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.....
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
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.
My Girlfriend said to me..."How many guitars do you need?" and I replied...."How many pairs of shoes do you need?" She got really quiet.
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.
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.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
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. :(
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.
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.
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.
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.
It doesn't matter if you're male, female, or confused; black, white, brown, red, green, yellow; gay, lesbian; redneck cop, stoned; ugly; military style, doggy style; fat, rich or poor; vegetarian or cannibal; bum, hippie, virgin; famous or drunk-you're either an asshole or you're not!
I'm pretty sure the orginal Hebrew and Latin texts used american spelling.
god had to play the hand he was dealt i guess. luckily for him and jesus america came along to save him and his word. wait, seems kinda backwards doesnt it?
god had to play the hand he was dealt i guess. luckily for him and jesus america came along to save him and his word. wait, seems kinda backwards doesnt it?
It doesn't matter if you're male, female, or confused; black, white, brown, red, green, yellow; gay, lesbian; redneck cop, stoned; ugly; military style, doggy style; fat, rich or poor; vegetarian or cannibal; bum, hippie, virgin; famous or drunk-you're either an asshole or you're not!
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.
Any my point is that there are unending institutions out there that present the facts through their own viewpoint. For example, newspapers report "facts" in such a vague generalized way that they completely minimize full findings of science, when science is the focus. Tv news, too, or magazines. It is rare that people seek out the full truth on a given subject. We each choose which representation works for us. For example, my boyfriend refuses to use wikipedia because of the everyperson aspect of it--he doesn't trust "people who sit around on the internet all day editing wikipedia articles". (especially considering my brother, and my daughter's boyfriend have wikipedia article parts out there). Like it or not, no one perspective has the market on truth. Different people and groups are in different stages looking through different worldviews.
I initially did not see Byrnzie specifically point to a direct conservapedia quote that was non-factual. Maybe I missed something. The way I saw it, he was talking about how "they must exist in a sort of subspecies of mutant human that is totally removed from the natural world". I take issue with this view, considering that there are varying phases of human development and that all of us are at different stages at different times. We're all looking at the natural world through different types of lenses at different times. I see the validity of different world views.
I've seen how a liberal slant minimizes a conservative one. If I were conservative and frustrated by the going institution doing so, I'd find it perfectly acceptable to start a counter-movement-institution. Even though I distinctly lean to the left, I see the bias and condescension towards conservatives and until that bias is dealt with, this type of thing (and stuff like ID movements) will continue to be the natural fallout. In the big picture of our evolution, what does not serve a valid need will fall away. The problem with judging other views comes in when we expect everyone to be on some mysterious, arbitrary and universal plane of "rightness" which is what is truly unrealistic.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Any my point is that there are unending institutions out there that present the facts through their own viewpoint. For example, newspapers report "facts" in such a vague generalized way that they completely minimize full findings of science, when science is the focus. Tv news, too, or magazines. It is rare that people seek out the full truth on a given subject. We each choose which representation works for us. For example, my boyfriend refuses to use wikipedia because of the everyperson aspect of it--he doesn't trust "people who sit around on the internet all day editing wikipedia articles". (especially considering my brother, and my daughter's boyfriend have wikipedia article parts out there). Like it or not, no one perspective has the market on truth. Different people and groups are in different stages looking through different worldviews.
"they must exist in a sort of subspecies of mutant human that is totally removed from the natural world".
i dont use wikipedia either, becos i also distrust it. but it's is at least a more populist and equitable source with no overt agenda. conservapedia is not an unbiased information source, it clearly has a specific and selective agenda. thus, it is dangerous for people to treat it as an unbiased source of information, which people will do.
I can see how they want the dates different..no big deal...but c'mon english v american spellings? I can see they'd want to highlight Christianity's role in society and if wiki is really editing things out I can see how people would want to have a sort of policing or watchdog group...but this is def not it.
make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need
It must be really difficult for these people to cope with reality. I expect that every day for them is a struggle to try to offset the encroachment of the real world beyond their self-imposed fantasies and delusions. They must exist in a state of perpetual opposition to the world. They're like some sort of sub-species of mutant human that is totally removed from the natural world. I wonder if like the early puritans, they regard such things as sneezing as a sign of evil? - hence the use of the words 'Bless you!" when someone sneezes. I wonder if they close their eyes when they get undressed as the sight of a naked body would send them into a mad spasm and cause them to want to flagellate themselves?
I would love for someone to carry out an in-depth study of these freaks. They seem to be a strictly American phenomenon. These ultra-Conservative fundamentalist lunatics really are intriguing. It would be fascinating to travel around the southern states and live amongst these people for a year or so and investigate what it is that makes them tick. I imagine they'd be an anthropologists dream.
Does anyone know if there's been any books, or articles written on these people? I would love to delve deeper into their strange and twisted world.
beverages with a dear freind at restaurant couple weeks ago...he was looking at the people walking by...and was smiling.....asked him why...and said...."I'm just truely amazed at how they do it....they keep juggling all these balls, all these lies...how do they pull it off." I told him it was really not that hard..just self preservation. Course we're all juggling...just when you believe in God and religion...damn it must be tough. I really believe that the lies can't continue much longer...maybe not in my lifetime....but organized religions won't survive...well unless the rapture happens....oh yea!
i dont use wikipedia either, becos i also distrust it. but it's is at least a more populist and equitable source with no overt agenda. conservapedia is not an unbiased information source, it clearly has a specific and selective agenda. thus, it is dangerous for people to treat it as an unbiased source of information, which people will do.
I will personally definitely use wikipedia because it's generally okay in my mind. There is a problem with any mainstream source in that it will and does minimize alternative views, giving weight dependent upon what percentage buys into which views. That may be a reasonably fair way of doing it, however it's not necessarily accurate in terms of reflecting the actual truth at times. If we're looking to be general, fine. If we are looking to be accurate, that's a different thing. And any lack of accuracy necessitates fallout. For example, I've checked into some of the mental health stuff on wikipedia, and while it's accurate in terms of what is commonly believed by the main of experts within a field, that is not necessarily based on the Truth.
I loved what baraka, as a scientist,--an insider--pointed out earlier (I think in a different thread). Science makes some extrapolations that may or may not be accurate. When we take those leaps as absolute truth as the mainstream people, it's at the cost of understanding and truth. I personally love for any powerful institution such as wikipedia to have an alternative source nipping at their heels.
id agree with him on that too, but it's got nothing to do with my criticism of wikipedia
Hey, more power to people's opinions.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
It's stupid, wikipedia is open to everyone to edit and debate. It's not like Conservatives aren't allowed to post edits or discuss the content of Wikipedia articles. It's just the majority of people don't think like hardcore conservatives.
Creating Conservapedia doesn't bring anymore balance to Wikipedia. All it does it create a polarization between the two. Now you have a strongly conservative Conservapedia and a conservative-less wikipedia. Which is fine by me, but it doesn't really help Conservatives at all.
Also some 70% of Conservapedia's hits have been "Vandals" non-conservatives adding liberal spin to Conservapedia articles.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I will personally definitely use wikipedia because it's generally okay in my mind. There is a problem with any mainstream source in that it will and does minimize alternative views, giving weight dependent upon what percentage buys into which views. That may be a reasonably fair way of doing it, however it's not necessarily accurate in terms of reflecting the actual truth at times. If we're looking to be general, fine. If we are looking to be accurate, that's a different thing. And any lack of accuracy necessitates fallout. For example, I've checked into some of the mental health stuff on wikipedia, and while it's accurate in terms of what is commonly believed by the main of experts within a field, that is not necessarily based on the Truth.
I loved what baraka, as a scientist,--an insider--pointed out earlier (I think in a different thread). Science makes some extrapolations that may or may not be accurate. When we take those leaps as absolute truth as the mainstream people, it's at the cost of understanding and truth. I personally love for any powerful institution such as wikipedia to have an alternative source nipping at their heels.
Hey, more power to people's opinions.
the purpose of wikipedia is to provide references to the best facts we've got, just like britannica or worldbook does. your speech here is nonsense, saying nothing can ever be known and there is no such thing as Truth becos truth is all relative. by that logic, every paper ever turned in for school is an A paper becos "who knows? they might be right as long as its the Truth from their eyes!" im glad wikipedia presents the commonly accepted expert view of psychology, that is what it is for... a compilation of the general consensus on things. it is not supposed to give equal weight to crackpot notions from anyone who feels like submitting a correction (have you heard of the flying spaghetti monster?) just becos they might have the real Truth and we just dont know it yet!
it is so that if a kid is doing a science project, he can check out wiki and find some references that are scientifically accepted and will guide him to an A paper. not so that he can check out wiki and turn in a paper about how he doesn't need to know geology becos earth processes are irrelevant becos they are mere inventions created by the flying spaghetti monster to fool us. it is so that if you catch a flu and look up flu you find out it's a virus and the general recovery program is soup and apple juice, not find out it's a misalignment of your psyche and what you should do is spin around 3 times, clap your hands, and then do the hokey pokey to get your positive energy to get that flu!
these people are spreading disinformation by creating an "encyclopedia" that presents as fact a very distorted and slanted agenda. it's a disservice to its users and the people behind it should have our approbation and ridicule, not our enabling.
the purpose of wikipedia is to provide references to the best facts we've got, just like britannica or worldbook does. your speech here is nonsense, saying nothing can ever be known and there is no such thing as Truth becos truth is all relative. by that logic, every paper ever turned in for school is an A paper becos "who knows? they might be right as long as its the Truth from their eyes!" im glad wikipedia presents the commonly accepted expert view of psychology, that is what it is for... a compilation of the general consensus on things. it is not supposed to give equal weight to crackpot notions from anyone who feels like submitting a correction (have you heard of the flying spaghetti monster?) just becos they might have the real Truth and we just dont know it yet!
it is so that if a kid is doing a science project, he can check out wiki and find some references that are scientifically accepted and will guide him to an A paper. not so that he can check out wiki and turn in a paper about how he doesn't need to know geology becos earth processes are irrelevant becos they are mere inventions created by the flying spaghetti monster to fool us. it is so that if you catch a flu and look up flu you find out it's a virus and the general recovery program is soup and apple juice, not find out it's a misalignment of your psyche and what you should do is spin around 3 times, clap your hands, and then do the hokey pokey to get your positive energy to get that flu!
these people are spreading disinformation by creating an "encyclopedia" that presents as fact a very distorted and slanted agenda. it's a disservice to its users and the people behind it should have our approbation and ridicule, not our enabling.
Go back and check: where did I say all truth is relative and nothing can ever be known? I clearly pointed to a lack of accuracy when it does in fact exist. I also pointed to the fact that because there is a general consensus on something, that means we have a general consensus. The 'general consensus' itself is about social convention and social relevency. We at one time had a general consensus that the world was flat. A consensus does not equal truthful accurate knowledge. Due to this line of potential inaccuracy that is generally accepted, we inadvertently create the loophole that brings into being the oppositional counter movements that force higher standards and deeper scrutiny into place. We create the conservapedia-type countermovements that we claim to dislike. We perpetuate an evolutionary need for them, unwitting of our active participation.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Comments
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.....
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
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.
Nicely done.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
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. :(
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
hahahahaha. what was the stephen colbert quote? now we all know that reality has a clear liberal bias.
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.
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.
-C Addison
god had to play the hand he was dealt i guess. luckily for him and jesus america came along to save him and his word. wait, seems kinda backwards doesnt it?
No, it makes me wonder what I'm doing with your lives.
He was lucky. Look where he'd be otherwise!
http://www.zeenews.com/images/haj-pil-gd3.jpg
http://www.davidbowie.com/users/scottspalding/Pope_funny.jpg.jpg
-C Addison
Any my point is that there are unending institutions out there that present the facts through their own viewpoint. For example, newspapers report "facts" in such a vague generalized way that they completely minimize full findings of science, when science is the focus. Tv news, too, or magazines. It is rare that people seek out the full truth on a given subject. We each choose which representation works for us. For example, my boyfriend refuses to use wikipedia because of the everyperson aspect of it--he doesn't trust "people who sit around on the internet all day editing wikipedia articles". (especially considering my brother, and my daughter's boyfriend have wikipedia article parts out there). Like it or not, no one perspective has the market on truth. Different people and groups are in different stages looking through different worldviews.
I initially did not see Byrnzie specifically point to a direct conservapedia quote that was non-factual. Maybe I missed something. The way I saw it, he was talking about how "they must exist in a sort of subspecies of mutant human that is totally removed from the natural world". I take issue with this view, considering that there are varying phases of human development and that all of us are at different stages at different times. We're all looking at the natural world through different types of lenses at different times. I see the validity of different world views.
I've seen how a liberal slant minimizes a conservative one. If I were conservative and frustrated by the going institution doing so, I'd find it perfectly acceptable to start a counter-movement-institution. Even though I distinctly lean to the left, I see the bias and condescension towards conservatives and until that bias is dealt with, this type of thing (and stuff like ID movements) will continue to be the natural fallout. In the big picture of our evolution, what does not serve a valid need will fall away. The problem with judging other views comes in when we expect everyone to be on some mysterious, arbitrary and universal plane of "rightness" which is what is truly unrealistic.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
i dont use wikipedia either, becos i also distrust it. but it's is at least a more populist and equitable source with no overt agenda. conservapedia is not an unbiased information source, it clearly has a specific and selective agenda. thus, it is dangerous for people to treat it as an unbiased source of information, which people will do.
id agree with him on that too, but it's got nothing to do with my criticism of wikipedia
beverages with a dear freind at restaurant couple weeks ago...he was looking at the people walking by...and was smiling.....asked him why...and said...."I'm just truely amazed at how they do it....they keep juggling all these balls, all these lies...how do they pull it off." I told him it was really not that hard..just self preservation. Course we're all juggling...just when you believe in God and religion...damn it must be tough. I really believe that the lies can't continue much longer...maybe not in my lifetime....but organized religions won't survive...well unless the rapture happens....oh yea!
I loved what baraka, as a scientist,--an insider--pointed out earlier (I think in a different thread). Science makes some extrapolations that may or may not be accurate. When we take those leaps as absolute truth as the mainstream people, it's at the cost of understanding and truth. I personally love for any powerful institution such as wikipedia to have an alternative source nipping at their heels.
Hey, more power to people's opinions.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Creating Conservapedia doesn't bring anymore balance to Wikipedia. All it does it create a polarization between the two. Now you have a strongly conservative Conservapedia and a conservative-less wikipedia. Which is fine by me, but it doesn't really help Conservatives at all.
Also some 70% of Conservapedia's hits have been "Vandals" non-conservatives adding liberal spin to Conservapedia articles.
the purpose of wikipedia is to provide references to the best facts we've got, just like britannica or worldbook does. your speech here is nonsense, saying nothing can ever be known and there is no such thing as Truth becos truth is all relative. by that logic, every paper ever turned in for school is an A paper becos "who knows? they might be right as long as its the Truth from their eyes!" im glad wikipedia presents the commonly accepted expert view of psychology, that is what it is for... a compilation of the general consensus on things. it is not supposed to give equal weight to crackpot notions from anyone who feels like submitting a correction (have you heard of the flying spaghetti monster?) just becos they might have the real Truth and we just dont know it yet!
it is so that if a kid is doing a science project, he can check out wiki and find some references that are scientifically accepted and will guide him to an A paper. not so that he can check out wiki and turn in a paper about how he doesn't need to know geology becos earth processes are irrelevant becos they are mere inventions created by the flying spaghetti monster to fool us. it is so that if you catch a flu and look up flu you find out it's a virus and the general recovery program is soup and apple juice, not find out it's a misalignment of your psyche and what you should do is spin around 3 times, clap your hands, and then do the hokey pokey to get your positive energy to get that flu!
these people are spreading disinformation by creating an "encyclopedia" that presents as fact a very distorted and slanted agenda. it's a disservice to its users and the people behind it should have our approbation and ridicule, not our enabling.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!