Conservapedia:Parthian shot/Iduan

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Wigocp.svg This Conservapedia-related article is of largely historical interest and is no longer the focus of RationalWiki today.
Conservapedia (and religious fundamentalism to an extent) was a major focal point in the early history of RationalWiki, but long ago ceased coming up with new ways to appall and amuse.
Our energies are now spent debunking other, fresher examples of pseudoscientific claims and conservative deceit.
For RationalWiki's less ancient content, try the cover story articles or a random article.

Iduan's Parthian shot:

(edit comment: (likely my final post to conservapedia or rationalwiki))

I (almost famously now) had a campaign for adminship at Conservapedia. I regret my desires, for now I see that Conservapedia is not something that is to be bettered, but rather, by Andrew Schalfly's choice, it is something that is to always remain the same.

Today (or perhaps yesterday) Conservapedia's News section posted that Barack Obama called the United States "fundamentally wrong" in his Convention speech. It's ironic that they use quotes around that phrase - because according to The British Broadcasting Corporation's transcript, Obama didn't mention either the word "fundamentally" or the word "wrong". So why would Conservapedia post this? It is because Conservapedia is fundamentally disingenuous. That is critical to understand, because it explains all of their actions. They question the patriotism of a man who has probably done more work for America than Andrew Schlafly ever will. They suggest that Obama is only doing well because he is black (ironic given that Andrew Schlafly is only doing well because he is a legacy). They attempt to use every attack possible against Obama; it seems the only prerequisite is that the attacks can't have substance, but it is not as though Conservapedia wouldn't rather have substance; it is just that in the absence of substance they have panicked. As a result, Conservapedia's positions on Obama are based not on policy, but, rather, on rumor. Until last night I did not support Barack Obama, but now I am left with a question: do I agree with a man who wants to remove the dirt from Washington - or do I agree with a group that enjoys bathing in the dirt. I am ready for change.--IDuan13:20, 29 August 2008 (EDT)