Conservapedia

[Random Argument Man]

This is funny, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvT5YuDovHI

What's your personnal reaction? He had some points, but some other seemed a lot closed minded.
I actually never used wikipedia to support a claim.

EDIT: Let me re-do this. Is Conservapedia suitable?

Is this an anti-nonreligious information who could be reliable.

 

[internutt]

Wikipedia is not allowed to be used in Academic study. Should you list wikipedia as one of your sources in an essay you will be marked down heavily in most if not all Universities.

There are plenty of legitimate sources of information in libraries and other websites.

 

[Random Argument Man]

Wikipedia is not allowed to be used in Academic study. Should you list wikipedia as one of your sources in an essay you will be marked down heavily in most if not all Universities.

There are plenty of legitimate sources of information in libraries and other websites.

Yeah, I know. Not just marked down, but ignored.

 

[ElephantGuts]

I think that conservatives's problem is that they think it's too late for logical people to take them seriously so they may as well be as extreme and weird as they want. But it doesn't have to be too late. If more conservatives would act logically and just like a regular group they could still be on the same level as liberals.

 

[internutt]

I took a quick look at their website, the evolution section. The article spoke a lot about Hitler's views and how this lead him to persecute Jews. What? It just read like they wanted to debunk Evolution rather than write an article about it. I am Christian, do not put us all in the conservative wing, be it left or right.

Also interestingly, the Liberal bias page was much larger and more in depth than the conservative bias. Ironically they never pointed to themselves in the article.

 

[Matthew Alexander]

Wikipedia is not allowed to be used in Academic study. Should you list wikipedia as one of your sources in an essay you will be marked down heavily in most if not all Universities.

There are plenty of legitimate sources of information in libraries and other websites.

I have yet to have that happen. I'm just finishing up my BFA and on occasion use Wikipedia. Would never use it as my main source mind you, but as a secondary its good to have.

 

[Metalix Knightmare]

I took a quick look at their website, the evolution section. The article spoke a lot about Hitler's views and how this lead him to persecute Jews. What? It just read like they wanted to debunk Evolution rather than write an article about it.

Oh in the name of my heathen gods, they're using Jack Chick as a source on evolution. JACK CHICK! I didn't think anyone beyond Fred Phelps' cult took ANYTHING he said seriously!

 

[Lord Krunk]

The point of Wikipedia is to be neutralistic.

The point of conservapedia is to be horrendously right-wing.

Being a pretty left-wing guy, I absolutely hate the concept.

 

[Anarchemitis]

Well, I like it.

 

[Saskwach]

Well let?s see which one better explains a topic?

The one that gives in depth information on many, if not most of the aspects of evolution?

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

Or the one that speaks of evolution only in some crude attempt to associate it with evil, and incorrectness?

http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution

Title: Evolution
Side Picture: Adolf Hitler
I see what they did there...

 

[Lord Krunk]

Well let?s see which one better explains a topic?

The one that gives in depth information on many, if not most of the aspects of evolution?

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

Or the one that speaks of evolution only in some crude attempt to associate it with evil, and incorrectness?

http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution

Title: Evolution
Side Picture: Adolf Hitler
I see what they did there...

You should see their article on Charles Darwin. It's hilarious.

I really didn't know that Darwin died of guilt from creating the theory of evolution.

 

[Dys]

Well, I found this quite entertaining http://www.conservapedia.com/Evangelical_atheist

"denying any correlation between crime, depression, anxiety, immorality, insanity and rejection of Christianity"
"insisting that it is hypocrisy for a sinner to attend church"
"utilizing deceit if it advances atheistic goals"
I don't feel the need to elaborate on this.

 

[Aries_Split]

Have you seen their article on Homosexuality? I am so fucking pissed off right now...

Gay life consists of immoral sexual activity, particularly homosexual or bisexual. The gay lifestyle, written about as early as the Victorian Era, is contrary to established morality, usually consisting of flagrant promiscuity.

.

I'm going to go out and shoot some me some Right Wings...

 

[TheBadass]

Well let?s see which one better explains a topic?

The one that gives in depth information on many, if not most of the aspects of evolution?

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

Or the one that speaks of evolution only in some crude attempt to associate it with evil, and incorrectness?

http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution

Title: Evolution
Side Picture: Adolf Hitler
I see what they did there...

Those sneaky devils.

I saw an incredible rebuttal in the Talk Page on their article on evolution, which was for some reason ignored. I'm trying to figure out why, but my poor, Darwinist brain just can't put two and two together...

 

[stompy]

... Yeh, that's bullshit. Seriously though, they say that Wikipedia is biased, but then turn around and make this little abomination of hate. I really do wonder what things are being put in those poor kids' heads.

Edit: Multiple studies have shown a correlation between violent video games and levels of real life violence
I had a look at the source cited for this, and found something interesting... "violent video game effect sizes are larger than the effect of second hand tobacco smoke on lung cancer, the effect of lead exposure to I.Q. scores in children, and calcium intake on bone mass". According this this source, video games make me dumber...
Video game reviewers have sometimes unjustly attacked and reviewed games where religion plays a notable role. ... No, it can't be because they play like shit...

 

[smallharmlesskitten]

Does anyone else think that these people are fucked up

 

[smallharmlesskitten]

lesbian women were 2.69 times more likely to be overweight and 2.47 times more likely to be obese than all other female sexual orientation groups.[3] The abstract for this study indicated that "lesbians are at greater risk for morbidity and mortality linked to overweight and obesity.

seriously.... wtf