|
quote:Tightfisted atheist wiki participants I don't even know what he's talking about, but the  is just awesome.God drat those Lieberals at the New York Times charging for their service in a capitalistic market. 
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2012 20:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 21:48 |
|
|
sicarius posted:You do realize that raising gas prices would hurt so many lower and middle class people that's it's absurd right, while doing almost nothing to the upper-middle to upper class folks who cruise around in their gas-guzzling SUVs. You do realise I was joking, right? In any case, it won't be the president who whacks up the fuel prices, it'll be the Conservapedians' precious free market upping the cost in response to gas guzzlers not reducing their fuel usage. Supply and demand, bitches.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2012 01:13
|
|
|
Sorry that this is horrible, literally just (barely) learned how to use photoshop to do this, but I couldn't resist.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2012 01:28
|
|
|
Are there any "true" conspiracy nuts on Conservapedia? Like, "The Jewish led Illuminati lizards are oppressing us." Conspiracy nuts, not just the "Liberals everywhere" ones.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2012 01:35
|
|
|
Ableist Kinkshamer posted:Sorry that this is horrible, literally just (barely) learned how to use photoshop to do this, but I couldn't resist. First food stamps, now tramp stamps. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2012 01:45
|
|
|
Daktar posted:You do realise I was joking, right? Nope. I thought you were just being ragey because you rode a bike and were feeling all about it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2012 02:15
|
|
|
Daktar posted:You do realise I was joking, right? In any case, it won't be the president who whacks up the fuel prices, it'll be the Conservapedians' precious free market upping the cost in response to gas guzzlers not reducing their fuel usage. Supply and demand, bitches. While you were obviously joking about the "president turning it up to 11" you did seem serious about wanting gas prices to punish SUV drivers though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2012 04:22
|
|
|
You know a lot of conservative Christians believe you shouldn't adopt because of the sins of the parents... So who's going to adopt the otherwise aborted children?
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2012 04:31
|
|
|
Mind Loving Owl posted:You know a lot of conservative Christians believe you shouldn't adopt because of the sins of the parents... Source for this? I live in Bible-land and have never once heard this. If this is something people believe it's got to be the tiniest majority.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2012 04:33
|
|
|
Maybe I'm confusing the "mainstream" with Quiverfull again. They're kind of hard to discern.
Mind Loving Owl fucked around with this message at 04:50 on Oct 15, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2012 04:37
|
|
|
Mind Loving Owl posted:Maybe I'm confusing the "mainstream" with Quiverfall again. They're kind of hard to discern. Possibly. I live in the buckle of the Bible belt and I don't think I've ever really heard people slander adoption.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2012 04:39
|
|
|
Do know there's enough of it for Wikipedia's adoption page (last time I checked) to have a "criticism of adoption" section, with links.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2012 04:45
|
|
|
Mind Loving Owl posted:Do know there's enough of it for Wikipedia's adoption page (last time I checked) to have a "criticism of adoption" section, with links. Just checked and there's nothing on the Wikipedia adoption page that indicates that any negative opinions of adoption stem from Christianity any more than they stem from "people not understanding adoption." I'm not trying to defend them here, but honestly what you said sounds like poo poo Conservapedia says about traditionally liberal groups.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2012 04:54
|
|
|
My apologies then. Though I do know at least one sect that does. Still sorry for generalizing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2012 04:58
|
|
|
I just had one of my fellow Singaporeans cite conservapedia in a facebook argument about evolution, which is making me despair. I knew slimy megachurch pastors were making huge inroads, but I didn't realize this particular bit of idiocy had spread that far.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2012 22:53
|
|
|
thekeeshman posted:I just had one of my fellow Singaporeans cite conservapedia in a facebook argument about evolution, which is making me despair. I knew slimy megachurch pastors were making huge inroads, but I didn't realize this particular bit of idiocy had spread that far. Just show Conservapedia's awful opinions on women or homosexuality to show how credible it actually is (not). Or this nice page: http://www.conservapedia.com/Essay:_Does_Richard_Dawkins_have_machismo%3F
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2012 22:59
|
|
|
Conservapedia posted:Global warming ended 16 years ago. And certain people want to keep a lid on it: [6] Conservapedia just admitted global warming was real. They are crumbling!
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2012 23:21
|
|
|
Mitchicon posted:Just show Conservapedia's awful opinions on women or homosexuality to show how credible it actually is (not). How about a page about how women don't like to date men who are homosexuals. That might convince em.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2012 00:38
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:How about a page about how women don't like to date men who are homosexuals. That might convince em. Wait, does this actually exist?
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2012 00:52
|
|
|
colonelslime posted:I don't even know what he's talking about, but the RationalWiki, I think.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2012 01:46
|
|
|
Mitchicon posted:Just show Conservapedia's awful opinions on women or homosexuality to show how credible it actually is (not). That might make them agree even more. Just show them how much conservapedia hates China.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2012 04:37
|
|
|
I pity the son of one of these guys who likes playing with dolls or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2012 05:21
|
|
|
Ableist Kinkshamer posted:Sorry that this is horrible, literally just (barely) learned how to use photoshop to do this, but I couldn't resist. You have a gift. Mind Loving Owl posted:I pity the son of one of these guys who likes playing with dolls or whatever. The only way I could see that ending is severe identity and mental issues for life. It's a depressing thought that there are kids who've had to put up with it 
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2012 10:44
|
|
|
Anyone renember that kid Andy "teaches" that got shot down for suggesting his generation isn't mentally retarded compared to the Godly Christians (and Jews, but only until Jesus) Of Yore?
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2012 10:58
|
|
|
Mind Loving Owl posted:Anyone renember that kid Andy "teaches" that got shot down for suggesting his generation isn't mentally retarded compared to the Godly Christians (and Jews, but only until Jesus) Of Yore? This? quote:
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2012 18:01
|
|
|
Third Murderer posted:This? Andy says language "devolves" rather than improves, and he'll probably cite something like rap lyrics as evidence, while at the same time arguing that language is becoming more conservative with his bullshit list of "new conservative words." There is no  big enough.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2012 18:10
|
|
|
Binowru posted:Andy says language "devolves" rather than improves, and he'll probably cite something like rap lyrics as evidence, while at the same time arguing that language is becoming more conservative with his bullshit list of "new conservative words." There is no Only liberal words follow the Second Law of Thermodynamics!
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2012 18:17
|
|
|
Third Murderer posted:This?  The kid did what was instructed for H4 you loving rear end in a top hat! He wrote something about the lecture.In a normal class, those type of questions get marked right if you can support your argument; it doesn't matter if the teacher disagrees with it, as long as you can answer the question and make a sound argument you've done what was asked. Why even loving ask those questions of only one answer is "right"?
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2012 18:42
|
|
|
I like how he asks a question about people's IQs in different time periods as though that were in some way a coherent question.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2012 19:13
|
|
|
fade5 posted:
If you don't agree with him (agreeing with him may or may not involve reading his mind), you are talking incoherent nonsense. Just another part of his inability to grasp evidence or anything close to reasonable argument. Remember, this is a guy whose idea of reality begins and ends with "IF I LIKE IT, IT'S CONSERVATIVE; OTHERWISE, IT'S LIBERAL." Ghost of Reagan Past fucked around with this message at 19:20 on Oct 16, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2012 19:18
|
|
|
My favorite part of that test snippet is how much of a snide jackass he comes off as. "How much of 'modern science' did you develop, or do you even understand?" Who the gently caress says something like that to a kid trying to answer a test question?
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2012 20:59
|
|
|
fade5 posted:
Reminder that he and who he represents are considered respected figures in the homeschooling, as if you needed more reason to know that poo poo is nothing but trash.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2012 21:16
|
|
|
I think Conservapedia is really ramping up the crazy as the election nears. I was just on their Barack Obama page, and the top image has changed from his presidential portrait to the picture of him wearing a turban in Indonesia.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2012 01:52
|
|
|
How are people allowed to teach kids like this? Bet that kid has a major self esteem problem now "I can never be as smart as my parents..."
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2012 04:14
|
|
|
I think most kids think they're smarter than their parents until they're about 20something and then they start thinking they are again eventually. It's inescapable, really.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2012 04:16
|
|
|
Mind Loving Owl posted:How are people allowed to teach kids like this? Bet that kid has a major self esteem problem now "I can never be as smart as my parents..." Homeschoolers are people who take kids away from professionals to teach them everything themselves with no qualifications but a packet from the internet, usually because they think the schools will turn them gay or teach them that blacks are human. These are not people who care about the well-being of children.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2012 04:20
|
|
|
Glitterbomber posted:Homeschoolers are people who take kids away from professionals to teach them everything themselves with no qualifications but a packet from the internet, usually because they think the schools will turn them gay or teach them that blacks are human. There are a handful of homeschoolers who aren't this. They're the minority though. My second cousin is homeschooled because he's autistic and his mother (my cousin) prefers to do it this way than send him to an expensive, specialized school.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2012 04:24
|
|
|
sicarius posted:There are a handful of homeschoolers who aren't this. They're the minority though. My second cousin is homeschooled because he's autistic and his mother (my cousin) prefers to do it this way than send him to an expensive, specialized school. I know some young adults that were home schooled, but they were home schooled using a professional tutor who used materials beyond what the classroom had available, which was the whole point. I wonder if there are any parents who go "i don't want to send my kid to public school, I'm going to home school them" and then not intending to do it, end up falling down Andy's rabbit hole of crazy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2012 04:58
|
|
|
Does school by correspondence count? I do it because the High School here is dire. Not religiously based or anything (though my family is Catholic, but that didn't factor in).
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2012 05:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 21:48 |
|
|
Guilty Spork posted:I like how he asks a question about people's IQs in different time periods as though that were in some way a coherent question. It's also kinda funny because IQ has been increasing since testing has been done.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2012 05:04
|
|