The Best (Worst) Of Conservapedia

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The Best (Worst) Of Conservapedia

Bruce Leroy: Jun 10, 2010

OneEightHundred posted:

They can do this with a court case because they can discuss the verdict without even mentioning the arguments brought up and pander to the "hurr liberal judge" poo poo. They can't do this with a debate where there is no verdict and the only thing to do is listen to the arguments.

Sure, but the problem with that is those debates where they poll the audience afterwords to see who "won." The issue here is that it lends itself to the false premise that science is somehow an issue of popularity, as if evolution is suspect or controversial simply because it's not exactly popular in the US.

This is connected to the problem of the inconsistencies of debates. Some are well moderated, but others aren't, leading to uncontrolled debates that turn into poo poo-fests. This doesn't happen in a courtroom setting as judges are usually pretty good about keeping decorum and maintaining the court rules.

BattleMaster posted:

Wait, there are places where there is private garbage collection that is contracted on an individual basis by citizens rather than in bulk by the municipality?

In my neighborhood, it's basically like having employer health insurance. You can buy into the garbage collection, but have to pay based on the frequency of pickup and size of garbage can. What's aggravating is that for almost 8 years, they picked up twice a week for a single rate (based on can size), but in the past two years, they reduced pickup to once a week but still charged the same rate as before for twice weekly pickup. Twice weekly is extra, even for recycling bins, which sucks because I'm pretty conscientious about recycling as much as humanly possible.

# ? Aug 29, 2011 07:15

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 10, 2024 03:38

Meow Tse-tung: Oct 11, 2004; No one cat should have all that power

Orange Devil posted:

I will never understand why Americans are so immensely hostile to bicyclists.

A ton of bikers in my community (which constantly brags about being one of the most "bike friendly" places in America) are entitled yuppie shits who think they own the road and that traffic laws are suggestions at best. I lived in China for awhile and it was awesome, and the bike traffic was predictable and made sense. I biked to work and school every day.

Now, let me tell you about Idaho. First off, half of these loving idiots decide they need to ride in the dead center of the road rather than the dedicated bike lanes. I can't figure out why, since when I ride, I never have problems with burrs and similiar issues they love to whine about. The result of this is a car having to decelerate down to ~20ish because I can't see around the corner and the biker won't let me pass. This is actually a thing here, where some bikers refuse to move to the side because they claim to be going the speed limit (nope, much slower) and that cars need to "share the road". I've been in convoys of 5-6 cars all waiting for some rear end in a top hat biker struggling to ride up a foothill to just move the gently caress over to the bike lane, and that may be the most infuriating thing ever. Passing is basically impossible unless you want to risk getting into an unseen head-on collision.

Second, for some reason there is this super-entitled attitude you hear from a lot of bikers about how "it's a cars job to look out for us". They run reds and stops at full speed, make frequent turns without signaling, and I've personally witnessed two bikers get hit by cars at busy intersections, and one near miss in the last year and a half since I've been back to the States. I love the idea of biking to work/school and do it when I can, but christ, some of these people are loving morons.

Recently, BSU had to institute a no-bike zone because students were constantly getting hit by bikers. Boise has multiple "bike lawyers" and I honestly can't believe the amount of stupid drama bullshit this small segment of the bike community in this city causes. I've lived in NYC, Atlanta, Jersey, Several foreign countries...and never experienced the ridiculous attitudes bikers here in Boise seem to have. It's like a bizarre sub-community.

You can usually pick them apart because they wear ridiculously expensive biker clothing like they're training for the tour de france or something, and the ratio of rear end in a top hat bikers is always through the roof around the yuppie gated communities.

Meow Tse-tung fucked around with this message at 10:23 on Aug 29, 2011

# ? Aug 29, 2011 10:04

VideoTapir: Oct 18, 2005; He'll tire eventually.

Most of my redneck motherfuckers vs. me on a bicycle incidents were in or around Fairbanks, AK, or Kingman, AZ. Not yuppie meccas (though there is some crazy cyclist bullshit near the college campus in Fairbanks...but most of that is excused by the fact that the bike lanes are closed in winter).

I'm pretty sure some of it is "haha lookit that faggit on the baby's toy! I ain't riddena bike since I was 16, what does he think he is captin planet?"

# ? Aug 29, 2011 10:22

ErIog: Jul 11, 2001

The reason bikes, bikers, and motorists perception of bikers is so lovely in the US is all to do with public planning. Public planning made it next to impossible to commute by bike in most places. This forced out all but the most devoted cyclists and the people doing it just for exercise rather than utility. These people are outliers, and don't necessarily represent what biking or bicyclists are like in other places that have proper space for them.

People who ride bicycles on streets and sidewalks in places with proper planning are business men, old ladies, children, etc. You see people from every walk of life pedaling their poo poo around town without issue.

DemeaninDemon posted:

Also, gently caress your bicycle. Just because you're on wheels doesn't mean you're allowed to switch between "pedestrian" and "motorist." If you want to use the cross walk, get off your bike and walk it across said cross walk. Us two-legged people will love you for it.

In places with proper bicycle planning there are bike lanes within the crosswalk section.

On my commute to work I basically treat my bike like a car in order to avoid pedestrian path/road confusion. So I stop at stop lights, and wait in the line with the cars. I do this because I could take the crosswalk, but then I'd still have to wait for the cars in order to be able to get back on the road even if I could theoretically cross faster at the crosswalk. The roads I take to work are usually so narrow that most cars can't really do any sort of speed because of the lack of visibility. So most of the time I'm never holding anyone up, and in places where I might be the road is usually much wider along with a shoulder so they can pass without issue.

When I say narrow roads, though, I mean like roads where if two cars are heading toward each other one has to pull completely onto the shoulder or sidewalk in order to let the other car pass. I live in Japan, by the way.

There are certainly lots of reasons to hate American cyclists, but still people don't realize their hatred stems from how annoying the lack of proper planning makes dealing with bicyclists.

# ? Aug 29, 2011 10:43

Nintendo Kid: Aug 4, 2011; by Smythe

ErIog posted:

On my commute to work I basically treat my bike like a car in order to avoid pedestrian path/road confusion. So I stop at stop lights, and wait in the line with the cars. I do this because I could take the crosswalk, but then I'd still have to wait for the cars in order to be able to get back on the road even if I could theoretically cross faster at the crosswalk

Incidentally, in most states in the US you are legally required to obey all traffic laws and you do have to wait at a red light even if the walk signal says go.

# ? Aug 29, 2011 11:16

Pasty Doughboy: Dec 23, 2006; With red way hair. One day it will all be gone, I�ll go blind from the glare

It's just my theory, and I don't have any definitive proof, but I think that user:conservative is actually the youtube personality "shockofgod". You will notice that conservative plugs the "Question Evolution! Campaign" a lot, and cites many of shock's videos on the news feed fairly frequently. The fact that he is the only editor to have made changes to the http://conservapedia.com/Shockofgod page strikes me as hilarious. It's like writing a book, selling it on amazon and writing glowing reviews of yourself as different reviewers.

Looking at one of his many short "essays" reveals a complete inability to formulate complete arguments, or analyse data and form conclusions from it.

Also, one of the most fun pages to read was the talk page for Mystery: Young Hollywood breast cancer victims. Andy doesn't understand why his "study" is being criticized, and claims "I doubt you've taken half the statistics courses that I have. You have typical liberal style in trying to intimidate." It's worth a look. http://conservapedia.com/Mystery:Young_Hollywood_Breast_Cancer_Victims

# ? Aug 29, 2011 13:49

Stalingrad: Feb 5, 2011

Rationalwiki know the real names of them, they're different people, Ken (conservative) is literally insane and from what they know has a carer, Shockofgod is called Rich, and well thinks he's the next Rush Limbaugh.

Rationalwiki does think they may account share though.

Stalingrad fucked around with this message at 13:57 on Aug 29, 2011

# ? Aug 29, 2011 13:54

ErIog: Jul 11, 2001

The thing I don't get is how conservatives can talk a big game about moral high ground, but then stand behind a completely despicable human being like Rush Limbaugh that appears to embody really no ideals let alone Christian ones.

# ? Aug 29, 2011 13:59

Mr. D Bewildering: Mar 24, 2010; 8^y

When I think "conservatives" and "moral high ground", I can't help but think of Newt Gingrich first and foremost. Just study that man's love life if you want to know why "sanctity of marriage" is bullshit.

# ? Aug 29, 2011 14:19

Pasty Doughboy: Dec 23, 2006; With red way hair. One day it will all be gone, I�ll go blind from the glare

I see now that my theory is not a novel one! It's always so odd to me to see how much conservative mentions shock, and how closely the framework and language of their arguments are to one another.

Also, if someone here is a user on conservapedia, would you please post the amazing answers to the "15 questions for evolutionists", that were posted on these forums a while back? There is now a debate page where these responses could conveniently go. http://conservapedia.com/Debate:_15_questions_for_evolutionists.

# ? Aug 29, 2011 14:30

Tartarus Sauce: Jan 16, 2006; friendship is magic
in a pony paradise
don't you judge me

VideoTapir posted:

In the filthy socialistic land of Japan, they have a pay-as-you-throw system imposed by most cities in the Kanto area. You are required to separate your garbage, and certain items (anything non-recyclable basically) will only be collected if they are in special bags, which you have to buy at supermarkets or convenience stores (different bags for different cities). The price of the bag includes fees for collection.

Meanwhile, in many American communities, there is no city trash collection, and the capitalist trash collection companies (in some cases, more than one in the same area) charge flat monthly rates for having a trash bin that gets collected once a week. You pay 28 dollars a month to the private capitalist company whether the bin is empty or packed to the lid. This benefits the capitalists because they get paid more for collecting less.

While in Japan, 4 dollars worth of trash bags would last me a couple of months.

loving socialists!

loving Socialists indeed---because they are FORCING their citizens to actually SEPARATE their garbage for the convenience of GOVERNMENT BUREAUCRATS! Hard-working Am'ricans don't have time for such nonsense! As a Free American, I'll throw away whatever I want, whenever I want, wherever I want. Even if it costs me more in the end! God bless America!

ErIog posted:

The thing I don't get is how conservatives can talk a big game about moral high ground, but then stand behind a completely despicable human being like Rush Limbaugh that appears to embody really no ideals let alone Christian ones.

Ever check out Altermeyer and Hunsberger's research on "Double-Highs?" It gets worse.

I think it was in "Do As I Say, Not As I Do" by Paul Schweizer, where the author dismissed liberal accusations of conservative hypocrisy, by replying that at least conservatives HAVE moral standards, and that liberals would dispense with all morality, just to avoid hypocrisy.

Yes, how wonderful that you have such high and righteous moral standards that not even YOU can meet them.

ErIog posted:

The reason bikes, bikers, and motorists perception of bikers is so lovely in the US is all to do with public planning.

True indeed. Be a car, or GTFO.

Just look at how most outdoor shopping centers are designed, after all--the stores are placed so far apart, it's clear that the basic assumption is that no one will be loony enough to actually walk and shop!

Tolain posted:

The result of this is a car having to decelerate down to ~20ish because I can't see around the corner and the biker won't let me pass.

And the cherry on top is when the driver behind you vrooms up to your bumper and lays on the horn. Charming. Wonderful.

quote:

Second, for some reason there is this super-entitled attitude you hear from a lot of bikers about how "it's a cars job to look out for us".

And that's certainly true, but safety takes two--especially when it's not the driver of the car who will be killed or paralyzed if there's an accident!

I sure don't want to be trusting my safety and wellbeing to someone who may or may not be texting their magnum opus while chewing gum and trying to switch the radio.

Conservapedia posted:

Environmentalism is a priority for everything , living and non-living, in order to secure the long-term sustainability of the Earth. Many of these priorities are antithetical to the needs of mankind.

Only limp-wristed liberal envirofags need "air" and "water" and "food" to survive. Real conservatives photosynthesize, bitches! Bootstraps! Bootstraps!

# ? Aug 29, 2011 17:27

OneEightHundred: Feb 28, 2008; Soon, we will be unstoppable!

Actually part of the added irony is it's not anti-bike, it's just straight-out made for big cars.

Like try making a left turn at a light on a motorcycle. Oh that's right you can't, because like 80% of traffic sensors won't pick up a motorcycle so you either have to run it or wait for a car to pull up behind you.

There are also plenty of intersections which don't go green at all (i.e. a minor road intersecting a major one) without the sensors, so you occasionally can't even go straight. At least on a bike you can cheat and hit the crosswalk signal.

OneEightHundred fucked around with this message at 22:46 on Aug 29, 2011

# ? Aug 29, 2011 22:42

ShadowCatboy: Jan 22, 2006; by FactsAreUseless

Tartarus Sauce posted:

Rockin'. Send us a link it's posted!

Negotiation 101, a thread with some perspectives on how to debate with really difficult people.

The :iamafag: says it all.

# ? Aug 30, 2011 00:01

VideoTapir: Oct 18, 2005; He'll tire eventually.

Tartarus Sauce posted:

loving Socialists indeed---because they are FORCING their citizens to actually SEPARATE their garbage for the convenience of GOVERNMENT BUREAUCRATS! Hard-working Am'ricans don't have time for such nonsense! As a Free American, I'll throw away whatever I want, whenever I want, wherever I want. Even if it costs me more in the end! God bless America!

Actually, you're not exactly forced...it's just that only separated recyclables are collected for free. You could put all your cardboard and plastic into the burnable trash bags if you want, you're just spending a lot more on bags that way.

quote:

Just look at how most outdoor shopping centers are designed, after all--the stores are placed so far apart, it's clear that the basic assumption is that no one will be loony enough to actually walk and shop!

The best is when you've got two businesses in a retail strip next to each other, but their parking lots are separated...or better yet they have a fence in between them. So you've got to actually walk all the way across the lots to get from one to the other...but the underlying assumption is you'll be taking your car with you.

This is also really terrible for traffic on the street.

VideoTapir fucked around with this message at 01:35 on Aug 30, 2011

# ? Aug 30, 2011 01:32

Sarion: Dec 24, 2003

ShadowCatboy posted:

Negotiation 101, a thread with some perspectives on how to debate with really difficult people.

The :iamafag: says it all.

The book cover is from one of Glenn Beck's books, isn't it?

# ? Aug 30, 2011 01:55

OneEightHundred: Feb 28, 2008; Soon, we will be unstoppable!

Sarion posted:

The book cover is from one of Glenn Beck's books, isn't it?

Yes, it's from Arguing With Idiots. On its cover is an idiot dressed like an idiot for you to argue with, unfortunately then you open the book and discover that "with" means "alongside."

# ? Aug 30, 2011 02:31

Tartarus Sauce: Jan 16, 2006; friendship is magic
in a pony paradise
don't you judge me

VideoTapir posted:

Actually, you're not exactly forced...it's just that only separated recyclables are collected for free. You could put all your cardboard and plastic into the burnable trash bags if you want, you're just spending a lot more on bags that way.

Curses! Foiled again!

Well, it's still the Nips, so I bet there's something shifty about it! :haw:

quote:

The best is when you've got two businesses in a retail strip next to each other, but their parking lots are separated...or better yet they have a fence in between them. So you've got to actually walk all the way across the lots to get from one to the other...but the underlying assumption is you'll be taking your car with you.

This is also really terrible for traffic on the street.

Yeah, encounter this one often, too. I wish I knew what the rationale behind it was.

# ? Aug 30, 2011 03:31

Binowru: Feb 15, 2007; I never set out to be weird. It was always other people who called me weird.

A study found church attendance is falling, with the less-educated dropping in attendance more steeply than those with college education. Does this trouble Conservapedia? Not at all:

Conservapedia posted:

New study "finds the decline in church attendance since the 1970s among white Americans without college degrees is twice as high as for those with college degrees."[24]

Does this help explain why so many atheists at Conservapedia have such great difficulty spelling the words atheism, atheist, and atheists?

# ? Aug 30, 2011 03:44

Bruce Leroy: Jun 10, 2010

Holy. loving. poo poo.

Conservapedia posted:

The Christian Nazi myth refuted. [1]

The Christian Nazi myth refuted

Lita Cosner at Creation Ministries International posted:

The Christian Nazi myth refuted

A review of: The Swastika against the Cross: The Nazi War on Christianity by Bruce Walker

by Lita Cosner

Many anti-Christians turn to the Nazis for an example of the sort of evil that can be committed in the name of Christ. The myth that the Nazis were Christian is so common that many Christians cannot adequately answer it. If the Nazis had been Christian in name, all this would have proved is that not all who claim to act in Christ�s name are consistent with His teachings. But far from being Christians, the Nazis were opposed to Christianity and sought to stamp it out. In less than 100 pages, Bruce Walker, in The Swastika Against the Cross, sets out to document the Nazi�s opposition to Christianity using sources that were mainly written before and during the Second World War. As Walker points out, �The authors of these books had no idea how history would unfold; they did not know that the world would be plunged into a global war or that six million Jews would be exterminated in horrific fashion� (Introduction).
Was pre-Nazi Germany Christian?

In the era leading up to Nazi Germany, Germany and the rest of Europe were characterized by growing hostility to Christianity. Instead, Europe was enamored with Darwinism and Communism: �Karl Marx and Charles Darwin captured the hearts and minds of men. � God was unnecessary; man was self-made, the survival of the fittest was the preferred method of improving the human race provided by the only god that still existed�nature� (p. 2).

In the era leading up to Nazi Germany, Germany and the rest of Europe were characterized by growing hostility to Christianity.

Germany, more than any other country, embraced both naturalism, fueled by Marxism and Darwinism, and the hatred of Christianity and Judaism that the new philosophies inspired. In fact, the same people wrote anti-Semitic propaganda were generally very anti-Christian as well. Over 100,000 Germans formally abandoned their professed faith between 1908 and 1914. More than that many left Christianity every year after World War I, and many who remained Christian did so only in name (pp. 4�6). By the time Hitler came to power, Christianity was barely present in Germany as a cultural force, much less a dominant or influential power.
Was Hitler Christian?

Those who want to create a link between the Nazis and Christianity sometimes quote Hitler�s speeches where he referred to God or the Almighty or Providence. But the God he speaks of is not the Christian God. This can be seen in the style in which he invoked God or Providence: �This intercession was usually offered in the form of a thinly-veiled ultimatum to the effect that the Nazi state � expected the Almighty to do his Germanic duty� (p. 9). God in German speech came to mean whatever any particular speaker wanted to mean.

Nazis saw their own movement as a religion distinct from, and incompatible with, Christianity. The teachings of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount were thought to be �an ethic for cowards and idiots� (p. 17). �Teaching, as it did, precepts of mercy, he [Hitler] scoffed at it as effeminate and altogether incompatible with his war plans which called for, in his scheme, a virile German people insusceptible to ethics and compassion� (p. 25). They wrote books like Why No More Christianity, The Myth of the Twentieth Century, and Jesus Never Lived, which were filled with propaganda against Christianity that nearly equaled the propaganda against Jews (pp. 17�21).

While the Nazis retained the name Christianity for their state religion, it was one stripped of its core beliefs. The Minister of Religion for the Third Reich made the statement: �The Apostle�s Creed is no longer the statement of Christianity. There has now arisen a new authority concerning what Christ and Christianity really is. That new authority is Adolph Hitler� (p. 20). Children of Nazis were taught to pray to Hitler instead of to Jesus. A sort of baptismal service was held for children, baptizing them not in the name of Christ, but �as new hereditary links into the �ancestral chain� and were charged to guard their blood �so that descendants for a thousand years after you will be thankful to you � for God is pure blood!�� (pp. 22�23). Hitler himself claimed to be �a heathen to the bone� (p. 26).

One of the reasons Nazis hated Christianity was because it united people of all races, which was completely contrary to their goal of segregation of the �inferior races� from the �pure� Aryan race (p. 27). Hitler hoped to apply the theory of natural selection to manufacture a superior race of mankind; so had to repudiate the Christian claim that all humans have equal worth.1
Nazi persecution of Christians

While the Nazis did not publicize their opposition to Christianity outside Germany, inside Germany there was little attempt to hide the escalating persecution of Christians. From the first year after they came to power, the Nazis restricted Catholic education and other religious organizations, while the secret police arrested Protestant pastors and engaged in violent intimidation of Christians (pp. 34�35). A year later, they started sending Christian pastors to concentration camps (p. 36). By August 1935, �Jail sentences and attacks on individuals [were] nothing new�, and in December of that year it was forbidden for church associations to appoint pastors, instruct or give announcements from the pulpit, or perform numerous other functions essential to the church (p. 38). Eventually the sale of the Bible was prohibited, as was the rental of property for religious purposes. Even collections for the families of pastors in concentration camps were prohibited, and the Gestapo seized any money that was raised for that purpose (pp. 39�40). In 1938, Austrian monks and nuns were sent to concentration camps when the Nazis occupied the country (p. 44). In areas that did not have synagogues to attack and vandalize, the Nazis targeted Christian churches (p. 46).

Photo from https://www.wikipedia.com
Nazis especially focused on persuading German youth to leave Christianity and to embrace Nazi ideology.

Nazis especially focused on persuading German youth to leave Christianity and to embrace Nazi ideology.

In addition, the Nazis discouraged any youth involvement or instruction in the Christian faith. Only clergy were allowed to teach religion, which led to the disbandment of any classes or studies led by laypeople. Even clergymen were arbitrarily banned from these classes when they did not teach religion according to the Reich�s instructions (p. 51). Only Hitler Youth members were eligible for the best jobs in civil service, and the Nazis prohibited those in Catholic organizations from joining Nazi organizations simultaneously. Businesses who wanted valuable government contracts began to discriminate against those not involved in Nazi organizations. Christian education was especially denigrated�anyone who attended a Christian school was prohibited from entering the civil service, and private companies faced pressure not to hire them either (p. 52). While Catholic youth were particularly singled out for this discrimination, Protestant youth were also targeted. The Nazis declared that all Evangelical youth groups were to be incorporated into the Hitler Youth, and during the initiation were required to state that �German blood and Christian baptismal water are completely irreconcilable� (p. 53). By 1939 all religious schools were closed and those who had received a Christian education were virtually unemployable. �It was made clear � that to vote for the Confessional school was to vote treacherously and against the new Germany, and against the express wishes of the F�hrer himself� (p. 54).

Once children were conscripted into the Hitler Youth, they were taught that Christianity was a useless superstition, and that praying and going to church were a waste of time.

Once children were conscripted into the Hitler Youth, they were taught that Christianity was a useless superstition, and that praying and going to church were a waste of time. �The Hitler Youth was intended to pound Christianity out of children� (p. 54). They understood that if they gained the minds of the youth that they controlled the future of the country. The Nazis were clear about their goal to completely eliminate Christianity and its ethics from the minds of German youth: �With parties and gifts the youth will be led painlessly from one faith to the other and will grow up without ever having heard of the Sermon on the Mount or the Golden Rule, to say nothing of the Ten Commandments� (pp. 55�56).

The Nazi campaign against Christianity was extensively documented by General William Donovan at the Nuremberg trials, and is posted online at the Rutgers Journal of Law and Religion.2 The anti-Christian nature of Nazism was well understood by its opponents of the time, such as Winston Churchill, who said during his address after Chamberlain�s ill-fated attempt at appeasement at Munich, 1938:

� � there can never be friendship between the British democracy and the Nazi power, that power which spurns Christian ethics, which cheers its onward course by a barbarous paganism, which derives strength and perverted pleasure from persecution, and uses, as we have seen with pitiless brutality, the threat of murderous force. That power cannot be the trusted friend of the British democracy � �3

German Christianity�s response to Nazism

Even though Christians who professed their faith openly were subject to discrimination from the Nazis, they constituted the only true opponents the Nazis had in Germany (p. 59). The Communists, while thought to be opponents to the Nazis, partnered with them to destroy common opponents. Academia was easily corrupted; university students were among the most susceptible to Nazi propaganda (p. 62). Christians were the only ones who openly spoke out against the Nazis; Catholics and Protestants banded together to defend Christianity against the Nazi paganism which threatened to destroy them (p. 63). The Nazis recognized the unique character of their Christian opponents, saying that

� � the National Socialist leaders have found and will find that the Christian church is an embarrassment. It cannot be fashioned as readily as are cultural institutions. They will find men in whose convictions in their sphere are as unyielding as those of Hitler himself in the political realm. They have to be reckoned with� (p. 64).

When the Nazis tried to �revise� the Bible to fit with Germanism and demanded that ethnically Jewish pastors be removed from the ministry, many Lutherans refused to comply because it was contrary to Christianity. Many of these pastors were removed and punished for their resistance (pp. 65�66). Many times �Jews sent to concentration camps were met there by Christians of conscience who arrived before the Jews� (p. 69). This took real courage on the part of the Christians, because, unlike the Jews, they could earn their freedom by renouncing their faith and becoming loyal to the Nazis. Christians who were too vocal about their opposition to the Nazis could expect to be tortured and killed or thrown into a concentration camp.
Christianity and anti-Semitism

Often, atheists blame Christian anti-Semitism for building the foundation which led to the persecution of Jews in the Holocaust. While Christian anti-Judaism (and Jewish anti-Christianity) has a long history, in the 19th and 20th centuries, both Christians and Jews recognized that their faiths had common ethical teachings, and Christians proclaimed persecution of Jews to be un-Christian, while Jews started to admit that Christianity was a social good, even using terms like �Judeo-Christianity� to describe the ethics common to both faiths (p. 74). Interestingly, this started to become really pronounced just as the Nazis were beginning to persecute the Jews.

It was Christians who risked their own well-being to help Jews.

As Walker showed earlier in his book, those who were the most vehemently anti-Semitic were also opposed to Christianity. But it was Christians who risked their own well-being to help Jews. In 1933, Cardinal Faulhaber stored the religious objects of Bavaria�s synagogue in his palace to protect them from destruction. Pastors and other Christian leaders spoke out against the boycotts of Jewish businesses that year, which is probably why the official boycott only lasted one day (p. 77).

The next year, �the World Baptist Congress �deplored and condemned as a violation of the law of God, the Heavenly Father, all racial animosity and every form of oppression or unfair discrimination against the Jews�� (p. 78). Christians [mostly] refused to exclude Jewish people from their congregations, affirming that to impose �a racial law as a prerequisite of Christian communion � loses Christ himself, who is the goal of even this human, purely temporal law� (p. 78). Gentile Christian support for these Jewish Christians was critically important, because while non-Christian Jews could turn to Jewish relief agencies, they would not give aid to Christian Jews; �if real Christians in Germany did not help them, no one would� (p. 81).

While much Church aid and effort was spent on helping specifically Christian Jews, Christians also had sympathy for the plight of non-Christian Jews as well, and opposed the anti-Semitic racism which inspired the persecution of the Jews in Germany. The Church�s statements against anti-Semitism were never limited to support Christian Jews; some went as far as to say, �No believing Christian and no humane-minded person can be an anti-Semite. � [T]he New Testament is inseparably connected with the Old, and we Christians with our Jewish heritage� (p. 83). As a result of the Christians� courageous defense of the Jewish people in Germany, Freud and Einstein, both secular Jews who had previously held Christianity in contempt, publically acknowledged the Church for its support of Jews (pp. 85�86).

Useful resource, flawed style

The Swastika Against the Cross has many of the flaws one might expect in a book of its size. At times, one would like more elaboration in his statements. The short length of the book leaves little room for extra details that might make this a truly excellent study, but the space might have been used more effectively. Sometimes he uses footnoted sound bites to argue his point (although there are �meatier� parts), rather than putting the evidence in the text. Some flaws may also stem from the fact that the book is self-published and lacked the editing expertise that it badly needed. He has the odd habit of including an extended quote, then paraphrasing that quote exactly. This becomes repetitive. In one chapter, he repeatedly introduces a certain authority, quotes the authority, then tells the qualifications of that authority, which is an odd way of proceeding, and also adds to the repetitiveness of the book.

These weaknesses might be outweighed by the readability of such a short book, easily finished in an afternoon, which would not intimidate laypeople. The author meticulously documents his sources for those interested in further study, making the lack of detail slightly less an obstacle. In any case, the goal of this book was not to be a comprehensive resource, but to refute the allegation that Christianity was the dominant ideology behind Nazi Germany. Walker does accomplish that, though better style and more efficient use of space would have made it easier on the reader.

These people sure do love their revisionist history. It's no wonder this book was self-published.

# ? Aug 30, 2011 04:51

Pesky Splinter: Feb 16, 2011; A worried pug.

Bruce Leroy posted:

Holy. loving. poo poo.

"NAZI Christian stuff"

These people sure do love their revisionist history. It's no wonder this book was self-published.

Three words:

Gott. Mit. Uns.

God (is) with us.

German census of 1939 concluded that " 54 percent of Germans considered themselves Protestant and 40 percent considered themselves Catholic, with only 3.5 percent claiming to be neo-pagan "believers in God," and 1.5 percent unbelievers."

# ? Aug 30, 2011 11:04

Bruce Leroy: Jun 10, 2010

Pesky Splinter posted:

Three words:

Gott. Mit. Uns.

God (is) with us.

German census of 1939 concluded that " 54 percent of Germans considered themselves Protestant and 40 percent considered themselves Catholic, with only 3.5 percent claiming to be neo-pagan "believers in God," and 1.5 percent unbelievers."

Pfft, like these people care about facts and statistics.

Even if you bring them evidence, they'll pull a No True Scotsman fallacy and claim that those Germans weren't "real Christians," just like they don't consider liberal Catholics to be real Catholics or Obama to be a Christian.

To these Conservapedia-type assholes, "Christian" is defined as "person with the same political, social, and economic views as us, who believes in Jesus," similar to how they define "American" and/or "patriot" as "American citizen with the same political, social, and economic views as us."

# ? Aug 30, 2011 11:40

Sarion: Dec 24, 2003

Did you know that the KKK was liberal too!

Ku Klux Klan posted:

The Klan voiced strong support for prohibition, opposed sexual immorality and promoted racism, liberalism, anti-Semitism, anti-Catholicism and immigration restriction.

Not surprisingly, there is no explanation as to what made them liberal. Especially since "support for prohibition, opposed sexual immorality, and immigration restriction" are all typically Conservative stances.

# ? Aug 30, 2011 21:53

Bruce Leroy: Jun 10, 2010

Sarion posted:

Did you know that the KKK was liberal too!

Not surprisingly, there is no explanation as to what made them liberal. Especially since "support for prohibition, opposed sexual immorality, and immigration restriction" are all typically Conservative stances.

Maybe they mean it in terms of classical liberalism, i.e. a laissez faire approach to economics, which would make sense in light of their opposition to federal laws preventing discrimination against minorities.

# ? Aug 30, 2011 22:44

duck monster: Dec 15, 2004

Sarion posted:

Did you know that the KKK was liberal too!

Not surprisingly, there is no explanation as to what made them liberal. Especially since "support for prohibition, opposed sexual immorality, and immigration restriction" are all typically Conservative stances.

Its because the KKK used to be aligned with the Democrats and would actually run terrorist attacks on Republican candidates. In fact a few Klansman still claim the alegiance, such as David Duke. Their patronage is generally not welcome by the rest of the party. Most would I imagine be firm republicans now.

What they forget to mention at the time was the Democrats of the time where the southern slaveholders and right wing cunts, and the republicans where the progressive party of the north.

I'm sure theres someone here with a better knowledge of US history than my foreigner self, that can clarify how this ideological pole-shift came about. I do know that Abraham Lincoln would have rolled in his grave over it.

# ? Aug 30, 2011 23:47

Stalingrad: Feb 5, 2011

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

Pretty much all you need to know.

# ? Aug 30, 2011 23:59

Bruce Leroy: Jun 10, 2010

duck monster posted:

Its because the KKK used to be aligned with the Democrats and would actually run terrorist attacks on Republican candidates. In fact a few Klansman still claim the alegiance, such as David Duke. Their patronage is generally not welcome by the rest of the party. Most would I imagine be firm republicans now.

What they forget to mention at the time was the Democrats of the time where the southern slaveholders and right wing cunts, and the republicans where the progressive party of the north.

I'm sure theres someone here with a better knowledge of US history than my foreigner self, that can clarify how this ideological pole-shift came about. I do know that Abraham Lincoln would have rolled in his grave over it.

It's actually kind of complicated.

The Democratic Party has generally been quite diverse from it's beginnings, so you end up with some very conservative, states' rights people and liberal, urban people in the same political party. This generally holds for quite a long period and can be seen in the contrast between FDR and southern Democrats during his terms as president. FDR actually tried to force conservative southern Democrats out of office during the 1938 mid-term elections but was largely unsuccessful and almost threatened his reelection in 1940. The early Republican Party was generally a reaction to the southern, states' rights, pro-slavery Democrats, as the primary platform for the early Republican Party was ending slavery, either through immediate emancipation or the long game of gradually outlawing slavery by preventing territories and new states from having legalized slavery (e.g. the Lincoln-Douglas debates). So, for every John C. Calhoun pro-slavery Democrat, you had a northern, urban Democrat concerned with issues like immigrant rights, poverty, etc., and Republicans ranged from anti-slavery moderates to firebrands that wanted to gently caress the South up.

The Republicans didn't have a monopoly on progressives during this period (late antebellum period to World War I), but progressive ideas and platforms were common compared to the modern GOP. This is evident when you look at the last two progressive Republican presidents Teddy Roosevelt and Taft. These two were very much in favor of environmental protection laws, business regulations (e.g. Teddy's "trust buster" nickname), and other progressive policies but their Republican successors, Harding and Coolidge, took a markedly different approach, including substantial corporatism and deregulation, which directly contributed to causing the Great Depression. Thus, there was some kind of substantial change between Taft's and Harding's presidencies, possibly due to Teddy splitting the vote with his Bull Moose Party in 1912.

The other main shift in political parties came during the 1960s. The arch-conservative southern Democrats known as the Dixiecrats were adamantly against desegregation, Black civil rights, and other progressive social and political movements. Southern Republicans were of similar beliefs and sentiments and thereby formed a voting bloc against legislation like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and causing the votes on civil rights legislation to largely fall on socio-political ideology and geographic region, rather than political party affiliation. After the watershed political achievements of the Civil Rights Movement, the Dixiecrats left the Democratic Party and joined with the more ideologically-similar Republican Party, e.g. leading Dixiecrat politician Strom Thurmond joining the Republican Party for the rest of his political career.

Thus, the largely progressive Republican Party of the late 19th and early 20th centuries shifted towards conservatism (in the American sense of the word), while the Democratic Party absorbed some of the progressive former Republicans but also retained quite a bit of its diversity (e.g. Blue Dog Republicans).

# ? Aug 31, 2011 00:19

Captain_Maclaine: Sep 30, 2001; Every moment that I'm alive, I pray for death!

duck monster posted:

I'm sure theres someone here with a better knowledge of US history than my foreigner self, that can clarify how this ideological pole-shift came about. I do know that Abraham Lincoln would have rolled in his grave over it.

In very brief, the switchover came when the remaining Dixiecrats jumped ship over civil rights-era stuff. It started post-WWII and really culminated in the 60s when first JFK and then LBJ deeply alienated that voter block by (however fecklessly at times) supporting equal rights and the end of segregation.

Or, you know, what Stalingrad just posted above me.

# ? Aug 31, 2011 00:25

Megillah Gorilla: Sep 22, 2003; If only all of life's problems could be solved by smoking a professor of ancient evil texts.; Bread Liar

OneEightHundred posted:

Actually part of the added irony is it's not anti-bike, it's just straight-out made for big cars.

Like try making a left turn at a light on a motorcycle. Oh that's right you can't, because like 80% of traffic sensors won't pick up a motorcycle so you either have to run it or wait for a car to pull up behind you.

There are also plenty of intersections which don't go green at all (i.e. a minor road intersecting a major one) without the sensors, so you occasionally can't even go straight. At least on a bike you can cheat and hit the crosswalk signal.

Or you could buy one of these electromagnets designed to generate a large enough magnetic field to trip the sensors under the road.

# ? Aug 31, 2011 09:16

RagnarokAngel: Oct 5, 2006; Black Magic Extraordinaire

Tartarus Sauce posted:

True indeed. Be a car, or GTFO.

Just look at how most outdoor shopping centers are designed, after all--the stores are placed so far apart, it's clear that the basic assumption is that no one will be loony enough to actually walk and shop!

Gotta be honest where is this cause I've never seen it.

# ? Aug 31, 2011 11:41

Sarion: Dec 24, 2003

Most suburban shopping areas. You might have a couple stores next to each other, like a Target and a Payless Shoes. But then if you want to go to Gamestop you have to get in your car, drive down the road a little to get to another little area that has the Pet Smart, Gamestop, and Baby's R Us. The entire place is completely congested with people driving from one store to another, and most of the land is used up for parking lots. Generally its a result of land being so cheap that it's easier to build out instead of up.

# ? Aug 31, 2011 12:22

VideoTapir: Oct 18, 2005; He'll tire eventually.

RagnarokAngel posted:

Gotta be honest where is this cause I've never seen it.

There's a strip mall in Casa Grande, AZ, that kind of fits this description.

# ? Aug 31, 2011 16:55

weird vanilla: Mar 20, 2002; When their numbers dwindled from 50 to 8, the other dwarves began to suspect Hungry.

Sarion posted:

Most suburban shopping areas. You might have a couple stores next to each other, like a Target and a Payless Shoes. But then if you want to go to Gamestop you have to get in your car, drive down the road a little to get to another little area that has the Pet Smart, Gamestop, and Baby's R Us. The entire place is completely congested with people driving from one store to another, and most of the land is used up for parking lots. Generally its a result of land being so cheap that it's easier to build out instead of up.

That isn't really based on the principle that nobody will walk shop to shop, it's a side effect of every business wanting a parking lot large enough that people will *absolutely never* have trouble finding parking for their store (and, as you note, the affordability of the land for the lot).

# ? Aug 31, 2011 17:53

Nintendo Kid: Aug 4, 2011; by Smythe

Sarion posted:

Most suburban shopping areas. You might have a couple stores next to each other, like a Target and a Payless Shoes. But then if you want to go to Gamestop you have to get in your car, drive down the road a little to get to another little area that has the Pet Smart, Gamestop, and Baby's R Us. The entire place is completely congested with people driving from one store to another, and most of the land is used up for parking lots. Generally its a result of land being so cheap that it's easier to build out instead of up.

That actually sounds like the two shopping areas were built at different times, on different legal plots of land, and often by different developers.

And then nobody wants to pay to build a direct connection between the lots.

# ? Aug 31, 2011 19:03

jojoinnit: Dec 13, 2010; Strength and speed, that's why you're a special agent.

RagnarokAngel posted:

Gotta be honest where is this cause I've never seen it.

Where I used to live had this, kinda. There was a small access road in between that divided the two sections of the strip mall in half. I would always park at one and walk across the road to the other section if I needed to go there and people would always look at me like I was crazy because there wasn't even a footpath built, there was literally no safe way to cross that road. It boggles me mind how people will get in their cars and drive twenty feet to a different section of the same mall.

# ? Aug 31, 2011 19:12

Gynocentric Regime: Jun 9, 2010; by Cyrano4747

weird vanilla posted:

That isn't really based on the principle that nobody will walk shop to shop, it's a side effect of every business wanting a parking lot large enough that people will *absolutely never* have trouble finding parking for their store (and, as you note, the affordability of the land for the lot).

This is why I love the suburbs, even though I know they're terrible. I hate dealing with parallel parking, parking meters and/or parking garages when I just want to go to the Apple store goddamnit!

# ? Aug 31, 2011 20:22

Solstice: Mar 12, 2002; Non-violent for the entire family!

RagnarokAngel posted:

Gotta be honest where is this cause I've never seen it.

Jacksonville, Florida's Town Center is a pretty loving terrible example:

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=jacksonville,+fl&ll=30.256037,-81.529219&spn=0.009888,0.017306&gl=us&t=h&z=17&vpsrc=6

It's probably only about 2 km from one end to the other so theoretically it's walk-able but I can assure you no one walks from that Target to the Ethan Allen. There aren't even contiguous footpaths between some of the stores.

# ? Aug 31, 2011 22:06

Meow Tse-tung: Oct 11, 2004; No one cat should have all that power

RagnarokAngel posted:

Gotta be honest where is this cause I've never seen it.

"Urban sprawl" is probably a great way to describe it. In a lot of places things are spread out over miles that are only really accessible by car, compared to dense, efficient bike/pedestrian/public transit friendly places like urban centers.

# ? Sep 1, 2011 02:47

modig: Aug 20, 2002

I always wondered why Chuck Norris hadn't won an oscar, and now I know.

Conservapedia posted:

Please note; Chuck has received no Academy Awards for his acting because Hollywood is liberal and refuses to acknowledge his acting talent.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Chuck_Norris

# ? Sep 1, 2011 02:49

Node: May 20, 2001; KICKED IN THE COOTER; Taco Defender

modig posted:

I always wondered why Chuck Norris hadn't won an oscar, and now I know.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Chuck_Norris

I loving love Convservapedia.

# ? Sep 1, 2011 02:52

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 10, 2024 03:38

JT Jag: Aug 30, 2009; #1 Jaguars Sunk Cost Fallacy-Haver

Solstice posted:

Jacksonville, Florida's Town Center is a pretty loving terrible example:

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=jacksonville,+fl&ll=30.256037,-81.529219&spn=0.009888,0.017306&gl=us&t=h&z=17&vpsrc=6

It's probably only about 2 km from one end to the other so theoretically it's walk-able but I can assure you no one walks from that Target to the Ethan Allen. There aren't even contiguous footpaths between some of the stores.

I live in the area and have been there many, many times and I can testify to this. There are tiny strips of areas where you can walk, it's not that too long of a haul from, say, the Apple Store to the aforementioned Target (though you have to wander through three separate shopping areas that are pretty much entirely separate from eachother) but there are huge portions of the mall that are completely far-flung. It it obviously designed for cars.

# ? Sep 1, 2011 03:12

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The Best (Worst) Of Conservapedia

«‹›441 »