Essay:Creationist Behavior on Conservapedia

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Essay.svg This essay is an original work by AmesG.
It does not necessarily reflect the views expressed in RationalWiki's Mission Statement, but we welcome discussion of a broad range of ideas.
Unless otherwise stated, this is original content, released under CC-BY-SA 3.0 or any later version. See RationalWiki:Copyrights.
Feel free to make comments on the talk page, which will probably be far more interesting, and might reflect a broader range of RationalWiki editors' thoughts.


Point by Point to the Companion Article, a masterwork by Andy[edit]

Aschlafly's Original Essay

Over 100,000 page edits on Conservapedia provides much data to study and analyze liberal behavior and trends. Several important characteristics emerge:

AmesG's Response

Over 100,000 page edits on Conservapedia provides much data to study and analyze creationist behavior and trends. Several important characteristics emerge:

1[edit]

Liberals, particularly liberal vandals, seem to have a strong desire for attention. This may motivate many of their statements and arguments. Lacking motivation based on reason or faith, they seem to enjoy attracting attention for the mere sake of attention itself. The discussions and debates go nowhere, but their mission is accomplished by having someone pay attention to them.

1[edit]

Creationists, particularly creationist apologists, seem to have a strong desire for attention. This may motivate many of their statements and arguments. For example, it explains their extreme persecution complex, or their belief that the entire world is out to get them (everything from science, to Teletubbies). It also explains their willingness to take strident, absurd stances: the more absurd the stance, the greater the attention. On this reasoning, arguing that the speed of light decays is a good argument, because it is more outrageous, and attracts more attention.

2[edit]

Many liberals think that two wrongs, or a wrong and perceived wrong, make a right. Specifically, they feel that vandalism can be justified by claiming that someone was wrongly excluded from a private association or private property. For example, one critic of Conservapedia declared on 5/22/07 that "[t]his site deserves at least 70-80% of the vandalism it receives." Under the conservative view, nothing justifies vandalism and two wrongs do not make a right.

2[edit]

Many creationists believe that threats, abuses of the legal system, and harassment are justified by petty vandalism to their site. Similarly, many creationists are pro-torture in the War on Terror. Coincidence?

3[edit]

Many liberals do not recognize vandalism as being wrong. Even some liberals who do recognize vandalism as being wrong do not think it is wrong to help others who commit vandalism.

3[edit]

Many creationists are in favor of the suppression of all dissident thought. Otherwise, the obvious flaws in their "logic" might be revealed. They also fear dissident thought, and in fact any difference whatsoever, and applaud those who censor dissent. The same creationists also take (admittedly) foolish pranks far too seriously, possibly because they take themselves far too seriously (see their need for attention, at #1, supra).

4[edit]

Liberals refuse to admit that people who were atheists or deists in their youth can find faith as they grow older. Examples include Abraham Lincoln and Benjamin Franklin, but liberals deny this.

4[edit]

Creationists willfully deny history as quickly as they deny science. They are threatened by the idea that anyone important ever, in fact, may not have been a Christian, and fight to the last man.

5[edit]

Liberals deny that their totalitarian positions, such supporting gun control or banning homeschooling, were instrumental to Adolf Hitler's power.

5[edit]

Many creationists openly favor a theocracy. However, at the same time, they decry Muslim theocracy as "islamofascism," and are willfully blind to any similarity whatsoever.

6[edit]

Liberals seem to think nearly everyone else agrees with them, and even seem shocked and offended when they encounter someone who does not. In the United States, conservatives outnumber liberals by a 2:1 ratio, yet most liberals do not recognize that. Ask a liberal, for example, what percentage of people accept the Deluge as recounted in the Bible and the liberal's answer can be off by a factor of ten.

6[edit]

Creationists believe that public consensus creates reality... in some cases. Where a good deal of Americans "believe" in the Great Flood, this indicates its veracity. Where the supermajority of the scientific community acknowledges Darwinian theory, the fact that 1% does not is completely dispositive to evolution. This is another example of creationist hypocrisy.

7[edit]

Liberals are almost always more aggressive than conservatives here, as liberals insist on the last word, insist on continuing debate long after it has become tiresome, and repeat complaints after they have been rejected. That could represent an attempt to waste an opponent's time or a refusal to recognize that there are legitimate reasons to reject liberal viewpoints. Regardless of the reason, this can be observed on numerous talk pages.

7[edit]

Creationists are much more closed-minded and unwilling to debate, invoking "talk page privacy" whenever their ability to defend their perspective weakens to the point of utter collapse. However, since concession is not the creationist way, debate cloture is the preferred method of "victory," either by protection, blocking, or refusal to engage in conversation.

8[edit]

Liberals refuse to allow even the possibility of certain conservative views, and this reflects a liberal close-mindedness that is not shared by conservatives. Liberals categorically declare something to be impossible, such as changes in the laws of physics over time or the feasibility of the Strategic Defense Initiative. Conservatives rarely declare something to be impossible.

8[edit]

Creationists declare most things to be impossible, and are incredibly stubborn on these points: anything other than literal Biblical interpretation is flawed, to them. This leaves much of the realm of human thought simply impenetrable, and creationists will not give way to the responsive meaning that the Bible is viewed to have by most Christians, instead.

9[edit]

Name-calling, particularly as a Parthian shot, is overused by liberals. In one recent exchange, a critic finished his remarks with "you've just conceded that you are a deceitful liar. Thanks, that's all I needed to know."

9[edit]

Name-calling - that is, attaching the label "liberal" to a concept or fact - ends the debate. It is used as the primary argument against most of science, which is "secular," "liberal," or "atheist."

10[edit]

Almost no liberal admits he's liberal, or that he holds a liberal belief, or that he is using a liberal argument. More often a liberal will claim to be a conservative, and try to make a liberal argument sound better with the preface, "Well, I'm a conservative, but I support gun control!" But why are so many people embarrassed to admit they are liberal???

10[edit]

To be a part of the in-crowd on Conservapedia, and not be subject to constant derision, blocking, etc., one must not be just conservative, but a fundamentalist Christian. That is to say that the ideological tent of Conservapedia is quite small, with entry only to creationists.

11[edit]

A surprising absence of reliance on logic. Quite the contrary, logical arguments are often met with ridicule or disdain by liberals today, or a demand to see if any authority can be found who made the same logical argument, in the hope of discrediting that authority. In school 30 years ago it seemed that liberals would be the first to appeal to logic, but apparently not today.


11[edit]

Creationists here enjoy greatly tautologies and selective ignorance, as well as other fundamental logical errors. An example would be the article Faith, which for a great time proclaimed proudly that Christianity was the only religion to have a Christian concept of faith, or circular argumentation on the Carbon dating page, by arguing, "carbon dating must be flawed, because the earth is young, so as a result, since carbon dating is flawed, the earth must be young."


12[edit]

An enjoyment and tolerance of deceit. Liberal editors almost never criticized deceitful behavior as being "wrong". Liberals generally reject the Ten Commandments, and oppose teaching them to children. Often liberal editors have defended or applauded deceitful behavior here. This is remniscent of Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales offering Essjay a position after his misrepresentations were disclosed, until public criticism compelled Wales to change his mind.

12[edit]

Overbroad concepts are attributed to "only" liberals, such as, deceit. Where editors seek to note examples of creationist deceit, such as outright lies to a federal judge, the examples are stricken without anything more than righteous indignation as an explanation. In this sense, liberals (which, remember, are everyone who is not a creationist) are the definition of evil, a larger-than-life force for wrong.

13[edit]

A preference for obscenity. Many liberal editors have complained about Commandment #3 in the rules, which prohibits obscenity. Frequently liberal editors have introduced obscenity into Conservapedia despite the rules, often leading to blocking accounts. This is like Wikipedia's popular pages containing pornography, as described in Bias in Wikipedia.

13[edit]

Attribution of vandalism to liberals only, and definition of liberalism as inherently a philosophy built on destruction.

(note by human - andy, you should see what potty mouths your sysops are "off site"!)

14[edit]

A preference for complaining rather than submitting new entries. Many liberal editors have complained 9 times more often than they have made a substantive addition, which violates the rule against 90% talk per 10% substantive edits. In some cases this has even necessitated blocking accounts.

14[edit]

Creationists implement rules designed to discourage debate, such as the "90/10" rule. Editors are told to stop talking, and start working, but when they are then forced to defend their edits against absurd objections (see stereotype), and the talk-page edit count goes up, the editors are then told to go back to work, and move on, abandoning their previous work. The same rules are also selectively enforced. Many administrators do not engage in productive article creation.

15[edit]

Strident objections to the point in Bias in Wikipedia quantifying how Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public. It is not that anyone (other than Jimmy Wales) attempts to deny that Wikipedia has a liberal bias. Instead, liberal editors appear to object to quantifying it, particularly at a multiple of six. But why isn't that claim flattering to them? Conservatives would not object to a claim that they are __ times more conservative than such-and-such. Perhaps assigning a number to the bias makes it difficult for liberals to deny it exists.

15[edit]

Creationists use bad math to score ideological points, and employ professions of a misunderstanding of basic ratio mathematics, followed by a blocking of all dissenters, to defend absurd numerological constructs.

16[edit]

Over-reliance by liberals on mockery rather than logical argument.

16[edit]

Creationists rely on the word "liberal," a term of derision to them, to be an argument-stopper, and an immediate way to discredit any evidence that might point against their causes.

17[edit]

There are repeated attempts to convert liberal opinion into a statement of fact. This can be done by citing a liberal advocate as an authority or by selectively invoking a liberal perception about what "most people think." This style of argument occurs too often, and too selectively, to reflect mere lack of intellectual rigor. It appears to be central to the liberal style of reasoning.

17[edit]

Fact may be transformed into opinion by adding the words, "but, Young Earth Creationists assert... and can cite... and allege... and dispute." For example, see the article on stars. No matter how ridiculous the assumptions or arguments are, by using them, the transformation from fact to opinion is complete, and unassailable, since any counter-argument is "liberal" and flawed, as a result (see supra for further commentary).

18[edit]

Liberals often express decidedly liberal viewpoints as "common usage".

18[edit]

Creationists are willing to buck common knowledge, expert opinion, and the laws of physics just to get to the preferred result. They then claim to be objective.

more[edit]

more[edit]

Authorship[edit]

--Aschlafly 12:52, 23 May 2007 (EDT) [1]

Category:Conservapedia Essay

Authorship[edit]

AmesGyo! 18:20, 6 May 2007 (EDT)


Independent Observations[edit]

  1. The terms "conservative" and "young earth creationist" are conflated, such that everything that disagrees with creationist viewpoints is automatically "liberal." Since most of science disagrees with creationist, quite a lot of the world is "liberal," per se!
  2. The victim complex is alive and well. For example, the real victims of discrimination against gays are not the gays, but the discriminators, since society has begun to frown on them for discriminating.
  3. Facts are fungible. For example, the laws of physics are subject to sudden change (like the speed of light, or the half-life of carbon) to be shoe-horned into the overused, discredited framework of ancient mythologies.
  4. Creationists engage in denial of "real world" perceptions of the project. Conservative's edits are hailed as examples of prime writing, since they draw so many visitors. However, a quick look at the incoming traffic reveals that the visitors come from blogs mocking the articles. Also, the project's founder often proudly boasts of mentions of Conservapedia in the papers, without noting that the articles mock the project's narrow perspective.
  5. Creationists believe that one objection, no matter how unreasonable, wholly discredits a theory. Thus, where planet formation is not fully explained, the theory must be flawed. Where a single gap in the fossil record exists, the theory of evolution falls apart. This stems from a basic misunderstanding of the nature of science. See also: Evobabble
  6. Any countervailing fact is automatically "opinion." For example, binding Supreme Court law (as in, the Opinion of the Court) is not factual law - rather, it is a judge's simple, flawed understanding of the law (opinion of the Court). This applies so long as the law works against creationists (that is, most of the time); where it works in their favor, it is authority which must be obeyed.
  7. Creationists hold up their "faith" in creation as unassailable. They then abandon it immediately, seeking to justify it by flawed science. When the science fails them, they turn back to faith, but will come creeping back to science as soon as all editors who would disagree with them have been blocked.
  8. Non-neutral points of view, often extremely inflammatory, are treated as fact so long as they fall into the right ideological camp. Roger Schlafly is a prime offender, but articles such as reparative therapy are no better.