Discussion in 'Political/Religious' started by ogrejedi, Sep 3, 2008.
yeah I saw that and fucking rofled all over the place
Just posting this little gem:
I'm going to quote most of it in this post since occasionally these pages get changed/removed, and it would be a shame for future generations to miss out on this elegant ad hominem:
[quote='conservapedia] Ladies have below average interest in Richard Dawkins! How did this happen?
See also: Essay: Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?
Right now, Hispanic ladies are quite troublesome to Mr. Dawkins. Hispanic women constantly kick sand in Richard Dawkins' face when he goes to the beach because they are quite upset with Mr. Dawkins. The Hispanic ladies see the tough talking and outspoken Dawkins before the friendly liberal press, but Mr. Dawkins avoids at all cost debating strong debaters from the opposition. In addition, one of the Hispanic ladies talked to some of her Asian girlfriends and now the Asian ladies are unfavorable to Richard Dawkins too. So Richard Dawkins recently had Hispanic and Asian ladies kicking sand in his face at the beach. It was very sad that this spectacle happened, but Richard Dawkins brought it upon himself. And if this were not bad enough, the Hispanic ladies and Asian ladies talked to their Caucasian and African American girlfriends and now the entire female viewership for richarddawkins.net is below average and the whole world can see this! So unfortunately for Richard Dawkins, he is a weak atheist showman who cannot enjoy a day at the beach.
A note to kind and thoughtful ladies who want to see Richard Dawkins have machismo
The most unfortunate events above are no doubt most disheartening to kind and thoughtful ladies. No doubt you are wondering can Richard Dawkins gain machismo? Most definitely! The answer to this Richard Dawkins lack of machismo can be found HERE. Conservapedia encourages you to phone, write and email Richard Dawkins concerning the solution to his most sad situation of being machismo challenged. And if you are in his neighborhood, knock on his door with a copy of this article and exclaim "Praise God! I have the solution to your machismo problem, Mr. Dawkins." And then hand him a copy of this article! If Mr. Dawkins solves his lack of machismo problem, he will thank you for years to come! [/quote]
I might try to work with this guy next summer, if I can.
Show him conservapedia and ask him if he's still embarrassed.
this is stupid but pretty much sums up Conservapedia:
i mean, they have to know they are obvious trolling, right? right?
that cartoon is amazing.
I've often wondered this too. Schlafly seems very keen to flaunt conservapedia's hit statistics and how high they are. I wonder if he realizes that a very substantial portion of visitors to his site go there to laugh and be amused by his downright ridiculous and outright stupid worldviews.
well i wonder if they advertise on their site. you know most of their traffic has to be controversy clicks.
That's probably the best page on the wiki. I love it. You just can't go better than that.
There are no words.
I just came to realize something.
There's no way for a person to confirm the correctness of his own reasoning. The only way for confirmation is to have other people who come to the same conclusion. It doesn't matter how good your logic and reasoning is, there's no way to verify that the system of rules that you're basing your conclusions on is sound, or that you're intelligent enough to apply them correctly.
That might apply to the conservatives that write those pages. It is possible that they are completely unable to see that they are wrong, simply because their entire reasoning is flawed, and it is so flawed that they reason that it is sound. So there might be no way for them to change their minds.
Now, that's not the creepy part. The creepy part is that the same applies to anyone who doesn't agree with what's written on Conservapedia. It might as well be that our reasoning is flawed and we have no idea about it. It's technically possible that all the blatant mistakes we see aren't mistakes. After all, there are enough people supporting both opinions, so the only possible test that you can use to confirm whether you're sound passes for both.
Fortunately, the people who this site considers "liberals" are the people who build the progress. They are the people who succeed in creating something worthwhile and something to improve our existence. And they manage to create technology based on what has spawned those "liberal" points of view. That seems more than enough, but the thought still creeps me out.
* 20%: did not hear about conservative principles until after they made up their mind and, perhaps due to pervasive societal bias, refuse to reconsider
* 10%: genuinely lack of desire to find the truth, and instead desire attention, praise by liberal teachers, getting along by going along, and not standing up to liberal bullies
* 10%: refuse to forgive themselves and let go of their past mistakes and image
* 10%: believe myths created around government programs like the "New Deal" that liberal policies create jobs instead of destroying them and depriving people of liberty through government control.
* 10%: fooled by the demonizing of conservatives and mistakenly feel that conservative benefits are available only to those who are from an intact family or privileged background
* 10%: refuse to rise above their personal temptations, often self-destructive, and hate conservatives who criticize their self-indulgent behavior
* 10%: feel that they deserve to make more money than they do, as in public school teachers and university professors, and refuse to rise above self-interest
* 10%: harbor a grudge against a conservative, typically a parent but sometimes an ex-spouse, and refuse to forgive or rise above the animosity
* 5%: like an anarchist, genuinely want to believe in and propagate destructive ideas
* 5%: are susceptible to marketing and suggestion to an overlarge degree.
Making up numbers sure is fun!
90% of conservapedia visitors are trolls
12% of conservapedia visitors are legitimate idiots
2% of conservapedia visitors are 5/8 posters browsing for amusement
Percentages needing to add up to 100% is a myth perpetrated by liberal atheist socialists
Percentages needing to add up to 100% is a myth perpetrated by liberal atheist socialists
Why did you fix the sum... I was about to correct you...
Guys, looks like some of us are fucked
Jesus would be proud of these essays
Statistical analysis would show that all the percentages being multiples of 5 is unlikely too. Fortunately this person has obviously not taken a statistics course.
Very good point, although it could also be said that perhaps the conjurer of numbers made estimates accurate down to +/- 5% of the reported figures, hence the multiples of five. It would've also been quite amusing if they reported 'estimates' with accuracies down to 1%
Statistics is just liberal brainwashing.
Don't know if this already been posted but, here is conversapedia's take on relativity :
Yes, we've discussed it at length There's also a pretty amazing 'Counterexamples to Relativity' page, if you missed it and need an additional laugh.
BTW, the talk page on relativity is amazing. Only in America can someone as openly stupid as this Schlafly character aspire to be a teacher and succeed. Apparently 78 (unfortunate) homeschooled souls are going to be taught by him this fall
Ok so I read most of this thread now but this : http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Lenski_dialog
is clearly the best thing I read on the internet for quite a while.
From the conservapedia page on Lenski :
"In fact, two requests were made directly to Lenski for data, without success. His second response was rude and insulting."
Holy crap, this is some serious trolling of one of the most renowned biologist in the world.
What I don't understand is how they list "film had little lasting effect on public or its producer" as a reason for not including Passion of the Christ but then include an unreleased movie (Courageous).
Informative, and factual.
holy fuck. apologies if you've already posted this.
I raise you:
This is the single most idiotic assertion of what constitutes science I have ever read. I guess because all of my personal research work thus far has been entirely theoretical and devoid of actual experiment, it is completely unscientific according to andy
It's so funny to me that creationists complain about the Darwinian hegemony in biology when they clearly have not read Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, which explains why such a "hegemony" exists and why it's essential to the functioning of science. Then again, if they did read that book, they'd completely and totally miss the point and see it as proof that science doesn't work, or something, so maybe it's good that they remain largely ignorant of it.
It was alright up until the first sentence...
large collection of photos with captions, which apparently often qualify as essays in the eyes of 'conservatives'
holy fucking shit, found this via conservapedia.
if you want to see some people with 'PhDs' make complete idiots of themselves, have a look at this.
It's quite remarkable that you can get a legitimate, fully-recognized PhD in microbiology from a fully accredited school and still have absolutely no grasp whatsoever of the elementary laws of thermodynamics (yeah, they actually pull that '2nd Law disproves evolution' argument. You know, the argument that even Answers in Genesis advise creationists not to use.) Times like this my life goal of getting a PhD seems like a pointless endeavor
I just saw this, and I nearly fucking lost it at this:
# U-571 (2000) Exalts American war heroism, ingenuity, perseverance and determination in the face of seemingly insurmountable odds and pays tribute to real-life American accomplishments in the Second World War
This one is also excellent:
# Starship Troopers (1997). While not entirely family-friendly due to some nudity, this film deals with several important patriotic ideas: the exercise of citizenship should be a right earned through service, not a liberal entitlement; that a permanent state of war is justified by the threat of terror attacks; and that our enemies are, like the "Bugs" of the film, not entitled to the full set of human rights.
a permanent state of war is justified by the threat of terror attacks
Go to the 'talk' page.
this guy's face and the description about him gets me every time
Separate names with a comma.