|
From the World History Final Exam talk page:quote:The Crusades were: Oh, so ALL the answers are wrong. But that's fine, because as Andy points out: quote:You make good points, but the "best answer" is still the same.
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2011 15:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 12:25 |
|
|
Skeksis posted:From the World History Final Exam talk page: Not that I want to even slightly defend Schlafly, but for one, the official language listening comprehension tests I have been in (English is not my native tongue), when all the options seem wrong, you have to pick the least wrong option. Similarly, if two or more options all seem technically correct, you have to pick the one that is the most correct. Though when there have been multiple correct options, the board of education usually (after receiving a flurry of complaints), will accept all the correct choices. This is not in the US, if that isn't clear.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2011 16:41
|
|
|
quote:20. Each of the following is an example of monotheism EXCEPT: I'd want to know what Andy put as the answer for this: Judaism is definitely monotheistic, but Buddhism is more of a philosophy and isn't necessarily theistic (it's very easy to be an atheist Buddhist), Unitarians claim that the Trinity is arguably polytheistic, and Islam, of course, is the target of claims by the wingnut right that they also worship Muhammad/the Moon/not Allah exclusively.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2011 16:58
|
|
|
It's b because Andy has no grasp of how a faith can be non-theistic so he assumes the multiple Buddhas are all gods.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2011 17:16
|
|
|
Trogdos! posted:Not that I want to even slightly defend Schlafly, but for one, the official language listening comprehension tests I have been in (English is not my native tongue), when all the options seem wrong, you have to pick the least wrong option. Similarly, if two or more options all seem technically correct, you have to pick the one that is the most correct. The difference is though, that history has to deal in substanciated facts and figures. You can't just have a question like this for example: In what year was the Battle of Hastings fought? 1)AD 1115 2)32 BC 3)AD 1784 4)AD 1999 and then award points to the closest year. One of the options should be the correct one. If there is no correct option, then the writer of the exam is a cretinous baffon. For a language one usage one however, it would be a tad different. e.g (pulling this out of my arse): What is the correct way to answer a telephone call from an unknown number? 1) Wassup bitch? 2) Who's speaking? 3) To whom am I speaking? 4) *heavy breathing noises* You could say that 2 and 3 are the more correct ways, or whatever. There's leeway enough with a question like that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2011 17:50
|
|
|
Andy Schlafly posted:46. If this influential person in World History were able to speak to our class for a few minutes, he might give you the following advice: “Master a trade or useful activity as a teenager, as I did. Become the world’s greatest expert at it. Develop an ambition for it that has no limits. Then persevere in finding someone to support your dream. Add to that the fearless advantage of Christian faith, and you will be able to unlock a great discovery that will change the world more than you will ever realize.” Who would be most likely to give you that advice? I didn't know Christopher Columbus was also an inspirational writer. edit: oh god, don't tell me that's actually the intended answer Goatse James Bond fucked around with this message at 18:03 on Dec 26, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2011 18:00
|
|
|
TinTower posted:I'd want to know what Andy put as the answer for this: Judaism is definitely monotheistic, but Buddhism is more of a philosophy and isn't necessarily theistic (it's very easy to be an atheist Buddhist), Unitarians claim that the Trinity is arguably polytheistic, and Islam, of course, is the target of claims by the wingnut right that they also worship Muhammad/the Moon/not Allah exclusively.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2011 18:01
|
|
|
Glitterbomber posted:It's b because Andy has no grasp of how a faith can be non-theistic so he assumes the multiple Buddhas are all gods. I'm going to give him the benefit of doubt and assume he knows buddhism has no gods. OneEightHundred posted:It's even weirder with Andy being a Catholic, which is arguably one of the most polytheistic of the Christian denominations, what with a whole canon of saints that apparently have earthly specialties and can be prayed to for intervention individually. 
MeLKoR fucked around with this message at 18:05 on Dec 26, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2011 18:01
|
|
|
MeLKoR posted:I'm going to give him the benefit of doubt and assume he knows buddhism has no gods. You have way more faith in him then I do.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2011 18:08
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:I didn't know Christopher Columbus was also an inspirational writer. Unfortunatley I think it is... David Hume was highly critcal of the Church, so that's a probable, no. Lenin was a Communist so obviously Andy wouldn't label him an someone inspirational, and Atatürk was Muslim, so also no. Schlafly is such a moron 
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2011 18:31
|
|
|
So if you choose Christian, you get to take the Fearless Feat during character creation? Really though, what the gently caress is he talking about? Most of the conservative Christians I know seem to live in a constant bubble of fear.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2011 19:59
|
|
|
MeLKoR posted:Legend goes that MacArthur was pushing to nuke China and possibly the USSR during the Korean war and that that was why he was relieved of command. It would follow then that Truman, like all no good american hating traitorous liberal commie presidents prevented victory in the war by not allowing MacArthur Holy poo poo they're insane if they thought anything good would have come out of McArthur "winning the war."
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2011 00:23
|
|
|
Sarion posted:So if you choose Christian, you get to take the Fearless Feat during character creation? I suppose the fearless attitude comes from equal parts "God's Will" and the certainty that those who have lived well, done good works, and been Good Christians have nothing to fear from death or anything else. That's just conjecture, though, and I also want to know what's up with the utter terror that so many conservative Christians live in. Say again, if you've been a good Christian you have nothing to fear from anything, you are (probably) destined for Heaven whatever your neighbor may do.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2011 05:07
|
|
|
jojoinnit posted:World history final exam has been fully graded Hah, that question "for girls only" is flawed because all the answers are wrong. Obviously, the answer is supposed to be "Marx," implying Karl Marx, but Joseph Marx was a famous Austrian composer. Also, how is it a "history" question to ask what percentage of the current world population is Christian? Skeksis posted:From the World History Final Exam talk page: To be fair to Schlafly (ugh, how I hate myself for having written that), I had a teacher in my public high school who frequently said the same thing, though not in response to a question with all wrong choices, but rather when a question had two or more choices that could be right. Being a grade-grubbing nerd, I would always try to argue for more points on the basis that the "wrong" answer I chose was technically correct, but he'd just dismiss me with "Well, you should have picked the other answer because it's more correct." This would piss me off to no end but I kept my mouth shut because I didn't want to piss him off and screw myself over for the rest of the year in his class. I always wanted to say, "Bitch, you wrote the loving test. Take some responsibility for having written a lovely question and give me my loving points." darthbob88 posted:I suppose the fearless attitude comes from equal parts "God's Will" and the certainty that those who have lived well, done good works, and been Good Christians have nothing to fear from death or anything else. That's just conjecture, though, and I also want to know what's up with the utter terror that so many conservative Christians live in. Say again, if you've been a good Christian you have nothing to fear from anything, you are (probably) destined for Heaven whatever your neighbor may do. Yeah, that's why I'm so perplexed by all the Christians I've known personally and those I've just read about who are so adamant about punishing sinners and those who aren't following their Christian morality. I mean, is God going to punish you personally if a couple of gay guys can get married?
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2011 06:35
|
|
|
Bruce Leroy posted:Yeah, that's why I'm so perplexed by all the Christians I've known personally and those I've just read about who are so adamant about punishing sinners and those who aren't following their Christian morality. I mean, is God going to punish you personally if a couple of gay guys can get married? You'll find that's an extremely recurrent theme.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2011 08:25
|
|
|
OneEightHundred posted:The logic is more along the lines of "God said gay sex is wrong, so we should be discouraging it." But shouldn't they leave all that up to God? In the New Testament, there's quite a few instances of Jesus telling everyone that they shouldn't be judging other people and should really only be concerned with their failings, so there's substantial foundation for Christian to just mind their own business and not get involved in what is at best soft theocracy. From what I've read on Conservapedia, their interpretation of these same passages are that they can start judging other people they become religiously perfect (for lack of a better word). Therefore, because they all judge themselves as devout both in belief and action (usually just by interpreting passages in a favorable way and ignoring those they can't), it's fine for them to start hating on gays and telling women what they can and can't do with their bodies.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2011 08:52
|
|
|
This essay is moving. And this one was filed under "comedy".
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2011 08:56
|
|
|
FoiledAgain posted:This essay is moving. That one links to what's still one of my favorite pages on Conservapedia. http://conservapedia.com/Poe%27s_law
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2011 08:58
|
|
|
^^ The talk page for that page redirects to the article on evolution.  There's a particular breed of Christianity out there where the followers believe that on judgment day God is going to hold them accountable for the actions of basically everyone on earth and not just them. So basically it's not enough for them to not sin, other people around them sinning is just as bad as if they were doing the sinning themselves. I don't remember what the particular philosophy is called but I think that ebook on authoritarians talks about it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2011 09:00
|
|
|
Bruce Leroy posted:Yeah, that's why I'm so perplexed by all the Christians I've known personally and those I've just read about who are so adamant about punishing sinners and those who aren't following their Christian morality. I mean, is God going to punish you personally if a couple of gay guys can get married? Let's not forget the most famous saying in the Bible: "Judge everyone, you motherfuckers, because they're judging you right back." ...wait, I think I did that wrong. "Everyone in the world is going to gently caress you over. Be smart, gently caress them over first." No, that was my best friend in high school. Hmmm. What -did- the Bible say about being a judgmental rear end in a top hat and sticking your nose in everyone else's business, again?
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2011 09:53
|
|
|
Idran posted:That one links to what's still one of my favorite pages on Conservapedia. Gotta love the fact that even though the essay page contains only an image and a bunch of links there's still forty-odd edits to the page, all by Conservative, over a six month period.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2011 10:04
|
|
|
Idran posted:That one links to what's still one of my favorite pages on Conservapedia. Conservapedians are aware that Poe's Law isn't just used for creationism and other religious stuff, right? Or is the fact that it can easily be applied to creationists too much for them to tolerate it at all?
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2011 11:24
|
|
|
From the girls like ponies more then atheists talk page http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Essay:_Ponies_vs._atheism_-_Ponies_win comes this fantastic quote that makes me feel like almost the whole world is atheist. quote:Female Atheist? And some clips from the style page http://conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Manual_of_Style quote:The inclusion of sexual orientation in a biography is generally prohibited due to the Commandment against gossip. In the rare instance where the subject has publicly self-identified that their sexuality is important, then the subject's own quotes should be used as a source. I guess this is true, Conservative isn't a clever pseudonym. quote:Conservapedia is more trustworthy than Wikipedia, because most of the senior staff are real people (not anonymous hacks hiding behind their clever pseudonyms).
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2011 12:11
|
|
|
Fitzdraco posted:From the girls like ponies more then atheists talk page Hmm, methinks the man doth protest too much. I'm guessing that he tried dating an atheist woman(women?) who laughed in his face for being the kind of person who would post in earnest on Conservapedia (e.g. Young Earth Creationist). Fitzdraco posted:I guess this is true, Conservative isn't a clever pseudonym. Using a pseudonym means someone isn't a "real person?" So, Mark Twain wasn't a real person? How about Ayn Rand?
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2011 13:08
|
|
|
Bruce Leroy posted:Hmm, methinks the man doth protest too much. I'm guessing that he tried dating an atheist woman(women?) who laughed in his face for being the kind of person who would post in earnest on Conservapedia (e.g. Young Earth Creationist). Methinks the man's trolling the gently caress out of Conservapedia.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2011 14:35
|
|
|
Bruce Leroy posted:But shouldn't they leave all that up to God? Most of these people are dominionists that believe that Christ won't return to Earth until all the Earth is united under Christianity and certain other arbitrary conditions are met (Jews living in Israel, etc.). Not that that answer makes it any less horrifying as to why they want to "punish" gay people, women who have abortions, etc. I mean, "because we want the world to end and all the sinners to get punished for all eternity GLORY HALLELUJAH" isn't quite a better reason for wanting to do something than "sinners offend my sense of morality". Edit: Rather, Christ won't rapture away the Christians until those conditions are met, at which point you get the anti-christ and the tribulation and all the other silly extra-biblical poo poo that goes with it. It kind of puts their loathing of gay people, muslims, women and everything else in perspective. To dominionists, these people aren't just sinners that deserve to be punished, their mere existence is preventing the dominionist from getting to meet up with Jesus and is preventing the will of God re: the end of the world from being done. As if God, the all-powerful, omnipotent being that he supposedly is, is all "WHOA, hold up there angels, we can't go down there and end the world yet. There are still GAYS and LIBERALS around". C.C.C.P. fucked around with this message at 16:57 on Dec 27, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2011 16:49
|
|
|
Bruce Leroy posted:But shouldn't they leave all that up to God? I think it might be more enlightening to look at the judiciary, since it exhibits a very similar phenomenon, where there are essentially two schools of thought: The liberal "follow the principles" school, and the conservative "follow the rules" school. The people who try to legislate the gay away are very much in the "follow the rules" camp, and are convinced that we only even have rules because God gave them to us. Drugs might be another stark example, where the mere fact that people are breaking the law can bring condemnation. OneEightHundred fucked around with this message at 17:54 on Dec 27, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2011 17:10
|
|
|
OneEightHundred posted:Drugs might be another stark example, where the mere fact that people are breaking the law can bring condemnation. The book The Authoritarians talks about that a lot. Basically, conservatives are exponentially more likely to think that because something is illegal, it is inherently immoral. Nevermind that interracial marriage, women (and non-property owning men) voting, etc. used to be illegal and thus presumably immoral and that, of course, morality is completely objective to these people meaning that if something was illegal and ergo immoral, it stands to reason that it is objectively immoral for ever since anything else would be oogah boogah subjective morality.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2011 17:36
|
|
|
C.C.C.P. posted:Most of these people are dominionists that believe that Christ won't return to Earth until all the Earth is united under Christianity and certain other arbitrary conditions are met (Jews living in Israel, etc.). The whole thing with gays is that God disliking sexual deviancy is a recurring theme, and as members of the fairly solid majority of people not interested in gay sex, they have no trouble seeing gays as deviants, especially when the guy with the mic on Sunday confirmed it with a Bible passage calling them an "abomination." Some of it is also just flat-out resistance to change. There are a lot of people who get really bothered when resources are being devoted to something that, to them, was never a problem. Why, society survived for thousands of years without gay marriage, so why implement it today!? I think the theology is ultimately on the side of the homophobes though: The "judge not" thing is a concession that gays are doing something wrong, and saying "God wouldn't punish people for doing things they didn't know were wrong" isn't a good rationale for giving it government recognition or for not "informing" them that they are doing something wrong. Nevermind that it's an injunction against hypocrisy, not being judgmental, people who aren't gay would have no qualms with hurling scorn at gays because if God judges them by the "is not gay" measure then surely they'll pass! It would probably be more productive to focus on why legislation should not make theological presumptions. OneEightHundred fucked around with this message at 18:33 on Dec 27, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2011 18:27
|
|
|
OneEightHundred posted:I don't know if most of them are thinking about it that hard. A lot of them are thinking that hard with regards to Israel, at the very least. I was dragged along to church when I was little; my family was Southern Baptist which, while horribly wacky and regressive, is pretty much mainstream for America. I remember hearing all about how the Jews returning to Israel were a part of Gods plan and how even though they weren't saved, they still were God's chosen people and had a special role to play in the end times (I guess the implication was that that "role" was "to be in Israel").
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2011 18:36
|
|
|
Also, I agree that most of them don't think of it as deeply as like "If we get rid of all gays, the world will be 13.7% closer to Rapture-Ready(tm)!" But I think they feel a general feeling that Group X is doing a thing God says is a no-no and that they shouldn't be allowed to do whatever it is because if they do, others will see that whatever it is is okay to do and then they'll do it and then OH GOD SUDDENLY THE WORLD IS LESS CHRISTIAN OVERALL  Basically, even if Joe and Jane Fundie aren't consciously buying into the overt message that Undesirables must be Dealt With for Jesus to come back, they're following along with a message preached by someone who DOES buy into that message. So yeah, I agree with the "trusting preachers to disseminate the knowledge because reading the Bible sure is hard with all those 'thee's' and 'thou's'" thing totally.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2011 18:44
|
|
|
Conservapedia is actually a great thing because it gives the conservative nuts a place to fool around and keep them away from Wikipedia.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2011 21:24
|
|
|
Counter-point: If you don't think Wikipedia should have a page detailing how to accept Jesus Christ as your personal lord and savior like Conservapedia does, you literally hate America.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2011 21:35
|
|
|
C.C.C.P. posted:Counter-point: If you don't think Wikipedia should have a page detailing how to accept Jesus Christ as your personal lord and savior like Conservapedia does, you literally hate America. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2011 21:41
|
|
|
Iceberg-Slim posted:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance Christopher Hitchens, you scamp you, I thought you had died!
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2011 21:45
|
|
|
OneEightHundred posted:The logic is more along the lines of "God said gay sex is wrong, so we should be discouraging it." And yet, their argument against UHC is "God wants us to give out of the goodness of our hearts, not have the government force us to. By the way, here's why we shouldn't give those lazy welfare queens medicine out of the goodness of our hearts..."
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2011 23:15
|
|
|
Dr Christmas posted:And yet, their argument against UHC is "God wants us to give out of the goodness of our hearts, not have the government force us to. DON'T YOU SEE, YOU BROKE THE RULES! It's that and the typical "government is so inefficient, hurf durf pork projects and million dollar toilet seat."
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2011 23:49
|
|
|
http://conservapedia.com/George_Takei posted:
They need recruiters? If you write, I will make it better.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2011 00:46
|
|
|
Parahexavoctal posted:They need recruiters? To be fair, Takei could maybe recruit me to join the KKK if he tried, so maybe they're trying to warn us about his magic mind control powers?
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2011 00:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 12:25 |
|
|
Parahexavoctal posted:They need recruiters? I talked to a homosexual recuiter back in the day but the military gave better benefits
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2011 01:10
|
|