Information icon.svg The 2019 RMF board election is about to end!
We are electing 3 board members for the 2019-2021 term.
Vote here and read their campaign slogans here!

Talk:Andrew Schlafly

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Conservlogo late april.png

This Conservapedia related article has been awarded GOLD status for quality. Please keep this in mind when editing the article. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Goldenbrain.png
Information icon.svg Cover Story
This article is, among others, randomly included on the Main Page.
Please keep this in mind and be sure that your edits are of the quality that this implies.
Its front-page abstract can be found here and its editnotice here.
Icon sociology.svg This article contains information about one or more living persons.

Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats.
Reference any contentious allegations solidly; unreferenced allegations should be removed.
If legal threats are raised on this page, please direct the potential litigant to RationalWiki:Legal FAQ; do not interact with them.

This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: <1>, <2>

His students' college admissions[edit]

I removed that sentence that mentioned that Yale and Harvard are missing. I don't see the relevance. In addition, Westminster Choir College is actually part of Rider University, a nonsectarian private university in New Jersey. Plus, at least one of his students got accepted to Princeton, Schlafly's alma mater. And I find it peculiar Schlafly was once an adjunct professor at Seton Hall Law School and also mentions in his user page "Seton Hall University (2 students on big scholarships)". AP (talk) 23:54, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

He was an adjunct. Bottom-of-the-barrel ranking. No chance of tenure. Less job security than the janitor, who at least has an effective union be hind him. The job of "adjunct professor" does not give one any "pull" with the folks over at admissions. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 00:00, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Did he vote for Obama[edit]

From Barack Obama's Conservapedia Page:

"In the winter of 1988 Barack Obama decided to attend Harvard Law School, and left Chicago for Cambridge, Massachusetts. In his 2nd year a power struggle broke out among the dominant white liberals over control of the Harvard Law Review. Obama was elected its first black president as a compromise candidate largely with help of conservatives following a "marathon voting session" in which he finally won on the 19th ballot."

Who was a conservative editor of the Harvard Law Review that could have possibly voted in that election? Irrationalinhumanist (talk) 05:58, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

This article contains some statheist religious irrationality[edit]

How did someone with such a rich academic background (Princeton. Harvard) end up so anti-intellectual and irrational?[edit]

How?Levi Ackerman (talk) 15:21, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Try engineers and woo for a start and consider that the study of law is likely to encourage an approach that emphasises "winning" debates by whatever means, rather than critical, intellectual curiosity and scrutiny. See also, William Lane Craig. ScepticWombat (talk) 16:53, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
But...I studied law. While it does encourage an approach that emphasises "winning", it does not encourage winning at any cost. Also, for you to say that about the subject of law makes you sound rather ignorant on the subject. Law is indeed one of the subjects that demands critical thinking, intellectual curiousity and scrutiny. Don't make such sweeping and incorrect statements about a subject. You only need to look at the several landmark legal decisions, both recent and of old, of which there isn't a shortage, to know that what you just said about the subject of law is flat-out ignorant. Ted Cruz is akin to Schlafy in beliefs, and he too has a legal background. So, too was and did Antonin Scalia. They came to the subject with their religious prejudices. Law did not inform their religious nuttery. Levi Ackerman (talk) 18:10, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
It of course will depend on what your motivation for studying and working with law is and who you regard as your model lawyer (or judge). My point was that neither law nor engineering need challenge those who are, to use your designation, "anti-intellectual and irrational" as these subjects can be easily studied from a sort of "craftsmanship" perspective, something you also find in the medical field. I was not claiming that either subject actually produce or promote wingnuttery, just that their "filter" for challenging such ideas is less fine because you can easily avoid even discussing these notions - if you don't want to. ScepticWombat (talk) 09:22, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Urgh[edit]

Seriously, did you have to put that smile in the main page?. I cannot look straight at it --Panzerfaust (talk) 19:05, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

New Nickname[edit]

"Assfly"? Meh. "A Scat Fly"? Yeah. C'mon people, let's do it. — Unsigned, by: CTB33391 / talk / contribs

But he isn't into scat? NekoDysk 13:00, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
...Scat as in he's complete shit. It's forced but I guess it works. — Unsigned, by: CTB33391 / talk / contribs
It's not completely awful I guess. NekoDysk 09:50, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Why is this guy so dishonest? And why does he try to cut and change the meaning of the Bible?