|
Oh god. it's this on top of so many other things that bang in the nails on the coffin of my faith in the world. We're not going to a good place...
|
# ? May 15, 2011 08:58 |
|
|
# ? Mar 29, 2024 15:39 |
|
Diogines posted:Out of the hundreds of games which make religion or the catholic church out to be the bad guy, why did they pick one game where that is not really the issue? The church is pretty tame in MTW/MTW2. conservative people hate what they do not understand conservatives do not understand video games
|
# ? May 15, 2011 09:05 |
|
I just finished Starcraft 2 and realized yesterday I am now a muslim. If only I had gotten to conservapedia sooner
|
# ? May 15, 2011 09:10 |
|
This wiki has nothing on Badiou.
|
# ? May 15, 2011 09:11 |
|
asalamalakum adun
|
# ? May 15, 2011 09:26 |
|
ripped0ff posted:Even the King James version of the Bible was compiled in 1611. If a 400 year old compilation won't cut mustard for what they consider appropriately conservative, I can't imagine what will. They could use the Tyndale translation. He was even executed by big government (I'm trying to put it into their parlance) for making it, so there's a point in its favor for the right wing. http://books.google.com/books?id=4A...20Bible&f=false See? Here's his New Testament. A good 80 years older than the King James.
|
# ? May 15, 2011 09:28 |
|
Originally I was going to just quote a bunch of conflicting information from here, but then I got depressed so I'll settle for this:True 'Merikans posted:In 2007, "Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture...announced that over 700 scientists from around the world have now signed a statement expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of Darwinian evolution."[5] A whole 700 huh? More importantly I'd like to lead a study into why the author decided to close quote with an ellipsis. Liberal Conspiracy? True 'Merikans posted:In 2011, the results of a study was published indicating that most United States high school biology teachers are reluctant to endorse the theory of evolution in class This one had me flabberghasted me. Could it be fact? I decided to check their Source. The Washington Post posted:* About 28 percent consistently implement National Research Council recommendations calling for introduction of evidence that evolution occurred, and craft lesson plans with evolution as a unifying theme linking disparate topics in biology. Okay, that sounds about right, we've got 28% teaching Evolution as we know it, 13% eating lead based paint regularly and the remaining ~60%... wait, what? What exactly does that mean? It's kind of important that we know, since the only solid number we have with any certainty so far on the topic of "Teachers who hate Reason" is 13%, hardly "most". For the answer, I decided to read the study that all these numbers came from. Penn. State posted:Berkman and Plutzer dubbed the remaining teachers the "cautious 60 percent," who are neither strong advocates for evolutionary biology nor explicit endorsers of nonscientific alternatives. "Our data show that these teachers understandably want to avoid controversy," they said. Hold. The. loving. Phone. That's not the 60% of teachers legitimizing creationism I was promised, that's a bunch of teachers who are simply rolling their eyes in this whole fiasco. But that means.... that means that Conservapedia isn't fact-checking their sources! Oh god, I don't want to live in a world where Creationists can be wrong
|
# ? May 15, 2011 09:41 |
|
I was going to go on a long tirade about how each individual entry by authors contains a tinge of their bias within it. It really shines when you read through an entire different article where there are probably 20-40 authors who each have a bais pulling one way while all trying to get the same general message across(ie. we hate people who aren't us). Furthermore I'm disgusted with the abuse of the words "Science" and "pseudoscience" because I bet you not a single loving person on that website knows what real science is. Hmm, checking out the page on the Scientific method lent itself to a length page discussing it without bias only to come back with this sucker, quote:Scientists may be influenced by their world-views to look for certain results that fit a preconception. The test of objectivity and rigor imposed on their work by the need for other scientists to replicate it tends to make the truth-seeking facility of the scientific method prevail in the long run,[5] although this is difficult where the world-view is widespread. Yes, I wonder what kind of scientist might be most likely to fabricate his or her data? The religions person with the rigid world view crated from the Bible and church or say the atheist who takes the world as it comes? However that being said I have found my new favorite topic: Atheism and Obesity links. Hmmm lets see if they can put sounds science to the test and.... nope just a lot of coincidences while turning a blind eye to their own. http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_obesity onemanlan fucked around with this message at 09:48 on May 15, 2011 |
# ? May 15, 2011 09:42 |
|
Y'know, after years of reading articles and threads here about conservatives I think I finally, truly, understand what it is to "otherise" people. I don't think that deep down I still view conservatives as people, just a problem.
|
# ? May 15, 2011 09:43 |
|
Revener posted:Originally I was going to just quote a bunch of conflicting information from here, but then I got depressed so I'll settle for this: This is a very good analysis of the list. (EDIT: Huh may be a different list since this is an analysis of 101 scientists) ShadowCatboy fucked around with this message at 09:49 on May 15, 2011 |
# ? May 15, 2011 09:44 |
|
Madfez posted:Y'know, after years of reading articles and threads here about conservatives I think I finally, truly, understand what it is to "otherise" people. They probably see you that way too.
|
# ? May 15, 2011 09:48 |
|
onemanlan posted:However that being said... I have found my new favorite topic: Atheism and Obesity links. Hmmm lets see if they can put sounds science to the test and.... nope just a lot of coincidences while turning a blind eye to their own. Given the efforts of Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, and Glenn Beck to paint Michelle Obama's anti-childhood obesity campaign as an attempt to institute tyrannical food communism, I wonder if they'll change it.
|
# ? May 15, 2011 09:48 |
|
You can see it so easily though through this lovely wiki. They throw in "liberal, atheist, Jew, etc" into the mix when referencing the groups they dont agree with. Not realizing of course that there can be conservative atheists and conservative Jewish individuals. Pretty much they take the side that angle of 'if you're not part of the (conservative) solution then you're part of the (liberal) problem.' where liberal is only defined by what a conservative says hes not at that point and time.
|
# ? May 15, 2011 09:52 |
|
Pretty sure most people in the tea party/conservapedia readers have no idea what a liberal really is. Just like how they don't really understand socialism
|
# ? May 15, 2011 09:53 |
|
I have stumbled upon Conservapedia before, and honestly thought the articles I had seen were parodies, like Urban Dictionary or Encyclopedia Dramatica. Reading this thread, turns out it isn't, and is mostly all serious. Huh.
|
# ? May 15, 2011 09:59 |
|
However that being said I have found my new favorite topic: Atheism and Obesity links. Hmmm lets see if they can put sounds science to the test and.... nope just a lot of coincidences while turning a blind eye to their own. http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_obesity Continued because this 'article' caught my attention for the vast topics it seems to relate to. Some topics include: quote:Pictures of fat people who also happen to be atheists O_o What the gently caress? I'm going to go out on a limb and say from living in the deep south that most of the fat people I've seen are the religious mother fuckers who see it as God's choice they're fat. They can't help that they eat 3 big macs... because god made them that way. Granted my data is only exemplary of the sample group that I have seen. Also they're only picture of a healthy Christian, and conservative, individual is Chuck Norris in a Total Fit Gym ad. Also conservatives apparently know dick-all about genetics, DNA, RNA, or anything related to biology. onemanlan fucked around with this message at 10:08 on May 15, 2011 |
# ? May 15, 2011 10:01 |
|
I thought the video gaming community was overwhelmingly conservative but then maybe thats just the impression I get online in any given FPS game.
|
# ? May 15, 2011 10:07 |
|
Bad news: atheist attempts to counter Conservapedia's online presence have mostly failed.
|
# ? May 15, 2011 10:08 |
|
Baraminology posted:Baraminology is the study of baramins, also known by the Biblical term kinds. Leading to Evolutionist view posted:Evolutionary scientists criticize Baraminology, claiming that it lacks rigorous testing and fails to produce any peer reviewed scientific research.[7] It is regarded as pseudoscience by evolutionary scientists. However their claim has been rejected by creation scientists who described it as a young field still in development and stated that criticism can be resolved with further research[8]. This. This is creation science. Can you feel the cognitive dissonance?
|
# ? May 15, 2011 10:16 |
|
Greatest Conservative Movies http://www.conservapedia.com/Essay:Greatest_Conservative_Movies Conservapedia posted:5.Spider-Man (2002) - Praises moral virtue (hard-working teenager, devout aunt and well-meaning uncle) and pokes fun at liberals (entertainers and journalist). Hero chooses abstinence. This was one of the most profitable films ever made. Another essay:Greatest Conservative Movies of the Last 20 Years http://www.conservapedia.com/Essay:20_Greatest_Conservative_Movies_of_the_Last_20_Years Conservapedia posted:Air Force One (1997): Harrison Ford plays a neoconservative United States President, evident during his speech upon the capture of Kazakhstan dictator Ivan Radek; "we issued economic sections and hid behind the rhetoric of diplomacy. How dare we. Real peace is not just the absence of conflict it's the presence of justice. And tonight I come too you with a pledge to change America's policy. Never again will I allow our political self-interest to deter us from doing what we know to be morally right. Atrocity and terror are not political weapons. And to those who would use them, your day is over. We will no longer negotiate, we will no longer tolerate and we will no longer be afraid. It's your turn to be afraid." Wsobchak fucked around with this message at 10:34 on May 15, 2011 |
# ? May 15, 2011 10:19 |
|
Wsobchak posted:Greatest Conservative Movies I don't think Pete chose abstinence in Spider Man.
|
# ? May 15, 2011 10:21 |
|
Kind of surprised they didn't try to poo poo on Heath Ledger as the bad guy in that review.
|
# ? May 15, 2011 10:26 |
|
I wonder what their thoughts are on the American Revolution if they seem to be pro-state-sponsored Christianity and apparently lion-based monarchy.
|
# ? May 15, 2011 10:28 |
|
Aww, their article on the Axiom of Choice used to be totally batshit. And now it's just poo poo. Whenever I hear of conservapedia I wonder what percentage of their articles are written by people taking the piss. A friend and I wrote an article claiming that "new math" was invented by the French to poo poo on good old American traditions. We were very pleased with ourselves until we discovered that there already existed another page on the site making the exact same claim. Either other trolls beat us to it, or the editors of conservapedia are too nuts to be trolled.
|
# ? May 15, 2011 10:53 |
|
And lest we forget:Best New Conservative Words http://www.conservapedia.com/Essay:Best_New_Conservative_Words New Term:charisma Origin date:1930 Comments:literally "a gift from God", charisma is a personal magic of leadership found in conservative public figures (but beware of the liberal tendency to put style before substance!) New Term:correlate Origin date:1742 Comments: (verb) to show that one thing relates to another, such as atheism or homosexuality and selfishness or lack of charity; liberals falsely rely on anecdotes to deny the general relationship New Term:Founding Fathers Origin date:1914 Comments:the several dozen Christian men [33] who helped draft the formative documents of the United States New Term:invisible hand of marriage Origin date:2008 Comments:discovered on Conservapedia, it is the unseen force of productivity that results from marriage (only between a man and woman). Wsobchak fucked around with this message at 10:59 on May 15, 2011 |
# ? May 15, 2011 10:56 |
|
Beauty and the Beast is anti-feminist? It features a woman who reads avidly, sacrifices herself for her father and falls for a guy only after he stops being an rear end in a top hat to her. I'm confused.
|
# ? May 15, 2011 11:04 |
|
Wsobchak posted:And lest we forget:Best New Conservative Words Funny because the whole conservative movement seems to not understand the differences correlation and causality. Atheists and obesity is a great example. There is a correlation between obesity and atheism, just as there is a correlation between Christians and obesity, as well as a correlation between yellow birds and speckled jelly beans. That being said the correlation does not indicate causality, yet nearly every article I've read on that site has some type of fault in logic like that. Atheists tend to cause fat people is how these guys see it, yet for the rest of us *sane* people can see it as a small, albeit pointless, correlation and lack of causality relating the two.
|
# ? May 15, 2011 11:07 |
|
I actually thought I liked an article on Conservapedia. http://www.conservapedia.com/Pseudoscience It checks out until they suggest that string theory is not a falsifiable scientific theory. Oh, and here are a few "examples" of pseudoscience: quote:Big Bang Astronomy
|
# ? May 15, 2011 11:18 |
|
Conservapedia threads never fail to be entertaining, even if it's just talking about the same things. They're just so amazingly thick. I decided to check a random page. And came up with Doctor Who. Conservapedia posted:In a recent episode, the Daleks - Doctor Who's most dangerous enemy, a race of creatures who are physically shriveled and weak, but who are contained within an armored tank-like body - take over Manhattan. They ruthlessly exploit workers engaged in construction and repair on the Empire State Building. This was reported in the British newspaper The Independent as a metaphor for the rampant abuse of capitalism. The lead writer of Dr. Who, Russell T Davies is known for aggressively promoting the gay agenda in his prior show Queer as Folk and continuing to promote it in Doctor Who (despite the fact that the show is supposed to be geared towards a young audience), with many openly gay or bisexual (or as the show jokes "omnisexual" due to relations with aliens) characters, including the lead of the spin-off Torchwood, Captain Jack Harkness. Davies' attitude has been contrasted with that of John Nathan-Turner, the final producer of the original series who, while being publicly known as a homosexual, never allowed this to overtly influence the stories written while he produced the show. The show in short is good, The Doctor, vs evil, his enemies. I want to be faux-insulted at the BBC's gall to put gay people in a TV show that children watch, but I don't even care, these guys are just hilarious in their stupidity. Please, go on
|
# ? May 15, 2011 11:18 |
|
Mr. D Bewildering posted:Transgenderism That's the only science. So about how many of these articles are fake?
|
# ? May 15, 2011 11:19 |
|
House Louse posted:Is the site down for anyone else? I just tried accessing it and all I'm getting is 403 and 404 messages. I need to see that Atheism and Obesity page! It was down for me as well, so I did a quick google search and got this: Rationalwiki posted:403 errors Classy. Zoinker fucked around with this message at 11:31 on May 15, 2011 |
# ? May 15, 2011 11:29 |
|
So basically: if we keep it up, literally nobody will be able to view the site? I dunno if that would be useful or sad. It's the greatest satire ever.
|
# ? May 15, 2011 11:32 |
|
ShadowCatboy posted:This is a very good analysis of the list. (EDIT: Huh may be a different list since this is an analysis of 101 scientists) I think it should be enough to post this http://ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve if anyone really wants to wave around meaningless numbers.
|
# ? May 15, 2011 11:37 |
|
IM_DA_DECIDER posted:I think it should be enough to post this http://ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve if anyone really wants to wave around meaningless numbers. Thank you very much for this, I've somehow managed to never read it.
|
# ? May 15, 2011 11:45 |
|
I'd probably try and throw my hand in but, since the site is run by people of bottomless intellectual cowardice, it seems a large portion of the planet is blocked from viewing it.
|
# ? May 15, 2011 11:46 |
|
Twanki posted:I'd probably try and throw my hand in but, since the site is run by people of bottomless intellectual cowardice, it seems a large portion of the planet is blocked from viewing it.
|
# ? May 15, 2011 11:50 |
|
Ha... I wanted to have a look at it for old times' sake, turns out my IP is banned. Still, I remember Hitler being the first thing that came up for their Socialism page. Is that still the case? Also, the counterexamples to evolution page was pure gold, too.
|
# ? May 15, 2011 11:51 |
|
I just like the fact that Conservapedia exists. They literally cannot cope with reality and have created their own version of it. It says so much
|
# ? May 15, 2011 11:55 |
|
Not to Fear! http://hidemyass.com/ It's a little slow to navigate with but this should do you right. Observe
|
# ? May 15, 2011 12:03 |
|
|
# ? Mar 29, 2024 15:39 |
|
Conservapedia is hilarious. It's so ridiculously biased and stupid that it would probably be impossible to produce a parody of it. I've amused myself many times just by going through and reading the introductions to articles, trying to see which is the most biased. Here are a few: Wikipedia "Wikipedia is a online encyclopedia written and edited by an ad hoc assemblage of anonymous persons who are mostly, according to the Register (UK), teenagers and unemployed persons". Liberal "A liberal (also leftist) is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons. There are no coherent liberal standards; often a liberal is merely someone who craves attention, and who uses many words to say nothing". Witch "A witch is a female practitioner of witchcraft; a male practitioner is a wizard. Witches, in league with Satan practice the black arts through supernatural powers and magic. The Bible gives us clear instructions on how to deal with witches: “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.” (Exodus 22:18)".
|
# ? May 15, 2011 12:10 |