NationStates Jolt Archive

Here's what happens (http://www.conservapedia.com) when "conservatives" (and I'm using the scare quotes deliberately) decide that the world as they see it is just too fact-based. They make their own reality.

This has been happening for a long time--extremist think tanks, Liberty and Bob Jones Universities, etc.--but now, these folks have decided to make their own Wikipedia, because the other one is too liberal.

Unfortunately for them, because it's set up as a wiki, the founders have come into conflict with the forces of irony (http://www.conservapedia.com/Bill_Clinton).
Bill Clinton managed to serve two terms without botching the prosecution of two wars, manipulating intelligence, engaging in a systematic program of torture, or mishandling the federal response to flooding of a major American city. Obviously, he is the devil incarnate. Clinton also attempted to use the American military to kill Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, an action which was properly seen as a mere attempt to distract the nation from the Monica Lewisnky scandal.
If nothing else, this serves as a wonderful chance to watch a "serious" attempt at putting forth a worldview spiral down into parody.

Their servers are running a bit slow--probably because lots of "ebil librul" sites have been linking to them and providing examples deserving of mockery. Be patient--you'll get lots of laughs.

Here's what happens (http://www.conservapedia.com) when "conservatives" (and I'm using the scare quotes deliberately) decide that the world as they see it is just too fact-based. They make their own reality.

Can you blame them? How hard it must be for them when actual reality has such a strong liberal bias. I can understand why they need to create an oasis where they can pretend it away, even if I fail to see how they don't do that constantly already...

Their servers are running a bit slow--probably because lots of "ebil librul" sites have been linking to them and providing examples deserving of mockery. Be patient--you'll get lots of laughs.
Or maybe because when it came up in a thread 2 days ago (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=518849) it happened to coincide with a huge feeding frenzy busy with editing the articles... ;) (look at post #25 and beyond). I'm guessing that's not over yet. Or at least I hope so. :p

Or maybe because when it came up in a thread 2 days ago (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=518849) it happened to coincide with a huge feeding frenzy busy with editing the articles... ;) (look at post #25 and beyond). I'm guessing that's not over yet. Or at least I hope so. :p
Maybe--but I'm thinking that Atrios gets a lot more traffic than that thread did. I wonder how long before you have to start proving your conservative bonafides iin order to edit stories there?

http://www.aoe.vt.edu/~cdhall/img/Idiocy.jpg

Maybe--but I'm thinking that Atrios gets a lot more traffic than that thread did. I wonder how long before you have to start proving your conservative bonafides iin order to edit stories there?Lol, no, I didn't mean that NSers were responsible for the edits & the slow response time of the site! :p

I just meant to point out that it's not just that ""ebil librul" sites have been linking to them and providing examples deserving of mockery", as your OP said, but that actual editing (or vandalizing, if you will) of the site by those ebil librul sites has been going on in full force since at least two days ago (and may since have ebbed, I wouldn't know.)

The Commandments
[...]
4. When referencing dates based on the approximate birth of Jesus, give appropriate credit for the basis of the date (B.C. or A.D.). "BCE" and "CE" are unacceptable substitutes because they deny the historical basis. See CE.
5. As much as is possible, American spelling of words must be used.
[cЪ]

They are going to compete with the United Nations Encyclopedia if they grow steadily.

Yes because idiocy is inherently conservative :rolleyes:

And it's possible for facts to be biased :rolleyes:

Yes because idiocy is inherently conservative :rolleyes:


Of course it is.

The Commandments
[...]
4. When referencing dates based on the approximate birth of Jesus, give appropriate credit for the basis of the date (B.C. or A.D.). "BCE" and "CE" are unacceptable substitutes because they deny the historical basis. See CE.
5. As much as is possible, American spelling of words must be used.
[cЪ]

They are going to compete with the United Nations Encyclopedia if they grow steadily.

Number 5 amuses me, as(according to the no doubt hugely biased :rolleyes: wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia) page) they support the establishment of English as the official language of America.

It's taking longer to load than Jolt.

And it's possible for facts to be biased :rolleyes:

It's possible for the presentation and interpretation of facts to be biased, but facts themselves cannot be.

Yes because idiocy is inherently conservative :rolleyes:


Did I say that? On the thread on perceptions of conservatives, I admitted to being conservative on certain issues myself.

And it's possible for facts to be biased :rolleyes:
No--interpretation of facts can be biased. Facts themselves are neutral.

Did I say that? On the thread on perceptions of conservatives, I admitted to being conservative on certain issues myself.


No--interpretation of facts can be biased. Facts themselves are neutral.

I wasn't aiming that post specifically at you.

Between the "conservative" articles and the brilliant vandalism, this is the funniest site I've seen in ages. :)

Wikis aren't necessarily places for facts. They're just a web site where anyone can edit the articles. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia so it will be fact-based. This site just seems to be a site where conservatives can wank to their own political persuasions. Nothing more.

I love their list of debate topics (http://www.conservapedia.com/Debate_topics):

6. Is it even possible to install democracy in a Muslim country?
Yes, because religion automatically decides whether democracy is viable or not, as opposed to terrorism, an illegal occupation, ethnic tensions stemming from a country being drawn up on arbitrary grounds, and a lack of experience with democracy.

In fact, why the fuck have I started taking these people so seriously?:eek:

7. Should we have given the Panama Canal back to Panama?
No. The USA should keep little bits of little countries. It's fun.

8. Should government allow an unchecked economy, or are regulations necessary in private business?
No, so long as it's your oil company that's being bailed out.

10. Crusades... Good or Bad?
Need I say more? These people can't work out whether 1)mass killing 2)not obeying their beloved "thou shalt not kill" is wrong.

12. Is the theory of macroevolution true?
Yes. Now piss off.

13. Does bias impair Wikipedia's reliability?
No. As opposed to Conservapedia which admits to being biased:

"Some users feel that despite the site's claims of a "neutral point of view", there is a consistent anti-American and anti-Christian bias in Wikipedia entries (going beyond a mere absence of pro-American and pro-Christian bias)."

14. Should Creationism/Intelligent design be taught as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools?
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v51/dmcantrell/forum_stuff/beatDeadHorse1.jpg

15. Did racism play a role in the decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
...the fuck?

24. Which is a more powerful ideology, Islam or communism?
Neither. Escargot is more powerful.

25. Should the United States intervene in small countries to defeat communism there?
http://images.wikia.com/uncyclopedia/images/7/73/Roflcopter.gif
These people need to get with the times, don't you think?

I've rephrased it:

25. Should the United States intervene in small countries to defeat Islamism/Anti American Oil Companiesism/WMDism there?
NO!

26. Should public displays of the 10 Commandments be allowed under the constitution?
Already done, honey. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Orden_v._Perry)

25. Should the United States intervene in small countries to defeat communism there?Oh my God. :p

You see, this is what happens when people who still think that a man who lives on a cloud created the entire world in 7 days and then created Americans to destroy non-believers and communists try to use modern technology.

Yes because idiocy is inherently conservative :rolleyes:
Where did anyone say that?

They do have some pretty awesome articles. Like this (http://www.conservapedia.com/Zeus) one on Zeus.

I wonder how long before you have to start proving your conservative bonafides iin order to edit stories there?

I'm surprised you didn't have to, already. Papers, please.

Here's what happens (http://www.conservapedia.com) when "conservatives" (and I'm using the scare quotes deliberately) decide that the world as they see it is just too fact-based. They make their own reality.

This has been happening for a long time--extremist think tanks, Liberty and Bob Jones Universities, etc.--but now, these folks have decided to make their own Wikipedia, because the other one is too liberal.

Unfortunately for them, because it's set up as a wiki, the founders have come into conflict with the forces of irony (http://www.conservapedia.com/Bill_Clinton).

If nothing else, this serves as a wonderful chance to watch a "serious" attempt at putting forth a worldview spiral down into parody.

Their servers are running a bit slow--probably because lots of "ebil librul" sites have been linking to them and providing examples deserving of mockery. Be patient--you'll get lots of laughs.

What I think:

Has he lost his mind?
Can he see or is he blind?

I'm surprised you didn't have to, already. Papers, please.

To be fair, I haven't tried to edit anything, so I can't say for certain if there's a test to prove your editor-worthiness or not. I prefer to just look at some of the articles. Here's a hint--look at the one for unicorns. It's precious.

To be fair, I haven't tried to edit anything, so I can't say for certain if there's a test to prove your editor-worthiness or not. I prefer to just look at some of the articles. Here's a hint--look at the one for unicorns. It's precious.
It's a long time since I've laughed to tears. Thanks for that.:D

Yeah, but they are quick to edit out vandalism.

Like my REAGAN SMASH on the Reagan page.

Yeah, but they are quick to edit out vandalism.

Like my REAGAN SMASH on the Reagan page.

You must be more subtle, young Skywalker. ;)

The existence of unicorns is controversial. Secular opinion is that they are mythical. However, they are referred to in the Bible nine times, which provides an unimpeachable de facto argument for their once having been in existence.

And this is supposed to be more reliable than Wikipedia? Brain... hurts...

http://www.conservapedia.com/Baramin

I feel slightly dumber for having read that.

Beyond that, shall we develop an article on "Negroes" and "Mongoloids"?

Maybe--but I'm thinking that Atrios gets a lot more traffic than that thread did. I wonder how long before you have to start proving your conservative bonafides iin order to edit stories there?

Becoming a Conservapedia Editor

Conservapedia editors are subject to the most rigorous review and accreditation in the known blogosphere. In order to become a Conservapedia editor a candidate must submit proof of their commitment to God, the cause of George W. Bush and a complete absence of the vile sin of Sondomy. The test for the latter criteria including a thorough examination of the candidate's anal sphincter. Even the smallest quantity of Santorum (http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Santorum) being grounds for immediate 'counselling' and possible outright rejection of editing privileges.

Unmarried conservapedia editors are required to maintain the highest standards of chastity foreswearing coitus with both males and females. Bestiality is right out.

An undercover report gives valuable insight into the secretive world of the conservapedia editors:

"After passing the anal examination I was taken to a room with a large oak refectory table in the center of the room. The editors were gathered round the table. All had removed their trousers and undergarments and had their naked penis resting on the table itself. At a signal a robed acolyte brought in a small cage. The cage was opened and the mouse started running up and down the table sniffing each penis. As soon as the mouse showed interest however the editor would withdraw from the table and replace their clothes.
"Once all the editors had dressed the mouse was returned to its cage. Then came the most chilling part of the nights proceedings, a long silence puncutated by sharp agonized cries. Afterwards I asked my guide for the meaning.
"The purpose of the mouse had been to see which of the editors had broken their vow of chastity by having sex. The cries of agony came from the wretch who they had caught the previous week with a piece of cheese underneath his foreskin."

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia

I got banned after only two edits. All I did was define feminism (the philosophy that the sexes should have equal rights, and thus obviously intolerable), and state why the Civil War is called the War of Northern Aggression in the South (Ft. Sumter wore a miniskirt, so the South raped it with cannons).
I imagine the mods there are going to have their hands full for the next few weeks.

I got banned after only two edits. All I did was define feminism (the philosophy that the sexes should have equal rights, and thus obviously intolerable), and state why the Civil War is called the War of Northern Aggression in the South (Ft. Sumter wore a miniskirt, so the South raped it with cannons).

I think they've closed registration...the "create account" link only takes me to the login page, I don't see a place to register.

"Affirmative action
From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Affirmative action is an area in which government policy is contradictory.

The law of America is non-discrimination: the concept that race, sex, ethnicity, skin color, or country of national origin are not criteria which should be used in job selection. The original concept of affirmative action was that it is desirable to not merely act on non-discrimination passively (i.e., saying "this job is open to any applicant", but then making no efforts to find minority applicants), but should also be done affirmatively, by taking definite actions to find applicants from minorities. This would be, in its way, admirable.

However, in current use, affirmative action goes beyond this, often mandating the use of quotas for setting aside jobs for each minority (including also some "minorities" which are actually majorities). In effect, this means selecting applicants by the color of their skin, precisely what the original concept of non-discrimination forbids. This is sometimes called "reverse discrimination," although this term is rather contradictory-- discrimination remains discrimination.

In short, "affirmative action" is an action that had an admirable origin, but has been taken to the point where it enforces the very discrimination that it had been intended to prevent.

Retrieved from "http://www.conservapedia.com/Affirmative_action"


I knew it would be good...

http://img503.imageshack.us/img503/3019/graphc1f555555uwwwconsedr0.png

Yikes.

I think they've closed registration...the "create account" link only takes me to the login page, I don't see a place to register.

You have to go through another link after you reach the login page.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Patriotism

nice

http://www.conservapedia.com/Patriotism

nice

"It is sweet and decorative for patriots to die"

I lol'd.

You have to go through another link after you reach the login page.

This is what I see...I can't find another link.

http://www.myimghost.com/img/7bc667b8b54aed615466279eb71e2312/login.JPG (http://www.myimghost.com)

"It is sweet and decorative for patriots to die"

I lol'd.

what's great is that that is the version which has had the humor removed according to the page history.


"An ancient Latino poet wrote..."

Yikes.

phear the awesomez tube clogging abilities of leftbloggistan!

http://img503.imageshack.us/img503/3019/graphc1f555555uwwwconsedr0.png

Yikes.

That looks like it hurts...

I like how "2008 Presidential Election" page talks only about how some guy named Tommy Thompson from Wisconsin is the most electable guy for Republicans, becuase he's from Wisconsin, one of the "swing states"

Honestly, this site is painful. It's so narrow-minded and focused on one idea in many of the pages

I like how "2008 Presidential Election" page talks only about how some guy named Tommy Thompson from Wisconsin is the most electable guy for Republicans, becuase he's from Wisconsin, one of the "swing states"

he's not just some guy. he's the current u.s. secretary of health and human services. its a favored jumping off point for presidential runs. for example, clinton's hhs secretary, donna shalala, launched a successful presidential bid immediately after her term there. granted, it was for president of the university of miami. but still, there's precedent.

In 1994, voters expressed their high disapproval of Clinton by giving a landslide victory to Republicans in Congress, where Republicans won 49.9% of the popular vote (compared to the Democrat's 44%).

50% compared to 44% is a landslide victory?

Okay, just for kicks, I typed 'Canada' into the conservative search engine and it spewed out this result;

Canada is the second largest country in the world for it's considerable amount of land. It was named Canada because when an explorer came to a Canadian Indian village he asked what this place was called, and they told him "Kanada", which means village in their Indian language. It borders the United States, and most of it's population is in The more southern provinces of Canada

They clearly did a lot of research...

It's pretty easy to have most of our population in the southern provinces, when all of the provinces are 'south'. The northern sections are territories.

Beyond that, shall we develop an article on "Negroes" and "Mongoloids"?

Sounds like fun.

Just type in abortion and read about "Abortion and breast cancer".

http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Ronald_Reagan&oldid=15807

That obvious? :p

Wow, they even whine that not enough people speak American English. How bloody ridiculous!

If I could I would rather want to learn how to speak english english because it's sounds much better than american english.

Wow, they even whine that not enough people speak American English. How bloody ridiculous!

http://www.conservapedia.com/Baramin
I feel slightly dumber for having read that.


I probably experienced some oxygen starvation - I laughed until I cried.

Mmm, the faith discussion page is interesting. This Aschafly seems to be the ringleader of idiocy. He banned me already.

Side note: I know how to change my IP, but I wonder if they can track me. . .

Wow, they give really much valuable information about Germany:

"A country in central Europe that was blamed for both Wolrd Wars and claimed to be the dominate race of mankind."

France:

"A country in Europe. Thrived during the middle ages. The capitol is Paris, France, which was founded in the Middle Ages."

And someone spelled the Habsburg-familiy as "Hapsburg".

Do they really think that they can compete with wikipedia?

Wow, they give really much valuable information about Germany:

"A country in central Europe that was blamed for both Wolrd Wars and claimed to be the dominate race of mankind."

France:

"A country in Europe. Thrived during the middle ages. The capitol is Paris, France, which was founded in the Middle Ages."

And someone spelled the Habsburg-familiy as "Hapsburg".

Do they really think that they can compete with wikipedia?

Nazi is hilarious. I cant grasp how it quite lasted 30 years or the fact that is was influential and immoral at the same time.

lol, someone put a goatse link into one of the versions of the reagan page.

This Aschafly seems to be the ringleader of idiocy.

yeah, that's andrew schlafly, son of widely published moron, phyllis

Oh, communism is funny, too:

"Communists believe that if they share everything, no one will ever have to work."

Yeah, lazy liberal commies!

Oh, communism is funny, too:

"Communists believe that if they share everything, no one will ever have to work."

Yeah, lazy liberal commies!

Wow. Just wow.

I like the part about how modern Germany thinks its racially superior. Lots o laughs.

...So, growing ever-more weary of trying fruitless random searches (it's a vanishingly small conservative world out there, apparently) I clicked the "random page" button and was taken to the "invertebrates" entry. Invertebrates are defined simply as, "Animals that lack a backbone" - which, in my mind, paints a picture of the sort of creatures who assembled this piss-pot of a website. Dig the entry for the ACLU.

Ow my brain.

People, read their "World History Lectures". They sound as if told by idiots to idiots... (edit: No. They sound as deliberate lies.)

Hitler was about to make his big move. He demanded that Poland give back a former German seaport known as Danzig. Poland refused and prepared to defend against a German invasion with courageous soldiers on horses.
[...]
Polish soldiers fought valiantly on horseback, but were crushed.
[...]
Polish militia
Being a Pole, I have to say I've never realised I belong to a nation of nomadic horsemen :D

Ceausescu, for example, prohibited abortion for decades in Romania. As a result, Romanians had the lowest incidence of breast cancer in the Western world, far lower than the United States. But after he was overthrown, Romania began promoting abortion and breast cancer subsequently skyrocketed. In 1990, American families rushed to Romania to adopt babies while they were still available.

God, Uncyclopedia is great, never seen it before.

Lol http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Image:Plan.jpg

...So, growing ever-more weary of trying fruitless random searches (it's a vanishingly small conservative world out there, apparently) I clicked the "random page" button and was taken to the "invertebrates" entry. Invertebrates are defined simply as, "Animals that lack a backbone" - which, in my mind, paints a picture of the sort of creatures who assembled this piss-pot of a website. Dig the entry for the ACLU.

That takes pathetic to unimagined lows.

Being a Pole, I have to say I've never realised I belong to a nation of nomadic horsemen :D
Ah, old Italian propaganda, how wonderful it is.
In their favor, though, the myth about the Polish cavalry mounting desperate charges against the German armor is a common one, and not especially conservative.

Perhaps they are trying to find out how many times you can roll your eyes at the ridiculousness of that site before suffering some kind of injury.

Oh this is hilarious. Can't see how to register, though :(

Oh this is hilarious. Can't see how to register, though :(

Registration was disabled.

Perhaps they are trying to find out how many times you can roll your eyes at the ridiculousness of that site before suffering some kind of injury.

Put a little ice on it, you'll be fine. ;)

I need new pants....
http://www.conservapedia.com/Liberal

Ceausescu, for example, prohibited abortion for decades in Romania. As a result, Romanians had the lowest incidence of breast cancer in the Western world, far lower than the United States. But after he was overthrown, Romania began promoting abortion and breast cancer subsequently skyrocketed. In 1990, American families rushed to Romania to adopt babies while they were still available.Oh hell no, there they go again with the abortion = breast cancer bullshit!

I HATE THESE PEOPLE.

Omg, It's either straight bullshit or horribly simplified, as if it was made for people with 3 second attention spans. I have trouble believing these people are serious...

http://www.conservapedia.com/Existentialism
Existentialism is the philosophy that says life has no meaning at all and seeks human freedom. It was greatly promoted by 20th century philosophers Jean Paul Sartre and Karl Jaspers.
Gah!

I need new pants....
http://www.conservapedia.com/Liberal

Errr.... has some unauthorised editor with a keen sense of humour stuck this line in:

Modern liberals are treasonous [1] and generally hate America [2].

or are the site owners actually mentally ill?

Their scheme of thinking is fascinating: Fermi was Christian => quantum mechanics are true. Einstein was atheist => relativity is false.:)

Also, in response to Fiddlebottoms: it wouldn't be such problem if it only repeated myth of "Polish cavalry vs tanks". It sounds as if Poland did not have a standing army, but popular militia of belligerent warriors on horseback. Thus I described the image it creates as "nomadic horsemen". :)

Here's what happens (http://www.conservapedia.com) when "conservatives" (and I'm using the scare quotes deliberately) decide that the world as they see it is just too fact-based. They make their own reality.

This has been happening for a long time--extremist think tanks, Liberty and Bob Jones Universities, etc.--but now, these folks have decided to make their own Wikipedia, because the other one is too liberal.

Unfortunately for them, because it's set up as a wiki, the founders have come into conflict with the forces of irony (http://www.conservapedia.com/Bill_Clinton).

If nothing else, this serves as a wonderful chance to watch a "serious" attempt at putting forth a worldview spiral down into parody.

Their servers are running a bit slow--probably because lots of "ebil librul" sites have been linking to them and providing examples deserving of mockery. Be patient--you'll get lots of laughs.

I'm assuming the quote from the site wasn't actually serious.

I'm assuming the quote from the site wasn't actually serious.

You would be mistaken--at the very least, I've seen no evidence to the contrary.

Errr.... has some unauthorised editor with a keen sense of humour stuck this line in:

Modern liberals are treasonous [1] and generally hate America [2].

or are the site owners actually mentally ill?

impossible to tell - those are in fact regarded as real and mainstream positions within the neo-fascist movement. the author of books explicitly based on those claims (and i'm talking naming a book "treason: liberal treachery from the cold war to the war on terror" explicit here) gets invited to share the stage with the vice president of the united states.

weird - jolt didn't register my last post as existing. it lists nazz's one from 15 minutes earlier as the last.

Rommel and his men not caught until 1973! (http://www.conservapedia.com/Afrika_Korps)

They (http://www.conservapedia.com/Genocide) might (http://www.conservapedia.com/Energy) as (http://www.conservapedia.com/Pastoral_nomadism) well (http://www.conservapedia.com/Half-life) quote (http://www.conservapedia.com/Posterior_end) dictionairies (http://www.conservapedia.com/Gonad) - It'd be more exact

Oh, and REAGAN SMASH, which they seemed to have fixed :p This could have been another uncyclopedia or illogicopedia but nooo, it's just a very incomplete dictionary with the occasional willfully baised entries.

But then, you can find amusing stuff like Rommel fighting world war II until 1973 :p

Oh, no:

Wikipedia often uses foreign spelling of words, even though most English speaking users are American. Look up "Most Favored Nation" on Wikipedia and it automatically converts the spelling to the British spelling "Most Favoured Nation", even there there are far more American than British users. Look up "Division of labor" on Wikipedia and it automatically converts to the British spelling "Division of labour," then insists on the British spelling for "specialization" also.[3]. Enter "Hapsburg" (the European ruling family) and Wikipedia automatically changes the spelling to Habsburg, even though the American spelling has always been "Hapsburg". Within entries British spellings appear in the silliest of places, even when the topic is American. Conservapedia favors American spellings of words.

We have MANIFESTED EVIL!

might (http://www.conservapedia.com/Energy)

quote (http://www.conservapedia.com/Posterior_end)
ZOMG, it's like a third-grade "Dictionary" class project. >.< The two I quoted from your post are just pathetic.

This can't possibly be serious.

I have to think it is, simply because when the obvious vandalism started happening (the REAGAN SMASH! bit for examples) they shut down editing functions and started modding the hell out of it.

But some of the articles are so obviously satirical or outlandish that I can't see them being serious; maybe they're just reverting obvious edits because they prefer their satire to be subtle rather than obvious.

This can't possibly be serious.

I have to think it is, simply because when the obvious vandalism started happening (the REAGAN SMASH! bit for examples) they shut down editing functions and started modding the hell out of it.

ZOMG, it's like a third-grade "Dictionary" class project. >.< The two I quoted from your post are just pathetic.

Half the time when I hit random page, it'd give me something like that.

The only reason it took time for me was because I wanted to try to find stuff that really had no explanation of meaning.

It would be an insult to the collective knowledge humanity has put together on the internet if this were called a wiki, so it's a good thing they didn't :p

The Afrika Korps led by the brilliant Nazi Field Marshall Erwin Rommel were very feared. They routed the British Army and almost took Egypt from the British. They were finally defeated when America launched Operation Torch and forced them to surrender in 1973. Embracing as they did the principles of evolutionism and Darwinism, it is unsurprising that they believed in the inferiority of their countrymen.
Pure effing genius.

"The British are crap and lost, like the did in 1776, lolzlolz, America won everything"

See also the world war one article, which is very much in the same vain.

"The French and British were losing, the Americans won lolzlolz"


*edits*

Oh and this is good, too - "Wellington served as prime minister of England as the leader of the Troy party."

The Troy party? It's all Greek to me!

I have to think it is, simply because when the obvious vandalism started happening (the REAGAN SMASH! bit for examples) they shut down editing functions and started modding the hell out of it.

and i suspect that they just can't see much of what was intended as subtle parody. either because it's just shit they actually believe, or because spotting the difference between an ancient latin poet and an ancient latino poet takes subtlety and perceptive abilities that would cause somebody to find better politics to begin with.

Also note the 1973. It's quite important :p

Anyway, I just searched uncyclopedia and...

...they have an article! (http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia)

The USA is rightly considered by its patriotic citizens to be the best country in the world. Previously such beliefs (also known as Manifest destiny) were held by citizens of former superpowers, such as the Roman Empire, the Soviet Union and the Third Reich.

Hmm, what nice company they are in :p Do I detect a hint of subtle sarcasm? Now I just wonder if the part talking about manifest destiny was added later or if it was all added in one go.

The Afrika Korps led by the brilliant Nazi Field Marshall Erwin Rommel were very feared. They routed the British Army and almost took Egypt from the British. They were finally defeated when America launched Operation Torch and forced them to surrender in 1973. Embracing as they did the principles of evolutionism and Darwinism, it is unsurprising that they believed in the inferiority of their countrymen.

WTF?? :confused:

Does anybody still have an unbanned account? The discussion on the faith page is interesting.

Also, Reagan was a lot more subtly edited before my Reagan Smash edit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Mp-nPpGT9A

Does anybody still have an unbanned account? The discussion on the faith page is interesting.

Also, Reagan was a lot more subtly edited before my Reagan Smash edit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Mp-nPpGT9A

I can access it.

That is interesting. It looks like a lot of people on there think the "emphasis on faith is exclusive to Christianity" line is bullshit.

Interesting. I was blocked, by ASchlafly, no warning. The only way to appeal it is to talk to him, which I cant, because I'm blocked, and the other "administrators" dont exist. He has no email, so I in no way can reinstate myself.

Hmm.

The Commandments claim I can only be blocked for repeated offenses. Plus, I would expect an explanation and maybe a warning.

Hmm.

Interesting. I was blocked, by ASchlafly, no warning. The only way to appeal it is to talk to him, which I cant, because I'm blocked, and the other "administrators" dont exist. He has no email, so I in no way can reinstate myself.

Hmm.

The Commandments claim I can only be blocked for repeated offenses. Plus, I would expect an explanation and maybe a warning.

Hmm.

That is quite odd. You're probably SOL though. Sorry mate.

Here's what happens (http://www.conservapedia.com) when "conservatives" (and I'm using the scare quotes deliberately) decide that the world as they see it is just too fact-based. They make their own reality.

This has been happening for a long time--extremist think tanks, Liberty and Bob Jones Universities, etc.--but now, these folks have decided to make their own Wikipedia, because the other one is too liberal.

Unfortunately for them, because it's set up as a wiki, the founders have come into conflict with the forces of irony (http://www.conservapedia.com/Bill_Clinton).

If nothing else, this serves as a wonderful chance to watch a "serious" attempt at putting forth a worldview spiral down into parody.

Their servers are running a bit slow--probably because lots of "ebil librul" sites have been linking to them and providing examples deserving of mockery. Be patient--you'll get lots of laughs.

is this actually a joke? :p

He was also a devout Christian, with his adopted daughter once stating that if you question Washington's faith you may as well question whether or not he was a patriot!
So they're saying that Washington was a devout Christian because of one quote. Wherease...
The exact nature of George Washington's religious beliefs has been debated by historians and biographers for over two-hundred years.
My my my. This is excellent. Conservapedia has solved a 200 year old problem.

That is quite odd. You're probably SOL though. Sorry mate.

What's worse is I could easily get a new account, but it seems they are not taking any new entrants.

Ah well. It was fun. What did I expect from closeminded idiots?

Interesting. I was blocked, by ASchlafly, no warning. The only way to appeal it is to talk to him, which I cant, because I'm blocked, and the other "administrators" dont exist. He has no email, so I in no way can reinstate myself.

Hmm.

The Commandments claim I can only be blocked for repeated offenses. Plus, I would expect an explanation and maybe a warning.

Hmm.

Hemight be a she. The admin on that wiki is either Phyllis Schlafly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phyllis_Schlafly) or a close relation.

What's worse is I could easily get a new account, but it seems they are not taking any new entrants.

Ah well. It was fun. What did I expect from closeminded idiots?

*shrug* There seem to be plenty of open-minded folks on there, judging by the fact that ASchlafly's view on faith was being challenged repeatedly in favor of a broader understanding of faith.

You would be mistaken--at the very least, I've seen no evidence to the contrary.

Dear Lord. What ever happened to education and research? Every time someone makes an ignorant remark, I die a little inside.

*shrug* There seem to be plenty of open-minded folks on there, judging by the fact that ASchlafly's view on faith was being challenged repeatedly in favor of a broader understanding of faith.

I'm gonna run a pool on how long Neurocat lasts.

*shrug* There seem to be plenty of open-minded folks on there, judging by the fact that ASchlafly's view on faith was being challenged repeatedly in favor of a broader understanding of faith.

Yeah, these guys are really going to town on him.

I'm gonna run a pool on how long Neurocat lasts.

Could be interesting.

I doubt there will be many open-minded folks on there for long, at least the ones that are willing to open their mouths too. And the crackdown on anything not "Christian" and "conservative" will probably only get worse now that they've suffered Leftbloggistan's attack and are even more wary of anyone challenging the orthodoxy.

I'm gonna run a pool on how long Neurocat lasts.

He seems sane, and not "I'm a liberal he's one two" sane, normal breathing blinders-removed sane.

Dear Lord. What ever happened to education and research? Every time someone makes an ignorant remark, I die a little inside.

Alright let's see. You've made 33 posts; with the thirty second time limit, you've been here over 16 minutes. You should be dead three times over.

That site is going to be raped by hackers if the word ever got out, either that or it'll implode on its own.

That site is going to be raped by hackers if the word ever got out, either that or it'll implode on its own.

I can see mass DOS attacks just slaughtering that dream of a website.

That site is going to be raped by hackers if the word ever got out, either that or it'll implode on its own.

The word's been out. Right now people are content with overloading the servers.

The word has gotten out. And somebody give me their account, because I can't be bothered to get one.

The word's been out. Right now people are content with overloading the servers.

Then they better hurry.

The word has gotten out. And somebody give me their account, because I can't be bothered to get one.

1. It takes two minutes. You could do it yourself.

2. They dont seem to be taking new applicants.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Suicide

The killing of oneself. This is a sin in the Christian religion, but other religions regard it as a path to the afterlife.

What.

The.

Fuck. :eek:

http://www.conservapedia.com/Suicide



What.

The.

Fuck. :eek:

Perhaps that should be "some" rather than "other".

After all, where did the 19 hijackers think they were going? Downtown New York?

Can you blame them? How hard it must be for them when actual reality has such a strong liberal bias. I can understand why they need to create an oasis where they can pretend it away, even if I fail to see how they don't do that constantly already...

You don't get Fox news in Sweden?

Perhaps that should be "some" rather than "other".

After all, where did the 19 hijackers think they were going? Downtown New York?

That's only if it's suicide in the service of martyrdom, which is also allowable in Christianity. Now the various sects of Christianity and other religions may have different ideas of what's considered martyrdom and what's allowable under that rubric, but at the most basic level, the idea is still the same. If you willingly lay down your life in service of your church, you are committing a form of suicide.

You don't get Fox news in Sweden?

I would go so far as to claim that Fox news doesn't exist in Europe.

I would go so far as to claim that Fox news doesn't exist in Europe.

It's awesome for comedy value - if you can get it on Cable/Sky then it would be a worthy investment.

That's only if it's suicide in the service of martyrdom, which is also allowable in Christianity. Now the various sects of Christianity and other religions may have different ideas of what's considered martyrdom and what's allowable under that rubric, but at the most basic level, the idea is still the same. If you willingly lay down your life in service of your church, you are committing a form of suicide.

"Laying down your life" (being willing to die) for the Church is not the same as "killing myself in the name of God." It doesn't work that way.

Martyrdom is not suicide, to suggest otherwise is to fit well among the morons who don't think about what they post on this Conservapedia site.

Alright let's see. You've made 33 posts; with the thirty second time limit, you've been here over 16 minutes. You should be dead three times over.

Under this account ;)

But by rights, I should be at least on life support.

"Laying down your life" (being willing to die) for the Church is not the same as "killing myself in the name of God." It doesn't work that way.

Martyrdom is not suicide, to suggest otherwise is to fit well among the morons who don't think about what they post on this Conservapedia site.

My argument is that it could be considered as such. As I'm not a believer, I really don't care what rhetorical hoops people jump through in order to justify themselves--they're all stupid, as far as I'm concerned. One could argue, plausibly, I think, that to willingly give up life, for whatever reason, is suicide. Now, if a person is offered the choice between denouncing their beliefs and dying, then it could reasonably be considered suicide to refuse to denounce those beliefs. It could also be considered martyrdom. See what I mean?

My argument is that it could be considered as such. As I'm not a believer, I really don't care what rhetorical hoops people jump through in order to justify themselves--they're all stupid, as far as I'm concerned. One could argue, plausibly, I think, that to willingly give up life, for whatever reason, is suicide. Now, if a person is offered the choice between denouncing their beliefs and dying, then it could reasonably be considered suicide to refuse to denounce those beliefs. It could also be considered martyrdom. See what I mean?

It's a stretch. And I'm going to argue, because I disagree with the premise. If you say you are willing to die for something, you are not saying you are willing to kill yourself. You are willing to put your life on the line. Firemen are not going out with the intention to kill themselves; but they are prepared to make the sacrifice to save others. AH, that's it. It's intention.

It looks hilarious, but the pages are very slow to open.

It looks hilarious, but the pages are very slow to open.

My guess is there's a lot of traffic as the "conservatives" flock there to "add positively" to the articles present.

Kinda sucks that they've apparently closed registration of new accounts.

It's a stretch. And I'm going to argue, because I disagree with the premise. If you say you are willing to die for something, you are not saying you are willing to kill yourself. You are willing to put your life on the line. Firemen are not going out with the intention to kill themselves; but they are prepared to make the sacrifice to save others. AH, that's it. It's intention.

But it is intention, even with the firefighter--to willingly put yourself in danger is to say that there are things which matter more than your own life. Notice, I'm not making a value judgment on this--there are things for which I'm willing to lay down my own life. What I'm doing is saying that suicide doesn't have to include a death wish, a desire to die, just a willingness to chance an other than natural death.

But even beside this semantic difference, there have been other examples of Christian churches involved in much the same rhetorical game as the Muslims Eve Online posited, even in the 20th century. Church leaders, both for the Allies and the European Axis during WWII, exhorted their young male parishioners to go to war and kill the enemy in the name of God, with the promise that heaven awaited if they died in battle. That's no different from what the 9/11 hijackers were told--the only difference is in who was being asked to fight whom.

But it is intention, even with the firefighter--to willingly put yourself in danger is to say that there are things which matter more than your own life. Notice, I'm not making a value judgment on this--there are things for which I'm willing to lay down my own life. What I'm doing is saying that suicide doesn't have to include a death wish, a desire to die, just a willingness to chance an other than natural death.

Ah, yes. One may have suicidal inclinations, but the act itself is not suicide unless it is perpetuated by oneself. A willingness to fight against all odds, with the certainty of death, is suicidal--but not suicide, unless you actually kill yourself.

But even beside this semantic difference, there have been other examples of Christian churches involved in much the same rhetorical game as the Muslims Eve Online posited, even in the 20th century. Church leaders, both for the Allies and the European Axis during WWII, exhorted their young male parishioners to go to war and kill the enemy in the name of God, with the promise that heaven awaited if they died in battle. That's no different from what the 9/11 hijackers were told--the only difference is in who was being asked to fight whom.

With one small difference--the soldiers had a prospect of returning. The terrorists who hijack planes without allowing the possibility of survival are committing suicide, while a soldier who goes off to fight may die but he is also aware that he may live. He's not going to the front lines and kill himself to gain entrance to Heaven...it's only if he's killed by the enemy.

You know, on a side note, even if suicide is condoned by Islam, the suggestion by Conservapedia that suicide in all or most non-Christian religions is absurd. There are 1 billion Hindus in the world, and suicide is one of the gravest infractions of the faith one can commit. Alongside murder and a few other things.

I love their Main Page! :D


A conservative encyclopedia you can trust.

Conservapedia has over 3,800 educational, clean and concise entries [...]. Conservapedia is a much-needed alternative to Wikipedia, which is increasingly anti-Christian and anti-American. On Wikipedia, many of the dates are provided in the anti-Christian "C.E." instead of "A.D.", which Conservapedia uses. Christianity receives no credit for the great advances and discoveries it inspired, such as those of the Renaissance. [...]

Conservapedia is an online resource and meeting place where we favor Christianity and America. [...] You will much prefer using Conservapedia compared to Wikipedia if you want concise answers free of "political correctness".

Even more hilarious is their Examples of Bias in Wikipedia page (http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia).


5. Wikipedia often uses foreign spelling of words, even though most English speaking users are American. Look up "Most Favored Nation" on Wikipedia and it automatically converts the spelling to the British spelling "Most Favoured Nation", even there there are far more American than British users. Look up "Division of labor" on Wikipedia and it automatically converts to the British spelling "Division of labour," then insists on the British spelling for "specialization" also.[3]. Enter "Hapsburg" (the European ruling family) and Wikipedia automatically changes the spelling to Habsburg, even though the American spelling has always been "Hapsburg". Within entries British spellings appear in the silliest of places, even when the topic is American.

15. [...] [E]ven though most Americans reject the theory of evolution, Wikipedia editors commenting on the topic are nearly 100% pro-evolution. [...] As a result, Wikipedia is arguably more biased than CNN.

22. Wikipedia displays an obsession with English social distinctions, such as obscure royality, and with unexplained academic distinctions earned in the English college system [...]. The entry on Henry Liddell illustrates this extreme form of Anglophilia that characterizes many entries in Wikipedia.


What a beautifully entertaining time-waster! :p

With one small difference--the soldiers had a prospect of returning. The terrorists who hijack planes without allowing the possibility of survival are committing suicide, while a soldier who goes off to fight may die but he is also aware that he may live. He's not going to the front lines and kill himself to gain entrance to Heaven...it's only if he's killed by the enemy.

In this case, what I'm focusing on is the rhetorical strategy employed by the religious leaders--go willingly place yourself in imminent danger of death for this heavenly reward. It's less the case with the 9/11 hijackers, but it is possible for a suicide car bomber, for instance, to survive his attack--not likely, but possible. So if he fails to die, doesn't that make him like the soldier who goes out to fight what he has been told is the enemy of the church and comes home alive? It's only a matter of degree, it seems to me, not of kind.

You know, on a side note, even if suicide is condoned by Islam, the suggestion by Conservapedia that suicide in all or most non-Christian religions is absurd. There are 1 billion Hindus in the world, and suicide is one of the gravest infractions of the faith one can commit. Alongside murder and a few other things.

I think absurdity is Conservapedia's stock in trade.

I love their Main Page! :D



Even more hilarious is their Examples of Bias in Wikipedia page (http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia).



What a beautifully entertaining time-waster! :p

i had a good giggle at that page last night too :p

You don't get Fox news in Sweden?

On satellite or cable for an extra charge, probably. Not that I've ever met anyone stupid enough to pay for it, and that includes many pentecostals...

On satellite or cable for an extra charge, probably. Not that I've ever met anyone stupid enough to pay for it, and that includes many pentecostals...

Murdoch owns other stuff over there though, right? Is Sky News the equivalent of Fox or do they actually do news?

Murdoch owns other stuff over there though, right? Is Sky News the equivalent of Fox or do they actually do news?

I've never seen Sky News, so I've no idea. I very rarely watch Anglophone news channels, and then usually only BBC World.

Murdoch owns other stuff over there though, right? Is Sky News the equivalent of Fox or do they actually do news?
If you want fox, read the Daily Mail, which, as Russell Howard put it, is six months away from declaring that all illegal immigrants carry a new virulent form of HIV that lowers house prices. Sky is fairly neutral.

I've never seen Sky News, so I've no idea. I very rarely watch Anglophone news channels, and then usually only BBC World.

BBC world is crap compared to BBC News 24. (for news that is)

Murdoch owns other stuff over there though, right? Is Sky News the equivalent of Fox or do they actually do news?

I don't think Murdoch actually believes in the Fox news philosophy of conservatism - he runs it the way it is (or has it run) as it is a very profitable media for him. In the UK he also owns The Sun - a newspaper noted for featuring a topless woman with large breasts on Page 3 every day for the last 30 years or so, it is the UK largest circulating paper. Something I suspect Fox would have a fit over if a mainstream newspaper started doing in the US.

BBC world is crap compared to BBC News 24. (for news that is)

I don't watch news 24/7, so I find the BBC World broadcasts quite sufficient in the tiny bits of them that I see.

I don't think Murdoch actually believes in the Fox news philosophy of conservatism - he runs it the way it is (or has it run) as it is a very profitable media for him. In the UK he also owns The Sun - a newspaper noted for featuring a topless woman with large breasts on Page 3 every day for the last 30 years or so, it is the UK largest circulating paper. Something I suspect Fox would have a fit over if a mainstream newspaper started doing in the US.

In the US at least, he certainly does believe the philosophy, as he's said so in the past. Further, in some cases, he runs his entities at a loss (like the NY Post), so profit isn't the motivating factor.

In this case, what I'm focusing on is the rhetorical strategy employed by the religious leaders--go willingly place yourself in imminent danger of death for this heavenly reward. It's less the case with the 9/11 hijackers, but it is possible for a suicide car bomber, for instance, to survive his attack--not likely, but possible. So if he fails to die, doesn't that make him like the soldier who goes out to fight what he has been told is the enemy of the church and comes home alive? It's only a matter of degree, it seems to me, not of kind.

No, because it his explicit purpose to die, whereas the soldier is sent to fight. One may survive a suicide bombing as the one committing suicide, but the fact that it is at least an attempted suicide separates him from the soldier who fights, but may be killed.

Murdoch owns other stuff over there though, right? Is Sky News the equivalent of Fox or do they actually do news?

They do news. They're nothing like Fox, appart from sometimes using Fox for their american stories - like during 9/11 they got a live feed from Fox and their reporters, but most of the time used their own people.

In the US at least, he certainly does believe the philosophy, as he's said so in the past. Further, in some cases, he runs his entities at a loss (like the NY Post), so profit isn't the motivating factor.

Strange that he would run a newspaper which is famous for a feature that would get most of the FOX viewership up in arms.

He does run parers on the right of the political spectrum over here, but they would be almost communist by FOX standards.

No, because it his explicit purpose to die, whereas the soldier is sent to fight. One may survive a suicide bombing as the one committing suicide, but the fact that it is at least an attempted suicide separates him from the soldier who fights, but may be killed.

I understand that--what I'm focusing on is the rhetoric of the people doing the sending. Is there a significant difference between the mullah who tells a young man if he blows up a bus full of infidels he'll go to heaven and the priest or preacher who tells a young soldier that if he dies in battle against the enemy, the same will happen? It may not be suicide from the soldier's point of view, but the initial motivator to put himself in harm's way comes from the same place--the religious leader who tells him that it is a religious good to do so.

I understand that--what I'm focusing on is the rhetoric of the people doing the sending. Is there a significant difference between the mullah who tells a young man if he blows up a bus full of infidels he'll go to heaven and the priest or preacher who tells a young soldier that if he dies in battle against the enemy, the same will happen? It may not be suicide from the soldier's point of view, but the initial motivator to put himself in harm's way comes from the same place--the religious leader who tells him that it is a religious good to do so.

I think it is worth noting that there is a very limited set of Muslims who believe suicide will get you into paradise. The majority believe sometihng more like you should not be afrad to die in battle as you will be rewarded in paradise - but you should fight to live at all times. Often they believe suicide prevents access to the better parts of the afterlife.

Strange that he would run a newspaper which is famous for a feature that would get most of the FOX viewership up in arms.

He does run parers on the right of the political spectrum over here, but they would be almost communist by FOX standards.

You'd think that, but he's usually consistent in the US in separating the news and entertainment divisions, in that there are a lot of tv shows on his Fox Network which are despicable by right-wing standards--at least if you believe the people talking and don't look at the ratings. I mean, the same guy who gives airtime to Bill "Bloviator" O'Reilly to rant about secular-progressives also produces "The Family Guy." His entertainment divisions are out there to make money. His news outlets are at times less of a priority, though his tactic at Fox news of slashing real coverage for talking heads has changed the face of cable television news while simultaneously being profitable.

I think it is worth noting that there is a very limited set of Muslims who believe suicide will get you into paradise. The majority believe sometihng more like you should not be afrad to die in battle as you will be rewarded in paradise - but you should fight to live at all times. Often they believe suicide prevents access to the better parts of the afterlife.

Agreed, and that's also the case with most religious groups. But when this whole digression started, that's who we focused on, and so here we are. ;)

I understand that--what I'm focusing on is the rhetoric of the people doing the sending. Is there a significant difference between the mullah who tells a young man if he blows up a bus full of infidels he'll go to heaven and the priest or preacher who tells a young soldier that if he dies in battle against the enemy, the same will happen?

Between their motives? No, I wouldn't say there is a difference. Between what is being asked? Yes, there is an enormous difference.

It may not be suicide from the soldier's point of view,

This is because it's not suicide at all.

but the initial motivator to put himself in harm's way comes from the same place--the religious leader who tells him that it is a religious good to do so.

"Put yourself in harm's way" and "kill yourself" are two entirely different exhortations. Yes, both are being sent for a religious good. But there the similarity ends.

I think it is worth noting that there is a very limited set of Muslims who believe suicide will get you into paradise. The majority believe sometihng more like you should not be afrad to die in battle as you will be rewarded in paradise - but you should fight to live at all times. Often they believe suicide prevents access to the better parts of the afterlife.

This is the difference at issue--the difference between a fighter willing to be killed, but seeking to stay alive that he may serve the cause in life, versus the one sent explicitly to die.

Between their motives? No, I wouldn't say there is a difference. Between what is being asked? Yes, there is an enormous difference.
Sorry, but I don't see it. Tell me what I'm missing.

Agreed, and that's also the case with most religious groups. But when this whole digression started, that's who we focused on, and so here we are. ;)

Yeah, that's it...really, this deserves its own thread :)

Between their motives? No, I wouldn't say there is a difference. Between what is being asked? Yes, there is an enormous difference.

This is because it's not suicide at all.

"Put yourself in harm's way" and "kill yourself" are two entirely different exhortations. Yes, both are being sent for a religious good. But there the similarity ends.

If you're wearing body armor that substantially reduces the number of fatalities compared to the last war by a factor of 8 to 1, and riding around in an armored vehicle, and calling for artillery, airstrikes, and missile strikes, you're in combat to survive and come home. Yes, you're potentially in harm's way, but the fundamental idea is that you're going to kill the enemy and come home.

If you strap 20 kilos of C-4 to your body and arm it with a dead man switch, you're not planning on doing anything except dying.

This is the difference at issue--the difference between a fighter willing to be killed, but seeking to stay alive that he may serve the cause in life, versus the one sent explicitly to die.

Yes, and only niche versions of Islam support the idea of suicide bombings - most muslims object to it because the suicide is intentional.

The view towards dying in battle is on the whole not far from the christian version, only extremists go the other way.

If you're wearing body armor that substantially reduces the number of fatalities compared to the last war by a factor of 8 to 1, and riding around in an armored vehicle, and calling for artillery, airstrikes, and missile strikes, you're in combat to survive and come home. Yes, you're potentially in harm's way, but the fundamental idea is that you're going to kill the enemy and come home.

If you strap 20 kilos of C-4 to your body and arm it with a dead man switch, you're not planning on doing anything except dying.

Great, let's take away the body armor and the armored vehicles, and the airstrikes, and see what happens.

A vast, VAST difference in technological power does not mean that the underlying motives are any different.

You also missed the point that the two armies of comparison aren't modern day America and modern day Islamic extremists. It's indoctrinated Allies and Axis soldiers who were told by their church that they were fighting "god's" war, and modern day Islamic extremists.

Great, let's take away the body armor and the armored vehicles, and the airstrikes, and see what happens.

A vast, VAST difference in technological power does not mean that the underlying motives are any different.

We use those technological items because we have a thing about making the other guy die for his cause, not the other way around. Sure does make a difference in motives.

We use those technological items because we have a thing about making the other guy die for his cause, not the other way around. Sure does make a difference in motives.

But were the sides equally advanced technologically, you'd have a similar situation to WWII, only with religion instead of nationality at the basis of the fight. Again, it's a difference of degree, not kind.

But were the sides equally advanced technologically, you'd have a similar situation to WWII, only with religion instead of nationality at the basis of the fight. Again, it's a difference of degree, not kind.

The only reason we advanced in that regard was research aimed at reducing casualties. They have no incentive to do that sort of research into body armor.

They've spent plenty of effort doing other things. It's not like they couldn't invent things, too.

The only reason we advanced in that regard was research aimed at reducing casualties. They have no incentive to do that sort of research into body armor.

They've spent plenty of effort doing other things. It's not like they couldn't invent things, too.

No, the only reason we advanced in that regard was because had the capacity to do so after the World Wars. We still had our infrastructure largely intact. The Middle East (and incidentally much of Europe) was a pile of rubble. You can't design ceramic armor working in a pile of rubble.

The only reason we advanced in that regard was research aimed at reducing casualties. They have no incentive to do that sort of research into body armor.

They've spent plenty of effort doing other things. It's not like they couldn't invent things, too.

You're seriously comparing the technological and R&D resources of the US to those of displaced refugees? Because they're the most common users of suicide tactics. Even if you were comparing the US to the nation-states of the Middle East, you'd be making a ridiculous comparison.

You're seriously comparing the technological and R&D resources of the US to those of displaced refugees? Because they're the most common users of suicide tactics. Even if you were comparing the US to the nation-states of the Middle East, you'd be making a ridiculous comparison.

Displaced refugees armed by the former Soviet Union for most of their fight, and more recently by Iran, which seems to have no trouble making advanced explosives, drones, and missiles available to Hamas and Hezbollah.

Funny, no shipments of body armor, which not even the Iranians manufacture for their own troops (even though they are technically capable).

Remember also that the Japanese used suicide bombing against US tanks and troops, and Kamikaze plane attacks against ships to great effect in WWII, especially against the US fleet off Okinawa. Given you need a fanatical and unwavering belief in your cause to do something like this, but the fundamental reason they do it is because they lack the advanced military equipment to do it otherwise. I am sure if the extremists had tanks and heavy artillery they wouldn't use suicide bombers.

Remember also that the Japanese used suicide bombing against US tanks and troops, and Kamikaze plane attacks against ships to great effect in WWII, especially against the US fleet off Okinawa. Given you need a fanatical and unwavering belief in your cause to do something like this, but the fundamental reason they do it is because they lack the advanced military equipment to do it otherwise. I am sure if the extremists had tanks and heavy artillery they wouldn't use suicide bombers.

Regardless of what they might do, because they equally might not use them, viewing suicide attacks as a more potent weapon, the fact remains that they do use suicide tactics. These tactics are fundamentally different from being sent to fight because they are being sent to die. Kamikaze attacks were suicide attacks; thus, this makes them different than the average grunt who continued to fight until he was killed.

Displaced refugees armed by the former Soviet Union for most of their fight, and more recently by Iran, which seems to have no trouble making advanced explosives, drones, and missiles available to Hamas and Hezbollah.

Funny, no shipments of body armor, which not even the Iranians manufacture for their own troops (even though they are technically capable).

It's still not even remotely the same and you know it. You're not just moving the goalposts here; you' re transporting them across the galaxy and grinding them into space dust.

But were the sides equally advanced technologically, you'd have a similar situation to WWII, only with religion instead of nationality at the basis of the fight. Again, it's a difference of degree, not kind.

No, it's a difference of kind--killing oneself (suicide) to kill others versus killing others (fighting). Degree would be using stones instead of guns, or lesser weapons; kind is the method of killing.

It's still not even remotely the same and you know it. You're not just moving the goalposts here; you' re transporting them across the galaxy and grinding them into space dust.

I fail to see how being driven by technological disparity or exhorted by religious leadership to commit suicide is the same as fighting and making an effort to stay alive.

I fail to see how being driven by technological disparity or exhorted by religious leadership to commit suicide is the same as fighting and making an effort to stay alive.

Because when the playing field is even they will do otherwise.

The Ottoman Empire is a perfect example. Find me any source that says they (a Muslim Empire) used suicide-attacks in the first World War. I'm fairly sure you won't be able to.

They were a Muslim nation, and yet they went into the conflict with the understanding that they would fight their battle with the intent of coming home.

Because when the playing field is even they will do otherwise.

The Ottoman Empire is a perfect example. Find me any source that says they (a Muslim Empire) used suicide-attacks in the first World War. I'm fairly sure you won't be able to.

They were a Muslim nation, and yet they went into the conflict with the understanding that they would fight their battle with the intent of coming home.

Red herring. The question is not whether or not Muslim nations will use suicide tactics. The question is how are suicide attacks, in which one kills oneself, the same as fighting an enemy, in which death is caused by the enemy?

And also, because they would do differently in different situations does not make the two actions the same.

Perhaps that should be "some" rather than "other".

To say nothing of the fact that suicide is a path to the afterlife if you believe there to be any kind of afterlife at all, because suicide involves dying (duh) and the afterlife is, by definition, what you go to when you die.

What a moron, eh?

To say nothing of the fact that suicide is a path to the afterlife if you believe there to be any kind of afterlife at all, because suicide involves dying (duh) and the afterlife is, by definition, what you go to when you die.

What a moron, eh?

Shhh...it's too much fun being pretentious...

But, it's the way the statement was made. It really just sounds unintelligent, even if it is not entirely incorrect.

It's true. Reality has a massive left-wing bias.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Baramin

I feel slightly dumber for having read that.

Beyond that, shall we develop an article on "Negroes" and "Mongoloids"?


Yes! Yes! For the love of all gods, yes!

Reality has a massive left-wing bias.

did we ever figure out the origin of that phrase?

did we ever figure out the origin of that phrase?

Refused Party Program?

What the heck is a Baramin?

did we ever figure out the origin of that phrase?
I thought it was Stephen Colbert.

"first of all- I don't like reality-very liberally bias"

Something like that rings a bell...

Refused Party Program?

i actually do think it was either you or me. i know that we both had said it before stephen colbert did, for example.

I thought it was Stephen Colbert.

my response at the time
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10866862&postcount=25

A baramin is a lineage of earthly life that that was originally created by God during the Creation Week, and corresponds in some functional aspects to the secular concept of species.

Now clear?:)

i actually do think it was either you or me. i know that we both had said it before stephen colbert did, for example.

He replaced the word "left-wing" with "liberal" so we can't sue for plagiarism.

He replaced the word "left-wing" with "liberal" so we can't sue for plagiarism.

i actually just went googling (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/archive/index.php/t-463275.html), and i had used liberal too, at least several months before him.

"of course not. but only because the universe itself has a liberal bias."

clearly stephen colbert hangs out here on nsg and steals our material. stephen, i demand that you reveal yourself.

clearly stephen colbert hangs out here on nsg and steals our material. stephen, i demand that you reveal yourself.

right, guess who is now on notice

Now clear?:)

Not really. But that shouldn't be a surprise.

Not really. But that shouldn't be a surprise.

Yes, I'm still a little lost about the whole "baramin" thing. Why can't they just come out and say species?

Yes, I'm still a little lost about the whole "baramin" thing. Why can't they just come out and say species?

Because species is a term used by the evolutionists, and they're Nazis (seriously--the most radical creationists argue that very thing).

Because species is a term used by the evolutionists, and they're Nazis (seriously--the most radical creationists argue that very thing).

You have to be kidding.

You have to be kidding.

Clicky (http://www.chick.com/catalog/videos/creationseminar.asp)
Check out number 5. Now, it's an extreme belief, even for creationists, but it's there all the same.

Clicky (http://www.chick.com/catalog/videos/creationseminar.asp)
Check out number 5. Now, it's an extreme belief, even for creationists, but it's there all the same.

We can apply this same logic to learn the age of the earth. The rotation of the earth is slowing down. That means it used to rotate faster. If the earth were millions of years old, the winds generated by the Coriolis effect would have made it uninhabitable. In his seminar, Dr. Hovind gives many more evidences of a young earth.

WTF? :confused:
My boss is an atmospheric physicist. This guy is talking out of his ass. "It used to rotate faster" does not mean it was a billion times faster. It means that over time the earth has steadily slowed down from a point of higher angular velocity. Something we've been able to track and measure. And you'd think the atmospheric physicists working on it at the time would have noted the effect a higher angular velocity might have on the coriolis effect. Not that this really would mean that life would be impossible with a higher coriolis effect.

I find it doubtful Kent Hovind is even remotely versed on atmospheric physics, given his Doctorate is from an unaccredited university in Christian education.

Since the early 1960's, the amount of evolution in public school textbooks has increased exponentially. This has been accompanied by a decrease in SAT scores as well as a horrific increase in violent crime. Many of the people who push evolution are also trying to eliminate private and Christian schools. Vladimir Lenin said, "Give me your four year olds, and in a generation I will build a socialist state." Are these people trying to follow his advice?

1. SAT Scores don't test for Science.

2. The decline in the mean SAT score was due to the proliferation of the SAT to schools with less rigorous education standards than the original schools involved in the SAT. This man has issues with causation.

3. It's a quote from Lenin, which implies he thinks evolutionists are Communists, not Nazis. Not there there's much difference in the implications.

What a douchebag.

Well, if it makes you feel any better, Hovind is in jail for tax evasion right now.

Well, if it makes you feel any better, Hovind is in jail for tax evasion right now.

What a surprise.

Creationists easily explain the formation of geological features such as the Grand Canyon as a direct result of the world-wide flood in Noah's day. Could an ice comet-induced flood also be the best explanation for many of the oddities we find around the world, such as a mammoth frozen in a sitting position with fresh buttercups in his mouth and stomach?

The... hell?

Not only would a comet create a massive tidal wave, but any animal can freeze to death especially in the Arctic. Even a mammoth.

This man is literally made of shit.

This man is literally made of shit.

He has an unaccredited PhD in "Christian Education" from a diploma mill...could you expect any less?

He has an unaccredited PhD in "Christian Education" from a diploma mill...could you expect any less?

I missed that. I pity his students.

I missed that. I pity his students.

I also pity the Christians and educators who get associated with his criminality and willingness to lie to advance his own radical interpretation of Christianity.

I also pity the Christians and educators who get associated with his criminality and willingness to lie to advance his own radical interpretation of Christianity.

Don't pity them--they know what they're doing when they sign on. Pity the kids who get sucked in, but not the adults who lead them there.

I also pity the Christians and educators who get associated with his criminality and willingness to lie to advance his own radical interpretation of Christianity.

Don't feel sorry for them, they bought into that crap.

Wow. Wow. Wow. Wow. That's all I can say.

Not only would a comet create a massive tidal wave, but any animal can freeze to death especially in the Arctic. Even a mammoth.


The 'herd of frozen mammoths' phenomenon is a bit more remarkable than that, since they were actually deep-frozen, ie frozen very quickly all the way through before the meat could spoil. This requires much lower temperatures than you'd expect to find anywhere on the Earth's surface.
Creationists use this as evidence of a worldwide catastrophy. Put 'frozen mammoths buttercup' into a search engine and you'll see what I mean. Go on - it's a good laugh.

The only convincing explanation I've heard is that they were caught in a small localised blizzard of a type only observed in the Arctic Circle, which sucks down air from high up in the atmosphere.

[QUOTE=Deus Malum;12377414]
3. It's a quote from Lenin, which implies he thinks evolutionists are Communists, not Nazis. Not there there's much difference in the implications.
QUOTE]

Well they're quite the opposite- its just that theyre each on the farthest end of the scale....

The only convincing explanation I've heard is that they were caught in a small localised blizzard of a type only observed in the Arctic Circle, which sucks down air from high up in the atmosphere.

It'd certainly suck to be in the middle of one of those....

i actually just went googling (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/archive/index.php/t-463275.html), and i had used liberal too, at least several months before him.

"of course not. but only because the universe itself has a liberal bias."

clearly stephen colbert hangs out here on nsg and steals our material. stephen, i demand that you reveal yourself.

ooh, i found an even older one - though the wording is slightly different. in relation to the de menezes assassination back in august of 2005:

"clearly reality itself has been distorted to make the police-state and shoot-to-kill policies look bad. fucking liberal bias in the media"

I find it doubtful Kent Hovind is even remotely versed on atmospheric physics, given his Doctorate is from an unaccredited university in Christian education.

i find it doubtful that kent hovind is even remotely acquainted with much other than his own asshole. i heard that's a major exhibit at dinosaur funland.

i find it doubtful that kent hovind is even remotely acquainted with much other than his own asshole. i heard that's a major exhibit at dinosaur funland.

Well, he's in jail now. He might be "sharing" that knowledge with his fellow inmates.

And someone spelled the Habsburg-familiy as "Hapsburg".

Do they really think that they can compete with wikipedia?

http://www.hapsburg.com/home.htm

Just google it. Apparently, it's a valid form of spelling. I've often found the Habsburg Empire interchangeably referred to as Hapsburg.

This website has to be the worst right wing website ever.

"It is sweet and decorative for patriots to die"

As opposed to those evil, America hating bastards who simply refuse to not expire when suffering injury or hardship.

Shia philosphy, anyone?

As opposed to those evil, America hating bastards who simply refuse to not expire when suffering injury or hardship.

Shia philosphy, anyone?

Was that supposed to be sarcastic or racist? I'm sorry, it's like 9:03 and for some odd reason I'm f-ing tired.

Was that supposed to be sarcastic or racist? I'm sorry, it's like 9:03 and for some odd reason I'm f-ing tired.

I was being sarcastic as well as pointing out a humourous parallel to the Shia ideal of martyrism.

Well, he's in jail now. He might be "sharing" that knowledge with his fellow inmates.

spreading 'the good news', if you will

Conservapedia (which, for some odd reason, my spell-checker fails to recognize as a word) has no entry under "sex". I think that means it officially does not qualify as a website.

Conservapedia (which, for some odd reason, my spell-checker fails to recognize as a word) has no entry under "sex".

Well, someone had better email them and suggest they add one. I'm sure it the entry (as it were) would provide us with yet more amusement.

WTF? :confused:
My boss is an atmospheric physicist. This guy is talking out of his ass. "It used to rotate faster" does not mean it was a billion times faster. It means that over time the earth has steadily slowed down from a point of higher angular velocity. Something we've been able to track and measure. And you'd think the atmospheric physicists working on it at the time would have noted the effect a higher angular velocity might have on the coriolis effect. Not that this really would mean that life would be impossible with a higher coriolis effect.


I've heard a horribly misconstrued, but still slightly popular claim, that is quite similar:

The earth's magnetic field is getting weaker. That means that at the current rate, not light at all would have been able to get through the magnetic field only a couple million years ago, etc and so forth.

Problem with this is that they forget to mention that the Earth goes through periods of strengthening and weakening magnetic fields(And actually, on a tangent, the poles flip every few million years or so, so in a few hundred thousand years, North will indeed be south and South will be north! Haha! All of our navigation equipment will be rendered useless).

Such is the logos of these people. Ignore the explanation and evidence, and blind yourself to only what you want to hear.

Well, someone had better email them and suggest they add one. I'm sure it the entry (as it were) would provide us with yet more amusement.

Indeed. The mind reels at the possibilities. ;)

I've heard a horribly misconstrued, but still slightly popular claim, that is quite similar:

The earth's magnetic field is getting weaker. That means that at the current rate, not light at all would have been able to get through the magnetic field only a couple million years ago, etc and so forth.

Problem with this is that they forget to mention that the Earth goes through periods of strengthening and weakening magnetic fields(And actually, on a tangent, the poles flip every few million years or so, so in a few hundred thousand years, North will indeed be south and South will be north! Haha! All of our navigation equipment will be rendered useless).

Such is the logos of these people. Ignore the explanation and evidence, and blind yourself to only what you want to hear.

It's actually a bit worse than that. The flipping of the poles will basically render ALL of our electrical equipment useless. You're essentially passing a ridiculously strong magnetic field over the surface of the earth.

It's actually a bit worse than that. The flipping of the poles will basically render ALL of our electrical equipment useless. You're essentially passing a ridiculously strong magnetic field over the surface of the earth.

Yes! That's brilliant! (In a disaster movie 'Ooh - look at the pretty explosions!' kind of way.) Surely though, isn't it possible to magnetically shield a few of the world's more essential electrical goodies? Air traffic control, nuclear plant safety mechanisms, computer game servers, that kind of thing?

Yes! That's brilliant! (In a disaster movie 'Ooh - look at the pretty explosions!' kind of way.) Surely though, isn't it possible to magnetically shield a few of the world's more essential electrical goodies? Air traffic control, nuclear plant safety mechanisms, computer game servers, that kind of thing?

You'd have to talk to an electrical engineer for that. It's outside my area of expertise.

This website has to be the worst right wing website ever.
It's so nasty that I wonder if it's not indeed an anti-conservative site. Because, if it is, it's doing a terrible disservice to the movement it allegedly represents...

No one can be THAT ignorant.

No one can be THAT ignorant.

The only alternative is you believe that Two Terms of Bush was a rigged conspiracy.

It's so nasty that I wonder if it's not indeed an anti-conservative site. Because, if it is, it's doing a terrible disservice to the movement it allegedly represents...

No one can be THAT ignorant.

I wondered that at first, because there have been some really brilliant parodies in the past, but the guy running this show is a Schlafly, son of Phyllis Schlafly of the Eagle Forum, noted hard-core conservative. It's real, so far as I can tell.

I wondered that at first, because there have been some really brilliant parodies in the past, but the guy running this show is a Schlafly, son of Phyllis Schlafly of the Eagle Forum, noted hard-core conservative. It's real, so far as I can tell.
Bah, then I question the sanity of anyone who buys into that stuff (alone for the fact that a simple Google search can reveal some of the real intellectual conservative sites out there). I suppose that's one element of the postmodern culture that is realising - truth becomes nothing more than fiction, a distorted image of what really is. With sites like these around anyway...

I wondered that at first, because there have been some really brilliant parodies in the past, but the guy running this show is a Schlafly, son of Phyllis Schlafly of the Eagle Forum, noted hard-core conservative. It's real, so far as I can tell.

Mebbe it's some kind of teenage rebellion thing?

You'd have to talk to an electrical engineer for that. It's outside my area of expertise.
And, I reiterate, I miss TG.