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

Contents

[edit] Even Jesus Nods

God was asleep at the switch, apparently, when Greatest Conservative Sports Star Novak Djokovic was eliminated by Buddhist Kei Nishikori, who advances to the U.S. Open final. How will this be spun? Ignored? I predict Andy will keep quiet until after the final, hoping for a Nishikori loss, which will then make him Overrated. That should relieve the pressure. Whoover (talk) 19:30, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

[edit] WTF Andy??

Did somebody spike Andy's drink?? Mr Small Government thinks that totalitarianism is the only to keep unity in a country.img Can somebody fluent in Schlaflyese parse that for me please? PsyGremlinPraat! 12:45, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Charitably, you could say he was saying "without totalitarianism keeping the atheists in check, anarchy is the only thing happening". If that is what he meant, he probably thinks the Christians are keeping American atheists in check.--Miekal 13:15, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
(EC) I think the reading that's most charitable to Andy is that he's saying atheistic governments and societies can't function in an orderly manner unless they're also totalitarian. He's probably throwing back to Stalin and Mao in a fairly obscure way. -- Ellipsoidal (talk) 13:17, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
He is saying "I hate Britain/UK/England" so any news that damages it is good by him. The opposite of "I love Russia" so any news that damages it is liberal propaganda.--Mercian (talk) 13:24, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Hitler and Stalin are two of his prime examples: liberal totalitarian leaders of atheist societies. When Russia turned from communism to Christianity, it no longer needed to be totalitarian, so now that it's conservative under Putin's strong but democratic republican leadership it proves the point. Scotland, being to the left of atheist England, is turning to communism so they really should find a dictator. It's all completely consistent. Whoover (talk) 17:00, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Aren't the more strongly religious states of the US the ones who push for secession more than any of the others? X Stickman (talk) 18:32, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm going to keep repeating it. Andy is strictly authoritarian. This can't really surprise you. He makes perfect marks on that every element of the RWA scale. Ikanreed (talk) 18:38, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Ikanreed, I found a test for the scale[1]. I scored 47 out of 200, pretty damn liberal but a few here would get a lower score. Andy is certainly 150 plus on this scale, probably higher.--Mercian (talk) 19:51, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Keep in mind that the a low score on RWA can and often does happen on politically conservative people. A low RWA score doesn't mean liberal. It means "not authoritarian". It's a personality meta-metric, not a political position. Ikanreed (talk) 20:36, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
If Andy were really for small government he would have condemned police with military-grade gear in Ferguson and their treatment of protesters. The few things he did post were in favor of the police. Like most Republicans, he's only for small government when it gets in the way of their ability to be bigots or limits the greedy goals of corporations. He's all for authoritarianism if it's of the social conservatism kind or keeps the lower classes in check. --Night Jaguar (talk) 06:47, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Cheezburger/Know Your Meme

Have picked up on andy's blog now. Oldusgitus (talk) 06:37, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I see we get a nice mention too. And also that we're ranked nearly 14,000 places higher than CP. According to Ken logic, that means 2014 is going to be a terrible year for Conservapedia. PsyGremlinPraat! 13:58, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
They called us an encyclopedia! *looks all cross* SophieWilderModerator 14:18, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
And apparently RationalWiki was founded on the 22nd 2007. I must remember to celebrate our anniversary on the 22nd 2015. Spud (talk) 11:17, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Jpatt

Is going to be angryimg again as Joaquin tries again to insert some balance into mpr. Oldusgitus (talk) 12:14, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Does jpatt even edit anymore?--Miekal 13:02, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Very rarely and then it is usually minor edits or defending Israelimg. Oldusgitus (talk) 13:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Love how he says that Islam is "anti-semetec"[sic]. (Definiton of Semitic for the less informed: 1. A member of a group of Semitic-speaking peoples of the Near East and northern Africa, including the Arabs, Arameans, Babylonians, Carthaginians, Ethiopians, Hebrews, and Phoenicians.) Scream!! (talk) 13:42, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, but at this point, anti-Semitic basically just means Jews. It's funny if you think about the meaning of the word, but I don't hold the modern usage against him.--"Shut up, Brx." 14:58, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Something Old

No, I don't know why I do it, but in perusing the discussion of dinosaur references in the bibleimg, I stumbled across a wonderful argument for Creationism:

Furthermore, even if the terms did refer to other animals, this does not necessarily invalidate the existence of dinosaurs. The Creation account was not intended as a comprehensive list of all animals God created - it does not for instance state explicitly that He created the ferret.

There's no arguing with logic. Whoover (talk) 03:03, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I love that article, every possible failure of logic demonstrated in one place together with many contradictions of the same fallacies. It's been heavily rewritten (and Kara is threatening to rewrite the whole thing) but my favourite bit was the recent discovery of the coelocanth is absolute proof that dinos are still running around The Congo. Sphincter (talk) 03:50, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Another great line, this from Causes of Homosexuality:img
In Genesis 19, the city of Sodom is revealed as a place in which men sexually lusted after men, from which the term "sodomy" was derived (like as homosexuals use the term "gay", although this is contradictory in the end).
No, it can't be parsed, but it's unintentionally hysterical just the same. Whoover (talk) 06:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

The destruction of Sodom (if it were true) was a crime against humanity. My home city has a red light district with perhaps a few hundred people involved in the illegal sex trade so it deserves to be destroyed according to biblical logic and the bible is of course the most logical book ever written. And even if, by the same perverted logic, the sex traders deserve death, what of the remaining 1/4 of a million? It is in my mind one of the most vile books ever written.--Mercian (talk) 15:29, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Sodom wasn't just a few gay people or a few hookers or sexually liberal people, it was a town where literally every person ("But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young, all the people from every quarter") will come and blockade someone's house and demand that the visitors be thrown out to be raped. The story has always had more nuance than "gays deserve to have salt related meteor deaths" but for SOME BIZARRE REASON all the crazies focus solely on the gay part. X Stickman (talk) 18:40, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
I remember an argument about the story being up for interpretation, and that since the Bible frequently uses "know" as a euphemism for sex, it could instead be describing a xenophobic police state that interrogates foreigners for the sake of being foreign.-- Forerunner (talk) 19:33, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
I find it puzzling that Genesis 19 is presented as a story from which anyone could learn anything morally laudable. You've got a town filled with homosexuals and Lot hanging out at the city gate like the midnight cowboy. It's not so clear from Lot's calm response that he even knew the two strangers entering town were angels. In some descriptions, angels are 18 foot talk winged beings. In others, they are radiant beings with eyes like lightning. The angel described in Matthew "was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow. The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men." Lot just bows deeply. So the angels, who certainly knew the townspeople would try raping them (or you can't rape the willing — who knows), insisted on spending the night in the town square. That sounds an awful lot like either drawing fouls or "when in Rome". Lot insists they spend the night in his house, with food and foot washing and whatever other nonsense — but they also certainly knew that the townspeople would surround the house and then try raping them, and that Lot would offer up his virgin daughters to be gang raped. Rape everywhere. Ehrenstein would go nuts reading that story. And then the angels tell Lot to get out of Dodge and not to look back, knowing of course that his wife would, and would be turned into a pillar of salt. Why didn't they say "but no seriously, Lot. Your wife is going to look back — don't let her or she'll die. We're not kidding." So we've got this "moral" tale about god sanctioning gang rape and putting strangers over family, destroying a whole city he set up to fail from the start, showing just how slick he was to word his covenant with Noah the way he did, and god generally treating women breathtakingly shabbily. And after losing his poor wife, Lot becomes such a hopeless alcoholic that he can't put up a fight when his depraved daughters get him so drunk they have sex with him so they can continue the family. Perhaps god gave the old guy some viagra so he could manage some sloppy drunk sex. But contrary to these weirdos' claim that they needed to have sex with dad because there weren't any other men around, there were cities full of them. They just didn't live in caves way up in the mountains having sex with their children. And to top it all off, one of the daughters has a son who becomes the patriarch of the Ammonites, who god then sets up to be major antagonists to the other Israelites and ultimately viciously genocides. Nutty Roux (talk) 20:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Andy in court again

This has shown up on Crooks & Liars. Andy went up against Posner and Easterbrook. I'd love to see this. http://crooksandliars.com/2014/09/best-obamacare-court-argument-ever — Unsigned, by: Lardashe / talk / contribs 13:31, 17 September 2014‎ (UTC)

Listen to him get savaged by Posner and Easterbrook. He can't answer direct questions. Nutty Roux (talk) 15:59, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Wow, Andy really is a shitty lawyer. Has he ever won a case of any significance? We've seen him get hammered in those recall cases, now this. Wonder how long he'll keep his post as AAPS's legal representative? PsyGremlinPraat! 16:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
I doubt he'll loose it soon. Oldusgitus (talk) 16:46, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
It's possible their intention isn't necessarily to win, but to develop issues. There's great value in certainty. That's one of the benefits of stare decisis. Nutty Roux (talk) 17:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Andy certainly has developed issues, on that I totally agree. Oldusgitus (talk) 17:18, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Very fun listening. I like the way that Posner talks. He's so soft-spoken. Andy's argument is weird, and it requires some considerable gymnastics to figure out what their point of view is. I know it's intimidating to talk to these judges, but Andy comes across like he didn't put much time into researching this case. Part of how you prepare for a case is to find your arguments, but also to find the weaknesses in your arguments, and shore those defenses up. It doesn't come across like he considered that his case might be questioned. - Lardashe
Posner and Easterbrook are well known for making the best lawyers look like chuckleheads. I lost sleep worrying that they'd be on my panel when I did a 7th Circuit appeal 10 years ago. Nutty Roux (talk) 20:38, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Personal tools

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support