace it with a clay doll he made himself? You don't even need evolution to show that their "design" argument makes no sense. No human-designed machine has ever been able to replicate itself via a single viable zygote! Pesky Splinter posted:The answer's obvious: Cats are obviously purrfect in the eyes of God...sorry. Maybe that's why Pharaonic Egypt worshiped them....
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2012 18:12
|
|
|
Kieselguhr Kid posted:I wouldn't say that's entirely true. I think it's just that there's a broader view of religion as being convolved with social and political processes and tied into a system of values, rather than just being a kind of insane, malevolent fairy-story without which we'd all be good liberals. An atheist left is not going to be animated with the same desire to attack religion in the same way the atheist right seem to. I think the atheist right is animated by the same type of authoritarian streak that predominates the religious right. If you start with a fundamental premise that you are better than other people (because you are more religious, or in the case of atheists, more logical) then you feel you have the right to dictate what everyone should do, and not listen to them. This type of person is blind to their own cognitive bias, and assumes they understand in absolute terms the way the world works. I think it's this absolutism, more than anything, that underlies a lot of the problems with the republicans and a lot of the militant Atheist movement that can't tolerate the idea of a cross in a public space.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2012 20:40
|
|
|
catch22 posted:What one of the "New" atheists has actually said this? I see it attributed to Dawkins a lot but I've never seen a source for it. Technically Dawkins himself never said it, but his book the Selfish Gene basically defined altruism in terms solely understood as what would allow propagation of specific genes as widely as possible. So, selflessness makes sense between closely related individuals, but gets less and less logical the further out you go. He was describing this solely in terms of evolution strategy, but many philosophers have pointed out that this isn't a robust explanation for why humans develop empathy across ethnic groups and species. Dawkins sort of just assumes humans consciously decided to create a moral framework that extends universally, and this is the big problem people have, because going from his purely biological and evolutionary terms, there's no reason to assume that humans should ever have crafted the moral systems we did, yet every culture on the planet has. Social evolution, which religion constitutes a big part of, explains partly why humans developed the complex systems needed to maintain a stable society. It's this I (and many other people) have a problem with. It's not that Dawkins actively advocates for selfishness (though many fundies like to claim he does). It's that he assumes that morality was a choice, and isn't some fundamental part of human instinct, which plays out through the formation of complex social networks and cultural concepts. They hold this view, yet at the same time say "we don't need religion" despite the fact that there understanding of humanity without the veneer of civilization is one where humans would totally kill people outside of their immediate peer group if it was to their benefit in any way. Religion is just a stupid sham to them, despite how important it was to crafting alot of the moral values they have themselves integrated.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2012 02:52
|
|
|
^^^^^^ It's not that they don't have humanist views, it's that they don't have any justification for humanist views, despite often discounting most religion (and a lot of philosophy) as delusion. I'm basing it from what I remember of The Selfish Gene and The God Delusion, so it's quite possible that I'm misreading them, as I read them both several years ago, before I was really schooled in a lot of evolutionary theory. It might be worth me rereading them then. I've read criticism of it, though I honestly can't remember where now. Consider me corrected. It'll add something to my reading list for the summer.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2012 03:50
|
|
|
As a sincere act of contrition for misinterpreting Dawkins's work, let me try to get this thread back on topic. Let us see what Conservapedians most pressing question is today: It's even related to evolution too! Turns out, shrimp today have the same general shape as shrimp 150 million years ago, therefore evolution is a sham. I do like how they single out the pistol shrimp though. Pistol Shrimp are awesome, no matter what you believe. Political Whores fucked around with this message at 04:27 on Apr 19, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2012 04:24
|
|
|
Gross Dude posted:So, I didn't see this talked about in this thread, but it left me mind boggled. At first I though that it was an April Fool's joke, since it was created on April 1st, but the conversation started before that, so I assume that it wasn't meant to be a joke. That's isn't just failing at physics, it's falling at math too. It's E=mc^2, not m=Ec^2. Apparently Schafly can't do algebra correctly either.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2012 05:30
|
|
|
TinTower posted:If anyone's wondering, it's all in the energy used by the weak nuclear force to bind the nucleons together. And we're supposed to just trust the  scientists that these so-called nucleons even exist? I have it on higher authority that matter is really made up of fire, wind, earth and water. Do you want me to believe some scientists over Aristotle?E: oh, and stars are made of Aether. So is the moon.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2012 05:51
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
I would imagine "criticizing Wikipedia" in this context means accusing it of being full of liberal-commifacists who support the destruction of Israel and its replacement by a Muslimatheist Socialist State.
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2012 07:40
|
|
|
For fun, I decided to see what Conservapedia had on Shi'a IslamShiite posted:The Shiites (or Shi'ites or Shia) is one of two major branches of Islam. A schism in Islam occurred in A.D. 660, almost 30 years after the death of Muhammad. The Sunnis, the largest group, disagreed with the Shiites over who should take over the caliphate or leadership of the nascent Islamic community. Those supporting the Prophet's son-in-law, Ali, were called the shi at Ali or "party of Ali" from which the name originates. Shiites comprise about one tenth of all Muslims and are the majority faith in Iran and Iraq. Surprisingly civil, and brief. The general "Islam" article is also quite tame compared to most of the stuff you see on Conservapedia, with a lot of taxt taken up trying to explain that not all Muslims believe the terrible things they list . It's weird that they demonize Obama so much for it, but seem kind of wary about tarring the religion itself. I did find this, though: http://www.conservapedia.com/Ethnic_Groups_Gallery AcidRonin posted:In honor of the recent release of Diablo 3, I thought you guys might appreicate this: Ba'al hatred is hilarious, because the name literally just means Lord. The word was used all over the Middle-East and Asia Minor, even by the Hebrews. You know the "el" at the end of a lot of names, particularity archangels? That's the shortened form of Bel, which was the Semitic word for "Master". It's in the Hebrew text in the Torah as such. Actual biblical scholars would know that it was specific deities who were being called "Bel" that the Hebrews considered demons, like Ba'al Zebul ("Lord of the High Place") which they change to Ba'al Zebub ("Lord of the Flies") as a pun to make denigrate their enemies' god. The depiction in Diablo has nothing at all to do with any actual ancient Mesopotamian gods, yet somehow it is responsible for reviving religions that have been dead for at least a millennium.
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2012 05:31
|
|
|
prefect posted:Does war killing count as "murder"? Or is it just unauthorized/unapproved killing that's against the rules? As I understand the original meaning of "thou shalt not kill", it specifically referred to "unlawful killing". It's not murder if God approved of the action, or if they aren't one of The People (at least, from what I recall).
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2012 14:26
|
|
|
Ying Par posted:Please refer to Fig. 1.: Someone's dad at a bar. This logic is what initially was even behind the Trans-Atlantic slave trade. Most African slaves were those sold into it after inter-ethnic conflict in Africa (or at least this was the pretense many African slavers gave, in many cases people were just grabbed). You see the logic of war allowing you to take possession of the loser's labor as reparations appearing in a lot of European philosophers. Prior to that, slaves in Europe mostly came from Slavic regions, which in fact where the word is derived from. And that's not touching indentured servitude, which is what the evangelical was describing, and was also a terrible thing that led many people to "voluntarily" enslave themselves for a chance at survival. Depending on the contract you signed, you could even be sold as an indentured servant, and they certainly didn't have any more rights than slaves in most cultures where the practice existed. So really, evangelicals, don't try and defend Biblical slavery. It was exactly the same as the slavery you are trying to distance yourselves from. bobkatt013 posted:You mean like when the Israelites were enslaved in Europe and they had to have a mass slaughter in order to get free? What. Did you mean Egypt?
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2012 19:15
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Indentures could vary wildly and ranged from "something along the lines of an adult apprenticeship" to "virtually indistinguishable from chattel slavery, save that it's somewhat more likely to end." Different colonies had different laws and levels of regulation as to what sort of terms an indentured servant could enter into, what they were entitled to after its completion, and what manner of restriction the master could enforce (sometimes including forfeiture of promised post-indenture land plots and/or extension of the indenture itself). This latter abuse grew quite bad in some places, which is why you saw white servants conspiring with black slaves in such things as Bacon's Rebellion, and one of the odd reasons the slaveholders were often among the voices calling for indenture reform. For instance, a lot of indentured servants in the Caribbean, particularly Irish emigrants that had been dispossessed of land,ended up in pretty horrific conditions on tobbaco plantations. Flogging Molly, a Celtic Punk band, even wrote a song about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8yEqco39T8 The moral of the story is the British really liked loving over the Irish.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2012 04:14
|
|
|
I've always preferred the term Just-World Fallacy.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2012 23:52
|
|
|
Ichabod Sexbeast posted:
This is one of the little ironies of conservatism, since the people most likely to support the jack-booted thugs stomping down on the poor and marginalized fervently believe that only they are the defenders of freedom. Which they are, but only for straight, hardcore Christians whites above a certain income threshold.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2012 03:15
|
|
True Conservative
|
Mercury_Storm posted:While this would be nice, its been proven that facts and evidence have no effect on people who are effectively brainwashed. There have been studies showing that even highly educated far right conservatives not only reject what they were taught (and refuse to believe in regardless), but use their "educated" status as leverage against facts. The idea is since they're among the learned elite that their opinions should hold more weight, so now they know for sure that evolution is false, gays are the devil, etc. To be fair, if I'm thinking of the same studies, it was just a more general trend in learned elite to use their education as leverage against facts that contradicted their opinions. Just like you have conservatives denying evolution, there are quite a few progressive intelligentsia that promote stuff like anti-vaccination and alternative medicines like homeopathy.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2012 06:22
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:Didn't he try to cure his own cancer by jumping the line for a transplant? He lived years longer than most people diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. That poo poo is nasty. He also believed in several alternative therapies that delayed treatment that might have staved it off entirely. By the time he started accepting mainstream treatments, it was basically too late.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2012 18:07
|
|
|
Yehudis Basya posted:Hah, looks like some secular evil-utionists got into the article on dogs. This makes me wonder how many Conservapedia users are just sad nerds trying to improve it like it was a legitimate project. It's easy for someone to get hooked into swarm projects like wikis, always trying to make them the best they can be. Someone who's just focused on their own pet articles might not even notice all the insane poo poo that resides on the other pages.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2012 18:39
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:It's usually too late by the time pancreatic cancer is diagnosed. I think he beat the odds for longer than most people without infinite cash. Not saying you're entirely wrong, but Jobs' form of pancreatic cancer was part of the slow-growing variety, about 5% of diagnoses. At that point he might have been able to have it cured through conventional therapies, or surgery. He ignored doctor's advice and treatment for a full 9 months, which pretty much killed what little chance he had. link to article describing it in Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2011/10/24/steve-jobs-cancer-treatment-regrets/
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2012 20:04
|
|
|
Rose Wreck posted:Lord, I didn't even see that. The monkeys got on to Tumblr and started self-identifying as autistic as an excuse for their crippling social anxiety, obviously.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2012 15:23
|
|
)
|
Yehudis Basya posted:Can we stop derailing with pseudoscience claptrap and get back to conservapedia? Here's their Conservative Bible Project. I still love the hubris of these self-admitted conservatives i n trying to rewrite the unchanging word of god. Like, don't they see how this undermines all the Bible's claims to legitimacy, if they claim that everyone else before them was just wrong?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2012 16:10
|
|
|
AcidRonin posted:No but they do have this wich is an ammuseing read. http://www.conservapedia.com/Overrated_Sports_Stars I do like how they unironically have "lamestream media" in the text though, linking to their article on the "mainstream media". That's what professional encyclopedias do right, include snide puns in their text? I can just see some neckbeard typing that and thinking "Ha, take that MSNBC"
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2012 05:47
|
|
|
AcidRonin posted:So this is another one from the blaze so its a tad off-topic but I think you will be interested to see this, Bill O'Reliy being REASONABLE about a gun control law and the blaze is mad at him. at billo!! These neo-cons scare me a bit.... I guess every pundit must have a tipping point where reality starts to outweigh party dogma. I'm sure he'll be issuing a retraction shortly.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 25, 2012 18:13
|
|
|
AcidRonin posted:Nice reference sir. 5 points to you. Billo always kinda seems like a more reasonable conservative pundit. Like if Keith Olberman == Glenn Beck then Billo == Rachel Maddow? I do remember reading an interview where O'Reilly admits that most of what he does is an act, playing to his viewer base. Glenn Beck seems to genuinely believe his crazy poo poo.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 25, 2012 18:45
|
|
|
Mr.Unique-Name posted:I'm guessing that was probably caused by people updating the by-country totals without paying attention to the overall total. The 120,000 appears to refer to Japanese-Filipino children, who are not officially recognized by Japan as being Japanese despite being fathered by Japanese men.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2012 06:03
|
|
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:I'm definitely no expert on Zoroastrianism but it seemed monotheistic to me when I studied it. Ahura Mazda is the Supreme god, there are other entities like angels and there's a concept of evil, but Christianity has that too. Zoroastrianism is monotheistic. There is a supreme deity above everything (Ahura Mazda) and the Daevas (beings of light) are under him, either being good or evil in nature. It's analogous to Judaic ideas of angels and demons.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2012 19:51
|
|
|
AcidRonin posted:So this poo poo is just fine to teach to kids, but LAWDY NO YOU BEST NOT BE TEACHING MY LITTLE ONES ABOUT NO EVO-LU-TION!!!!. Seriously why is this poo poo which is obviously and provably wrong OK to teach in the south?? Don't forget that this is from books used in Christian private schools, that are only coming into the spotlight now because of Louisiana's voucher program where they would receive public funds. This is coming to the fore now because there are pretty obvious quality issues, which "the market" was supposed to take care of and make better than the public school system.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2012 21:22
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 1, 2024 20:35 |
|
|
Elim Garak posted:I shouldn't have made it sound like he then goes on to ignore people who are citing studies, they seem to have appeared in the talk page beforehand, so he ignored them afterwards. The most recent study I've seen, showed that rape actually had a higher incidence of pregnancy than consensual sex: http://www.springerlink.com/content/wp5cnp43k6byxj4d/?MUD=MP I also know I've seen a horrible article somewhere claiming rape was an evolutionary adaptation because of the higher incidence of pregnancy, so I don't think the above study is the first time a correlation has been found. I don't know where Andy dug up his study, but rape from pregnancy is definitely not rare. I can't actually find the study Schafly talks about, but I wouldn't be surprised if it defined rape in some narrow window, like excluding date rape or acquaintance rape, which could easily lower the percentage,
|
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2012 19:03
|
|