"independently funded research is less subject to conflict of interest than corporate funded research" is a conservative canard? I think the examples could be a bit better (the rabbit one should quote HG I think, for clarity).
A good CP one? "We all know that liberals love deceit and mockery". An ad hominem canard!
- I keep wanting to add a reference to "mallards" in this article. They're ducks and the word sounds a bit like "canards" (well it does when you're drunk) but I can't quite bring myself to do the vandalism. :-( --Bob_M (talk) 06:05, 17 June 2007 (CDT)
- According to WP, the name actually comes from the word for "duck", as in "vendre un canard à moitié," meaning "to half-sell a duck." -- Kels 06:07, 17 June 2007 (CDT)
- Do I detect a certain lack of seriousness here? Or do we have different versions of WP? Mine says that it's another name for wild duck. .-) Under "Etymology" Ancient Greek for "flat-billed duck". Obviously we need a mallard article with various etymologies and recipes. I would give it a shot but I'm on my way out. :-( --Bob_M (talk) 06:31, 17 June 2007 (CDT)
- You guys/gals are talking at cross-purposes. One the derivation of canard in the context of the article and the other for mallard. God's peed Babel fishÅЯ†ђŮŖ ÐΣй†Now look here! 11:45, 17 June 2007 (CDT)
- In my own defense: It is said that there's no such thing as bad publicity, so I'll leave it to you to decide what to do. I'm "Fletch" whose blog has been linked here, specifically with regard to the statement:
- "It is an all-too-common liberal canard that scientific inquiry funded by government and academia is presumed to be 'authentic' and not subject to question, while scientific inquiry funded by private interests is not merely suspect but is 'disinformation-for-hire'."
- I was under the impression that one of the proper usages of the term "canard" was in reference to statements that are oft-repeated but are either groundless or unsupported either in the aggregate or with regard to specific examples. In the context of the statement above, the presumption referenced clearly meets that definition. There are countless examples of research funded by academia or government that has not withstood scrutiny and countless examples of privately conducted research that has proven to be entirely correct. Further, a thorough reading of the referenced material shows that the privately funded research being referred to (and labeld "disinformation for hire") conforms with the government's own statistics while the chief criticism from academia (presumed disinformation because of private funding) came not from a scientist but from lecturer with a demonstrable bias.
- By all means feel free to stop by and demonstrate how my understanding is misplaced. -- Fletch 13:17 June 18, 2007
- One more point - Heart of Gold's usage can be defended as well. This is not an attack upon evolution. The issue is merely appropriate usage of the word "canard" and, in that context, his usgae is correct. As I understand it, in response to the wuestion, "what might disprove evolution?" the response was made "pre-Cambrian rabbits". The phrase has been frequently been used since in response to opponents of the theory. Whether or not such evidence would "disprove" evolution is debatable, though it would significantly revise the understanding of the historical progression of the fossil record. On the other hand it is a major logical fallacy to turn the concept around (as has been frequently done) to reference the absence of pre-Cambrian rabbits in the fossil record as evidence of evolution. There simply MUST be better examples of the misuse of the word than have been selected here. -- Fletch 13:39 June 18, 2007
Fletch (why not create an account?), I think the problem here was mostly one of wording. You might note that I made a comment above asking what that line (about research) meant. Now that I know, I think, I have reworded it in order to try to maintain some clarity, please tell me what you think. humanbe in 12:52, 18 June 2007 (CDT)
George W. Bush purposely did 9/11
I think that the "George W. Bush purpousely did 911 should be removed from the list. You guys all sound like people who belive whatever the goverment tells you, wether it be 911 or Global Warming. 184.108.40.206 18:42, 7 November 2007 (EST)
- Well, at least you gave me a laugh. :-) I honestly don't know how to respond.--Bobbing up 18:44, 7 November 2007 (EST)
Well, I don't think anyone here sound like the "toe a government line" on anything. If you hadn't noticed, it's a bit of a skeptic's site. The hook-line-and-sinker'ism comes from those who swallow whole bizarre conspiracy theories, no matter how much acrobatic reasoning is needed to try to justify it.--PalMD-If it looks like a donut, eat it 18:55, 7 November 2007 (EST)
- Like George W. Bush purposely doing 911 is hard to imagine. Its very easy to imagine, considering the motives If the government wanted to enslave everyone for their own safety, would you go along with it? 220.127.116.11 18:58, 7 November 2007 (EST)
- The part that makes it (Bush did 9/11) hard to imagine is the overall (in)competence of the administration in everything else. No way this club of fools could have pulled that off and not even get caught yet. As far as your second question, of course not (I wouldn't, anyway). Freedom = safety, IMO. human 19:01, 7 November 2007 (EST)
- The thing is a canard is an argument that is compeltly false, such as "The entire universe is a potato". PalMD is right when he says that if its not completly silly it doesnt mean its true, however it does not make the argument a canard.
- Finally, someone who agrees with me. 18.104.22.168 19:10, 7 November 2007 (EST)
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...I guess the only way I would accept this as non-ducky would be that these folks believe this crap.--PalMD-If it looks like a donut, eat it 19:16, 7 November 2007 (EST)
- The statement that made me laugh was:"You guys all sound like people who belive whatever the goverment tells you, wether it be 911 or Global Warming". 1. We most certainly don't believe everything the government tells us. 2. We especially don't believe what the US government says about global Warming. 3. the idea that George Bush could pull off 9/11 (or would want to) is simply absurd.--Bobbing up 19:19, 7 November 2007 (EST)
- Hmmm. Maybe your right when you say that George Bush could not pull of 911. Maybe he is just a Sockpuppet, a cover up for those who posses the REAL POWER. 22.214.171.124 19:27, 7 November 2007 (EST)
- Then why do you think L Ron Hubbard was in on it?
- I for one certainly believe everything the government tells me, just like any good Euro-commie should. :nods: --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 11:42, 8 November 2007 (EST)
Why we keep reverting
Because it's clear that the conspiracy theories like those are canards. There.-αmεσ (decider) 13:53, 18 December 2007 (EST)
- What?!?! No, they are not canards. Thats just silly!! 126.96.36.199 17:05, 18 December 2007 (EST)
Just to add, "My duck" (pronounced "me duck") is also a common term of endearment in Lancashire, England. As is "duck" by itself, as in, "That'll be ₤2.99, duck". And "Duckie" is a term of endearment traditional among British theatre types and gay people, although among gay people it's archaic, indicative of the 1950s, or bad right-wing comedians with no imagination.