Conservapedia talk:Schlafly, breast cancer and abortion

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

I'd like to consider moving this out of the Essay space...any comments?--PalMD-yada yada 19:19, 2 July 2007 (CDT)

I must admit, Andy's repeated mentioning of logic is rather scary. Hell, Andy himself is, but he's really gone off the deep end... Barikada 19:34, 28 February 2008 (EST)

Recent edits[edit]

I just made an account here to post an anecdote and reproduce what happened today on this very talk page. I made an edit along the lines of Pete's with some specific suggestions. The account was blocked 10 minutes later, but the comment stands. Two users then came to my defense; one comment still stands, the latter comment was censored and the user blocked for five years.

The Truth

Hawkian: was not aware of any controversy surrounding this page before simply stumbling onto it today, but I needed to make an account in order to comment on this. On this talk page, I have seen rational humans attempt to inject some sense of veracity into the content of this article, some of them Christian, some not, some that have offered no insight into their religious beliefs but simply wished to see some of its horrific inaccuracies rectified. I will not touch the "abortion causes breast cancer" link- while there is no correlation established anywhere for it, let alone causation, the editors of this encyclopedia obviously want this "fact" included and there is nothing anyone else can do about it. But there are numerous other problems than anything calling itself an encyclopedia, let alone "the trustworthy encyclopedia," needs to address before its creators deserve anything more than derision and shame.

  • There is no discussion of the genetic factors at play, some of the most powerful clinical features of a diagnosis. An oblique reference to "family history" is not good enough. There should be a medical reference to the specific genetic factors involved.
  • Speaking of which, there are no medical references on this page. There is an implication in this discussion that sources such as the American Medical Association and World Health Organization are liberal organizations that are not to be trusted. This is exceedingly dangerous. If scientific organizations like these are ruled out, the only sources left to turn to ARE ones with an inherent bias or agenda.
  • The article states, "If a woman breastfeeds her babies she greatly reduces her risk of breast cancer." This is not fact. It's not even consensus. The citations offered are not medical and both cite a single study. This would not hold up to any reasonable scientific metrics anywhere in the world. If you must include this information, say "Studies show (or better, 'a study shows') that breastfeeding may be correlated with a lower incidence of breast cancer."

As it stands, this article contains a lot of misinformation and lacks a ton of key information. A woman with breast cancer who came to this page would be ill-served by its contents. A woman who came to this page looking to lower her risk of getting breast cancer would be given illegitimate advice. If anyone who is actually able to edit this page has any decency in them left, please include some of the changes I describe.

I wonder how long it'll take for this account to get blocked. --Hawkian 10:59, 24 September 2009 (EDT)

Kwilky: I entirely agree with the above user. I appreciate you're all christians and that lovely, but when did religion become an acceptable reason for lying? Believe what you want, but don't post rubbish about stuff you evidently have no understanding about, or stuff that you do have understanding about, but wish to edit for your own personal gain. Kwilky 11:31, 24 September 2009 (EDT)

Haetae: If anyone is curious, the answer to Hawkian's wonder above (how long it would take the account to be blocked): Edit submitted at 10:59AM. Blocked enacted at 11:09AM. That is 10 minutes. For purposes of posterity, after reading this entire talk page, I have selected some excerpts that demonstrate that Andy has absolutely no intention of valuing truth, let alone scientific consensus or verifiability, and reduced them step by step to truisms.

  1. "The above data are silly and misleading, even if true"
  2. "data are silly and misleading, even if true"
  3. "Data are silly and misleading." -User:Aschlafly

And also,

  1. "Logic alone dictates that abortion increases breast cancer risk"
  2. "Logic alone dictates that"
  3. "Logic alone dictates." -User:Aschlafly

These are indeed the lines of thinking that led to the consensus that the Earth was flat and the center of the universe. Though I have no doubt my account will be blocked as well, if you are lucky enough to be reading this, please take some of what has transpired on this article to heart. The world isn't really like this. It's a more interesting place than that. Good luck to all of you.--Haetae 11:54, 24 September 2009 (EDT)

  • --Thanks, I considered putting it here instead but it was an actual comment on the page, so I gave it a shot. Thanks for not just deleting this. --Hawkian 20:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
It would make sense on the page but unfortunately it just reinforces/repeats what has gone before on the cp talk page. It's just symptomatic of cp's whole attitude and Andy in particular. I am eating Toast& honeychat 20:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

A harrowing take down[edit]

Take a look, I'm not sure if it should be worked into the "article" or not. --Opcn (talk) 21:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

To be fair...[edit]

...if you stop breathing, you won't get breast cancer. -- Seth Peck (talk) 19:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)