1. Attachments are working again! Check out this thread for more details and to report any other bugs.

Congratulations, right-wingers!

Discussion in 'Fred's House of Pancakes' started by larkinmj, Mar 14, 2007.

Page 2 of 2
  1. Godiva

    Godiva AmeriKan Citizen

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    10,339
    14
    0
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    He wants teachers to use Conservapedia as a resource? Not going to happen.

    You really have to question someone so far right that they consider the neutral middle to be left.

    If you want some fun compare the entries for Hillary Clinton in Wikipedia and Conservapedia. Then come talk to me about bias and which is more scholarly.

    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jgills240 @ Mar 14 2007, 01:25 PM) [snapback]405524[/snapback]</div>
    Isn't that copyright infringement?
     
    #21 Godiva, Mar 15, 2007
  2. larkinmj

    larkinmj New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2006
    1,996
    5
    0
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ewhanley @ Mar 15 2007, 01:05 AM) [snapback]405892[/snapback]</div>
    Thanks for posting that link- interesting blog. I would not have believed that someone is proposing research to detect gay fetuses if I hadn't read it myself.
     
    #22 larkinmj, Mar 15, 2007
  3. rufaro

    rufaro WeePoo, Gen II

    Joined:
    May 26, 2006
    2,867
    72
    10
    Location:
    Lost Angeles
    Vehicle:
    2006 Prius
    Model:
    N/A
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Mar 14 2007, 08:28 AM) [snapback]405405[/snapback]</div>
    Well...I didn't think THAT was possible...
    ...until I read this:

    Examples of Bias in Wikipedia
    From Conservapedia


    The growing list of examples of bias and errors on Wikipedia. Please add to this, and also contribute entries to Conservapedia.

    1. Wikipedia allows the use of B.C.E. instead of B.C. and C.E. instead of A.D. The dates are based on the birth of Jesus, so why pretend otherwise? Conservapedia gives the credit due to Christianity and exposes the CE deception.

    And that's just their #1!!!

    It would get funnier...if I wasn't so scared about it...
     
    #23 rufaro, Mar 21, 2007
  4. Ichabod

    Ichabod Artist In Residence

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2006
    1,794
    19
    0
    Location:
    Newton, MA
    Vehicle:
    2006 Prius
    Their number 2. in Wikipedia Bias List:

    Funny that refusing to interject an opinion makes them "biased."

    Number 4. on their list is funny too because a quote from Wikipedia mentions some disbelievers in Christ-as-historical-figure but in the same sentence completely discounts those views. I guess just mentioning those views is biased...
     
    #24 Ichabod, Mar 21, 2007
  5. larkinmj

    larkinmj New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2006
    1,996
    5
    0
    Check out the Conservapedia entry for "Fred Phelps". In case you've never heard of the "Rev." Phelps, he's the hatemongering nutjob who organized a protest at the funeral of Matthew Shepard (the gay kid from Wyoming who was brutally murdered) with signs saying, "God Hates Fags". He also has organized protests at the funerals of many soldiers killed in Iraq, since in his sick mind God is punishing America because we tolerate gays.
    The Conservapedia entry is largely sympathetic toward Phelps. It says that "Phelps, although outspoken and outlandish, is far less of a hypocrite than other Christian organizations who claim to be able to determine which verses from the Bible are literal from those that are allegorical." They talk about hate crimes- no, not those committed BY Phelps, but rather allegedly directed AGAINST Phelps "by homosexual militants."
    This tells me that the sick twisted minds who devised Conservapedia are not conservatives, but radical right-wing bigoted lunatics.
     
    #25 larkinmj, Mar 21, 2007
  6. galaxee

    galaxee mostly benevolent

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    9,810
    465
    0
    Location:
    MD
    Vehicle:
    2005 Prius
    i was hoping to find some comedy in comparing cannabinoid articles in both but no such luck... d'oh... i forget that science isn't a neocon priority.

    anyway, looking up "liberal" and "conservative" on conservapedia was slightly amusing.
     
    #26 galaxee, Mar 21, 2007
  7. dragonfly

    dragonfly New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2006
    2,217
    7
    0
    The first thing I looked up was global warming. On conservapedia, it says "Criticisms of Mr. Gore have come not only from conservative groups and prominent skeptics of catastrophic warming, but also from rank-and-file scientists like Dr. Easterbook,..."

    So, who is this Dr. Easterbook? (Misspelled by the way!) Conservapedia's reference to the above statement gives no further information. But going to Wikipedia, we see that:

    "Having previously been a skeptic about global warming, Easterbrook announced during 2006 that he now believes there is near-unanimous acceptance of the evidence of an artificial greenhouse effect in the scientific community. He therefore now holds that greenhouse gas emissions must be curbed."

    This is only the very first thing I looked up. That's all I need to know.
     
    #27 dragonfly, Mar 22, 2007
  8. rudiger

    rudiger Active Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2006
    696
    45
    0
    Location:
    Cincinnati, OH
    Vehicle:
    2013 Prius
    Model:
    Two
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Mar 15 2007, 12:51 AM) [snapback]405872[/snapback]</div>
    It will be interesting to see how 'self-correcting' Conservapedia becomes. The self-correcting factor is one of the primary reasons in the value of Wikipedia.

    Frankly, if it's modeled after Wikipedia, one would think that the information contained would eventually become quite similiar as more people contribute. Somehow, though, I suspect that Conservapedia will be highly censored, negating the value which is inherent in Wikipedia.
     
    #28 rudiger, Mar 22, 2007
  9. larkinmj

    larkinmj New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2006
    1,996
    5
    0
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Mar 22 2007, 01:06 AM) [snapback]409991[/snapback]</div>
    Conservapedia's entry on global warming is schizophrenic. On one hand, they spout the typical right-wing line (global warming is a theory, scientists who study global warming are in it for the money, Al Gore is a big fat hypocrite, etc.). But then they acknowledge that many evangelical Christians, in particular Richard Cizik, consider gloabl warming a critical issue from the point of view that it is wrong to destroy God's creation (the earth). And there is very little about the science itself here.

    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(galaxee @ Mar 22 2007, 12:41 AM) [snapback]409977[/snapback]</div>
    From Conservapedia's definition of "conservative":
    More than slightly amusing, I'd say!
     
    #29 larkinmj, Mar 22, 2007
  10. dragonfly

    dragonfly New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2006
    2,217
    7
    0
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(rudiger @ Mar, 05:10 AM) [snapback]410082[/snapback]</div>
    Take a look at the history on any hot-button subject. Whenever someone tries to edit the page to something factual or moderate, it gets reverted back to the conservative stance. Example.
     
    #30 dragonfly, Mar 22, 2007
  11. rudiger

    rudiger Active Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2006
    696
    45
    0
    Location:
    Cincinnati, OH
    Vehicle:
    2013 Prius
    Model:
    Two
    <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Mar 22 2007, 12:26 PM) [snapback]410179[/snapback]</div>
    Unless the same thing is happening at Wikipedia with articles being intentionally edited by the moderators towards a liberal perspective, wouldn't it negate the entire argument and justification of Conservapedia because Wikipedia is pro-liberal?
     
    #31 rudiger, Mar 22, 2007
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 2 of 2