|
Scratchman Apoo posted:http://www.conservapedia.com/Mystery:Why_Do_Non-Conservatives_Exist%3F quote:Statistical Analysis On some messed up level I sort of admire this sites chutzpah. e: quote:
duck monster fucked around with this message at 01:12 on May 16, 2011 |
#
¿
May 16, 2011 01:08
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 23:29 |
|
|
Cwapface posted:I didn't realise abortion was such a hot topic in the 1910s. Abortion has been around forever. Western women used to use Wormwood decoctions to induce miscarriages, and other cultures had their own procedures. The notion that god hates it is relatively modern however. The bible actually seems to permit abortion via beating the woman, as long as the husband aproves.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2011 13:48
|
|
|
G. Hosafat posted:* Having Christianity used as a means to control the people (Medieval: Total War and it's sequel, Medieval II: Total War) I thought you FOUGHT bullies in Bully. If bullying is liberal , wouldnt that make Bully a conservative game?
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2011 13:50
|
|
|
RoboChrist 9000 posted:I totally believe you, but I'd love to point this out to a friend. If you don't mind a quick derail - where in the Bible, exactly, is this implied? Er, I think I mangled the meaning a little via memory, but heres the quote;- Space Ghost posted:"And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide. "But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, (NAS, Exodus 21:22-24) The implication being that if you whack a chick and she miscarriages, the husband can demand compensation via the courts, but thats all. But if he injures the woman, then he gets busted as someone who hurt a person. The basic meaning seems to be that a hostile abortion is not to be considered murder or assault (eyes and tooth exchange), except for whatever damage happens to the woman herself. Presumably if you punch a chick in the gut and she miscariages, under strict eye for eye, she can punch you in the gut and you'll probably have to pay her a fine, but thats about it. Christianity is historically all over the place with abortion, the earliest writers of christianity thought it was murder to poison the fetus, but between the 5th to 16th centuries the idea the soul entering the baby at either "quickening" (When the fetus first starts kicking) or on the first breath post birth (Which I think is the position of genesis?) changed that idea so that it was not murder per se. However 16th to 18th century its decreed murder again, and then after the 18th century we hit feminism and the various struggles for and against it. Prior to christianity the greeks and romans did not consider fetus's in the first trimester to be people because they had no soul yet, whilst most of jewish judisprudence saw it as infanticide. Not sure how Islamic jurisprudence saw it , although Islam emerges around the time christian thought starts shifting to seeing it as not murder. duck monster fucked around with this message at 14:56 on May 16, 2011 |
|
#
¿
May 16, 2011 14:41
|
|
|
House Louse posted:I'm not sure of this reading at all. This passage (Exodus 21:22-25) seems to imply that it's only okay if you hit the woman by accident; possibly only if the accident occurs while two people are fighting, presumably over alleged infidelity. Definitely check with your rabbi before you kick your girlfriend in the stomach. quote:IIRC, Islamic law is split on the subject, but I think it mostly argues that life begins at quickening (40 days for boys, 80 for girls, which I think follows Aristotle rather than being natively Muslim bigotry). That'd make a lot of sense actually. Through a lot of Islamic history, muslim academics where fairly keen on greek moral philosophy, particularly Aristotle (In the same way catholic academia via Aquinas did).
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2011 02:12
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:My favorite thing on Conservapedia is when Shlafly attempts to 'debunk' research showing evolution in E. Coli bacteria. He ends up corresponding with the guy who did the study, and is destroyed rather thoroughly. 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.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2011 02:25
|
|
|
Not convinced of that theory. THIS IS GRAMMATICAL (In english, maybe not in greek where theres no upper case β I think?) this is not Both , however, are dog ugly.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2011 23:45
|
|
|
UZR IS BULLSHIT posted:Prepare to have your mind blown: Actually your right and I'm confusing the german ß (which is capitalized as SS) for the greek β (which indeed is capitalized as B)
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2011 12:02
|
|
|
appropriatemetaphor posted:Is there actually a complains board or something that investigates poor teaching? Surely theres a minimum standards in the US curriculum, or is this concept of a national curriculum one of these evil ideas only people in other countries have? Because seriously, this poo poo is just child abuse. The kid gave a loving insightful answer for his age.
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2011 02:23
|
|
|
Old Colbert Nation interview with Schaferly http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/258144/december-08-2009/andy-schlafly Includes Colbert grilling Scheferly as to why he removed Colbert from the bible. Although its a bit disturbing that Schaferly holds it together surprisingly well. I guess he figured he was in for a grilling and the best thing to do was just giggle at it. Perhaps he figured Colberts a real conservative who's just being silly.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2011 09:08
|
|
|
sootikins posted:Here's what's funny to me - Schlafly only uses that argument if it's not part of that "liberal" Bible. The "word of GOD" is regularly distrusted and dismissed as a liberal plot when it suits his notions of how things are and ought to be. I'm just hoping that Schaferly when he his conservsative bible rewrite project gets to the final stanza of revelations, that he has a coronary over it. Cos thats the bit that says "If you add anything or remove anything, you get to go to superhell. And on the slim chance the christians are actually right, that means Schaferly is going to superhell. And if the christians are wrong, Schaferly squandered his life on bad crazyness. Basically by rewriting the bible he just cocked up Pascals wager. On the upside, if the christians are right and he goes to superhell, at least he gets to hang out with Reagan. duck monster fucked around with this message at 19:27 on May 29, 2011 |
|
#
¿
May 29, 2011 19:24
|
|
|
PZ Meyers isn't that fit, but he's probably about average for his age. Worn out. I wouldn't call him Obese. I really have no idea why conservapedia is so hung up about his weight. Its bizzare and childish.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2011 21:08
|
|
|
Wait Bzzzzt brainwave. Children edit this loving thing dont they? Like his homeschool kids. And like, these kids edit it, and they go "Woah that atheist is a fatty", and Schaferly goes "Woah your right kids. Time for an assignment! Write me an essay on why atheists are so fat!", and it becomes Conservapedia cannon. Its a pedocracy! edit: Hahahaha Kent Hovind got his degree from "Patriot University". Is it even legal for random groups to call themselves "universities" and issue "degrees" over in the US? If not how the gently caress do they keep pretend doctors out of hospitals and poo poo? Heres the opening line of Hovinds thesis;- quote:Hello, my name is Kent Hovind. I am a creation/science evangelist. I live in Pensacola, Florida. I have been a high school science teacher since 1976. I've been very active in the creation/evolution controversy for quite some time. And heres the closing line;- quote:I believe we've been lied to about the age of the earth. Satan , the father of all lies, has come up with this one to try to make a fool of Jesus Christ. Jesus said in Matthew 19:4 that the creation of Adam and Eve was the beginning. I believe jesus was right Its 102 pages long, has no footnotes, references or apendices, quotes mainly creationist literature, but occasionally quotes Sci-am articles to be angry about. But most of all it happily admits this;- quote:I will be quick to point out "there is nothing new under the sun." Most of my ideas are the result of hundreds of Godly men and women through the years. I have attempted in this book to simply explain the things I have learned through many years of studying both science and the Bible. This earned him a PhD from Patriot University! 
duck monster fucked around with this message at 21:35 on May 29, 2011 |
|
#
¿
May 29, 2011 21:10
|
|
|
raezr posted:I think Conservapedia is the only site that I've been tempted to troll/vandalize. Just find any article and insert the word "liberal" into every other sentence. It's too easy. I never bothered actually do it though. Stormfronts a classic like that. I had a troll account that would make claims like A) Aboriginals need to get back their land that was stolen by jewish multiculturalists. B) Muslims and whites share much in common, including being opressed by jews and homosexuals. C) The jewish Opium war degraded chinese culture and thus led to racial conflict with the whites. They are as much a victim as us and the real chinese culture is ancient and wise and a good friend of the whites. D) Negros would not commit crime had they been induced into it by jewish multiculturalists. E) There seems to be a correlation with the growing influence of jewish society on white society and white cancer rates. We all know that modern cancer is largely due to the effects of environmental polution, but you have to wonder if this is by design. It was amazing how much you can claim stuff thats completely 180 degrees of what the fuckers actually believe by just invoking the jewish bogey man. I only came unstuck when I made a thread praising Stalin for his attitude on Jews.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2011 12:45
|
|
|
Mr. D Bewildering posted:Considering the anti-art, anti-science, anti-education, anti-literature stance of your typical conservative, how would new words exist in their perfect utopia? Or would they consist entirely of muck-ups like Palin's "refudiate"? My original thesis, which I dropped, was going to be about the use of limited vocabularies in popular vs academic political speech, by concentrating focus on certain words that are then filled with excesses of meaning. The thing started out with simply counting word distributions in various texts. Unfortunately I pretty quickly discovered that the data just didn't match the theory (In fact I often found smaller vocabularies in my selection of academic texts which was... unexpected) so without really knowing what to make of it, I dropped the idea and moved on. Retrospectively I think I know what was going on. The academic texts often focused heavily on specialized jargon, which tended to reduce the need for broader explainations (Ie if I say "discourse" I can rope in the whole layer of meaning foucault put behind the term, rather than saying "conversation" and then having to use a bunch more words to explain the context of a social conversation embedding blah blah blah). I think it was still an interesting exploration though, and one of these days I might revisit it, if I find myself back at university again. The general context though was supposed to be that speeches and books and the like by conservative commentators limited their vocabularies to imbue the smaller selections of words with more overloaded meaning whilst bracketing out unwanted or inconvenient topics from discusssion. I think to a degree I'm still right about that, but not by the mechanism I had proposed. duck monster fucked around with this message at 06:38 on Jun 4, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2011 06:35
|
|
|
potato! posted:. Because only that could truly summarize this absolute shambles of mathematical logic.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2011 07:46
|
|
|
Welp. Never realised theatre prior to the 1800s (or therabouts) was feminist. All the chicks where played by guys! Total homosexual agenda going on there folks. (actually, now that I think about it..)
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2011 17:10
|
|
|
Jabbu posted:It would be an interesting experience to try and go through a week with the mindset of a conservative...Then again, I think I've actually done that before, it was called being a 14 year old boy.  "L L L L L Liberals?" Seriously, I suspect a big part of thinking conservative is seeing monsters in every corner that must be suppressed. Its lizard brain thinking. e: "Oh Shaggy! Thats not a ghost-pirate! Its actually Mr Obama trying to stop us from discovering his kenyan birth certificate." "You pesky kids!" duck monster fucked around with this message at 06:40 on Jun 17, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2011 06:38
|
|
|
Its pretty much heresy by definition.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2011 02:01
|
|
|
Stalingrad posted:"The British are notoriously weak in mathematics." Off the top of my head Newton (calculus, loads of physics) Turing (computational theory, crypto, cellular automata) Russel (philosophy of math, number theory, sets & categories) Lovelace (computational theory, algorithms) Wolfram (cellular automata, being a loony) and so many more..
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2011 09:20
|
|
|
jojoinnit posted:We've hated France ever since they barbecued Mister Ed. Monsieur, le poney est destinee pour votre diner!
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2011 07:34
|
|
|
appropriatemetaphor posted:Ah tres bon! j'aime mange cheval, parce je suis un stereotype francais! see post I was replying to for context dude.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2011 19:39
|
|
|
appropriatemetaphor posted:A joke My humor detector was probably a bit broken last night. 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2011 03:23
|
|
|
Eroto-Bot posted:http://www.conservapedia.com/Liberal_bigotry The 'bigotry' they seem to list consists almost solely of gay people protesting about having their civil liberties removed. I guess the freedom riders of the 60s where probably bigots too then. Wait... no I don't want to know conservapedias answer to that. but here are a couple of examples of liberal bigotry they cite.. quote:* The Ku Klux Klan's often violent activities against African Americans, Jews, homosexuals and Catholics. Uh..... what? They seem to be mising the bit about KKKs other great target. The liberals, most of whom where in the Republican party at the time. Although thats waaaay too confusing a narrative for conservapedia to ever wrap its head around I suspect.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 4, 2011 02:07
|
|
|
Bellicose Buddha posted:I heard he was kicked out of the British Green Party for his beliefs and has become something of a political pariah. Other than his insane books he has no source of income other than what he made as a soccer player. I don't know if he's wealthy, but its a fair bet that he's comfortable. He's pretty constantly touring and getting high paid speaking gigs at insane-people conventions, of which there are many.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2011 12:37
|
|
|
TinTower posted:Thats actually pretty funny.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2011 16:32
|
|
|
best friend massage posted:"What is the Alaska sea monster? Answer: a living dinosaur.[20]" Hahahahahaha. What the gently caress is the alaska sea monster lol.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2011 03:57
|
|
|
perianwyr posted:You'd pay to know what you really think. the universe is on our side, praise bob.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2011 00:50
|
|
|
Sarion posted:But it did lead me to the Dragons page. The funny thing is, its entirely possible the plethora of dragon myths may well come from earlier cultures digging around, finding dinosaur fossils, noticing the skulls are vaguelly lizardy and  "Oh gently caress what sort of god drat lizard monsters this loving things supposed to be". The imagination + deduction fills in the rest (breathes fire! Wings!)I'm sure the structuralists have a funkier explaination based on their narrative roles, but it seems a pretty plausible explaination.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2011 00:53
|
|
|
Huitzil posted:The world ends tomorrow and you may die! I don't actually think anybody takes the subgenius thing seriously. Its just a wierd old club for ex hippies with a trollish sense of humor. Pretty much your original played out net meme. Not so sure about the discordian thing though. I've met a few people who are.... bit of a worry.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2011 02:01
|
|
|
Pope Guilty posted:I used to be into Discordianism (see: my username) because it was fun and silly and nobody ever heard of it, but an undergraduate degree in philosophy set me straight. There was actually bit of a sad story about the subgenius guys. One of the women involved was a stage performer who had a fairly adults-only act, had her kid taken off her by her estranged husband who convinced the court the COTSG was some hosed up sex cult. Rev Stang + co had to intervene to point out that its not a real religion, just an art society for creative wierdos and that nobody in the group actually believes its a real religion or cult or really much in common except for outsider humor. She ended up getting her kid back, but the court last I heard still had banned her from having any COTSG materials in her house, which frankly is a bit 1st ammendment suspicious.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2011 02:40
|
|
|
I had a friend point out an interesting observation in divining real science from cranky science. Real science research tends to try and establish one piece of fact at a time. So a paper that purports to disprove a piece of the science used in establishing climate change AND then leading on to say climate change isn't real kind of fails that by establishing two pieces of science when one doesn't necessarily lead to the other. (Ie yes maybe CO2 isn't the problem and infact its something else, but the climate would still be changing. The disproof is bigger than a single factoid) So a paper that says "Ok, it looks like CO2 isn't as absorbing of heat IR as we earlier thought *bunch of science why*" would be a potentially serious piece of science. But a paper that says "Ok, it looks like CO2 isn't as absorbing of heat IR as we earlier thought *bunch of science why* and therefore climate change isnt real" has a fundamentally higher cliff to climb to establish its credentials because it has to address all the OTHER science". But lets say that it isn't real, and the lynch pin is the CO2 absorption of heat thing, the correct methodology is to first get the CO2 heat thing out there, let it be peer reviewed, and THEN if science is working as it should, if the CO2 thing is indeed the king hit to the theory, ANOTHER paper can then tie it all together. Its pretty common across crank papers Carbon dating is wrong therefore evolution is wrong. Footprints found near bones therefore old earth is wrong. Flaw in newton found therefore physics is wrong. Woah 1=0 therefore all maths debunked ..ahem.. cellular automata is awesome therefore all science changed forever and so on.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2011 04:50
|
|
|
I wish Ian Pilmer would examine his own bias's. The guy was a great (if not occasionally bungling and over-agressive) defender of evolution during his battles with Duan Gish. Unfortunately in his new found role as mining company hitman against AGW, he's deploying almost the exact same rhetorical devices the creationists would use against evolution and it really makes me wonder about the guys ethical compass.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2011 06:37
|
|
|
The talk.origin guys are not being fully honest about eugenics and darwinism. Like, yes its not clear at all that Darwin would have supported the idea, however modern eugenics was invented by a chap named Dalton, who was Darwins second cousin and based his ideas on Darwins claiming that human civilization had screwed up natural selection, and thus the fitness criteria needs to be artificially reintroduced. Which is not to say that evolution=eugenics, but its not true to say eugenics wasn't inspired by evolution.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2011 03:44
|
|
|
Bruce Leroy posted:But is it really the fault of Darwinism and Charles Darwin himself that other people have used his work to justify terrible things that he was explicitly against, I'm not saying that at all. Evolutioniary theory is blameless. But its not honest to say the eugenics movement of the 1800s where not enthusiastic about the theory.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2011 08:13
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:Yes because the KKK is well known for advocating the teaching of evolution in schools. Actually... *drumroll* A lot of christian identity groups believe that white folks where created by god but black folks where evolved from apes thus making blacks and whites different *species*. A local (former) white supremacist leader (the guy whos sidekicks threatened to kill me actually!) sad an even stranger idea. He believed that blacks came from apes and whites where actually from space , descended and founded atlantis, which then later on sunk to the see dispersing white people everywhere. He isn't quite normal in the head.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2011 16:47
|
|
|
e: wrong thread. sorry
duck monster fucked around with this message at 17:01 on Jul 30, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2011 16:50
|
|
|
e: wrong thread. so sorry 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 30, 2011 17:01
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:I have not heard this actually, interesting. Examples of groups? (I'm not disbelieving you, it makes sense with conservative mentality, just the only white supremacist groups I see in the US tend to be Bible thumping creationists) Oh yeah its way out of whack for conservatism, and its out of whack for nativism, but it is in line with some of the more out there "esoteric naziism" ideas that circle around the neo-nazi realm. The dudes name was Jack Van Tongeran, head of the Australian Nationalists Movement and fightdemback (the anti racist group I worked for) had a couple of guys who served time with him for his bombing campaign in the 1980s tell me he had this wierd aliens/atlantis/white people thing going on. I was skeptical of them at first as whilst Jacks loving out there, it seemed TOO wierd, but after reading some of the more crazier poo poo from some of the more hosed up nazi theorists like Evola , it actually seemed more in line with the occult aspects of neo-nazism. Basically the theory is that theres this race of aliens who we would call "the hyperboreans" who are like good nordic whitepeople aliens who came down and lived around the north pole who then came down to the area around tibet and poo poo and formed atlantis or something like that I dont know its completely gaga. The term apparently is "Nordic-Atlantean". 
duck monster fucked around with this message at 12:38 on Jul 31, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2011 12:33
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 23:29 |
|
|
ShadowCatboy posted:he called the lunar tide theorists "pinheads" and asked "well how'd the moon get there?" If bill o'reilly did ask Mr Obama that question, I would unreservedly love him forever.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2011 03:06
|
|