Essay talk:Social Effects of the Theory of Evolution/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 10 May 2016. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Classic

This soon-to-become classic of User Conservative is in need of a side by side discussion, if it even makes enough sense for it.--PalMD^-Goatspeed! 01:29, 4 July 2007 (CDT)

By Baal, hes get dummmer everi days.--PalMD^-Goatspeed! 01:51, 4 July 2007 (CDT)

Ok, someone has to get started on this.--PalMD^-Goatspeed! 11:59, 4 July 2007 (CDT)

Ok, i did the Karajou one...if youre gonna make me do the Conservative one too, fine, but please...have mercy!--PalMD^-Goatspeed! 22:32, 4 July 2007 (CDT)

I'll do this one if you like :-). Unfortunately, I probably won't be able to most of tomorrow (law firm event after work), so if someone wants to get started, I'll kick in. Or save it for me. It's the mob's choice.-αmεσg 23:48, 4 July 2007 (CDT)

Well, this member of the mob got started. If anyone else wants to pitch in and replace my sarcastic tirades with real facts, go ahead. Sorry if I messed up the formatting. --Gulik 00:33, 5 July 2007 (CDT)

Thank Baal for you guys!--PalMD^-Goatspeed! 13:02, 5 July 2007 (CDT)

Doesn't Andy qualify as a parasitic WASP? --Kels 12:12, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

I noticed the lack of citations for your rebuttals

I noticed the lack of citations for your "rebuttals". It seems as if you could not find scholarly support for your "rebuttals". Newton 13:19, 7 August 2007 (CDT)Newton

No, we're just lazy overworked. Godspeed! --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 13:22, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

The other side of the column has no scholarly sources either. tmtoulouse ^nettle 13:48, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

What, "Jesus, Personal Communication" isn't GOOD enough for you Darwinist scum?!?!@!! :) --Gulik 15:25, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

Editing this article.

I don't know if it's me, but I find that the formatting of this article makes it very hard to edit. Anyway, I think we should make it (even) clearer in our introduction that the article we are rebutting makes the common mistake (?) of confusing the scientific fact of the Theory of Evolution with the philosophy of Social Darwinism. One simply describes what happens in the biological world - the other is an attempt to justify various psychotic attitudes that exist in human relations. The Theory of evolution says absolutely nothing about how people or societies should behave, it makes no moral judgments or recommendations; it simply describes what happens. Social Darwinists, in looking for a moral excuse for their excesses, state that they are justified by the Theory of Evolution - they are wrong. Once that point has been understood the whole of the article becomes irrelevant.--Bob_M (talk) 11:13, 8 August 2007 (CDT)

Talk from the Redo Page (moved)

This will be a re-do of the main page article of the same title. I hope to be back on RW in force :-D -αmεσ (!) 23:34, 14 August 2007 (CDT)

Hi, awesome work - why not move it to "Essay:blah balh blah" and link it from the main article? Oh, and it's best to use a permalink and date note on the link to the original, as it may change over time (duh). Nice to see you back and charging in headfirst! human^{be in} 12:33, 15 August 2007 (CDT)

Good to be back! Law school's easier than law practice... :-). Should have more time soon.-αmεσ (!) 22:55, 17 August 2007 (CDT)

It has more words than I can reed :) I wuz homskoolleedd. I think it's "ready for prime time", at least, in terms of moving it to the essay space. No one will ever find it here in you user space, eh? 23:32, 17 August 2007 (CDT)

Should it replace the main article that it's a /redo of? Or be a standalone essay?-αmεσ (!) 23:40, 17 August 2007 (CDT)

At first, I would say, set it up as a "standalone". Um, if it's, like, way better than some piece of crap we already have, well , replace it! (or add it) Either way, you gotta be a wiki-whore an link the hell out of it. Um, Ames, you need me to tell you this? You are hard core RW1, I don't think you need to fun:be timid!human^{be in} 23:46, 17 August 2007 (CDT)

I believe this is copyright infringement.

I believe this is copyright infringement. RationalWiki does not have permission to copy the whole article at Conservapedia. Newton 19:03, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

I believe you're full of shit. --Kels 19:04, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

Yes we do, read the copyright at CP, you gave us permission. "Conservapedia grants a non-exclusive license to you to use any of the content (other than images) on this site with or without attribution." tmtoulouse ^nettle 19:10, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

(1) It's fair use - we are avoiding "quote mining" (you know what that is) by presenting the case we are arguing against in its entirety. (2) You may "make the observation", but you have no standing to "complain". Even if there was a defensible issue, the copyright owner has to make the complaint. You silly fig newton person.human^{be in} 19:26, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

Answered on your page. There's a mountain of authority in our favor, Ken, even if you pierced the GDFL veil which already grants us full immunity.-αmεσ (!) 19:27, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

I, personally, am amused by the idea of it dawning on Ken that by putting his stuff on CP, he's totally lost control of it. --Kels 19:27, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

We had a long discussion of this on the forums, remember, anyone? They have no, I reiterate, no legs to stand on with the claim of copyvio. --Linus^{(plot evil tech)} 20:56, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

Hmm...actually, that's an interesting thing. Most of what Ken "writes" is simply blockquotes from elsewhere, so exactly what part is he claiming copyright of? His "original work"? Then in that case, his pet article doesn't belong in CP mainspace, does it? It should be wherever they're stuffing essays now. --Kels 21:05, 20 August 2007 (CDT)

Hmn. It looks like you and TK agree on this. 21:48, 20 August 2007 (CDT) ^{— Unsigned, by: 64.22.116.138 / talk / contribs}

Listen to the truth

And once you do, you have no excuse

• Satan is your father, part 1
• Satan is your father, part 2

Enjoy, openminded ones. 21:38, 20 August 2007 (CDT) ^{— Unsigned, by: 64.22.116.138 / talk / contribs}

Wow, I repent! It feels good to be saved. Now, how do I turn conservative? St. CЯacke® 05:48, 21 August 2007 (CDT)

Step 1 is to become extremely afraid of Communists, Brown People, Poor People, Homosexuals, Muslims, Satan, and your own genitals. Step 2 is to vote for whoever mentions Jesus the most times per speech. Step 3 is to ignore how badly the folks you elected in Step 2 are screwing you and everything you claim to care about over. --Gulik 23:58, 21 August 2007 (CDT)

Awh, listened through the first minute then spewed my breakfast. "Ideas have consequences" yes so we should remain ignorant so those guiding the church can rule us...--TimS 09:22, 21 August 2007 (CDT)

The first one got kind of dull so I fast-forwarded through it. Here's what it sounded like: "Blah blah blah Atheists blah blah Hitler Blah blah blah Stalin Blah blah blah". Did I miss anything important? Is the second one any more entertaining? --Gulik 00:54, 22 August 2007 (CDT)

How about we disqualify every thought and belief ever held by the perpetrator of an atrocity. That leaves us with...um...nothing. Hey, it's the dream world of the fundamentalist-no thought!--MountainTiger 01:28, 22 August 2007 (CDT)