Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
Mr. D Bewildering
Mar 24, 2010

8^y
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
Much of the work of Richard Dawkins
Climatology
Darwinism
Environmentalism
Evolutionary Biology
Global Warming
Much of the work of Stephen Hawking
Much of the work of PZ Myers (link included, since the page on PZ Myers is quick to point out that "lol he's fat")
Old earth geology
Relativity, Theory of
Much of the work of Carl Sagan
Trangenderism

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Mr. D Bewildering
Mar 24, 2010

8^y
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.

Mr. D Bewildering
Mar 24, 2010

8^y

raezr posted:

Even though every other page on this site blasts liberals for smoking too much weed, the actual marijuana page isn't very damning at all. http://conservapedia.com/Marijuana I have no idea what their definition of "liberal" or "conservative" is, it's so inconsistent.

Every once in a while I'll check the front page just to see their take on whatever big news story of the week. When Bin Laden as killed they were posting conspiracy theories about it.

Marijuana is an interesting issue from a liberal/conservative perspective. Conservatives should be all in favor of relaxing government regulations on controlled substances and yet they are the biggest proponents of the war on drugs.

Mr. D Bewildering
Mar 24, 2010

8^y

The NPR Store posted:

Conservatives believe in magic and are scared of witches.

They think the Salem with trials involved actual witches.
"A male practitioner is a wizard". I finally understand why they found Harry Potter offensive. But let's look on the bright side: there is a group of people out there who could easily be convinced that you are, in fact, a wizard. It's no longer secluded to the realm of imagination.
Let the new age of LARPing begin!

Mr. D Bewildering
Mar 24, 2010

8^y

jojoinnit posted:

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.

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.

The term reparations is also used in suggesting that the United States government reimburse descendants of slaves.
So is it reparations if money goes to the slave owners or is it reparations if it goes to [descendants of] slaves? Conservapedia seems to suggest both are bad.

Mr. D Bewildering fucked around with this message at 18:36 on May 17, 2011

Mr. D Bewildering
Mar 24, 2010

8^y

jojoinnit posted:

It would make more sense to me to create a separate server that handles edits, that blocks IP ranges trying to edit pages, so they discourage vandalism while still allowing regular people to read the site.
Were you really expecting anything about Conservapedia to "make sense"?

Just let them IP block the world until the only people who can read it are the three people who write the articles.

Mr. D Bewildering
Mar 24, 2010

8^y

raezr posted:

I decided to look this up http://conservapedia.com/Liberal_hypocrisy#The_Obamas_and_obesity :psyduck:


This is like a conservative helldump.

I was going to post about how I never understood why conservatives bothered with this sort of attack, but then I read:

quote:

and the Obamas have yet to publicly discuss the significant obesity problem within the lesbian community.
Fuckin' :lol:

Mr. D Bewildering
Mar 24, 2010

8^y

Goreld posted:

Truly, pre-Christian humor is nonexistent.

This graffiti in Pompeii was apparently about the serious consequences of fire-buggering:


Also, serious admonishments to Theophilus

These are some of the best things I've ever read. Bookmarking it for eternity.

Mr. D Bewildering
Mar 24, 2010

8^y

"If you're so smart Mr. Atheist, then why are you so fat? "
:smug:

e: oh wow http://www.conservapedia.com/Essay:_If_you%27re_so_smart_PZ_Myers,_then_why_are_you_so_fat%3F
They really do enjoy these obesity arguments, don't they?

Mr. D Bewildering fucked around with this message at 16:49 on May 31, 2011

Mr. D Bewildering
Mar 24, 2010

8^y

raezr posted:

I mentioned this before, but it continues to boggle me that they demonize hippies so much. When was the last time anyone ever cared about hippies?

Their mindset is stuck in the 60s. See: race relations

Mr. D Bewildering
Mar 24, 2010

8^y
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"?

Mr. D Bewildering
Mar 24, 2010

8^y

Per posted:

How does that work? Can anyone do that? Sounds kind of fraud-y.

"Ayn Rand" is the pseudonym. She used her real name.

Mr. D Bewildering
Mar 24, 2010

8^y

Pead posted:

Premise: Given that public schools educate about 90% of Americans, it is astounding how few prominent Americans attended public school after the banning of school prayer in 1962.

Required Evidence: List of all prominent americans and whether they went to public school.

Given Evidence: Short list of prominent people they hate and disagree with that attended public school after 1962 and a short list of people who attended pre-1962 that has nothing to do with anything.


what a horribly thought out argument

And I bet a lot of public school students are atheist and obese too.

Mr. D Bewildering
Mar 24, 2010

8^y

Bruce Leroy posted:

Of note here is that Rand had every right to take part in these programs, but she was a loving hypocrite for doing so after railing against them and the other people who take part in them so viciously. Her philosophy is a cancer on this world and her writing is just loving awful.

Of course she had every right to them. I'm just curious what kind of excuse she could have possibly had to justify this action for herself. And for that matter, what excuse would her supporters come up with to explain away her hypocrisy? Can I interpret it as tacit approval of Medicare/Social Security?

Mr. D Bewildering
Mar 24, 2010

8^y

Strudel Man posted:

Yes, I know it's true. The absurdity is arguing that he's a liberal on that basis, when his one and only current cause is one espoused principally by the right, not the left.

Mind you, I don't think I'd call him a conservative, either. Mental illness isn't really political.
He's not mentally ill. He knows exactly what he's doing. He's running a successful scheme to make money off of furthering the misery of grieving people.

Mr. D Bewildering
Mar 24, 2010

8^y

Nenonen posted:

I think being a religious wacko is something that you're born with or acquired at a very early age - I've known people who have shuffled through different religions, only becoming more fundamentalist at each turn. What is common is that their childhood homes were very religious as well. Whether it's in genes or upraising, I don't know.

However, claiming that someone is born to be a Christian is BS. They might as well turn into Islam or Buddhism or Scientology and be just as crazy.

If the "born religious" argument really become s part of the Republican mindset, then how much more terrible does the "I won't have muslims on my cabinet" position of several Republican candidates look?

Mr. D Bewildering
Mar 24, 2010

8^y

Dr Christmas posted:

I'm predicting a lot of accusations that the left is "happy" that it was a right-wing christian.
I'm predicting this as well, but it won't make me any less willing to bring up this douchebag again:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umTITWQuXwY
Dan Fanelli: "Does THIS look like a terrorist?"
Now he does :v:

Mr. D Bewildering
Mar 24, 2010

8^y
When I think "conservatives" and "moral high ground", I can't help but think of Newt Gingrich first and foremost. Just study that man's love life if you want to know why "sanctity of marriage" is bullshit.

Mr. D Bewildering
Mar 24, 2010

8^y

Genesis 1:6-8 posted:

And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.
When I read this, I just interpret "water above the sky" as clouds :shobon:

Mr. D Bewildering
Mar 24, 2010

8^y

jojoinnit posted:


This just reminds me of Homestuck. "Holy poo poo, 413 popped up AGAIN"

Tebow worship is like a lovely internet poster reading a convoluted webcomic.

e: I guess it seems more amazing when it happens in nature rather than as a narrative. But none of this is all that spectacular or uncommon.

Mr. D Bewildering
Mar 24, 2010

8^y

Lassitude posted:

Nah, they're in favour of executing minors.


So you see, if you prevent States from executing minors then police are forced to find adults they can wrongly convict and execute instead. As you can see the moral decision is to allow children to be put to death.

I like to think that it has more to do with the following line from Ron Paul's infamous newsletter:

quote:

“We don’t think a child of 13 should be held as responsible as a man of 23. That’s true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult, and should be treated as such.”

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Mr. D Bewildering
Mar 24, 2010

8^y
Tebow talk cracks me up. Is there anything that they won't view through the tinted window of partisan politics?

And the "morality" of putting Manning on the field is what made me lose it. Schlafly is acting like he's a feeble old man compared to the young, strapping warrior of God that is Tim Tebow.

Is there anything to the Tebow obsession other than the God angle?

  • Locked thread