Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?
| (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.
Contents |
[edit] Atheism and Alzheimer's
I wonder why Ken thinks Atheism and Alzheimer's are not longer linked. He seems to have removed a section on Atheism and Alzheimer's from a large number of articles. aimg bimg cimg Ghost (talk) 22:20, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
[edit] Schlafly gets called out for not knowing "... pretty basic law-school type of stuff" ...
...in Time. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 21:14, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- I wouldn't say he necessarily doesn't know it, but he is obviously ignoring it to suit his religio-political agenda. I'm sure it won't be his first time denying established facts for that reason. 141.134.75.236 (talk) 21:24, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- Aren't there videos floating around of him arguing in court and the judges basically laughing him out?--Miekal 17:52, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- The Senator Menendez recall attempt? Oh, we had a whale of a time with that. Ignore the constitution, cite a heartfelt letter written by George Washington. Bicyclewheel
19:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- The Senator Menendez recall attempt? Oh, we had a whale of a time with that. Ignore the constitution, cite a heartfelt letter written by George Washington. Bicyclewheel
- Aren't there videos floating around of him arguing in court and the judges basically laughing him out?--Miekal 17:52, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
[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)
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.
Генгисevolving
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
underminingediting CP in March 2007, you don't need to tell me how things are progressing.
ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science.
15:06, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- I started
- They are completely untrustworthy ALREADY and the stuff you edit will most likely enhance it.--Arisboch (talk) 13:10, 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.
[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.
ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic?
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. 141.134.75.236 (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)
- 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)
- 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 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)
[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)