Conservapedia talk:News you won't see

Seven New Sins

Actually, I think they'll feature that one.

• "Birth Control" = Bad!
  • The only conservative way is through abstinence!
• "Drug abuse" = Bad! (Okay, it is, but...)
  • HOLLYWOOD VALUES!
• "Polluting the environment", "Contributing to widening divide between rich and poor", "Excessive wealth", "Creating poverty" = Bad!
  • Leave it to Andy to find examples among liberals (while denying that conservatives do these things) and to create "Liberal Wealth" and "Liberal Pollution"

The only shaky item is "Stem Cell Research" since I dunno Andy's position on this one. But I'm almost willing to bet that he's against it (which automatically makes it a part of the Liberal Agenda). --Sid 22:30, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, I thought it was a poor choice. Interesting "issue", but not for here. Oh, and some of those are kinda anti-capitalist, so that might keep it off CP's front page. Wikipedia is all in a tizzy about whether to add them to the 1500 year old ones. human 23:10, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

In hunting down the original document [1] (google translation[2], it appears the list I copied is an extrapolation to 7. From a speech:

“You offend God not only by stealing, blaspheming or coveting your neighbour’s wife, but also by ruining the environment, carrying out morally debatable scientific experiments, or allowing genetic manipulations which alter DNA or compromise embryos.”

Better reading on it[3] - though still looking for a more accurate version (raw vataican statement, no interpretation). --Shagie 03:20, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

It could still appear on CP even if Andy disagreed with most points, he would make a header that emphasizes the points he agrees with and hope the kids don't read the source. NightFlare^{Speak, mortal} 03:46, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

change the first point?

Careful, because that bunch will certainly talk about guns used in non-defensive ways...particularly by those who hold such ideologies as "wearing all black". All those liberal school shooters are news too. ^{— Unsigned, by: 207.245.75.194 / talk / contribs}

Yeah, but this particular weapon of gun was not used in a largely defensive manner. human 15:19, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

Front Page Material?

Can this be made into a template, and put on the front page? (Or, at least a link to this.) --Gulik 02:09, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

If it gets to be any good I'd agree. But it's 1. pretty weak right now, and 2. Totally derivative of conservapedia. How about links from wigo, and cp? human 02:33, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Dates

Can we please preface the entries to this article with dates? human 02:32, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

More whinging

Thanks for the dates; I think this just have the newest ones at the top, though? Thoughts? human 19:22, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

I guess a reverse order (a la WIGO) would make more sense since this may get longer... --Sid 19:24, 28 March 2008 (EDT)

Wiki wars

I stumbled across it when searching for 'conservapedia' on google news. Sometimes its fun to see who is talking about them. I've yet to see a positive article.

There are some fun gems in that article... One from [4]

Conservatives grouse that the writers and editors at the national magazines lean left, and there is definitely some truth to that. Not to a man and woman, and this does not mean their reporting follows the Democratic Party line, but it does have consequences on which stories are covered and how they are covered. But I think the lessons learned are wrong, or at best incomplete.

The reaction is usually to set up an alternative forum which is defined as being explicitly conservative. The problem is that these alternative organizations often operate inside a bubble which their “liberal” counterparts do not. This can be the case beyond journalism as well. On the web we can see this very clearly: The non-partisan but in some ways “liberal” Wikipedia has been answered by the conservative-minded, low-quality Conservapedia.

You could see this in journalism when, last month, new Washington Times editor John Solomon brought the newspaper’s style book closer in line with the standards at every other daily broadsheet in America. Some on the right yelped that this was giving in to the “reigning liberal sensibilities.” But this gets it exactly backwards: instead of “liberal” coming to mean “neutral,” these conservatives are letting “neutral” come to mean “liberal.”

Its fun watching conservative blogs criticize Conservapedia. --Shagie 19:13, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

Some other fun articles:

• "Hands down, [Citizendium is] far better than what Wikipedia was after its first year, and also is of course far better than Conservapedia. The comparison there is just silly."[5]
• "When I was in high school, I dreamed of being in college where professors made political jokes and were passionate about their beliefs. Now, after being here for a seemingly innumerable amount of credit hours, I find most professors go out of their way to not "stir the pot" and talk about controversial issues. If I am in fact oblivious to these so called "Professor Values" on this campus, I sure would like to know what I am missing." [6]