Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?/Archive261

This is an archive page, last updated 3 October 2011. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <8>, <9>, <10>, <11>, <12>, <13>, <14>, <15>, <16>, <17>, <18>, <19>, <20>, <21>, <22>, <23>, <24>, <25>, <26>, <27>, <28>, <29>, <30>, <31>, <32>, <33>, <34>, <35>, <36>, <37>, <38>, <39>, <40>, <41>, <42>, <43>, <44>, <45>, <46>, <47>, <48>, <49>, <50>, <51>, <52>, <53>, <54>, <55>, <56>, <57>, <58>, <59>, <60>, <61>, <62>, <63>, <64>, <65>, <66>, <67>, <68>, <69>, <70>, <71>, <72>, <73>, <74>, <75>, <76>, <77>, <78>, <79>, <80>, <81>, <82>, <83>, <84>, <85>, <86>, <87>, <88>, <89>, <90>, <91>, <92>, <93>, <94>, <95>, <96>, <97>, <98>, <99>, <100>, <101>, <102>, <103>, <104>, <105>, <106>, <107>, <108>, <109>, <110>, <111>, <112>, <113>, <114>, <115>, <116>, <117>, <118>, <119>, <120>, <121>, <122>, <123>, <124>, <125>, <126>, <127>, <128>, <129>, <130>, <131>, <132>, <133>, <134>, <135>, <136>, <137>, <138>, <139>, <140>, <141>, <142>, <143>, <144>, <145>, <146>, <147>, <148>, <149>, <150>, <151>, <152>, <153>, <154>, <155>, <156>, <157>, <158>, <159>, <160>, <161>, <162>, <163>, <164>, <165>, <166>, <167>, <168>, <169>, <170>, <171>, <172>, <173>, <174>, <175>, <176>, <177>, <178>, <179>, <180>, <181>, <182>, <183>, <184>, <185>, <186>, <187>, <188>, <189>, <190>, <191>, <192>, <193>, <194>, <195>, <196>, <197>, <198>, <199>, <200>, <201>, <202>, <203>, <204>, <205>, <206>, <207>, <208>, <209>, <210>, <211>, <212>, <213>, <214>, <215>, <216>, <217>, <218>, <219>, <220>, <221>, <222>, <223>, <224>, <225>, <226>, <227>, <228>, <229>, <230>, <231>, <232>, <233>, <234>, <235>, <236>, <237>, <238>, <239>, <240>, <241>, <242>, <243>, <244>, <245>, <246>, <247>, <248>, <249>, <250>, <251>, <252>, <253>, <254>, <255>, <256>, <257>, <258>, <259>, <260>, <262>, <263>, <264>, <265>, <266>, <267>, <268>, <269>, <270>, <271>, <272>, <273>, <274>, <275>, <276>, <277>, <278>, <279>, <280>, <281>, <282>, <283>, <284>, <285>, <286>, <287>, <288>, <289>, <290>, <291>, <292>, <293>, <294>, <295>, <296>, <297>, <298>, <299>, <300>, <301>, <302>, <303>, <304>, <305>, <306>, <307>, <308>, <309>, <310>, <311>, <312>, <313>, <314>, <315>, <316>, <317>, <318>, <319>, <320>, <321>, <322>, <323>, <324>, <325>, <326>, <327>, <328>, <329>, <330>, <331>, <332>, <333>, <334>, <335>, <336>, <337>, <338>, <339>, <340>, <341>, <342>, <343>, <344>, <345>, <346>

, (new)(back)

CP's attitude to Britain

So Andy puts up this^img headline, and I can't work out whether he's trying to compare Britain favourably or unfavourably to Britain. Either he's trying to say how the American "lamestream" media is crap, or that even the "athiestic" British media (on one website...) are even covering it. Seems an odd remark, particularly where the UK is the land where if you want an abortion, you get one. If you don't want one, you don't get one. Everybody happy. Doraemon^{話そう！話そう！} 21:45, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The medical (scientific) experts were wrong, and it's a remarkable human interest story in GB which the liberal American MSM conveniently ignores. nobs^{Empty Recycle Bin} 22:01, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Seems like the doctors were right. The woman almost died to deliver two month premature babies. If she wanted to risk it, then that's up to her, but I don't see any reason for the doctors to alter their advice to the next woman in the same position. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 22:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Yup. Medically, this is a nonstory. They told her she was headed for the forever box unless she either got an abortion or rolled a natural twenty. She tried her luck and rolled the twenty. The end. Mountain Blue (talk) 22:32, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

And now the Brits have to be evil again.^img --★uːʤɱ pirate 13:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Which, like everything the daily mail publishes, is a complete non-story. X Stickman (talk) 14:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Given that legend has it that Conservapedia began after one of Andy's students wrote "BCE" instead of "BC", it should come as no surprise that Conservapedia's main page now quotes the Daily Mail in saying, BBC turns its back on year of Our Lord. 2,000 years of Christianity jettisoned for politically correct "Common Era". A new round of Ken "essays" about how all Brits are fat, evil atheist nancy-boys is likely to follow.--Spud (talk) 17:22, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh I would love that! I remember he once instantly reacted to a British user with "Have you met Richard Dawkins"? Doraemon^{話そう！話そう！} 23:20, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

No British crap. Atheism and Bestiality was an important stepping stone towards our ultimate goal, Liberals and Pedophilia, and we plan to use the momentum we currently have to glide to the next milestone. If we pull it off and get Andy to endorse our guro lolicon gallery on the front page of the Schlafly family's best known web site we get the print edition of the LA Times again. Mountain Blue (talk) 00:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

No no no...you must use the politically correct term for pedophilia -- intergenerational non-consensual sex. nobs^{Empty Recycle Bin} 00:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

UHM's version that needed a bit longer to type in, but shouldn't be wasted either

Andy is jumping to conclusions^img. So, yeah an American woman with cystic fibrosis gave birth to trplets.

Now here comes the crazy. Andy clames that the American media is ignoring it. Let's google this, shall we? Looking at the first two pages I see 1 (DailyFail) article about it from the UK and 3 (FauxNews, lifesitenews.com, WWLTV) from the US. Now this is enough evidence that the country that was almost at the bringe of - em - even more riots because of it's atheism and liberality is actually promoting pro-life causes now, right? Wait, if all this was true, why would they do such a thing?

And now for the other part, even the DailyFail reported about this because the woman was the first cystic fibroses case to give birth. How about some sugar on top of it? Kandace Smith, the woman who risked her live for the her babies to be born, isn't even married and therfor had pre-marital sex. It's a miracle! --★uːʤɱ anti-communist 22:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

A year-old miracle to boot. 17:54, 26 September 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

Reliable sources, JPatt style!

The USGS doesn't show an increase in earthquakes? Not to worry! An Earth changes nut says^img that scientists are incapable of measuring these things, so Andy's right! Twice as many earthquakes every forty years! Phiwum (talk) 17:30, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I enjoyed how he couldn't bring himself to state the conclusion. Even someone as stupid as JPatt knows what he's doing. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:34, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

But it's from CP's new favourite Best of the Public^TM news source. Therefore it's of far more use than anything some pointy-headed scientist could possibly say. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Wow. "Forget everything they tell you about facts! Facts aren't possible! Now accept what we tell you is fact!" Just wow. --★uːʤɱ sinner 17:52, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Reminds me of the cranks who say there's no such thing as a global average temperature. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:57, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, as we all know, the Earth Changes movement and the sysops at Conservapedia are like peas in a pod. No hypocrisy here! Phiwum (talk) 18:18, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I rather like this one^img. So 81% of Americans do not use faux news for their news but jpatt thinks in some way this is something to be proud of. Oldusgitus (talk) 18:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The Penn Teller Internet Challenge!

Kenny thinks that some random dude on the Internet challenging Penn Teller to a debate is some how worthy of front page news^img. Of course Penn will likely ignore the challenge, if he is ever even aware (As I am sure he receives many silly messages from random nobodies on the Web and routinely deletes them as a matter of course); which in turn will be interpreted as a victory by the cowardly Ken (who refuses to accept any debate challenges himself) and his mallcop, motorcycle buddy out in California.

Bonus is Ken's claim that atheism is on the decline because the Brights website isn't doing so well. By his logic, conservatism is also dying based upon Conservapedia's own rapid decline using the same data site. As if single small site is a good barometer for measuring the success or failure of an entire large and diverse movement or set of beliefs.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:38, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

":Oh^img my^img Yes^img, we^img know^img about^img it^img. and ken^img knows^img about it as well! --Mikalosa (talk) 14:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)"

As i said above, the obsession with Penn is deep. This is why you shouldn't speak up about the site--Mikalosa (talk) 20:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Ken only "challenges" Penn because he knows Penn isn't going to respond to a challenge from some guy using an anonymous moniker on the Internet. Why would he? There is no guarantee he even be replying to the same people each time or someone(s) different. To him and most people without delusions of grandeur, it looks like some random Internet troll or parodist trying desperately to get his attention. Ken thinks he is some major Christian apologetic force and big time philosophical defender of theism on the Web. What he doesn't understand is too most everyone else, he is just an anonymous troll on some fringe site that may or may not be parody or poe.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 22:54, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

We don't wanna be globalist at CP

User: Maybe we should make this a Disamb. page and move this content to US pres. election? Andy: We don't cater to globalism here at CP^img --Mikalosa (talk) 20:51, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Without further comment: "Another example of misguided globalism was the failed effort to convert the U.S. to the metric system."^img --Sid (talk) 21:14, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Does the metric system have a liberal bias? --★uːʤɱ secularist 22:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

It's french/European--Mikalosa (talk) 22:17, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Andy's right about one thing, in that it certainly makes sense not to have such a disambiguation page at CP. No one's going to be looking for the other elections, even when they do have a few "articles" on them. Those other redlinks ain't turning blue anytime soon, I'll warrant. Hell, you could delete those, and 80% of CP, and no one would even notice any loss of information. Their US election page is the only one of those anyone ever looks at (and by "anyone" I mean the handful of editors they have), so it doesn't make sense to have to click through another page. It's been stated from the beginning that CP has a US bias. DickTurpis (talk) 22:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

If Andy had said it like that, it would have made sense. But no, he had to tie the concept to some "globalist agenda" and throw in the metric system as an example for extra lutz. The bunker mentality and paranoia runs deep.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 23:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I dislike the metric system. dunno why.--Mikalosa (talk) 23:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I hear you. I think we do it right here, really. Metric for sciencey stuff, the old system for day-to-day crap. I like being 6'2", and have no interest in being 188cm or whatever. Likewise I'm a big fan of my pints. DickTurpis (talk) 23:54, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Someone tell Andrew that the inch is defined as 25.4 millimetres. Sphincter (talk) 02:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The world is becoming more conservative

I actually somewhat agree with Andy here, though not much. The right has made many victories in Europe (though the French assembly just took a turn for the liberal), and Islamophobia has risen. In the states the debate has degenerated into whether or not Obama is a socialist. Political correctness and multi-culturalism are widely ridiculed.

Although I don't think this is part of a great trend (coinciding with the world's increasing stupidity- aah, Andy, you've given us so many laughs). It's just the ebb and flow of politics. Socially, at least, the world is actually getting more liberal. In the past hundred years civil rights and women's rights have made great strides (although he and his may want to claim the African-American civil rights movement as conservative, we know who was chanting States' rights back then), and gays are increasingly accepted. IDK about economically, but if there's an over-arching trend, it's towards social liberalism.--User:Brxbrx/sig 21:28, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

They call them progressives for a reason. DickTurpis (talk) 22:19, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course the European definition of "conservative" may well not be quite what Andy means. There are atheist conservatives here and everything! I know; I'm one of them, and I found it educational that when I discussed my conservative views at TAM this year everyone else thought I was way out on the left. Conservative as I may be though, Andy's moronic "project" and the antics of Ken

fill me with disgust, loathing and the urge to start pounding skulls with an empty absinthe bottle - one of which I unfortunately now possess. --Longbow (talk) 22:23, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

There are atheist conservatives in America. What "liberal" and "conservative" mean to people differ widely around the world, as the meanings of the words have compared to say, a century ago. There is no universally accepted political definition. That is one (or many) critical flaws in the thinking on CP; they think American social conservatism represents conservatism everywhere, and that it is the only "true" form of pure conservatism for the whole world, regardless of history or culture.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 23:09, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

There are definitely shared traits among the world's right.--User:Brxbrx/sig 23:10, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Bigotry and stupidity, though, are not two of them. The most right-wing political party in Germany that doesn't actually wear brown shirts is the FDP, otherwise known as "Die Liberalen." They're a free-market party that wants to cut taxes, they're so conservative that they opposed the recent spelling reform and the last party leader was openly gay. --Longbow (talk) 23:19, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I suppose.--User:Brxbrx/sig 23:20, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Even in Britain, the British National Party, considered the far right, are actually a bunch of Socialists when it comes to economics. The Economist did a very good survey between British and US voters a few years back which proved that the British Conservative Party is far more left wing than the US Democrat party. I really do blame the US 2-party system for this sort of thinking... Doraemon^{話そう！話そう！} 23:39, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course the BNP, until Nick Griffin came along with all his black-separatist friends and started trying to make it at least a semi-respectable choice, was technically a NATIONAL Socialist party anyway... --Longbow (talk) 23:56, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

BenP throws in the towel (for now)

Way to go, Ken.^img --Sid (talk) 22:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

What better demonstration could we have of Ken's value to RW? Go on Ken

, write some more stuff about goat sex! --Longbow (talk) 23:23, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Ken trolls CP so we don't have to. Genius! --Sid (talk) 23:37, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

...hes the Nostalgia Critic? LordSlug ^{You want me to do...work? what's that?} 02:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Bring back the olé-olé-olé picture with the bull's balls! Beloved feature of the main page! No one stopping you now, Ken! --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 01:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Ban the doctor Ken, do it, he's just an evilutionist there to troll you! Kick him squarely in the balls, then chant Ole-Ole-Ole! Do it! --Opcn (talk) 02:19, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't mind me

I'm a bit drunk and need capturebot to record the final sentence of an old version of this article^img for posterity. Years later it remains one of my favorite bits, and really isn't all that much different from Ed's original version^img. DickTurpis (talk) 04:41, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Ed has read Hobbit?--Mikalosa (talk) 04:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Ed's quite the Lord of the Rings fan. That's about the worst thing I can say about the series. DickTurpis (talk) 04:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

-cry---Mikalosa (talk) 04:58, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Jeb Bush currently #1!

Jeb is now #1 despite not even running in the first place!^img, it wasn't added by andy but as of me typing this it still stands.--Mikalosa (talk) 23:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Moved to 2. Still nuts that hes on there as he is, and I believe it may have been mentioned, NOT RUNNING.--Thunderstruck (talk) 00:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I could almost see him being ranked rather high (not #2 but up there), if he were considered a strong candidate who, if he were to declare, would likely jump to the top, as Perry basically did, or Palin might have at one point (though not so likely anymore). There's word that Christie could be That Guy, and Daniels or Huckabee maybe could have been. But there's no huge groundswell support for anyone with Bush in their name right now. His brother is still a pretty badly damaged brand, and Jeb was never hugely popular on a national level. Also, having Pawlenty on the list at all is ridiculous. He dropped out because his support was so thin. Should he for some reason jump back in it's just going to be even weaker. Whatever. Andy's a retard. DickTurpis (talk) 01:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I asked Andy a while back about that. he said people actually running for the spot isnt the most important reason in deciding if they should be ranked.--Mikalosa (talk) 01:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Awww... they removed Ralph Nader from 'Potential Democratic Candidates' (interestingly, added by Rob Smith^img; he also added Bernie 'not a Democrat' Sanders^img).

Anyway, if they have Jeb Bush listed why not also list other just-as-likely possibilities, like the dead body of Ronald Reagan or an aborted fetus? --Night Jaguar (talk) 03:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

While Andy was in control of the Republican list, the Democrats were all Rob. At the time he had Obama as something like the 4th most likely nominee in 2012, despite him being the fucking incumbent. I forget the details, but he later admitted it was some sort of propaganda initiative to make Obama seem more vulnerable or something. Because, you know, Conservapedia has the sort of stature that allows them to dictate such things. DickTurpis (talk) 04:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't remember if it was CP or some conservative, but they mentioned that "it isnt about truth, its about making the other side look bad"--Mikalosa (talk) 05:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

CP in a nutshell. Anyway, Whether someone is running isn't necessarily the main factor, in a way. For instance, someone who is about 50% likely to run, but, if he does, could expect about 25% support would have odds around 13%, which is much better than someone like Newt, who is 100% running but has only about 5% of the vote. Perry was in a similar situation before he declared. Nevertheless, Jeb is probably less than 25% likely to run, and could probably only count on about 10% support if he did, so he'd be closer to 2.5%, making him much currently worse odds than Newt, and nowhere near Romney or Perry. DickTurpis (talk) 05:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Intrade gives him a 4% chance to run and a 0.3% chance of becoming the nominee, appropriate for someone who's repeatedly said he won't join the race and hasn't done anything to convince us otherwise. The rest of his list isn't any better, either - he's got the current front runner beaten by all the other declared candidates except Huntsman and Santorum, and it's still totally cluttered with fantasy candidates who never seriously considered a run. He just doesn't give a shit about updating it or coming up with a coherent method for ranking them. Röstigraben (talk) 05:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Admittedly I pulled my numbers out of my ass, and made them especially generous to illustrate that even in a best case scenario Jeb would still be far from a frontrunner. Still, .3% might almost be a bit low. Given the dearth of viable candidates, there is still a small opening (provided Christie doesn't try to fill it), and candidates always say they're not running until they say they are. Should he jump in the race he probably would immediately lead at least half the current candidates (at first) so I'd give him more like a 1 to 2%. But that's not really based on all that much, obviously. DickTurpis (talk) 14:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Sure, we all have to make our assumptions and come up with mostly arbitrary numbers when asked to express them in a quantifiable way, I wasn't criticizing that. And here's no reason to believe that the market consensus is always right either, otherwise there wouldn't be any money to make . After all, these are the same people who, on average, believe that there's still a 30% chance that Sarah Palin will get in the race, which I'd call nonsense. Many GOP base voters and elites are apparently much like Andy in how they keep pining for idolized fantasy candidates instead of settling on one of the guys they've got. Röstigraben (talk) 15:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit or Die!

Seems like Conservapedia:Karajou has something against Andy's quieter followers, going by the carnage here^img.

A thread a few weeks ago dealt with Karajou blocking old accounts that had made virtually no edits, and to his credit, the likelihood of those accounts coming back and being genuine probably isn't that high. In this case, though, a lot of these accounts must be new, because the user names would have been blocked on site. About your post, though; is that maybe the wrong capture? I don't see any actions by Karajou there at all. άλφα^Ταλκ 02:45, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Just clicked the link and there was Karacoward blocking about a squillion users. --Longbow (talk) 03:36, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

[1]^img for posterity. (I din't manage to fine-tune it much though...) Peter ^{talk, or type, or whatever...} 05:36, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I was reading Conservaleaks recently were the debate was over blocking unused accounts after 24 or 48 hours; I don't remember when or where that discussion occurred. nobs^{Empty Recycle Bin} 03:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Hooray for Anonymous? LordSlug ^{You want me to do...work? what's that?} 05:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, the link was to recent changes, and the capture just screenshotted a bunch of vandalism; the new capture is the right one. άλφα^Ταλκ 11:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Ken, he's talking about you

The Doctor is on to you^img quick ban him, ban him! --Opcn (talk) 02:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Anger bear is on the case^img What he doesn't realize is that any accurate description of a coward is going to cover Kendoll because Kendoll is accurately described as a coward. We say "jump" and Karajou asks "how high?".--Opcn (talk) 03:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't normally go for parody, but that's about the best kind there is. Shame it wasn't done at a more leisurely pace. Though it's nice to know how apparent Ken's cowardice is to CP folks. Ego (talk) 06:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I have been waiting for the Doctor to write more, you just know he has more to say... If you're reading this Doctor be sure to write more on the subject! --Opcn (talk) 10:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not even really parody, the only reason it's funny is because it brings the truth too close to the coward nerve at the heart of CP. It occurs to me after all of this coward talk that Cowardice is really at the heart of CP, it's run by a whole bunch of failures of men who are afraid to face up to others and so they got together and built a fort where they get to write the rules and write reality to their liking. --Opcn (talk) 10:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

What happens next?

I've been thinking about this one for a while. And I need to ask: What do you think will happen to RW if CP does die/get abandoned/whatever? LordSlug ^{You want me to do...work? what's that?} 05:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

That won't happen for years yet, but that would just accelerate our post-CP transition, where we have steadily become less and less focused on CP.--^talk 06:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

RW will wither down to a much smaller size, if it manages to transition some people will return but mostly it will be a different crowd. From what I gather Trent drops a decent amount of money on this and it's continued existence would depend on his career path by way of his disposable income.--Opcn (talk) 06:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I thought RW was all donations now?--^talk 06:31, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Well my employer would be pleased because I'd have to do some sodding work at last. Oldusgitus (talk) 06:38, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

In the unlikely event that Andy throws in the towel I would imagine RW would buy the conservapedia.com domain and post stuff that would make people at Encyclopedia Dramatica blush. CP's credibility would go slightly up. As for Ken

, it's kinda worrying to think what he would do without CP.... hopefully just post "essays" about atheists being into homosexual necrophilia and placentophagy elsewhere (feel free to use those on CP, Ken!). --Night Jaguar (talk) 07:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

It would be great to let Ken continue to edit happily away but unprotect everything so other editors can challenge, question, and change his assertions; then see how long he lasted. Although I'm not convinced the guy isn't a) mentally unstable, b) a poe or c) some combination of both. Tielec01 (talk) 07:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

WTF??

Does this^img happen often?

Wow, I'm surprised he's lasted that long. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 08:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Ken

has locked editing, but no sign of the banhammer coming out. That really ISN'T normal. --Longbow (talk) 08:26, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Banhammer Lite^img to the rescue:

• CPalmer: "1 day block so you can cool down."
• JamesWilson: "Here, let me extend that to 1 year."
• CPalmer: "Sure, why not."

Of course, that means that now, Ken can come out of hiding to deliver a smug response to Leonard.

But tell me, guys, is "voiceoftruth2006" supposed to mean something special? Is he/she some famous internet debater or something? I'm somewhat confused. --Sid (talk) 11:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Nope, just a guy who's made a few videos on YouTube. Only slightly above Ken

in other words. --Longbow (talk) 11:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if Ken would agree if we offered Thunderf00t. He of course would say no if he thought we could get him. Does anyone have thunderfo00t on facebook or his contact info? --Opcn (talk) 11:41, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Say what you will about CPalmer, the man knows how to craft a block log reason: belligerent berations indeed! Phiwum (talk) 11:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

"No, I'm more patriotic!" The one year ban has been extended to an infinite ban. I can't wait to see who extends it to infinity + one day. (Not that I blame them much — LeonardS was there to taunt, not contribute. Of course, Conservative merely taunts as well, but he's on the good side, so taunts are contributions for him.) Phiwum (talk) 12:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

(ec)SeanS: "Oh, oh, oh! Can I play, too?" *ETERNAL BANHAMMER*^img

So! For the exact same "offense", we've seen non-sysops (all of which overstepped their outlined rights: As "emergency Sysops", the authority of these users is limited to warning users of policy violations and blocking for blatant vandalism and harassment requiring an immediate response.^img) block a guy for a day, a year, and now all eternity. Fucking brilliant! Now all we need is for Ed to make a well-timed statement that Conservapedia is a healthy and growing community of equals. --Sid (talk) 12:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I would feel worse if the guy hadn't been so obvious about not wanting to help the site.--Mikalosa (talk) 13:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong but aren't you seans Mikalos? Oldusgitus (talk) 13:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

And then creating socks left and right to keep the non-existent dialog going. If he's not careful, they're gonna call the FBI on him. Phiwum (talk) 13:51, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

It took so long cause they had to debate on the private list whether or not Leonard was a parodist, perhaps Horace or the Halifax troll. And allowing a parodist/blocker the opportunity to suck-up relieves the heavy handed criticism they fear at RW. nobs^{Empty Recycle Bin} 22:58, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Oooh no, not the FBI! Hang on while I gently shit myself. --Longbow (talk) 14:04, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

(EC)Is it really "disruptive" to step up to a challenge repeatedly offered by one of their most prolific editors? I mean if Ken had never once offered a debate challenge, and this guy just showed up and was all like "Haha hey ken you're dumb", that would be pointlessly disruptive editing. But he's specifically responding to one of Ken's primary points: that he's totally up and ready for any debate but it's the atheists who back off and hide because they're pussy cowards. He has to publicly and clearly make the offer because otherwise it'd be dealt with in typical CP fashion (i.e. completely ignored). The taunting parts might be a bit much but it's significantly less than what Ken does by himself. The only way these edits are "disruptive" or even offensive is if they straight up know that Ken never *really* wants to actually debate. Now, we know that, and they know that, but they can't admit to it. So I basically applaud this lil' slice of Ken taunting if only because it forces their hand on their own site. They're pussies and cowards and they're openly acknowledging it. X Stickman (talk) 14:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify: Yes, I know that he's too much of a fucking coward to debate anyone and I am deliberately taunting the fucker about it. However, should he grow a pair of testicles at any point in the future I WILL debate him and I confidently expect to pound his ignorant arse through the floor. --Longbow (talk) 14:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect: big fucking deal. Everyone knows that Ken is literally incapable of forming an argument. I am certain that you would "win" a debate with him as well, in the sense that you are remarkably more likely to form something like an argument than he is. And yet, in the end, nothing would change and Ken would certainly claim victory using the same amazing and infuriating non-sequiturs as we see daily from him. I understand that you're pointing out his hypocrisy and cowardice (though, I don't think you should sock up after a ban). I just don't get the bravado with which you declare that you're more competent than the half-wit. Who isn't? Phiwum (talk) 22:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive!!! how could it possibly be disruptive for Ken to debate, given that it is CP dogma that he is going to win? Are they so cowardly that they are even afraid of victory? Remarcsd (talk) 22:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I think Ken has a fondness for drink

So you guys know what I mean? He can't type right, he is forever forgetting things and going back to add them, and he can't think straight, he is always getting off topic. Watching Dr. Dean argue with him is like watching someone argue with a drunk. does anyone have any thoughts on this? --Opcn (talk) 08:51, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I suspect Ken's a Methodist in which case he probably is not a great aficionado of demon drink. However, his obsessive night editing sprees probably indicate significant sleep problems and sleep deprivation can often resemble mild drunkeness. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 09:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I have many thoughts about Ken

. The most important one is that he's a fucking coward. He's just been offered an online debate - which he claims atheists are too chicken to give him - and he's running away AGAIN. What a complete wet feline vagina. --Longbow (talk) 09:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

He would find more sleep if he were a drunkard. So, no. larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 09:13, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I doubt it, but then again I was wrong about another mentally disturbed atheist-hater, David Mabus. ("Bi-polar, compounded by alcohol and substance abuse" apparently; I thought he was schizophrenic. ) --Night Jaguar (talk) 09:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

'I suspect Ken's a Methodist' perhaps Ken puts the Meth in Methodist AMassiveGay (talk) 09:36, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Didn't TK have a theory that Andy was a drunkard? --Night Jaguar (talk) 09:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but I don't buy that one either. Andy's way too uptight for an alcoholic. Röstigraben (talk) 09:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's likely either. Still, it's funny that his own former second-in-command didn't believe his thoughts originated from a sober mind. --Night Jaguar (talk) 10:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I think our Schlafly household mole said that Andy wasn't much of a drinker. As for TK saying it, well I think most people who had dealings with the late Terry Koeckritz discovered that he was an inveterate liar. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 11:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

TK was an alcoholic himself, and often accused others of being alcoholics - back at HON it was one of his favorite weapons to discredit someone and try to destroy their reputation. Schlafly's daughters boyfriend (Kettleticket or whatever he called himself) posted (here at RW) that he ate dinner at the Schlafly's and spent lots of time there and that Andy did not drink at all.193.200.150.82 (talk) 16:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Real alcoholics are often quite good at hiding their drinking, especially from casual visitors like a daughter's boyfriend. In fact, I believe it was reported that Andy spent a lot of time holed up in his study on the computer. Retreating to a private room for hours is classic alcoholic behavior. DickTurpis (talk) 13:31, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Damn, you can read me like a book. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 13:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

(EC)Also classic internet pornography addiction behaviour. Maybe that's why he rarely responds when people ask for help; CP is the one tab out of hundreds that doesn't have some form of nudity in it. X Stickman (talk) 13:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

It's silly to think Andy is an alcoholic. Alcoholics are generally proud, and defensive of their habits. The exception is if they are a relapsed alcoholic, in which case, they understand a sense of shame of it. Andy is simply a nut, not an alcoholic. In fact, framing him as an alcoholic would be making excuses for him. -Lardashe

I admit I am basing my analysis largely on my uncle, who is a relapsed alcoholic, and when he falls off the wagon he tries (unsuccessfully) to keep his drinking hidden from my aunt. Now, I am in no way saying Andy is an alcoholic, I'm just saying that the word of someone who had minimal contact with him is hardly definitive. Nor is the opinion that Andy is too uptight. I'd say it's not likely he is, but we can't definitively say he isn't either. DickTurpis (talk) 14:27, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Amateur psychology ROCKS! Ajkgordon (talk) 14:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Specially when it's performed on someone's web habits! Scream!! (talk) 15:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Guys! I just noticed that these conservapedia mods are real jerks! I bet this means they must have a mental disorder! Anyways, isn't Ken

a moron for trying to connect obesity to atheism merely cause he hates atheists? What a retard! GTac (talk) 18:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Ken Called Out On Home Turf

This just made my day.^img Two posters with nuts of steel calling out Ken doll on his refusal to debate, and all ken can muster is "You don't KNOW my name". Its gonna be a good day.--Thunderstruck (talk) 13:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

RonLar's .02€^img larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 13:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

This is pretty sweet. WeaselNation (talk) 13:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, RonLar starts off by saying one doesn't have to be obsessed to note some inconsistencies, but then he has such a detailed knowledge of Conservative's editing habits that, well, er, ... I forgot my point. Good post. Phiwum (talk) 13:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

It's a wiki, though. It's not like someone has to obsessively follow Ken around the internets or real life to find out how often he edits. You can do it in 5 minutes with a few clicks. X Stickman (talk) 13:58, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Ken is, far and away, the LAST person who should be saying someone is "obssessed" with Conservapedia.--Thunderstruck (talk) 14:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Q.E.l is gonna kill off all the atheists!

Off with their heads!

Yep, time to make them an endangered species! ^img, no word on when this is actually going to happen to atheism but its gonna happen man!

Just Ken quoting his Youtube buddy as if the guy has any influence or significance to the culture at large; gotta love the cronyism on CP.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 13:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but Queen Elizabeth I is going to do what now? Phiwum (talk) 13:38, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Why the not so virgin queen?--Mikalosa (talk) 13:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

From the dusty archives of my memory, Ken's ramblings remind me of the crabs in the seaside rock pool from The Perishers (UK comic strip back in the 70s). They think that their pool is the entire world and when Boot the dog looks into the pool they are convinced that the 'eyeballs in the sky' are some divine visitation. Indeed they even have a preacher crab and construct an entire religion around the characters' annual trip to the seaside. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 15:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Ha! very apt. I'd forgotten about that. Scream!! (talk) 15:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

People should be WIGOing this

And by people I mean people who can write, which excludes me. --Opcn (talk) 13:58, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Forgot to post a link...--Thunderstruck (talk) 14:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

People have been talking about stuff for the last half dozen topics. Karajerk just blocked Dr. Dean for instance --Opcn (talk) 14:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

You know even karajerk must sometimes get tired of clearing up the shit after kenny baby has had another of his incidents. I genuinely don't understand why you put up with it karajerk. Oldusgitus (talk) 14:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Yep, it's amazing how many victims Ken's latest dribble fit has claimed. BenP has quit, MaxFletcher dropped out of Andy's history course in protest and SamCoulter and DrDean have been banned. Soon Ken will have achieved his dream of having a whole wiki to his disgusting little self. --Longbow (talk) 14:26, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I would like to make a WIGO entry, but it's too broad. I mean, you have DrDean being blocked (meh), that voiceoftruth guy running around challenging Ken (we know how that turns out), and a pretty thoughtful account creation version of a Rickroll. Nothing related to each other, and just doesn't give me a feel for it. Unless someone wants to do a "Par for CP" and just lump it all together, I don't see any of it being WIGO worthy. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 14:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

"a pretty thoughtful account creation version of a Rickroll" Creating a bunch of accounts so that together they read out some shitty meme is thoughtful?--137.48.201.11 (talk) 14:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Yep. --Longbow (talk) 14:40, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

NOOOOOOOOOOOOO! NOT DR DEAN!--C0n53rv4p3d14 r00l2 (talk) 14:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Yep, DrDean. My bet is that either SeanS or MaxFletcher will be next. --Longbow (talk) 14:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

What the hell was the reason for the block? 90/10? WeaselNation (talk) 15:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

When you say "reason"... StarFish (talk) 15:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Er... Cause? Impetous? WeaselNation (talk) 15:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

DrDean expanded the definition of "cowardice" in an article, and Karajou seemed to feel it came a bit too close to perfectly describing Ken

. --Longbow (talk) 15:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

That only got a warning shot. The infinite banhammer came down after he asked Karajou to explain how it was an attack on an admin. He basically forked Karajou (as in the chess move) he either had to explain how Ken was a coward or destroy everything. --Opcn (talk) 15:07, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Either way, Karajou fellates dead goats. --Longbow (talk) 15:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Citation Needed WeaselNation (talk) 15:13, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Original research is allowed. Senator Harrison (talk) 17:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Throwing "Karajou fellates dead goats" into the ol' google search engine, I get 220 results, most of which link back to discussion either here or on rationalwikiwiki. I'll allow this as a valid citation. WeaselNation (talk) 17:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The next to leave

Looking at it, im betting Max, or Ramis, Or both. --Mikalosa (talk) 22:26, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

SamHB lays it out in terms that a six-year-old Andy can understand.

Speaking truth to Power^img --‎Capital punishment doesn't undermine the moral or legal foundations of a society. ‎It is the moral and legal foundation of society. 19:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to go waaaaaaaaaaaay out on a limb here and say the response will be a deafining silence. WeaselNation (talk) 20:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Amazing

The word, "Solyandra" does not appear anywhere in Conservapedia. And Larry Summers, the former Reagan official, the hero of conservatives who now threaten Obama's entire agenda, Ken^img has^img ruthlessly^img demonized^img. nobs^{Empty Recycle Bin} 20:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Could've sworn I saw it on MPR... Occasionaluse (talk) 20:30, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it's "CP:Solyndra^img" on MPR. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

If Robby would search for the right word… --★uːʤɱ sinner 20:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Robby is a person of extremely limited intelligence. He is a very, very stupid man. Don't expect too much of him. ‎Capital punishment doesn't undermine the moral or legal foundations of a society. ‎It is the moral and legal foundation of society. 20:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Robs not stupid, just crazy. Ace^ace 20:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

+1 Occasionaluse (talk) 20:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

We're all a little crazy. Some are better at hiding it than others.--Thunderstruck (talk) 21:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

ok, so I fucked up. But let's see Ken walk back that corrupt, obese, socialist Reaganomic supplysider, who will testify he warned Obama against pillaging the public treasury of a half billion dollars. nobs^{Empty Recycle Bin} 21:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

It's a fucking ridiculous name, you cannot say it like it is spelled. Spelling it wrong isn't too bad. --Opcn (talk) 22:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

more on Larry Summers

When Andy took heat in the Star-Ledger (July 10, 2011) for allegedly unequal treatment of boys and girls test scores, his only public response (July 10, 2011) was to invoke the name of Larry Summer's in his defense^img. Summer's incidentally, was President of Andy's alma mater. But Andy's won't challenge Ken's work using Summers as the poster child of cp:Overweight Obama administration officials. nobs^{Empty Recycle Bin} 22:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Ken never read wp:Bruce Bartlett's piece in National Review, "I view the appointment of Larry Summers as director of the National Economic Council as especially inspired." Bartlett authored The Keynesian Revolution Revisited (1977), Reagonomics (1981), and The Supply Side Solution (1983). Ken authored Essay: Obamanomics - Voodoo pedophile influenced economics/Larry Summers and charges of conflicts of interest^img. But Andy just doesn't care what crap Ken puts out there. nobs^{Empty Recycle Bin} 22:54, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you really understand what we're about here, Nobbykins. We enjoy laughing at CP. Your bitter rants are a real downer. Get with the programme already. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 23:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Heh, Larry Summers as adviser to Hugo Chavez and Robert Mugabe. You can always rely on mises.org to be fuck-nuts. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Redphone for DavidZa

Dear DavidZa^img, please friend me on facebook I'd like to have a conversation with you. --Opcn (talk) 01:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll prob friend you, THEN POST EVIL SHIT ON YOUR WALL.--Thunderstruck (talk) 01:58, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you can friend me too. --Opcn (talk) 02:03, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I refuse to allow real me and CP/RW me to mix.--Mikalosa (talk) 02:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

There are less than half as many "counterexamples to evolution" as there were this summer.

I can't believe Andy has let this happen^img. ‎Capital punishment doesn't undermine the moral or legal foundations of a society. ‎It is the moral and legal foundation of society. 02:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Ed Poor: Douchiest douchebag who ever dared to douche.

As per the latest WIGO, he keeps on surprising me by being even more of a complete cock than he previously appeared to be. Ed, you should seriously consider killing yourself. Or at least trying to become a decent human being. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:12, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Now, now, I just cannot endorse suggestions like "consider killing yourself". Tsk. However, yes, Ed sucks cock, and his pettiness is somewhere between hilarious and plain sad. And I love how SeanS is immediately playing devil's advocate, even when it's clear that he's extremely uncomfortable. --Sid (talk) 00:31, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Fuck Jeeves, poor fucking taste man. Ace^ace 00:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Rasberry Ripple in fact. Whoever is running SeanS is really trying too hard. I doubt anyone else is ever going to be promoted to sysop, unless they're a personal friend of Andy so it's all just wasted effort. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

IF I honestly wanted to be Sysop I would feel ashamed of myself.--Mikalosa (talk) 00:45, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

The key word in that sentence is "honestly." None of the hoi polloi at CP are genuine. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:47, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

In Which Mara Gets Mad About Stuff and Things

People say Conservapedia is hateful — and in some ways I agree it is — and yet, would you read on Conservapedia someone advocating someone else commit suicide? I don't think you would; if anyone tried, I'd expect they would be banned instantly. This just goes to show, that no matter how hateful Conservapedia is, the RationalWiki hate machine can be much worse. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 00:48, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

If it makes you feel any better, I was banned instantly. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 00:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Mara, that kinda post would get you banned instantly on MOST websites--Mikalosa (talk) 00:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Still, one has to ask, is that just him, or is there something about the culture here that led him in that direction? Reading this page, one does get the feeling that some people view the sysops of Conservapedia as effectively subhuman. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 01:12, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Not subhuman, just very, very stupid and malicious with it. Perhaps you might care to go and read what Conservapedia has to say about atheism and mass murder, bestiality, obesity and paedophilia and then rethink exactly who considers who subhuman. We just talk about the things they do on CP, they're condemning large numbers of us sight unseen as monsters. You might also note that we rarely have bad things to say about Joaquin, because he rarely does bad things. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 01:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

EC I don't think the "culture" "led" Jeeves to do anything--he's the kind of guy who takes full responsibility for his actions, owns up to his mistakes, and can see a joke, even one that's in relatively poor taste. I don't think anyone sees CP sysops as subhuman--people just acknowledge that CP is a community of really mean-spirited, stupid people. ‎Please, Reverend Jim, ‎more Kool-Aid! 01:23, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Apart from that Mara; who do you think gives a flying fuck what "one" thinks, if that one is you? Pippa (talk) 01:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Also, note how that comment was immediately criticized by a bunch of other editors. Not really evidence of a hateful "culture" now, is it? On CP, the only ones to voice objections against their hate-filled screeds are low-level editors whose life expectancy after speaking up is usually extremely short. Writing those screeds, on the other hand, is apparently something that'll earn you merit badges. Röstigraben (talk) 01:34, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

We also have a grievance procedure, so if you're convinced that what I did was so bad it deserves further punishment you can go there and complain. (Oh, and unlike CP, people will actually take your case seriously on the merits. And you won't be the one who ends up banned.) --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 01:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

"Oh, and unlike CP, people will actually take your case seriously on the merits". Not looking promising so far. RW isn't as far away from CP as you like to think. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 03:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Let's not pretend as though Maratrean was the only one upset with Jeeves' post--User:Brxbrx/sig 02:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Jeeves, I think some of the articles User:Conservative writes about atheism do actually have valid points behind them, although I agree he has a style of polemical exaggeration and excess. If atheism is true, how can there be objective morality? And, even while often seeing it as purely subjective, many atheists do seem to adopt a particular kind of morality, i.e. utilitarian — and positions such as that "bestiality is wrong in all cases" are difficult to justify given utilitarian ethics. Now, some other things he says, like his attempt to link atheism to obesity, are rather over the top and silly. To me this is part of the problem — I disagree with a lot of what Conservapedia says, I disagree with a lot of what RationalWiki says, but I can see that both have some valid points to make — and not the sort of purely minimal validity implied by the saying "a stopped clock is right twice a day". Whereas, it seems to me like there is no effort to try to appreciate any of the valid points User:Conservative makes. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 01:55, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

You are such a fucking idiot. ‎Please, Reverend Jim, ‎more Kool-Aid! 02:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

(EC, but yes ^ that.) If you think that's the argument Kendoll is trying to make, then you're reading his "articles" with very special blinkers on. He has no point to make other than "look how awful atheists are!" You're projecting your own ideas on to his insane writings. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 02:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, a large chunk of his articles seem to be his own rehash of presuppositionalist apologetics. I don't read his articles as something he cooked up entirely by himself — he is, by his own admission, taking ideas from elsewhere (e.g. his frequent referencing to CMI), and presenting them in his own way. Admittedly, his own way of presenting things leaves much to be desired, but is it wrong if I read his ideas with the knowledge that he is deriving them from elsewhere? And if those ideas he takes from elsewhere have some degree of validity, then his own presentation of them must too. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 02:06, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Some bloke in the pub told me he saw a white swan, so all swans are white. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 02:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Someone uses a very common argument, but maybe doesn't express it as well as it could be. Charity leads me to look at the argument he is trying to make, rather than the limitations of his own expression of it. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 02:24, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

"there is no effort to try to appreciate any of the valid points User:Conservative makes." Which points, exactly? That atheists always lose out to ponies? That there is a relationship between atheism and obesity? That there is a relationship between bestiality and atheism? That there are flying kitties? That Richard Dawkins lacks machismo? That Penn Gilette is a coward? That there is an atheist schism? That there is a causative relationship between sexual orientation and smoking? That Gerald Calente is worth listening to? That Asian women are turned off by atheism? That atheists should have listened to Moses? Gay bowel disease? That Swedes prefer sex with animals? That Keynesian economics is linked to pedophilia? That people who believe in evolution are cowards? That there is a link between belief in evolution and bestiality? That liberalism is linked to bestiality? Which of those points should we make an effort to appreciate? ‎Please, Reverend Jim, ‎more Kool-Aid! 02:27, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

You're being so charitable, you're seeing things he hasn't so much as implied. Kendoll's "articles", at least those that aren't entirely batshit insane like the flying kitty series, are all of a likeness. They take one single datum, often dubious, and extrapolate from one to infinity. For example, do you know how he decided that women don't like atheists? He went to one of his various web statistics tracking sites he uses, looked at the stats for Richard Dawkins' website and saw that it claimed his audience was skewed towards males. That's his whole data set. He then wrote, I think, more than a dozen articles on the strength of it. He will never ask how that data could even conceivably be accurate, or indeed whether website viewership determines one's prospects for marriage. Likewise, take his article on Britain and Bestiality. On the strength of a highly ambiguous quote in a Swedish newspaper, he's decided that atheist Britons fuck their pets. It's not clear that the British study referred to actually deals with Britons at all, and in fact I should say that would be an unusual reading of the text. He'll never try and track down the study to read it and check if it was reported accurately. All he cares about is demonising atheists. I don't care what your own problems with atheists are, but if you can't acknowledge this obvious fact then I don't see any point in discussing anything with you. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 02:36, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Let's just start with the atheism/bestiality issue. Many atheists don't believe in objective morality, since it is difficult to see how the worldview of atheistic materialism has any room for objective ethics in it — if there is no objective ethics, then sex with animals can't be objectively wrong. Putting aside the issue of ethical objectivity, in practice many atheists subscribe to utilitarianism (whether they understand that as the objectively correct morality, or just as their own personal choice of morality). From the perspective of utilitarianism, it is very difficult to justify the claim that "sex with animals is always wrong". So, not all atheists believe bestiality is not immoral, and not all people who believe that bestiality is not immoral are atheists, but I certainly think there is a correlation here — atheists are more likely than non-atheists to reject the claim "sex with animals is always wrong". So, User:Conservative does have some valid point, even though one can certainly criticise some of the claims he uses to buttress it. Does that make atheists bad people? I don't think so — actually, when I was an atheist I also believed that there was nothing inherently wrong with bestiality, although since becoming a theist I have come to the conclusion that it is wrong. I think I was mistaken when I thought that about bestiality, but I don't think it made me a bad person. Peter Singer has similar views, and while I don't agree with him on it, I have a lot of respect for Peter Singer. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 02:44, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Conservapedia may not have anyone advocate suicide, but TK certainly put some things up that advocate murder, and was never censured for it. There are ways within a community to deal with inappropriate behavior that don't involve severing all ties. --Opcn (talk) 02:42, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Is there a link to the posts by TK in question? I am interested in reading. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 03:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

No, you blithering nitwit. That's *your* damn point. Kendoll isn't making that argument. Kendoll is saying that atheists want to make it legal for people to fuck sheep, so beware the evil atheist! --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 02:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

So Maratrean assumed a little too much intelligence from Ken

. Go easy on him--User:Brxbrx/sig 02:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Fuck that. He should know better than to spout such trite stupidity in a room full of smart people. Like Mom always told me--you play with the big boys, and you're gonna get hurt. ‎Please, Reverend Jim, ‎more Kool-Aid! 02:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

You need to learn to divorce debate from insults. You'll get better results treating people with respect.--User:Brxbrx/sig 03:01, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Eat my shorts, fanboy. ‎Please, Reverend Jim, ‎more Kool-Aid! 03:06, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I think Conservative is making a version of that point, although I don't think he expresses it very well. I believe in the virtue of charity, which implies that when something your opponent says can be interpreted in multiple ways, you should choose to interpret it in the way most favourable to them, the way that makes what they say come out as rationally and sensibly as possible, rather than in the way most unfavourable to them. Believe others are expressing valid points poorly rather than blabbering nonsense — that is the virtue of charity as practised in the intellectual sphere. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 03:02, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how it's a virtue to take someone else's words to mean something they evidently don't even imply, because what they do say is nonsense. Go and actually read his bestiality article. Really read it, not just closing your eyes and rehearsing your own particular opinion. He's my little potted summary of his points, such as they are:

1. Peter Singer, a liberal atheist evolutionist, holds views that don't agree with the Bible.
2. Psychiatric patients are more likely to have engaged in bestiality. Atheists are insane, therefore....
3. Skatje Myers is like Peter Singer.
4. Various countries that have more atheists than the US have people in them that engage in Bestiality.
5. Joseph Stalin, an atheist mass-murderer, ordered people to do funky things with animals.

There's no merit to this article. Anything you see in it is a product of your own imagination. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 03:16, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

As I said, I try to read him charitably, which means trying to see what points he is making which could be valid. At the bottom, his basic claim is there is some association between atheism and bestiality — a claim which I believe has some truth to it. Peter Singer is a notable example of this — P Z Myers' daughter a non-notable example. (I am also a non-notable example, since as I have said, when I was an atheist, I believed bestiality was moral.) If we want to talk about Sweden, I would say that there is some evidence that Swedish society is more tolerant of bestiality than some other countries (see e.g. here) Can you imagine American politicians opposing the criminalisation of bestiality? Is different levels of religiosity a relevant factor here? I would suspect so. Now, Stalin's experiments, I admit are rather irrelevant to the issue — trying to breed humans and animals is not necessarily about bestiality, since you can try to do so without sex — which is exactly what Stalin's scientists were attempting. Those experiments failed, and were ethically very questionable — but I think even in their failure, that was a positive contribution to our scientific knowledge, so it is not a purely negative tale. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 03:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

"From the perspective of utilitarianism, it is very difficult to justify the claim that "sex with animals is always wrong"." And yet there is no evidence that atheists are more likely to believe that fucking animals, or kids, or that murder, rape, theft, speeding, jaywalking or throwing a cigarette butt on the ground are morally justifiable. Fuck off already. ‎Please, Reverend Jim, ‎more Kool-Aid! 03:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

T-minus 10 seconds to Mara writing on the Maratreansphere that RW encourages suicide. sterile^talk 03:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, now someone is posting to my talk page advising me to kill myself. TELLING PEOPLE TO KILL THEMSELVES ISN'T COOL. In fact, it can be a crime (especially if they end up acting on it.) (((Zack Martin)))^™ 03:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

(EC) Well, I've stated my argument why I believe atheists are more likely to believe that bestiality is morally acceptable than non-atheists. It would be nice if we had some quantitative evidence here, such as opinion surveys, but unfortunately we don't to my knowledge, but still I think there are good reasons to believe that claim is true. Now, then you start bringing other, rather different issues, into the matter – such as paedophilia. A utilitarian basically believes, if it doesn't harm anybody else, you should be free to do it. We have very clear evidence that paedophilia harms children, so from a utilitarian perspective paedophilia can be justified as wrong. Now, if a woman lets her adult male golden retriever have its way with her, is she harming the dog? There is no evidence for that — the dog is probably enjoying it. If she is harming anyone, she is harming herself. But, how is she harming herself? If she is, it is not in the obvious ways such as causing pain or misery — and these are the ways which utilitarians accept as morally relevant. She is harming herself by failing to live up to her true purpose as human being — but utilitarians tend not to accept such a thing as existent, or at least not as morally relevant. So, given that atheists are more likely than non-atheists to be consistent utilitarians, atheists are more likely than non-atheists to accept bestiality — but the same cannot be said for paedophilia, or rape or murder. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 03:10, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

sterile^talk 03:11, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

For serious. --^talk 03:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

"Well, I've stated my argument why I believe atheists are more likely to believe that bestiality is morally acceptable than non-atheists. It would be nice if we had some quantitative evidence here, such as opinion surveys, but unfortunately we don't to my knowledge, but still I think there are good reasons to believe that claim is true." ‎Please, Reverend Jim, ‎more Kool-Aid! 03:12, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

• That's not a proper application of the term PIDOOMA. Maratrean specifically did not produce any statistics, much less ad hoc made up statistics--User:Brxbrx/sig 03:45, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I note you can't actually be bothered to engage concretely with the arguments I make, you just dismiss them out of hand. Not very rational. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 03:15, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's because you don't have an argument. What you have is sophistry and conjecture. Don't confuse sophistry and conjecture with an intellectually robust argument. Bring something to the table, and I'll consider it. until then, just piss off.B♭maj7 (talk) Shut the fuck up, Maratrean 03:22, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I do have an argument, in brief:

1. Atheists are more likely to be utilitarians than non-atheists.
2. Utilitarians are more likely to believe that bestiality is moral than non-utilitarians.
3. Therefore, atheists are more likely to believe that bestiality is moral than non-atheists.

So, do you deny premise 1, premise 2, or both? Or do you deny that the conclusion follows from the premises? (((Zack Martin)))^™ 03:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

1. Says who, besides you?
2. Based on what? Go back to your Bentham or some other noted Utilitarian thinker and see what they say about it.
3. That conclusion has no support beyond your conjecture.
4. Therefore I have no reason to even consider your premises or your conclusion until I see evidence that supports them. With no evidence, there's no argument worth considering. Take your lame-ass syllogism back to your Freshman philosophy class and come back when you know how to make a proper argument supported with proper evidence. B♭maj7 (talk) Shut the fuck up, Maratrean 03:34, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

1. What do you think are the most common ethical theories among atheists? Do atheists display a different distribution of ethical theories from non-atheists? What do you think? How about actually trying to have a serious discussion about the question?
2. I have already given good reasons why utilitarians are more likely to accept bestiality as moral. Did you read anything I wrote above? Utilitarianism is not limited to Bentham, it has evolved since then. But hey, if you want a noted utilitarian who defends bestiality, try Peter Singer.
3. If A is more likely to B, and if B is more likely to be C, then A is more likely to be C — valid syllogism or not?

(((Zack Martin)))^™ 03:44, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

1. You're making a quantitative argument. Get me the numbers.
2. Singer is one guy, and not all that noteworthy. Are there others, or are you picking that one because he fits your worldview?
3. No you haven't, you've made up a bunch of stuff without even talking to any real people who might give you some support for your claim. Go talk to some dog-fuckers and tell me what they think, if you want to make an argument about them. Or get me some stuff from people who have.
4. Still no reason to believe any of your "more likelies" are actually so. B♭maj7 (talk) Shut the fuck up, Maratrean 03:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

1. No numbers are available; but while I agree quantitative argument is preferred, where it is not possible, qualitative argument still is possible. I have shared my impressions; if you don't agree with them, how about sharing your own?
2. Peter Singer is a very notable contemporary ethicist. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy mentions him 20+ times. Bestiality is not an issue which has garnered a lot of philosophical attention, but if you want to point me to a utilitarian who argues bestiality is immoral, I'm all ears
3. You still haven't engaged with my arguments as to why consistent utilitarians should accept bestiality as moral. Do you argue the contrary, that consistent utilitarians should hold bestiality to be immoral?
4. So you admit the syllogism is valid?

(((Zack Martin)))^™ 04:15, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Atheists are more likely to be utilitarians than non-atheists.

Flawed and unwarranted assumption. In reality, a staggering number of "Bible-believing Christians" are utilitarians; they're simply not forthright about it.

Utilitarians are more likely to believe that bestiality is moral than non-utilitarians.

Flawed and unwarranted assumption that presumes that every non-utilitarian belief system is going to find bestiality immoral.

Therefore, atheists are more likely to believe that bestiality is moral than non-atheists.

So, do you deny premise 1, premise 2, or both? Or do you deny that the conclusion follows from the premises?

Neither premise is logically permissible; ergo, whether or not the conclusion follows from the premises is irrelevant.

--Phentari (talk) 03:53, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Phentari, are a staggering number of "Bible-believing Christians" utilitarians? Can you cite some examples of "Bible-believing" Christians who adhere to utilitarianism? I don't think it is a common position among Christians, especially not among conservative ones.

Not every non-utilitarian belief system is going to find bestiality immoral, true. But, considering the ethical belief systems that people actually hold, as opposed to ones that are merely possible — if you look at the main competitors to utilitarianism, such as deontology, divine command theory, virtue ethics, their adherents in practice tend to believe bestiality to be immoral, even if those theories don't absolutely demand that bestiality be immoral — and, contrary to utilitarianism, there is nothing inconsistent between adopting these theories and holding bestiality to be immoral. The main exception I see here is the kind of property rights oriented deontology held to by people such as Robert Nozick or Ayn Rand — I can conceive of a reasonable argument from those premises that bestiality is moral (i.e. my animal is my property, and I can have sex with my property all I want) — although I'm not aware of anyone holding that position who has actually stated that bestiality is moral in their view (and I can conceive of ways in which Randians at least could argue themeselves away from that conclusion.) So, anyway, I still believe the evidence available supports that premise.

Finally, the point is the argument is valid; yes, whether it is valid is a separate question from whether it is sound; but the fact that the argument is valid is not irrelevant. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 04:23, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Was the whole point of this discussion then just for you to say "look at me! look at me! look at my clever argument!" Because I was under the impression that the point was that you were saying that it wasn't your argument, but rather Kendoll's. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 03:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I think Conservative & I are to a significant degree making the same argument, although I think I express it much more cogently than he does. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 04:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm interested to see that Jeeves saying something silly, and then being shown disapproval, means that all of RW is now advocating that others commit suicide. Mara, actually look at the situation before getting on your high horse. I'm asking a lot from you, I know. EddyP ^{Great King! Disaster!} 03:48, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I never said all of RW is advocating people commit suicide. I am saying that the mob here treats that subject far too frivolously. To me, suicide is not a laughing matter. Have you ever had someone in your family commit suicide? I hope not, but if you had, maybe you would take the subject a bit more seriously. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 04:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Good fucking God, will you all stop fighting

--Mikalosa (talk) 03:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Probably not. B♭maj7 (talk) Shut the fuck up, Maratrean 03:27, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Because he's wrong. ON THE INTERNET. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 03:27, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I normally try to avoid site politics for various reasons (a complete disinterest not least among them), but honestly now, this statement is problematic: Admittedly, his own way of presenting things leaves much to be desired, but is it wrong if I read his ideas with the knowledge that he is deriving them from elsewhere? And if those ideas he takes from elsewhere have some degree of validity, then his own presentation of them must too. The key word here is if. Therein lies the problem. They don't have any degree of validity. As has been said before, there isn't any data supporting Ken's ideas, and by simply choosing a few outliers that seem to support the views the two of you hold, you completely discredit any point you're attempting to make by lowering yourself to the same depths as Ken. I can imagine how much you desperately want acceptance and validation for your world view, but you won't find it by spouting conjecture that amounts to little more than nonsense. (And if you need any more data points to invalidate your claim that RW supports suicide or some utter nonsense to that effect, I'll happily state for the record that I don't support anyone committing suicide. Seeing as you've made arguments before on a few scattered pieces of data, my statement alone should completely and utterly convince you that the site as whole doesn't support suicide. What more proof do you need besides a single person's statement?) And I'm done. άλφα^Ταλκ 04:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, as I've said above, there is evidence to support the idea that atheists are more likely than non-atheists to reject the idea that bestiality is immoral. So, I see some aspects of his claims on this issue to be supported by evidence, even if other aspects of his ideas are not.

This issue really has nothing to do with my worldview or my religion. It is simply trying to counteract the excessive CP-bashing on this site. Conservapedia has its flaws, there are aspects of its worldview that I totally reject — but this place is sometimes just one big over the top CP-hatefest.

I never said RW supports suicide. I said that the RW mob doesn't take people telling other people to commit suicide sufficiently seriously — something which I believe is true, and today's events have only confirmed in my mind. For all its flaws, I'd say Conservapedia takes a much more sane and sensible attitude to that than this place does. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 04:34, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Conservapedia. The land of flying kitties. The land of ante-diluvian cloning labs. The land where dinosaurs lurk in Loch Ness. They're sane and sensible? I could laugh. I could cry. You only come to that conclusion by steadfastly refusing to actually read what CP has to say, and instead pretending it says what you want. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 04:39, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

None of those matters have anything to do with the question — how does the community react when one member tells another to commit suicide. Notice I said Conservapedia takes a much more sane and sensible attitude to that , the that being people telling other people to commit suicide. Those other points you raise are not relevant to the issue at hand. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 04:42, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

So if that's the case, then how can you come to any conclusion? The issue has never come up at CP. Again, you're imagining how you'd like it to be. Come back again when one of the sysops does it and he's rebuked by his fellows. Because, lets face it, the peons at CP get banned for looking the sysops funny. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 04:44, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Maratrean, stick your head in a bucket of water, not until you drown obviously. - π 04:47, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Jesus god almighty, I didn't even need to prompt this mara-bitch fest. Damn this site is far gone. Ace^ace 04:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

SHUT THE FUCK UP

all of you, fucking hell. stop it already.--Mikalosa (talk) 04:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Sweet fucking holy Jesus Christ (more bestiality)

Guess what's addressed in Section 1 of the current version of CP's article on "Liberal."^img ‎Capital punishment doesn't undermine the moral or legal foundations of a society. ‎It is the moral and legal foundation of society. 23:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I can almost hear Jesus rolling on the floor laughing at the works of the ultimate parodist. The exact same content is now present in Liberalism and bestiality^img, forcing me to expand the article matrix.--Xyr (talk) 00:03, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Wow. I've never seen the article matrix before. Totally wicked awesome. Phiwum (talk) 01:03, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I remained a lurker for over a year; discovering the article matrix is what led me to create an account.--Xyr (talk) 01:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Homosexuality and Bestiality just has to be the next masterpiece. --Inquisitor (talk) 01:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I was going to say that not even Kendoll is that stupid. But I suppose he'll only go and prove me wrong. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 01:27, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Surprisingly, nobody has added bestiality to the Conservative dictionary or the list of things "A liberal generally supports," or added the category of "liberal traits" to the bestiality article. ‎Capital punishment doesn't undermine the moral or legal foundations of a society. ‎It is the moral and legal foundation of society. 01:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, this:"...if there is somewhat of a resurgence in bestiality in a Europe that is less Christianized and you can document it in a non-salacious way, then do that too. Please make sure you use reputable sources (not salacious sources) and I would prefer no pictures."^img --‎Capital punishment doesn't undermine the moral or legal foundations of a society. ‎It is the moral and legal foundation of society. 01:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

You know that Ken can't help but play to the audience, I am sure well see the above suggested additions soon. Ace^ace 01:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

When did Europe get less christian? My understanding was it just got more... "its there, i do the required stuff, thats it" sorta thing, partially stemming from state religion--Mikalosa (talk) 01:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I can at least agree with Ken on this much: I, too would "prefer no pictures." Hey, I like teh pr0n as much as the next guy. But I never understood what the attraction was with *that* pr0n.. ‎Capital punishment doesn't undermine the moral or legal foundations of a society. ‎It is the moral and legal foundation of society. 01:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Does he mean "Bible verses?" Holy guacamole, that man needs to learn how to use the English language. άλφα^Ταλκ 02:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Is it possible to arrest someone for "Criminal Stupidity?"--Thunderstruck (talk) 02:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Only in the UK where Free Speech does not Exist--Mikalosa (talk) 02:15, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I wonder what this dude Shmuley Boteach whose picture appears in Bestiality and Britain^img would think if he saw the article. The first thought of someone unfamiliar with conservapedia who see that article may be that he is an english guy who has sex with goats. --Tlaloc (talk) 05:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Given that that kosher fucknuckle thinks that homosexuality is "in the same class as bestiality, incest and pedophilia" he'd probably cream himself at the awesomeness of Ken's emission. --PsyGremlinSpeak! 13:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

• I'm surprised that the parents of Andy's homeschoolers haven't objected against the filthy environment in which their children are supposed to publish their homework...
• Perhaps Ken can fork to www.conservapedia.xxx
• That said, I don't think that conservapedia will go on much longer after the current course on world history: Granted, it is Andy's only claim to fame (weren't their these Harvard bios: Obama President of the United States, Schlafly Leader of the Free World Conservapedia?), but we all know that Andy chickens out when he has to actually work: every (lack of) action of his side can be explained by an Oblomovian laziness...

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 06:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Dude, I think the homeschoolers are long since gone. Ace^ace 06:59, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

This getting way too ridiculous... Bestiality and Sweden^img, Denmark, Sweden, evolutionary belief and bestiality^img. --Night Jaguar (talk) 07:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Ken, if you read this then you will surely correct your misspelling of Norweigan. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 08:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Khan, you also misspelled "Norwegian" :P Anyway it looks that "Bestiality and Sweden" and "Denmark, Sweden, evolutionary belief and bestiality" have been memory-holed, thank you capturebot for saving these gems for posterity! These articles cannot be forgotten, that are masterpieces of Ken's new magnum opus!--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 10:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course I did. I'm not trying to make it easy for the little toe-rag. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 10:46, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

This latest spree is truly a thing of beauty. Ken shows that besides being obsessive-compulsive, he will leave no stone unturned in demonising a subject he doesn't even understand, and isn't adverse to attacking the children of people he dislikes. At the same time, all the other sysops look away, because they're afraid of invoking the wrath of Ken. The other alternative (which is too scary to contemplate) is that they all think his work is a Good Thing. --PsyGremlinSpeak! 10:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Bestiality and Britain^img is there now. For somebody who didn't even know how the word was spelled, Ken's been pretty industrious. --PsyGremlinPraat! 12:03, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

There is a blurb in that article about Sweden as well, showing he can't even stay on the topic of the article. Still I find it fascinating that Britain is such a particular frequent target of Conservapedia. What is it about the British that bring out such particular vitriol over any other nation in the world when it comes to these guys?--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 12:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I would assume it has something to do with the old war(s) between us.--Mikalosa (talk) 13:03, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

It's about spelling, to Andy's mind multiculturalism is always bad, so any resource that recognizes British spelling as correct is objectively wrong. From there it grew to a creeping hate of everything British. The Brits became depraved Atheists. --Opcn (talk) 18:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Some suggestions for Ken

Bestiality will only hold Ken's interests for so long. Let's help him out and suggest other baseless smears he can use. His next obsession can be Atheism and...

• Shortness of Height
• Homosexual Necrophilia
• Punctuality
• Lack of Hand Washing
• Interracial Cannibalism

Please add more! --Night Jaguar (talk) 07:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Andy is actually against hand washing, so its doubtfull he'll want the word "Atheism" attached to it...--Thunderstruck (talk) 13:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

• Anal bleaching.

MtD^{Pinko Scum} 07:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The only one which would get Andy to pull the plug on Ken's articles is

• Atheism and masturbation

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 07:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

• Liberalism and Masturbation
• Evolutionary Thought and Masturbation
• Sweden and Masturbation
• Professor values and Masturbation
• Godless Britain and Masturbation

--Longbow (talk) 07:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

• Andy Schlafly and bestiality

There's only one final boss standing between you and total control of CP, Ken. Admit it, you do want to test the limits of your power. It doesn't even have to feature relevant content, just the title and your usual mash-up of unrelated text blocks will suffice. Röstigraben (talk) 07:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

• Atheism and Incest

Only a matter of time.... --Night Jaguar (talk) 07:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

• Ken Demyer and Homosexuality

You know it to be true... Tielec01 (talk) 08:07, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

OH OH LET ME TRY

• Atheism and safe sex
• Atheism and Flying Kitty Bestiality
• Atheism and Trolling
• Atheism and Child Pornography (abbreviated to Atheism and CP)
• Atheism and Parental Abandonment
• "Atheism" and the Flying Spaghetti Monster

how are those ones? LordSlug ^{You want me to do...work? what's that?} 08:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Of all of those, I can see "Atheism and Incest" actually happening and being plastered on CP's front page. One can only hope!--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 10:26, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Here's my list:

• Atheism / Liberalism / Homosexuality and Coprophilia
• Atheism / Liberalism / Homosexuality and Frotteurism
• Atheism / Liberalism / Homosexuality and Klismaphilia
• Atheism / Liberalism / Homosexuality and Emetophilia --PsyGremlinSnakk! 10:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

• Bestiality and Bestiality
• Essay: Please provide proof and evidence bestiality is accurate and correct
• Ratwiki and bestiality
• Goats and bestiality
• Vegetarians and bestiality
• Mr. Hands and atheism
• Bestiality and pornography

And heck, since Ken started on countries, let's try this:

• United States and bestiality

Wherein 32 states it's illegal, and where it isn't, are mostly red states. Annnnnd, BEGIN! Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 13:35, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Alabama - the most religious, conservative, Republican, fattest state in the US... where bestiality is legal. Just sayin'. --PsyGremlin말하십시오 13:43, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Ha ha, was that you I just reverted? --Longbow (talk) 15:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

God lord no, I have much better things to do with my time than troll CP, like write about Karajou's love of Ken's bestiality. --PsyGremlinHable! 15:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Fair point! I try not to spend too much time sneaking under their radar, but Tor is such a nice new tool for me that I can't resist playing with it sometimes. --Longbow (talk) 16:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

• Keynesianism and bestiality
• Obama's ruinous fiscal policy and bestiality

should win an Emmy. nobs^{Empty Recycle Bin} 19:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• Swedish professor values, obese atheist homosexuals, and necrobestiality. ... of liberals? (talk) 16:34, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

And meanwhile

andy argues with his brother^img about relativity. WAy to go andy, keep that tight ship running full ahead for the rocks. Oldusgitus (talk) 07:42, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

To be fair, that discussion is slightly more interesting than the bestiality nonsense, which is nothing more than Conservative's usual drivel with the word 'bestiality' added to it (and for some reason, fewer animal pics than normal).--

Kriss Akabusi^{AAAWOOOGAAAR!!1} 09:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm glad Ken decided to not include pictures for this latest obsession. --Night Jaguar (talk) 09:19, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. My point was that several editors have left and more have asked on andy's talk page for him to either comment or take action. And instead he argues with his brother about relativity. Remind me, if I am ever arrested in the US not to accept the assfly as my lawyer. Oldusgitus (talk) 09:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Its interesting only because its obviously hurting the site by causing users to abandon it, keeping potential new members from joining, and further marginalizing CP from the political conservative community; yet instead of realizing their mistake, Andy and Kara's pride forces them to defend this dribble through either protecting Ken from displeased members direct criticisms or remaining silent as he plasters his dribble about animal boinking all over the front page.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 10:35, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

With Karajou it's probably more a case of my enemy's enemy making an embarrassing bedfellow. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 12:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Kendoll's psychological problems

An actual page on CP, captured before memory holed^img.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 13:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

good job capping a speedy delete tag.--Mikalosa (talk) 13:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Still the concept was mildly humorous^img--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 13:03, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Never forget that you can still manually capture a page without waiting for capturebot. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 14:06, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Karajou channels Ken!

Well, it's official.^img Not only does Karajou support Ken, his defense sounds exactly like Ken "the critics of the present bestiality articles have not refuted the evidence against the information included in those articles. They want the articles themselves hidden and/or removed from the site, which begs the question: do they want to get away with themselves or their ilk having sex with animals?

No, you massive fucking moron - do the words "family friendly" mean anything to you? --PsyGremlin말하십시오 13:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

He means "evidence for the information", which is still awkward. Bestiality isn't anywhere near mainstream, it's animal abuse. Animal rights are a mainstream topic right now, especially among liberals, so how in the world will bestiality ever be mainstream? And since when does one atheist represent everyone? And aren't they taking what he said out of context? Senator Harrison (talk) 15:22, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Wait, for a minute there I thought you were expecting some sort of intellectual honesty from Karajerk? --PsyGremlinPraat! 15:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

What evidence does he mean? That some people out there boink animals? Common knowledge. Like Psygremlin said, it isn't appropriate for a family friendly website. Ken is also attempting to distort the problem of bestiality as something that exists primarily because of atheism, or is supported by atheists in disproportionate amounts, or is deemed "acceptable" by the atheist community at large. However he has not provided evidence to back any of these implications, so really the articles are slam pieces with the sole purpose of trying to make atheists look like degenerates simply because they are atheists.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not a new thing. Unless I'm mistaken, this is the same way the obesity obsession started. There was one study that found that atheists tend to be more concerned about their health or something, and from that sprung dozens of "all atheists are fatties!" articles the same "all atheists are fatties!" article copied and pasted over and over again. «-Bfa-» 16:34, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I like how he talks about how they could be stremlined into 1-2 articles after he banhammered the only person who was talking about how that was the problem. --Opcn (talk) 16:25, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Like most articles Ken posts on a particular subject, most of the Bestiality articles are almost purely copy and paste and could easily be condensed into one, maybe two articles without any loss of information. Of course in Ken's mind the fact a couple folks who also happen to be atheists are sympathetic towards the practice means that atheists everywhere must be; projecting the tendency of the religious to be dogmatic onto the secular.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 16:54, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

It's actually kinda sad how Karajou clings to power. He just wants to be a part of the "winning side" - Andy is a pushover unless he develops a random new "insight", Ed pretends no conflict exists and simply moves over to Wikipedia whenever CP is getting too hot to handle, TerryH doesn't care about the site beyond Atlas Shrugged and spamming his links, Jpatt is just a Tea Party fanboy who's riding on CP's "big-name popularity", so that pretty much only leaves Ken. And Ken is so strong in his stubborn idiocy that opposing him is wiki-suicide (Hi, Rob!), so Karajou has to support him if he wants to be active and in charge, even when that means defending bestiality articles on a family-friendly project. --Sid (talk) 17:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

What I find really funny about this is that nobody on Andy's talk page argues the articles should be deleted because they're shit, instead it's "Oh for heaven's sake, won't somebody please think of the children." It never even occurs to anybody that content being poor or unencyclopedic is grounds for removal. Everybody accepts that crap is par for the course on Conservapedia, even its seemingly sincere contributors. The bestiality articles (at least the first few, I stopped reading the copypasta after that) weren't explicit, so ol' Kenny might have a point here.

That's not to say there isn't a double standard. Popeye would permablock anybody other than a sysop trying to add even the most basic information about human sexuality to Conservapedia, but Ken's crap is now untouchable. Godspeed (talk) 17:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

They tried that with the flying kitty but they all got blocked. So yeah, all of Ken's bullshit is accepted as encyclopedic on CP. To reinforce BMcP, I don't even know what evidence Karajou wants people to refute. I can't find a single fact, just assertions. I was about to make an account and try but that was what I found. Senator Harrison (talk) 18:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Silly dork who is so inept he is idealistic about Conservapedia indirectly calls out Karajou on the inanity of it all; dies from shotgun blast to the abdomen. You know you've lost if the Simpsons can sum up your enterprise in one frame. Mountain Blue (talk) 17:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Fueling the fire

As an atheist evolutionist, I can't think of any good, logical reasons why bestiality is bad. I can't really think of any reason why it's good, but please conveniently ignore that. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Zoonotic venereal diseases. --Opcn (talk) 17:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Holy shit TOW knows everything! --Opcn (talk) 17:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd use protection, of course. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

(multiple ECs) Well, even without touching the whole issue of how the animals feel about it and/or whether they consent, it doesn't sound terribly sanitary (I didn't research it, but I'd imagine there are STDs and such), and most animals are quite capable of fucking you up (in more than one sense) if you piss them off. So... yeah, it does strike me as non-good, regardless of whether or not Sky Daddy threatens to level my neighborhood with cosmic flames. --Sid (talk) 17:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd think they'd have similar processes which make intercourse pleasurable. STDs are pretty much off the table; you could test or use protection. Occasionaluse (talk) 18:16, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Well take a look at this. But besides the dangers, I do think is wrong, even if I cannot give a good reason why.--Tlaloc (talk) 19:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

That's probably the best point raised, but I'm still unconvinced. Sidebar: from the article you quoted: "As there was no law against humanely fucking one horse, the prosecutors could only charge Tait with trespassing." What a fucking quote...lol. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I view it the same way as trying to have sexual intercourse with the severely mentally disabled. They have no ability to really understand and thus no real ability to consent even if they find it "pleasurable". In that regard I see it as little better than forcing oneself sexually on a young minor. For me, it is just another form of rape, and that is what makes it immoral in my view. Of course I also have the emotional "ick, hell no" factor on top of that. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:15, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

So for you, meat is just another form of murder? And therefore eating meat is immoral? The "ick factor" is real, but not logical. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I stated the "ick" portion of what I said was emotional, which means it isn't logical but a base relation upon my part (but for my personal life alone, serves as enough). It is the part before that where I stated why I oppose to the practice on a rational ground. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:26, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

So does your standard for "animal fucking = raping" apply to "animal killing = murder"? Is forced labor for animals slavery? Is animal husbandry an illicit sex industry? What about cutting off their balls? Riding them? Keeping them locked indoors? Occasionaluse (talk) 19:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Animal killing purely for pleasure to me is cold blooded, unjustified murder. Killing animals because we are omnivores and use animal meat to survive as a means of sustenance isn't. What possible constructive or vital need for humans does bestiality serve?--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:54, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

That's irrelevant because things that aren't constructive or vital aren't necessarily illogical or immoral. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

What logical, moral, or rational reason is there to doinking animals? Personally I think most do it because of the power factor they have over the creature. --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 20:23, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The rational reason would be pleasure. What's the null hypothesis for a proposition's morality? Moral, immoral or unknown? Occasionaluse (talk) 20:25, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Does it make it ethical or moral? I am sure someone can tell me the reason they as a 40 year old man has sex with an 11 year old girl is that he gets sincere pleasure from it, but its still taking advantage of an impressionable child who could easily be manipulated or coerced into agreeing, which makes it ethically and morally wrong.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 22:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Having a rational reason could make it ethical and/or moral, for all I know. Do you feel we're taking advantage of animals in general, or is this specific to bestiality? Occasionaluse (talk) 01:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Well STDs and "they can fuck you up badly" is also there with humans, so it doesn't really work that well. Also the consent is questionable, but as somebody who never had a pet I really don't know how much something like that can be shown by the animal. Ironicly the only reason there really is, is "it's unnatural" — which would, if you have no problem with homosexuality, polygamy and all the other stuff some people find disgusting — be quite hypocritical to use. But then again, that argument doesn't really fly that much because there are also inter-species (inter-special?) "relationships" out there. So really there is no fucking reason other than "it might go wrong". All that said, I don't care for dog, cat, horse or any other animals ass. Also, let's pretent there were intelligent aliens among us, would that also be bad because it's a different species? As I have seen no outcries about stuff like this from fundie Christian about Star Trek Human/Klingon or Human/Vulcan couplings either, we don't seem to have much of problem with that... --★uːʤɱ constructivist 19:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Probably because all those aliens were, as sapient beings, openly capable of both understanding and consenting.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 19:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't really going for the argument from consent, but let's suppose animals weren't able of consenting. Then all sex between one species would have to be rape. Now, I ain't no biologist, but that isn't how it looked in those documentaries. Now one might say that is instinct, but is it much more with humans? --★uːʤɱ structuralist 19:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

You could probably twist BMcP's logic to justify rape. Reproduction is the crux of vitality, therefore rape could serve constructive, vital needs. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:59, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I too remain unconvinced by the arguments against bestiality - yes there is an 'ick' factor, but to paraphrase Peter Singer - If a girl gets of by riding a horse, who is harmed? I do admit I find the issue of consent problematic, but if somehow you could show that the animal was ready to get down, then I don't see any -ethical- problem with boogying. Cosidering many people torture and kill animals simply for degustatory pleasure, having sex with them seems like the lesser of two evils. Tielec01 (talk) 23:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't really say much that people do worse things to animals than rape them. There are people who torture and murder children. That doesn't make pedophilia okay. Two animals willingly having sex isn't an issue because they're (more-or-less) cognitive equals; when it comes to a (human) adult having sex with a child or an animal then there is an issue of whether there ever could be consent because of the great power inequality between the two parties. Bestiality seems, at least to me, to be even less problematic than pedophilia since a child of sufficient age is far more sapient and more like the adult than any animal. (Aside: Yeah, this whole discussion definitely isn't going to help with Ken's latest obsession.)--Night Jaguar (talk) 00:30, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

It does matter when you accept them as moral/ethical/logical. There are people who torture and murder children. That doesn't make pedophilia wrong. How do you feel about an animal forcing itself on another? It happens all the time and I imagine you don't see anything wrong with it. Is your standard consistent? In what other situations do you require "consent" from animals? Killing them? Forcing labor upon them? Forcing them to have sex with other animals? I still haven't seen a good reason bestiality is "bad". It's because there isn't one if you don't have a god to tell you it. Occasionaluse (talk) 13:25, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The argument from mental capabilities is a bit wacky. Equally so the argument from mental equality as a factor. Let's suppose we have rather dumb guy with an IQ of 90 and a pretty smart woman with an IQ 160 (genius level) and an animal with an IQ around 50. Now between the guy and the animal there's a difference of 40 IQ points, with the guy and the woman with a difference of 70 IQ points. Solely comming from the question of mental capabilites sex with the animal would be more ethical than sex with the woman. Now the question may be how much understanding of the act and it's consequences have to be there. But keep in mind that there's no way we know for sure if the animal got the reaction chain right. I just did a little google search on the intelligence of doplhins, most answers suggested that it is guessed around two thirds of humans. Are we sure they don't get that chain? On the question of consequences, from what I understand there simply are none more than pain and pleasure.

If we are going to question this in any way, it should be consent. Now, I would say that consent is there as soon as the animals does the for it's species usual mating behaviour towards a human. There's your consent. It is as much consent as you can get from any living being. I would actually like to know were the big difference should be between animal making such actions and a 16-year old getting naked and saying "take me". what is expressed in the one case with motions, is in the other case with language and motions. Of course forcing yourself upon a living being no matter what species is wrong (for me wrong stand for "unbeneficial to the society as a hole, in the face of future desicions") and either animal cruelty or rape. --★uːʤɱ anti-communist 15:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The big difference for me (living in Germany) is that bestiality would get me done under animal protection laws but nailing a consenting 16 year old is legal. --Longbow (talk) 15:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, as the section under this section says, unethical and illegal aren't the same thing. As I'm living in Germany too, I was thninking about taking the shock factor of 14-year old, but then decided to drop it. But yeah, it seems relatively weird. --★uːʤɱ libertarian 15:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Ed Poor is alive and well and socking it up at RW. --PsyGremlinPraat! 15:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The trouble with a 14 year old is that under German law you have to get her parents' permission first. That could be emotional. --Longbow (talk) 16:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Is it just me, or is anybody else thinking 'Now that's a reality show I'd watch." Spotty oiks getting belted by girl's parents... --PsyGremlinHable! 16:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Forbidden != Unethical

We might reasonably decide to make something illegal because although it's ethically fine, it doesn't seem necessary and it's confusingly similar to something that's not ethically fine. Many Jews will be familiar with this logic. This is the rationale behind the restrictions RW has previously discussed on sex with minors in the UK. Sure, says the ethicist, the relationship between this 16 year old girl and her 25 year old teacher might be a lovely mutually respectful situation in which both parties are completely aware of what they're getting into, and in that case it would be ethically OK. But, says the legislature, most of the time it's just someone taking advantage of impressionable young kids, so let's shortcut the ethics discussion and just tell teachers if they do that they go to jail. 82.69.171.94 (talk) 22:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

It is my position that every single bit or morality stems from this same process of generalization. It's just too expensive to always figure out if things are right or not on a case by case basis. --Opcn (talk) 22:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

In most cases limits are entirely arbitrary. There is nothing magic about any particular exact number of years that makes it suddenly OK to have sex, vote, drive, drink, gamble, go to war or be held criminally responsible. Furthermore, sometimes someone of legal age becomes in need of extra protection because of reduced mental faculties/immaturity but I've never heard of a case where someone with advanced faculties/maturity gains an exemption. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 08:17, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the consensus is that Conservative is right: as an evolutionist I can't say bestiality is immoral or unethical or illogical. Occasionaluse (talk) 17:07, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Four pics

nightmode at CP	red: night-mode activated: only sysops and the users of the group edit may edit green: night-mode deactivated: every user can edit unshaded: account creation allowed shaded: account creation forbidden Over the last weeks - since RobS opened the floodgates - CP is trying to use night-mode and (de)activating of the account creation option to control the vandals (other than Ken). Really, they should up-date their guard-dog program (it's a simple task)...
blocked editors at CP, RW and WP	I like to put CP and WP in a perspective: When CP was founded I thought it could become a rival to WP, there was press coverage enough, and the homeschool movement could have used the project. But by sticking to a surprisingly consistent streak of bad decisions, Andy ruined his chance...
deleted revisions	What's that about this überconservatives like Bachmann and Andy that they want to rewrite history and hide all the things not fitting to their world view?
Ken's edits block delete move patrol (i.e., comment) protect upload	Ken's edits over the last seven days. Nothing special to see....

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 10:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

It's been said before Larron, but this shit is awesome - I love it. Tielec01 (talk) 11:15, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

What time zone is the Ken graph? Ajkgordon (talk) 12:53, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I think I've said it before, but I'll say it again. I want to have sex with Larron's graphs. (graphilia?) Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 13:37, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

That's what they call "graphic sex" :) --PsyGremlinKhuluma! 13:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

"Atheism and Graphic Sex" Senator Harrison (talk) 15:23, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Ken's graph is GMT. I don't know where he resides.

Thanks for the kind words - but no thanks for the disturbing images you put in my head :-) larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 19:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the point about time zones was that Andy doesn't like all those British times and runs the CP server on EST. Ken just happens to live in that zone as well. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 08:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Andy most certainly does so, that's why http://conservapedia.com/index.php?&title=Special%3ALog&type=&user=Conservative&page=&year=&month=-1 gives you EST. But if you look at http://conservapedia.com/api.php?action=query&list=logevents&user=Conservative you get UTC, and that's what I'm doing.

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 12:08, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

• When CP was founded I thought it could become a rival to WP, there was press coverage enough...by sticking to a surprisingly consistent streak of bad decisions, Andy ruined his chance...
  

Never were truer words spoken. CP lost its chance to be a conservative alternative to Wikipedia, and made itself little more than a rival of Rationalwiki, and a poor one at that. nobs^{Empty Recycle Bin} 20:34, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

When has it ever tried ot be our rival, or vice versa?--Mikalosa (talk) 21:46, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Probably since WIGO came into fruition. Night of the blunt knives was a finishing blow of dissent, but before that there were notable names (who basically founded RW) who were banned over basic ideological differences. Before my time, anyway. Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 22:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the point is that we're not a rival of CP. Our origin lies in CP's history, but there's no competition or even similar missions (while both WP and CP aim to be encyclopedia projects). Our mission includes taking apart some of the BS that CP produces, but other than that, it's mostly a personal conflict/fascination. They hate us, we laugh at them, life goes on. --Sid (talk) 00:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The point is that CP is more a counterpart to RW, than RW is to CP, which is how the things originated. CP did at one time have an opportunity to become a conservative counterpart to Wikipeida, but that disappeared before it was even two years old. nobs^{Empty Recycle Bin} 19:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Even in its best case scenario CP was never going to rival Wikipedia in any meaningful way. The spectacularness of their failure is slightly noteworthy, but basically pre-ordained. Let's not pretend they ever stood a chance. DickTurpis (talk) 03:19, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

It was a bad idea for all of the adults to leave and leave usercreation up

Karajou is normally there to step on people creating accounts. --Opcn (talk) 23:07, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The other block rights have it covered. --Mikalosa (talk) 23:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

He's getting sloppy recently. I have four accounts now. --Longbow (talk) 23:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Fuck, make that three. JimmyWanker just blocked me for having the same IP as BusyForTheNext90Days. --Longbow (talk) 23:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

You are not very covert --Opcn (talk) 23:16, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually I am; I use that lovely Tor and everything. It's not impossible that Jimmy was lying and simply didn't like what I had to say to Ken

. --Longbow (talk) 23:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking about your bragging here. --Opcn (talk) 23:26, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

SeanS is right on top of it. I just got blocked in record time. --Roofus (talk) 23:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I was busyforthenext90days, and I was PerryS and KeithJT. Between PS and KJT I wound up in the same IP as BF9D Tor must like that one today. --Opcn (talk) 23:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I pride myself in doing a good job at the job I am given.--Mikalosa (talk) 23:32, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

It's tough having a CP admin here. Senator Harrison (talk) 00:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Being an admin would imply i could edit when i wished. I'm still more trusted to block than edit--Mikalosa (talk) 01:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. Seems kind of backward. Are they like that on purpose? Senator Harrison (talk) 03:32, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

It's all very well using Tor to avoid IP blocks but editing from a load of different IPs is just as likely to get your account blocked as well as the Tor IPs that you used. The only ameliorating factor is that now that TK's gone it's pretty much just down to Karajou to do all the checkuser work. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 05:38, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

but Kara is always around it would seem... --Opcn (talk) 08:38, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

But he IS starting to get sloppy. --Longbow (talk) 09:25, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Although he may not appear it, Karajou is a family man like Andy. While they both may put in an excessive number of hours on CP compared to the time they spend with their "loved ones" they cannot put in the hours that closeted singletons like TK and Ken could. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 10:25, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

For all the neo-cons/conservatives out there

I read something today, and I thought it was brilliant:

“”Homosexuality is found in over 450 species. Homophobia is found in only 1. Which sounds more unnatural?

Posted, since I know all the Consevapedia admins read this. 76.180.192.15 (talk) 02:32, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

How many species are developed enough for the capacity of homophobia?--Mikalosa (talk) 02:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Bam. Senator Harrison (talk) 03:30, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

449 species of atheist evilutionists, more fodder for Operation Shock of Question Hitwin. Cheerio! (talk) 08:38, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Is the a source for the assertion homophobia is found in only one species? nobs^{Empty Recycle Bin} 17:10, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

From WP:Homosexual_behavior_in_animals#Vultures: "Two homosexual male vultures at the Allwetter Zoo in Muenster built a nest together, although they were picked on and often had their nest materials stolen by other vultures." Occasionaluse (talk) 17:19, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Ann Coulter + Andy Schlalfy

I found an old edit back in 2007 from Andy wherein he claims Ann Coulter is a personal friend. Interesting...Anyone else know anything of this? Ace^ace 03:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

DIFFS ...or it didn't happen

No. Ace^ace 03:17, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't know any more than you do, but it wouldn't surprise me if they were acquainted. Coulter and mummy dearest probably move in similar circles. Friends on the other hand seems like a bit of a stretch. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 05:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Andy is likely "friends" with everybody his mother is friends with, his mother being a fairly influential conservative; Andy is likely "friends" with a number of conservative figures in the United States. He also went to Harvard, so he's at least made acquaintance with a number of other conservatives not necessarily associated with his mother.--User:Brxbrx/sig 05:39, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

If they'd really been 'friends' Rob would have never blown away his access to Andy in the way he did. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 05:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Friends = met once at a fundraiser with mumsy. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Nebuchadnezzar put it beautifully. That is exactly what I meant by the dick quotes. Thank you--User:Brxbrx/sig 05:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

She wrote the forward for one of Big Phy's books (in 2003) --Opcn (talk) 07:03, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course Andy has probably met Obama more times than he's met Coulter, but he'd probably never admit that. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 07:38, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Obama was way to fucking cool to hang out with the likes of Andy. --Opcn (talk) 08:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

They didn't have to hang out, they just needed to meet at the HLR. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 10:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I've spent a lot of time in quasistudent activities. With all the People in HLR OBama would not have bothered to learn Andy's name unless he was really a nice guy (obama, we know andy was a prick). I get the impression that Andy hates hates hates the law. I know plenty of lawyers and they tend to craft rules for what they do, granted crooked rules with loopholes and backdoors, Andy couldn't write a set of bilaws to save his life. In spite of repeated scores of editors asking him again and again over the years he never put any kind of thought at all into anything but the most basic of guidelines, and those he gave a giant sloppy loophole to for anyone who matters to him. If he loved the law he would be a better lawyer too, instead of the third rate lawyer that cranks hire because he will spinelessly go ahead with any fool hardy plan that they have while other lawyers guard their dignity. --Opcn (talk) 12:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

MaxF has had enough!

Max has had ENOUGH of Ken's insults!^img--Mikalosa (talk) 04:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

inb4 ban. LordSlug ^{You want me to do...work? what's that?} 04:46, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Gawd I hope he lists names^img.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 12:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Ray Comfort disagrees with Conpedia

A 2007 survey in the U.S. showed that the number of 18-25 year olds who were atheist, agnostic or nonreligious had increased from 11 percent in 1986 to 20. [1] [2]

When I tried to access the videos I found they are private, what does Ray Comfort have to hide?

Ray gives no clear definition of atheist, agnostic or nonreligious and nonreligious particularly is a vague term that needs definition. I wouldn’t expect a Christian evangelist to exaggerate the number of atheists, CP regularly pretends atheism is declining but Comfort may want to frighten readers into buying his products.

Americans please tell us, is this decline in faith true? If it is within a generation the US could become much more like Europe and other industrialised countries.

(I put this into the Saloon bar as well as it’s important generally and not only because it contradicts CP.) Proxima Centauri (talk) 07:48, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

All these things 'doubling' over time... Peter ^{talk, or type, or whatever...}

There is definitely "Secular creep" in American society and culture. I wouldn't go so far as to say America will be like Europe as far as secularization in a generation, but religion and religiosity is on a slow decline here. Although a good many secular and non-theistic people do not or will not explicitly declare themselves as "atheist" although they share atheist views implicitly.--BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 12:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Increasing secularism plays right into the evangelist's persecuted hand. I'd say secularism is creeping. Lots and lots of people are CP:XINO, but aggressively so. I remember in a casual conversation with a drunk girl at a bar, she mentioned she was a Christian. I asked her why. She broke down in tears and told me she didn't really know. Weird. On the other hand, in half the country, you probably couldn't walk around in an anti-Christian shirt for an hour without getting into a physical confrontation with someone who obviously doesn't understand the finer points of Christianity. Occasionaluse (talk) 13:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone believe for even a second that the letter on Comfort's website is genuine? I like how it hits every evangelical talking point in one succinct paragraph (as if all atheists share that exact same set of beliefs). άλφα^Ταλκ 01:15, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Ken's getting touchy

And he doesn't like Shakespeare^img much. --Longbow (talk) 12:58, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Ye gods, a CP sysop reverted some low-quality trolling by a new user! And on a Shakespeare page at that! My oh my how anti-intellectual those conservatives are! And see how touchy he is, reverting like that! Let us further discuss this fascinating turn of events, my rational friends. --74.63.112.144 (talk) 16:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't judge a village by its idiot, Mr. BoN (no offense, Longbow, it's just that that post was kinda asinine- I probably made more of such mistakes in my time than you ever will, and I still make stupid posts to this day)--User:Brxbrx/sig 16:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I'm new! Anyway stupid was always my specialist subject. --Longbow (talk) 17:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I am considering undertaking a project to automate most postings on TWIGO:CP and save you people a lot of time. However I will be very busy for the next 90 days so it may take awhile. For example, the sections about Ken are just as repetitive as his articles: the same old things pasted again and again. Same goes for posts about CP being a blog, about random vandals wasting time and not being immediately reverted, and I would say at least 60% of this page. The only bit here that decisively passes a Turing test is LArron's graphs. --95.154.230.191 (talk) 18:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Killjoy. --Longbow (talk) 18:32, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Erm excuse me 95.194 but the discussion on bestiality has actually been quite thought provoking and even mildly entertaining. It's made me think anyway about quite why I find the idea of bestiality icky (as I notice people are now saying) but I find homosexuality non-icky. Now I realise the nuances of a reasoned debate like happened here is FAR beyond the ken of cp'ers who see the world through their sad little hate filled blinkers (not that you are necessarily a cp'er let me hasten to say) but I found it well worth the subscription I paid to join this happy little group. Oldusgitus (talk) 19:08, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes, I wish CP was really influential.

Wouldn't it be great if Ken's dribbles actually had impact on the world at large, and that a major plank of the Tea Party became anti-bestiality laws for all fifty states? Man. That would be totally kick-ass awesome. Phiwum (talk) 18:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, going by Ken's logic, they would not lobby to outlaw bestiality, but rather atheism. Which would be kinda funny. "Believe in God or go to jail! ...oh look, Christianity is spreading like a wildfire that is devouring houses! Olé! Atheists lack ma-CHEESE-mo... in jail! It's the whupping era of people who have to pick up the soap!" ...oh God, I feel dumber just after typing that... --Sid (talk) 22:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Well that's one way to reverse the embarrassing statistics about atheists and jail. --Opcn (talk) 01:24, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

But if all the atheists were in jail, how then would he explain away the bestiality in society? --BMcP - Just an astronomy guy 02:13, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

What beastiality? Show Ed Poor the beastiality, I want him to be the judge. --Opcn (talk) 04:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Found this on Jpatt's talk page

Rather cryptic^img, but it happened a little bit before all the bestiality articles. Related?? Shakedangle (talk) 18:23, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Nope. Just one of Kendoll's many failed "operations." --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 18:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Self promotion. If he had any substanive ideas, if would have been discussed on the private list. He's touting his own usefulness and influence to Andy, Karajou, and RW editors. nobs^{Empty Recycle Bin} 19:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I think you meant to say useLESSness. Or at least should have. WeaselNation (talk) 19:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I love how he states the downside of his plan: not being able to somehow tie it in with Machismo, Obesity, or Atheist Clowns. C'mon Ken, try harder. Shakedangle (talk) 19:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The downside of the plan is that it's Ken's plan. WeaselNation (talk) 19:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Truer words... --Opcn (talk) 00:34, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey Ken...

You reverted^img the discussion about your cowardice, but you forgot to burn it. just thought you should know. 81.151.251.55 (talk) 21:30, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

He moved it to the community portal, which ironically was the appropriate thing to do. --Opcn (talk) 23:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm trying to imagine a dinner-table conversation.

"So, honey, how are things on your wiki?" "Not too bad sweetie. There's a problem because some editors have removed two-thirds of my counterexamples to evolution, like the fact that there are the perfect amount of teeth in the human head..." "That reminds me dear, Junior has an appointment tomorrow to get his wisdom teeth removed" "...and that male pattern baldness would not exist in evolution were true. On the other hand, we have a half-dozen great new articles on atheist bestiality." Sudden, stunned silence, followed be the awkward sound of utensils against plates. "Andy, could you be a dear and pour me some more wine, please?" ‎Capital punishment doesn't undermine the moral or legal foundations of a society. ‎It is the moral and legal foundation of society. 00:16, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

"B♭maj7" (what a stupid name!) You forget that humans were perfect before the fall and that we used to fit 2 billion teeth in our mouths with no problem. If you look at data that doesn't exist, you'll see that I'm right and you're ignorant. Not just ignorant, but you're going to hell. HELL. HELLHELLHELL I tell you! –TeenageCumSlut Condemns electoral fraud at RationalWiki 00:30, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

2 billion teeth! Just imagining that brings up a picture only Beksinski could create! Norseman^{Cyser Melomel} 00:43, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

HR Giger does well too... –TeenageCumSlut Condemns electoral fraud at RationalWiki 00:53, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Ken is so vindictive and insane that I don't believe him capable of having a wife, or children.--Lefty (talk) 01:06, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

He coud have children, occasionally a prostitute gets pregnant and keeps the child, they wouldn't necessarily know it was Ken's. --Opcn (talk) 01:15, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

ummmm...this had nothing to do with Ken's family life. ‎Please, Reverend Jim, ‎more Kool-Aid! 01:21, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I was just responding to that last comment there. --Opcn (talk) 01:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Get a blog already, JPratt.

I suppose he can't let Kendoll have all the fun in fucking up CP, so here's what JPratt now thinks belongs in an encyclopaedia^img. Why the hell don't these people just get blogs already and give up on CP? Well, I guess Karajou tried, but it turns out when all you've got to say is that RWians are bad, naughty people then no one cares. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 16:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

It's just another sign that Andy's encyclopaedia is becoming Andy's blog. Plus CP = pageviews = good. Besides we wouldn't read their blogs. Does anybody even look at Karajou's anymore? --PsyGremlinFale! 16:24, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I wish Karajou would blog more :( Occasionaluse (talk) 17:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

His impotent rage is quite funny, but I think he's said it all now. --JeevesMkII ^{The gentleman's gentleman at the other site} 17:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

My blog is MPR. Obama been try'n to hypnotize me and failepic. Now I laugh @ him, but I do pray for him on Sundays.--208.40.4.94 (talk) 18:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I can't understand the first sentence:

Barack Obama's "If I don’t call you" fundraising letter describes a letter to potential donors from Barack Obama's 2012 presidential campaign.

So, this letter describes a letter? Barack Obama wrote, "Let me tell you about a letter to potential donors...."? Or is the encyclopedia entry not about the letter, but only about the bolded phrase? In that case, shouldn't the title be "Barack Obama's 'If I don’t call you' fundraising letter" rather than Barack Obama's "If I don’t call you" fundraising letter (note quotation marks)? (And in any case, the bolded part doesn't "describe", but it "refers to" or "denotes".) Mighty confused, I tell you. Phiwum (talk) 18:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't until you started to explain things. Now, I'm fucking lost. WeaselNation (talk) 18:14, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

If he writes an article for every time Obama emails him...wow...it's going to be a fucking mess. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:38, 30 September 2011 (UTC)