Conservapedia talk:Andrew Schlafly's greatest insights

We are missing one of my favorites: his belief that liberals reject phonics because they want all children to be illiterate so they will vote for Democrats. I'll look for the links. DickTurpis (talk) 11:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

And the power of the teenz: most inventions were made by toddlers! larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 12:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Shit! How could we forget his accomplishments by teens fixation? That definitely has to be on the list. DickTurpis (talk) 12:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Move

As this doesn't particularly look like a debate, is it worth moving to the CP namespace under the name of "Schlafly insights"? ^pathetic 12:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I suppose it doesn't really matter, I was just following the format of the Biggest Idiot debate. I prefer this name, though. Perhaps same name, but in the CP namespace? ^{ONE / TALK} 12:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

This is great work 1, but I agree with Armond - I think it would be ruined once it's filled with votes and comments. How about moving the beef to "Assfly's greatest insights" or somesuch, leaving the debate page with just the headings and room for votes/comments? Also, I think would should provide links to the quotes, lest we be accused of making shit up DeltaStar_{Senior Sysop}^{Speciationspeed!} 12:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we can use the talk page for votes and comments? We'll only need the headings, then. I don't think the comments would ruin it though - on the Biggest Idiot debate, the comments were the best bit :D And yes, cites is something I was going to work on after getting all the beef of the article in. I probably won't do that til I get home though. ^{ONE / TALK} 12:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a great idea. I agree with DeltaStar, this article is way too nice to have people add comments to it in the article itself. This is the best CP related article I've seen in a while, I really enjoyed reading the summaries of Andy's little insanities! Thanks for the awesome work! --GTac (talk) 14:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Speaking fo which, we have such an article but rarely got updated. I am wondering whether I should Copypaste all that onto the article... [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 17:22, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks GTac, I enjoyed writing it :D Especially going around CP and discovering all the insights I had previously forgotten... ^{ONE / TALK} 18:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Also I'm having horrible trouble putting external links inside the quotes. I'm guessing it might be impossible, but it could also be my incredibly weak wiki-fu. lil help there? ^{ONE / TALK} 18:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I suggest putting slider bar (0-10) voting on each insight. ħuman 18:32, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

That could work well. Also, thanks Psygremlin for the ref fixes - that looks better than what I was trying to do. ^{ONE / TALK} 18:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Jesus invented comedy

There's something that's always bothered me about this statement. And not giving enough of a shit about Assfly, I don't have the patience to dig further. Has anyone ever asked him when exactly good comedy started? Like, is it his claim that "good" comedy started like, the day after the resurrection? I only saw a movie used as a reference. So I think the argument could be better made (against him) that comedy came after Darwin. Or Edison, or after Atheism started to become a valid stance... Just a random thought, and I also realise none of that would likely help in the argument against Captain Douche. Quaru (talk) 14:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

"Jesus invented comedy" was a farce. Andy was just trolling. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 15:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

It's a complete misquote - what he said is that "humor" did not exist prior to Christianity (not necessary that JC invented it). The "comedies" of the classical civilisations don't qualify under Andy's arbitrary definition of what "humor" is - which he justified with the usual shtick about words changing their meanings, and also you have to open your mind (see CP:Talk:Essay:Greatest_Mysteries_of_World_History#Humor). Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the section headings are deliberate misquotes for the purposes of comedy (post-christian comedy, to be specific). But I've made sure to accurately quote each insight in the sections themselves. As for this AndyInsight being trolling.... let's be fair here: it's impossible to tell! ^{ONE / TALK} 18:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

If I recall, it was changed to "genuine" "humor". Still, I think Andy even outed himself, noting how the liberals and atheists didn't have a sense of humor about the whole thing. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 19:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

That's almost better, to be honest... Andy's "joke" was so funny, people thought he was serious, again... So he Poe'd himself. Nice. Quaru (talk) 19:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Fantastic.

It's great to have a collection of Andy's worst stupidity in one location. 17:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I would like to proffer a couple extra, though - Rules of Chivalry and the various associated educational insights on the benefits of chivalry, and the Method of Quantification of Openmindedness. I'm also deeply appreciative of his thoughts on breast cancer in Hollywood actresses, and the Biblical scholars amongst us undoubtedly hold a candle for his exegesis of John the (teenage) Baptist, although that obviously relates to his other insight involving teenagers. MaxAlex ^{Swimming pool} 18:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, not sure I have much to say debate wise, but this deserves to be its own article. The wit and wisdom of the assfly compiled. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 19:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Great article. Should the Conservative Bible Project get mentioned? Does it count as an "insight"? --Night Jaguar (talk) 21:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

As long as Andy phrased it like an insight at some point, which I believe he did in several ways, it can probably be worked in. The most applicable part I remember is that the translation was "revealing" that Jesus constantly hinted at free market economics or some such. ~ Kupochama^[1][2] 21:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to nitpick, it was John the Teenage Disciple and Evangelist (and Homeschoolee), not the Baptist. Cantabrigian (talk) 09:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion

It's not really an insight, but his comment below deserves mention. --PsyGremlinParla! 19:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

“”Why the big push for black holes by liberals, and big protests against any objection to them? If it turned out empirically that promoting black holes tends to cause people to read the Bible less, would you still push this so much? [1]img

That's already in there; a quote under the Black Hole insight. Unless that was added after this comment... ^{ONE / TALK} 20:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

It was added after.. But, really. He's right here. I mean, I know we're not suposed to actually say that where he can find it.. But it just seems mean to keep harping on this when one of his insane theories eventually is correct.. I mean, come on.. "black hole" As opposed to what? Blue holes? How absurd. Quaru (talk) 22:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Move / Bling

I'm moving this to the conservapedia space and putting a silver brain on it. My wiki, my rules. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 19:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Permission to feel smug about writing an article that was immediately silver-brained. ^{ONE / TALK} 20:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Granted. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 20:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

*feels smug* ^{ONE / TALK} 20:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Capturebot

What say we run capturebot on these refs, lest they take a trip down the memory hole? DickTurpis (talk) 20:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Yea. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 20:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Does capturebot watch the CP namespace? ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 20:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't think so. He's got a sandbox he plays in though. I'd transfer links but I gotta get going with some other stuff. DickTurpis (talk) 20:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks like Gerard's on top of it already. DickTurpis (talk) 20:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh god, there are so many!

"Recall that the language of Mesopotamia was cuneiform, based on wedge-like characters. Can you imagine it conveying the concept of "Holy Spirit" or "sin" or "redemption" or "faith"? It was an inadequate language, far too primitive for the needs of Christianity."

"Transistor" is a conservative word because "The transistor played a central role in national defense systems, such as the Strategic Defense Initiative, a program proposed by conservatives and which helped bring the downfall of communism in the USSR. Moreover, the transistor epitomizes Yankee ingenuity, which is a conservative value."

[2] [3] Complex numbers are apparently some sort of liberal lie. Coarb (talk) 21:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Title

The title rubs me the wrong way. I think these are Andy's greatest insights, not dumbest. Aceⁱ⁹ 05:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

So move it. ħuman 06:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I think they are Andy's greatest dumb insights. PACODOG^{woof, bitches} 06:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

"Andrew Schlafly's most powerful insights" - David Gerard (talk) 13:43, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Greatest insghts is funnier, although more sarcastic. Real first name and last initial (talk) 10:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I forgot this one

Migrating birds navigate by divine guidance. Coarb (talk) 19:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Invisible hand of marriage

the section says the the IHOM is a force for productivity, but the quotes say that it promotes social well-being and that Adam Smith's "invisible hand" promotes economic productivity. Should we rewrite the intro or research more accurately? :) Real first name and last initial (talk) 10:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Both quotes are from Andy. The intro states "The invisible hand of marriage is an unseen force of productivity that results from the marriage of a man and woman." It's just another example of Andy having no clue what he's talking about.

Sorting it alphabetically?

Shouldn't these be in chronological order (preferably with dates)? Or ranked in a top ten or something? Putting the section titles in alphabetical order seems like the most arbitrary way of arranging it. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Personally, I prefer some sort of rating system (sorta like the WIGO:CP) so we can rank them. --Night Jaguar (talk) 00:50, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

CaptureBot

If someone with the know-how could do it for me, capturebot needs running on this page again for some of the new difflinks that have appeared in the refs section. Ta! ^{ONE / TALK} 10:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Sheesh, bend over and I'll fan you. Done. --Ψ GremlinSprich! 10:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Ahhh memories.

This page reminds me of some good times. Ace^{The Rep Grows Bigger} 02:54, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Underdogs

Us in Blighty are renowned for support of the underdog (for just one example, the applause of the Saudi woman in the Olympics who came in last) The cheeky fucking arsehole cunt Scherben 11:50, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Feudalism and guns

For much of the feudal period 'guns' in the Schlafly sense did not exist - or were confined to siege pieces and hand cannon were somewhat different kettles of fish (though ballistas would be more appropriate for actual kettles of fish). Anna Livia (talk) 15:58, 11 June 2019 (UTC)