Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

What is going on?

(talk) (talk) (talk) (hic)

As a point of etiquette, please use the [add section] tab above, or the "Add new section" link below, when adding a new topic, and the appropriate [edit] tab when commenting on existing topics. This will lessen the incidence of edit conflicts. Thank you.

When adding a link to Conservapedia that is not already on What is going on at CP? please place <capture></capture> around the link.

This page is automatically archived by Pibot
Archives for this talk page: Archive list


[edit] Basic Engineer Stuff

I know it's old, but it's so good. Andy is convinced that scientists ("atheistic scientists" in his world) believe in perpetual motionimg. This bit of lunacy stems from his obsession with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which Andy believes would disprove evolution if we make the slight modification that inputting energy into a system could not reduce that system's entropy. (Actually, that would disprove "life," but for most creationists that's a small price.) Andy somehow equates the stubborn insistence on the Second Law's relevance only to closed systems with perpetual motion. (I haven't been able to follow that train, so if anyone can shed some light on it I'd be in your debt.) Thus we come full circle: belief in evolution is equivalent to insisting that perpetual motion machines are real.

For a guy with an engineering degree, this muddle is more amazing than his not understanding how the Constitution works. Whoover (talk) 16:53, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

This guy is clearly employing doublethink.--Arisboch (talk) 17:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Is this how science works? Whoover (talk) 01:17, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, pulling random figures out of our backsides is what we scientists do all day. Cardinal Fang (talk) 20:49, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

[edit] A Month Without TAR

It has been a full month since TAR's last edit (to the Lord's Prayer article). Many people thought that TAR was just using CP as a spam farm in the run-up to the launch of his mentor's new book. However, TAR managed to convince Ken that he was a sincere, long-term CP contributor. Well, TAR's track record shows who was correct: with TAR leaving behind banned editors, many red links, and a large number of stub articles that have been converted into spam droppings. Hclodge (talk) 10:33, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I must admit I thought about using my sock and reverting some of his insane gibberish but in the end I decided it's more fun to simply leave his droppings all over cp. Some of his additions are better than any satirist could have tried to include. Oldusgitus (talk) 11:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I admit to a long term goal of making CP the un"Trusworthy Encyclopedia", and if they can do it themselves then more's the better. Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. Moderator 12:50, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
They are completely untrustworthy ALREADY and the stuff you edit will most likely enhance it.--Arisboch (talk) 13:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I started undermining editing CP in March 2007, you don't need to tell me how things are progressing. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? Moderator 15:06, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Why is anger bear

"celebrating" the death of a feministimg icon? Oldusgitus (talk) 15:16, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Despite the spelling in the URL he still manages to spell "riveter"incorrectly. No wonder the site is such a sorry mess when the adminithugs are only semi-literate. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? Moderator 17:34, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I think that, despite her feminist connotations, Rosie the Riveter is also a part of American history. She's also a part of pro-USA WWII propaganda, which may endear her to him more. AyzmoCheers 19:56, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
That I get. What I really struggle with is the way that he, and other wingnutters, will happily ignore things like the feminist role model aspect in order to grab on to the SINGLE thing that justifies their viewpoint. I may be wrong but I really don't see people on the secular left, as I identify myself being, doing the same thing. I will happily accept that my role models have flaws and am willing to admit them. Oldusgitus (talk) 08:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I get ya. Reagan is a great example. They ignore that he signed a gun control law in California, supported amnesty, Contra, etc. to make him into a saint. Maybe a corollary of the No True Scotsman effect? Either that or they're just ignoring the parts they don't like because it doesn't fit into their narrative? I can't believe that many are as single-minded as Andy and can literally not see things they disagree with. AyzmoCheers 15:36, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
"ignoring the parts they don't like because it doesn't fit into their narrative" That's basically how most fundies deal with inconvenient passages in their Holy Scripture. (talk) 15:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't get the claim that Anger Bear or conservatives have appropriated a feminist icon. Far as I understand it, Rosie the Riveter was not created as a feminist icon, but as a call to women to pitch in on the home front. That is, she was fundamentally pitched as a patriotic icon, albeit with a call to women to enter professions previously closed to them. She became a feminist icon later, when feminism became a real social concern.
From Wikipedia: It was only later, in the early 1980s, that the Miller poster was rediscovered and became famous, associated with feminism, and often mistakenly called "Rosie The Riveter."
So, seems to me that it's the feminists that appropriated Rosie for their own ends -- not that I see anything wrong with that. Phiwum (talk) 20:04, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Kenny the man child

Every time I think he may be growing up he pisses all over himself to disgraceimg himself with his spite. What's up kenny, Bruce's honesty cuts little too close to home or something? Oldusgitus (talk) 18:55, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Between the lot of them they don't seem to be able to string together a coherent thought. The heading simply doesn't describe what's in the article, and none of any of it is supported by video, then Ken just rocks up and his favourite bit of the whole thing is when Jenner sheds a tear because ... well I suppose it makes him feel like a man by comparison. Forgetting of course that Bruce fathered children to a woman he met at the Playboy mansion. Yup, say what you will Kenzo. Ruddager (talk) 09:41, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Whoever or whatever Jenner identifies as s/he will without a doubt be able to kick ken's backside with both arms tied behind his back.--Mercian (talk) 14:02, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Even if Ken gangs up on him? (talk) 20:58, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Jpatt?

JPatt has a kid?img I weep for our future. Not to mention that fact that it isn't difficult to explain transgender issues in a way that is easy for a kid to understand. AyzmoCheers 15:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I see from that fount of all misinformation, Wikipedia, that Bruce Jenner describes himself as a conservative Christian. Interesting... I guess JPatt, Kenny Boy and their friends (if they have any) get round that one using the "No True Scotsman" rule, i.e. no true Conservative Christian would do that transgender stuff. Cardinal Fang (talk) 16:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Andy really doesn't care anymore does he?

Not a single mention of how earthquakes are increasing in frequency nor a single crocodile tear accompanied by his 'praying for the victims' bullshit. Even he's given up on his blog now it seems, other than checking in occasionally to block people. He's basically surrendered it to anger bear and the man child. Oldusgitus (talk) 19:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Famous quote from that page: Researchers are left scratching their heads, trying to understand possible reasons for the uptick in seismic activity in Oklahoma. Now that that liberal bastion, the state of Oklahoma, admits that it's fracking do you think Andy might update the page? I love how editors get banned for replacing 2009 employment charts with current ones. Information getting updated is a form of liberal deceit. Whoover (talk) 06:04, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Why update information when all you need is in the Bible? Cardinal Fang (talk) 10:46, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
But if you're re-writing the bible, then surely you can re-write statistics. Ghost (talk) 11:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Liberal deceipt will get you nowhere. they are not 'rewriting' the bible. They are removing "archaic language and liberal translation distortions" and your liberal lies don't change that fact. Oldusgitus (talk) 12:09, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Jpatt explains how earthquake relief aid is suspect, because Democratsimg. Also, since nobody's raising money for Christian ISIS victims, why should we raise money for Muslim earthquake victims? Hindus are a kind of Muslim, right? Whoover (talk) 18:50, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
I remember Andy refusing to link to a Red Cross appeal as it was not an exclusively Christian or Conservative organisation. Ken blames the lack of action on Conservapedia on athiests.[1] How much have you given Ken? Thousands of people die, a good opportunity to kick an atheist, nice point scoring--Mercian (talk) 22:04, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
And Andy joins the party with another ridiculous dig at "atheist hospitals". Cantabrigian (talk) 09:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Ken Updates "Obama and Unemployment"

Ken and his parodist doppelganger, VargasMilan, have been defending Barack Obama and United States Unemploymentimg from reality for some time now, and today Ken updated the article in response to some unease among the troops. First, there are a number of things he didn't update. Unemployment figures are still stuck in 2010. Guess Why. Under "Obama's Misleading Statistics" the article still bemoans the "real" unemployment rate, U6, "rose to 16.8% from 16.5%." Today it's 10.9%.

Under "Obama Jobs Deficit" we learn (indirectly) that non-farm payroll is about 129 million. Today it's 141 million.

Under "Return of Stagflation Concerns" we learn that, in 2010, the Washington Times fretted about high inflation and continued high unemployment. It's not worth an update that, as of 2015, neither happened.

He did shuffle some text around. We still learn that the continuing (in 2010) high unemployment is because of Obamacare. And that if we add national debt and unemployment numbers together into a "misery index," it's high (although we don't learn the unemployment component is much improved, even though this is the unemployment article, not the national debt article).

He also added a disclaimer, that if you really know that unemployment is the lowest it's been in over a decade, it's because Republicans slashed unemployment benefitsimg.

I pity the poor student who uses the Trusworthy Encyclopedia as a source. Whoover (talk) 00:11, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Personal tools