wikipedia is too liberal... apparently

dunkman

angelica wrote:

Hahaha!

I'm in......................:eek:

ahhhh what the fuck... i'm in too

angelica

Scubascott wrote:

My personal opinion, given the numerous intelligent design threads I have seen on this board, is that as much as people like to make it about fact, it really ends up being about belief, whether for or against.

Not again. . . You know how hard it is for me to resist that one. I've just about given up though. It feels too futile.

It seems that you are struggling in coping with my opinion, Scubascott. It's just an opinion...we all have them! Your own opinion is not at risk. All our opinions remain well and safe.

angelica

dunkman wrote:

ahhhh what the fuck... i'm in too

hahaha!

Byrnzie

dunkman wrote:

ahhhh what the fuck... i'm in too

Just be careful where ya put your hands. I'm a bit squeamish when it comes to man love.

Jeanie

Scubascott wrote:

Now that -



is a scary thought. On the other hand, I don't think the rest of the word needs to feel threatened by American imperialism anymore. If things keep going the way they are in a couple of generations the whole country will be so poorly educated they'll forget how to operate the world domination machine.

:D:D LMAO!!!!

Byrnzie

Damn! I passed the 7000 post mark without noticing. :rolleyes:

angelica

Byrnzie wrote:

Just be careful where ya put your hands. I'm a bit squeamish when it comes to man love.

Oh man, the visuals are just too........much. *peeks through fingers*

angelica

Scubascott wrote:

angelica wrote:

My personal opinion, given the numerous intelligent design threads I have seen on this board, is that as much as people like to make it about fact, it really ends up being about belief, whether for or against.

Not again. . . You know how hard it is for me to resist that one. I've just about given up though. It feels too futile.

Allow me to clarify my statement Scubascott. Within science, there is a certain criteria of what is factual. Within the context of science that criteria remains, irrespective of the personal beliefs of those practicing the scientific method.

What I meant when I referred to these debates being essentially about belief vs non-belief, is that such debates are generally beyond the scope of the science itself. I have continually maintained that in order for science to be true to itself, it is dependent upon the scientific method. I agree that as a study, the lines of science must be clear. And yet for these debates we're often talking about people's opinions of how to deal with what we have learned from science; and people's opinions on how to teach what we've learned; or about people's interpretations of what we've learned from science. All such issues are no longer about the science itself, by nature. Ultimately these issues come down to the personal view of those arguing them and therefore we've moved from the objective realm into the subjective one.

Scubascott

Byrnzie wrote:

Damn! I passed the 7000 post mark without noticing. :rolleyes:

Wow. Does that make you wonder what you're doing with your life?

darkcrow

this is a fun game. let us see what the two sites say about... abortion

conservapedia
"The vast majority of scientific studies have shown that abortion causes an increase in breast cancer, including 16 out of 17 statistically significant studies.[4] Studies showing that abortion increases breast cancer predate the political controversy"

wiki
"The abortion-breast cancer (ABC) hypothesis (also referred to by supporters as the ABC link) posits a causal relationship between induced abortion and an increased risk of developing breast cancer. In early pregnancy the level of estrogens increases, leading to breast growth in preparation for lactation. The abortion-breast cancer hypothesis proposes that if this process is interrupted with an abortion – before full differentiation in the third trimester – then more relatively vulnerable undifferentiated cells could be left than there were prior to the pregnancy, resulting in a greater potential risk of breast cancer. The hypothesis garnered renewed interest from rat studies conducted in the 1980s,[34][35][36] however, it has not been scientifically verified in humans, and abortion is not considered a breast cancer risk by any major cancer organization."

baraka

Two things.....................with the exception of abortion, how is conservatism synonymous Christianity? Maybe a Christian or conservative can answer this. Seems to me liberalism is more on par with the teachings of Jesus.

Also, what is the big deal about the 'spelling' of certain words? Just because the word 'honor' is spelled 'honour' doesn't mean the creators of wikipedia are anti-american. I mean, come on, what a waste of energy to get upset about this. Maybe the creators of the site are Canadian or British. So what.....

Pacomc79

baraka wrote:

Two things.....................with the exception of abortion, how is conservatism synonymous Christianity? Maybe a Christian or conservative can answer this. Seems to me liberalism is more on par with the teachings of Jesus.

Also, what is the big deal about the 'spelling' of certain words? Just because the word 'honor' is spelled 'honour' doesn't mean the creators of wikipedia are anti-american. I mean, come on, what a waste of energy to get upset about this. Maybe the creators of the site are Canadian or British. So what.....

it's mislabled. Coservapedia should probably be called... fundamentalistapedia or facistopedia something like that.

Generally it dosen't amount to a hill of beans, but for people who think the whole world is evil if they don't believe and behave as they do be they promotors of socially liberal values or socially conservative values this is the result.

It's less about what is and more about how they can control other peoples behavior through government.


One group votes money away from others, the other votes liberties away both feeling they are doing what is right and just. It simply depends on which side of the control fence you sit on as to what party or philosophy you jump in bed with either way it's about controlling other people.

farfromglorified

Score another one for zealotry.

farfromglorified

Pacomc79 wrote:

One group votes money away from others, the other votes liberties away both feeling they are doing what is right and just. It simply depends on which side of the control fence you sit on as to what party or philosophy you jump in bed with either way it's about controlling other people.

Nicely done.

angelica

Pacomc79 wrote:

Generally it dosen't amount to a hill of beans, but for people who think the whole world is evil if they don't believe and behave as they do be they promotors of socially liberal values or socially conservative values this is the result.

I agree with this, although I would interchangeably use the word "wrong" along with evil, because it works both ways for those who believe in the "right"ness of their view not hinging on spiritual reasons.

Jeanie

darkcrow wrote:

this is a fun game. let us see what the two sites say about... abortion

conservapedia
"The vast majority of scientific studies have shown that abortion causes an increase in breast cancer, including 16 out of 17 statistically significant studies.[4] Studies showing that abortion increases breast cancer predate the political controversy".......

Hmmmmmm..............there's something about the wording of those few sentences that distinctly reminds me of a thread posted here a few weeks ago. How sad. :(

soulsinging

darkcrow wrote:

Wikipedia v Conservapedia

Dinosaurs

Wikipedia: Dinosaurs were vertebrate animals that dominated terrestrial ecosystems for over 160 million years, first appearing approximately 230 million years ago.

Conservapedia: They are mentioned in numerous places throughout the Good Book. For example, the behemoth in Job and the leviathan in Isaiah are almost certainly references to dinosaurs.

Harry Potter

Wikipedia: Since 1999, the Harry Potter books have sat atop the American Library Association's list of most protested books, with some American churches banning the books altogether.

Conservapedia: The English 'public' schools Hogwarts resembles are Protestant institutions; but at Hogwarts, chapel is conspicuously absent. A failure to mention Christianity, combined with the presence of wizardry, have led some to wonder whether Rowling is substituting paganism for Christianity."

US Democratic party

Wikipedia: Since the 1890s, the Democratic party has favoured 'liberal' positions. In recent decades, the party advocates civil liberties, social freedoms, equal rights, equal opportunity, fiscal responsibility, and a free enterprise system tempered by government intervention.

Conservapedia: The official platform of the Democratic party emphasizes strengthening America. Rightwing critics claim, however, that the Democrat voting record reveals a true agenda of cowering to terrorism, treasonous anti-Americanism, and contempt for America's founding principles such as freedom of religion.

hahahahaha. what was the stephen colbert quote? now we all know that reality has a clear liberal bias.

soulsinging

angelica wrote:

I can say, though, that if someone is distorting facts to the point that they have lost their factual meaning, that is a different subject than I am speaking to.

which is what is at issue here. conservapedia is an instrument designed solely to do precisely this. that was his point, and his point is correct.

soulsinging

baraka wrote:

Two things.....................with the exception of abortion, how is conservatism synonymous Christianity? Maybe a Christian or conservative can answer this. Seems to me liberalism is more on par with the teachings of Jesus.

Also, what is the big deal about the 'spelling' of certain words? Just because the word 'honor' is spelled 'honour' doesn't mean the creators of wikipedia are anti-american. I mean, come on, what a waste of energy to get upset about this. Maybe the creators of the site are Canadian or British. So what.....

also kinda funny how they associate being unamerican with being anti-christian. spelling with british spelling is apparently against the bible becos only AMERICA has god's support and blessing and the right interpretation of christianity. these people scare me more every day.

Scubascott

soulsinging wrote:

also kinda funny how they associate being unamerican with being anti-christian. spelling with british spelling is apparently against the bible becos only AMERICA has god's support and blessing and the right interpretation of christianity. these people scare me more every day.

I'm pretty sure the orginal Hebrew and Latin texts used american spelling.