|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: www.conservapedia.com - What do you think? | |||||||||||||||||||||
alacrity fitzhugh Member (Idle past 4288 days) Posts: 194 Joined: |
If there was no moon, would we still have tides? Solar tides. The moon causes lunar tides. six(sic)six
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
riVeRraT Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 5788 From: NY USA Joined: |
Solar tides. The moon causes lunar tides. Yes, I remeber that after I posted, then I lost connection, so I couldn't correct myself.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5872 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Heh. I think I remember having one of those... Of course, that was back in the day when we had things like real "books" (remember those?), with actual paper pages and all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Oops, sorry, Quetzal, I forgot to respond to this.
Yes, the Chronicle is online, but you need a subscription to read it (which I don't -- the department where I teach gets the paper edition). Sorry. Anyway (and now I am going to be mixing up different sources, I'm afraid), some people feel that Wikipedia is at least as good a source as any encyclopedia, and others are dead against it. Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Utopia Junior Member (Idle past 5137 days) Posts: 26 From: Boston, MA. Joined: |
http://www.conservapedia.com/ACLU
The ACLU is the American Civil Liberties Union, which was run for its first 30 years by a non-Christian socialist named Roger Baldwin, who helped found it in 1920 in response to the Espionage Act and Sedition Act. Baldwin's stated purpose in creating the ACLU was "We are for SOCIALISM, disarmament, and ultimately for abolishing the state itself... We seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the SOLE CONTROL of those who produce wealth. COMMUNISM is the goal." [1] In a rare example of an ACLU chapter siding with a Christian student, the ACLU of Michigan defended a Christian student seeking to have a Biblical passage on the student's yearbook page.[2] More typical of ACLU litigation was when attorneys on its side demanded over $2 million in legal fees and expenses in order to prohibit an elected school board from introducing public school students to concepts or books concerning Intelligent design. At the end of this case the trial judge simply copied more than 90% of the ACLU's brief for his ruling.[3] The judge then entered a judgment for $2,067,226.00 against the school board members for the legal fees and expenses of the ACLU's side. The judge also prohibited any mention of Intelligent design by teachers in the public school. The judge's order also prevented any appeal of his opinion in the case. Have they no shame? LOL Greg P.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
I had no idea that Baldwin wrote in all caps when he wanted to emphasize something. Conservapedia is such a professional endeavor.
"I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut." -Stephen Colbert
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Tusko Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 615 From: London, UK Joined: |
That sounds pretty good to me too.
Its unfortunate that there are so many people for whom checking the evidence isn't so appealing. Perhaps its an affront to their belief -do not test the lord thy God? Or they simply have no interest in searching beyond the explanations that sit right before them because their lives are busy and interesting and they don't have the time to go thinking about erosion or dendochronology or whatever. I think that it should be made clear that there really shouldn't be any harm in checking - and that exploring your beliefs should strengthen those beliefs worth holding on to. I wonder how you go about doing that?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Tusko Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 615 From: London, UK Joined: |
I'm really not sure about the one about native (south) Americans. Do you think its genuine? I guess it could be. Eeeuch!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Tusko Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 615 From: London, UK Joined: |
You sound like you are saying that liberals are less dogmatic perhaps (sorry if thats a misreading). I don't know if you can make such blanket statements fairly. Maybe you can? Personally I think it divides along different lines - those who don't have enquiring minds are just going to get stuck with whatever beliefs they were born in to. Those who do have enquiring minds are subdivided into two categories: those who aren't readily able to admit they are wrong and those that are. There are people of both kinds who are religious and people of both kinds who are athiest. There are people of both kinds who are politically conservative and politically liberal.
How does that sound?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Have you been reading the discussions concerning these pages? They are often more interesting than the articles themselves.
Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Tusko Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 615 From: London, UK Joined: |
I don't feel uncomfortable telling you where I'm from - Gants Hill on the East end of the Central line... well, near enough.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Tusko Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 615 From: London, UK Joined: |
I agree - you shouldn't compulsively believe everything you read on Wikipedia, especially if you are reading about a potentially controversial topic. I think that's why the discussion page is often very worth checking.
I think the whole notion of conservapedia is contradictory and mistaken - that you can have an unbiased counterbalance to wikipedia (assume for a moment that wikipedia is biased towards liberal view uniformly) that is itself brazenly the mouthpiece for biased views. Two wrongs don't make a right - or something.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
From Statistics:
90% of all statistics are made up. For example, only 10% of Americans accept evolution as it is taught in public school. Hee hee hee. I wonder if this was intentional? Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Tusko Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 615 From: London, UK Joined: |
All this division and ignorance and bitterness: that's what makes me want to go and have a warm drink and lie down.
I agree that its very amusing that you can't tell the parody from the chaff - an entirely unintended side-effect of the project I imagine... unless its a brilliant parody all round.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
Dan Carroll Inactive Member |
I love this passage from the ACLU discussion:
Joshua, your 20 cases is out of how many? 20,000? That would be 0.1%. That is very rare indeed. Let's be factual about this. The ACLU brings at least 100 cases against prayer, the Ten Commandments, statutes, Boy Scouts, Intelligent Design, etc., for every case brought on the other side. Be honest about the ratios here. Yes, let's be factual. First, 0.1% of all their cases are in defense of Christians. Then there are 100 other cases for every one defense of Christians. Which means it's up to 1%, in the same paragraph. All while pleading that the other guy be reasonable and honest about The Facts. Good gravy. The mind just boggles. "I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut." -Stephen Colbert
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024