Colbert Report Viewers/Archive 1

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

"To those who have gone to public schools and been inundated with mainstream media their whole life, this may seem like a strong conservative bias." Not to forget those who have ever read a book and the ones that did not grow up in a cave.


I'm a wakkkkkkyyyyyyyy dem haha so everything I see on this site are such lies. It's apparent to me that you run your whole site off of lies and brainwash of the general public. So I have a question how do you sleeep at night if I wad you I'd just huddle in my bed sucking my thumb yelling for my momy. This site makes me wonder do you have a mom or a sole for that matter or did you just spawn out of the mud one day. The sad part is, I'm 15 and I see through your lies. Who ever reads this should tell me what you think at www.myspace.com/brenton_lemay "Brenton".

hi, i am a Canadian and even i can see that you use facts that have more holes than swiss cheese and are backed up by so called 'experts' that don't even have degrees in the subjects they talk about.

I'll start. How are we supposed to do that when you haven't opened this page up to editing by users who aren't registered? Whoops!

By registering, I'd say. --Ben Talk 23:39, 8 December 2009 (EST)

Doesn't that seem needlessly insular to you? While registering is simplistic, this also seems heavily uninviting to new visitors.

Well ultimately, we're about building an useful educational resource. Anyone who wouldn't even bother registering probably isn't really interested in making substantive contributions. --Ben Talk 23:45, 8 December 2009 (EST)

I'd forgotten how full of himself Colbert is. Unbelievable. It's a good thing O'Reilly is a rerun tonight, or I don't think I could take this.--Gonzo55 07:07, 9 December 2009 (EST)

The one night Colbert might have some honest, conservative viewers, and he gives half his show over to this Marxist nutcase.--Gonzo55 07:08, 9 December 2009 (EST)

Haha. Colberts the man. People anyone who has a problem with colbert caz hes full of himself?! Thats an act... COlberts the man!!!! bill o reilly is a hypocrit nut job along with glenn beck and all of his fox news hypocritical bias friends. u might as well delete this because you don't agree with me, bias BS. 00:48, 9 December 2009 (EST)00:48, 9 December 2009 (EST)00:48, 9 December 2009 (EST)~~

So, if you look at the entry on Global Warming here on Conservapedia it's blatantly obvious that there is extreme conservative bias. The first paragraph is nothing more than a subtle attack on the subject from a right wing point of view. A non bias entry would give a definition and only state the evidence for and against it and nothing else. An objective viewpoint sits in the middle and draws no conclusions. Anything that disagrees with the values of Conservapedia is immediately deemed "liberal." Here is the first paragraph from the Global Warming entry: The Global warming theory asserts that human activity causes dangerous increases in temperatures, despite studies showing the the Earth has been in a cooling pattern since 1998. Liberal scientists have insisted that man-made pollution has caused dangerous warming, but all of their computer models failed to predict cooling that the Earth is experiencing. [1] By pushing their liberal bias, they are misinforming citizens. In November 2009, emails were publicly released that demonstrated wrongful manipulation and concealment of data by scientists who have insisted that there is dangerous man-made global warming.

Conservapedia, it's great that your publishing the ultra-conservative point of view. Just don't try to claim that it is objective. It's not. DaveGBx 09:49, 10 December 2009 (EST)

I heard about this on the colbert report. I haven't had much time to explore the site, but being a senior in a public high school that was raised in an extremely conservative household, I think it's great that someone would take the time to put something like this together. Having just done a paper on organic foods, I also think it's good to see a mass media source that dares to show the conservative side of the argument and not a bunch of liberal bs about how great a starving, communist society would be.Desertdog

I'm a big Colbert and Jon Stewart fan. So obviously I was hesitant to come to this website after the interview on the Report. But I did, mostly because the guest told Colbert that this is a non-liberal-biased website. Now, to me (and my stupid little non-conservative brain), that meant that this website would try and steer clear of any bias because it claims to present the truth. I read some pages. And now I want to throw up. Thank you all for cementing my political and personal beliefs by creating a website that is the antithesis to it all. I know now why we'll never reach an understanding; your beliefs are based on false "facts" and ignorance, mine aren't. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. God only knows that you'll probably start a war on me though. Oh well.


Wow - reading this site I can't tell if you people are insane, ignorant, malicious or a combination of the above. I don't consider myself a liberal by any means but good heavens you just HAVE to know that most of your articles are outright lies. None of the articles I've read are not at all suitable for research and some contain almost no truth. I also find your complete idiocy regarding the e.coli experiment unfathomable. It makes me physically ill to see people so uneducated, so superstitious and so ideologically poisoned affecting young minds. I understand now why this site is such a laughing stock. Most of your views are for comic reasons. I know the colbert nation is going to find this quite amusing. I hope you grow up one day and give up the lie your living on conservapedia. Hryden 00:49, 9 December 2009 (EST)

I can't wait to watch the interview. Also, I'm actually Hojimachong. Hi Andy and TK and other assorted admins! I'm sincerely looking forward to acquiring a copy of this conservative Bible. Godspeed! -DavidCarlson 00:44, 9 December 2009 (EST)

I'm a little new here, but isn't most of this website in violation of Commandment #6: "Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry."?

You're joking right? This entire site is opinion - I mean they do have an article here that claims dinosaurs may still be among us ... Hryden 00:54, 9 December 2009 (EST)

Yeah I was kidding, actually I originally thought that Colbert's team had made this site up a some sort of joke.

In response to the comment about Colbert "wasting" half his show - he has guests from all over the political spectrum. I respect that a lot, despite disagreeing with several of his guests. And though it's masked in comedy, he does give enough speaking time to let the guest get a point across. It's a good way to complete complete one-sidedness. And on that note, just because this site can boast of not having a liberal bias, doesn't mean it is superior. Any bias at all provides only partial information; so don't think a conservative bias is something to brag about.

Liberal/conservative is not symmetric with respect to the truth. Conservative approaches give priority to original intent and the truth. Liberal approaches give priority to an "evolving" Constitution and holding government power. Conservatives don't care much about government titles; liberals care everything about government titles, at the expense of the truth. The liberal Hillary Clinton, for example, will never say anything that might interfere with her political ambitions, regardless of what the truth is. And I don't mean to single her out; her approach is typical for liberals.--Andy Schlafly 01:05, 9 December 2009 (EST)
Society evolves. You don't think the rules by which society lives should evolve to match that? Either way, only giving the arguments for one side of the story isn't a good thing, no matter which side of the fence you're on. Even the most specific statistics can be skewed, and unless you're giving only raw facts, and ALL raw facts, you're not giving the entire story. Is that really possible in the media? No. But deliberately giving only half the information available is essentially a lie of omission.
Though I don't know your name since you didn't sign your comment, I like where you're going when you mentioned, "only giving the arguments for one side of the story isn't a good thing, no matter which side of the fence you're on," because that's exactly what you see and what you get from Wikipedia. It's what sets Conservapedia apart from the liberal bias and censorship practices used by the MSM and the liberal Wikipedia. Unlike Wikipedia, Conservapedia understands and knows that, as Andy Schlafly said,
Liberal/conservative is not symmetric with respect to the truth. Conservative approaches give priority to original intent and the truth. Liberal approaches give priority to an "evolving" Constitution and holding government power. Conservatives don't care much about government titles; liberals care everything about government titles, at the expense of the truth.
And that's the truth. DerekE 04:12, 9 December 2009 (EST)
Actually, Derek, it's a circular argument. Conservatism cannot lay claim to the truth any more than liberalism can. Despite what Andy would have you believe, there is nothing inherent in conservatism that makes it rely more heavily on objective truth. Both ideologies respond to truth and morality as they see it. Liberal extremists are just as convinced that their beliefs are based on the world as it is, as opposed by the conservative desire to blindly maintain the status quo. Only a truly egocentric person would believe either of these extreme viewpoints. Insufficient 21:26, 9 December 2009 (EST)
Insufficient, I think you missed the primary argument regarding the differences between Conservapedia and Wikipedia. Two major differences include: (A) Conservapedia does not allow liberal censorship of conservative facts. Wikipedia editors who are far more liberal than the American public frequently censor factual information. Conservapedia does not censor any facts that comport with the basic rules. (B) Conservapedia allows original, properly labeled works, while Wikipedia does not. This promotes a more intellectual atmosphere on Conservapedia. On Wikipedia, observations based on personal experience and interviews have been dismissed as "original research." Conservapedia does not restrict research for articles in that manner. Wikipedia, however, restricts research to that of mostly opinion articles written by journalists who are mostly or always liberal; and thus, censor facts because of their personal ideology. DerekE 00:41, 10 December 2009 (EST)
No, I did read the primary argument regarding the difference. I just happen to think that it's silly. At best, you've replaced liberal censorship of conservative facts with conservative censorship of liberal facts. I think that if that were simply the case and if it were done at the same level of Wikipedia, most people would be fine with this site (though still disagree). In fact, that's what people expect when they visit the site. However, the reason that so many people are opposed to Conservapedia is that you take the issues of Wikipedia and multiply them tenfold. You replace minor biases in wording with complete lies. You replace fringe sections of ideological dissent with complete removal of disagreement. You literally mock those who disagree rather than actually trying to prove them wrong (see Evolution Syndrome). Believe me, nothing about the articles on this site is more "intellectual." As one of those "educated liberals" that Andy dislikes so much, I can say that with confidence. It promotes a more emotional atmosphere, which is an entirely different thing. Insufficient 12:41, 10 December 2009 (EST)
I'm sorry you feel that way. Sometimes the truth can be disheartening to others and may cause some to lash out. The only consideration I can think of at the moment is that, in retrospect, I suppose it reaches a point where, after some individuals refuse to admit or believe the truth and at the same time omit the truth, there's no other reaction left from dissenters except to mock the opponent for their sincere foolishness. Here's a great example, regarding John Holdren telling Congress that the Earth could be reaching a Global Warming ‘tipping point’ that would be followed by a dramatic rise in sea level. I'm sure his false comments strike fear in some people, as it is intended to; however, since Climategate revealed the facts about these fraudulent claims of Global Warming, it reaches to a point where this will occur:
Milloy said the models used by climate scientists, especially those who contributed to the most recent United Nations IPCC report, do not take account of some huge factors -- including the sun and clouds. “The models exclude that big yellow ball in the sky and they also exclude those white fluffy things that float by,” Milloy mocked. “Both of those have dramatic effects on climate on a daily basis.”[1]
Sure, you could simply ignore what Milloy is saying in spite of its truthfulness; or, contrarily, you could refuse to admit truth and throw up a smoke n' mirrors fit about how Milloy mocked Holdren for making such ridiculous claims. DerekE 13:36, 10 December 2009 (EST)
You failed to grasp the point I was making. I'm not defending Wikipedia. I'm simply saying that it's hypocritical of you to condemn Wikipedia for being biased, and then proudly proclaim your own bias. I've said twice now, all that means is that you're boasting of a lie of omission. Just because we agree that a liberal bias is a bad thing, doesn't mean you're better because you're biased to the conservative side instead. And if you agree with where I was going that it's wrong either way, then you agree that you are just as wrong with your conservative bias as many other "sources" are with their liberal bias. That's all I'm saying. KatieCol 11:14, 9 December 2009 (EST)
Also, BOTH sides have basis in truth. It's a matter of to what extent they ignore other truths that don't support their opinion that the factual basis they start out with builds up to falsehoods. And both sides are guilty of that. Not to mention, many things hotly debated in politics are either matters of perspective (i.e. moral issues, where there really is no clear-cut right and wrong, as everyone reaches their own set of values through their own life experiences), or matters of educated guessing (i.e. economic issues, where you can look at how it's worked historically and look at the various ways you think things will pan out, but you won't know exactly how an economic policy will affect the economy at any specific time or under any specific circumstances until it's been enacted). (Holy run-on sentence, Batman. Sorry about that. Having trouble articulating myself today.) Even for other issues, like environmental issues, it comes down to realizing there is some truth in both arguments. I guess my frustration is how dogmatic you are about conservatism, and I can't help but wonder how you can see that as a good thing. KatieCol 11:36, 9 December 2009 (EST)
The problem with your logic is that you're assuming the only difference between Wikipedia and Conservapedia is strictly political. It's not. It's also the academic resources that are allowed in Conservapedia but not Wikipedia. The fact is that Wikipedia allows opinions of journalists to be repeated there as though they are facts. Instead, Conservapedia requires authoritative support. Wikipedia presents as facts numerous assertions that are based merely on journalists' biased opinion. DerekE 00:54, 10 December 2009 (EST)

We're not HIDING a liberal view. This is CONSERVAPEDIA - if somebody wants to hear the liberal side of an issue, they're not going to come here. They go to wikipedia or metapedia or a site of vandals and troublemakers or some other liberal wiki. We exist to provide a conservative resource, and we fill that role very well. JacobB 01:10, 9 December 2009 (EST)

Yes, but in admitting that, you are admitting to the aforementioned lie of omission, which is essentially the entire basis for the site. Not something to brag on. So if there's going to be an argument about how terrible a thing liberal bias is, it would by hypocritical not to acknowledge that you are doing the exact same thing with the other end of the political spectrum and thus are, by your own definitions, equally wrong.

Not really. Wikipedia claims to have a neutral point of view; Conservapedia can hardly be accused of the same thing. But before you accuse us of being one-sided, I encourage you to be a little more open-minded and read some of our articles. You'll be surprised how often a straightforward and honest presentation of facts will come off as conservative - there's a good reason for this. Conservative thought is based on facts and reason, so it's no surprise that in being honest and accurate, we're accused of having a strong bias by people who don't realize this. Also, please sign your comments with 4 tildes. JacobB 01:17, 9 December 2009 (EST)

A lot of places "claim" to be neutral. But true neutrality is impossible; even if all you give is facts, the selection of facts will still present a bias. Basic knowledge of mass communications tells you that. And anyone who has had enough experience with rhetoric and propaganda can pick up on things like that. KatieCol 01:19, 9 December 2009 (EST)
A question, while yes Colbert reminded of this website, I do remember coming here a few years and it saddens me to see you are now "trustworthy." Doesn't seem like anywhere is truly "trusworthy" anymore :-( Stjimmy33 01:27, 9 December 2009 (EST)

It's probably worth noting that Colbert's "full of himself" act is an intentional parody of various right-wing political commentators (particularly Bill O'Reilly). I did find it funny when Andy discussed the number of viewers that this site receives. I'm sure that there are lots of people who prefer Conservapedia because it reinforces their worldview (woe to the poor youth that are brought up to think of it as unbiased alternative to Wikipedia), but I think that Andy seriously underestimates (or chooses to ignore) the large number of people who visit this site for personal amusement. Conservapedia was personally recommended to me as a "hilarious way to waste time" between meetings, and that is how all of my colleagues view it. Some of it's assertions are so extreme and hypocritical that many people believe it to be a satire in itself, comparable to Stephen's Colbert's act. Overall, the interview began relatively uninteresting, but improved when Stephen brought up the fact that a select few individuals get to decide on the "truth" of this website. Those who disagree get banned. What Andy described (i.e., individuals monitoring each other to ensure authenticity) does exist; it's called Wikipedia. It's true that Wikipedia is vulnerable to vandalism, but that is the price of having access to a wide breadth of knowledge with the benefit of self-monitoring. You can't have it both ways. Insufficient 01:33, 9 December 2009 (EST)

Insufficient, it's true that we block a lot more often than Wikipedia, and we don't give vandals 3 or 4 chances as Wikipedia does. However, for every vandal Wikipedia receives, there are a dozen legitimate users just waiting to undo the vandalism. Here, we have comparitively few editors trying to hold back a tide of vandalism, many of it quite shocking and disgusting, on this site, which is designed to be family-friendly. We ban users for vandalism, and we get a lot of it. But we do not ban because somebody disagrees with us, and I can prove it.
A user, BMcP, has done tremendous work contributing to our astronomy articles, but repeatedly put old-Earth viewpoints in. He wasn't banned, though! Instead, he and I reached an amicable agreement where we would treat old-Earth and young-Earth views in seperate sections, and that is how it is done now. Conservapedia is full of examples of conflict resolution and fair treatment of users just like that. JacobB 01:39, 9 December 2009 (EST)
But, for a counter-example, look at the entire relativity talk pages. A handful of technically competent editors (including RSchlafly, who appears to be a solid contributor to the site, have been shouted down by one person: ASchlafly. The relativity page is not "the best of the public" but rather the personal (and scientifically incorrect!) opinion of ASchlafly. --WLink 10:30, 9 December 2009 (EST)
"..but improved when Stephen brought up the fact that a select few individuals get to decide on the "truth" of this website. Those who disagree get banned." Insufficient, that remark of yours sounded exactly like the emails from CRU. Karajou 01:42, 9 December 2009 (EST)
Best. Response. Ever. And so true! I think he'd fit right in with the Climategate scientists. DerekE 12:30, 10 December 2009 (EST)

If that is the case Jacob, why does the article on evolution seem to neglect the vast abundance of supportive evidence in its favour? It certainly isn't hard to find someone that is able to make a valid argument for evolution, and yet the page not only makes no reference to it, but often falsely denies its existence. That page alone fully disproves Andy's claim that conservatism gives priority to truth. In the place of real facts, we get denial and an irrelevant picture of Hitler to ensure that everyone gets the idea (whether consciously or unconsciously) that evolution is evil. This is in spite of the fact that social darwinism (a misnomer) is actually not part of natural selection. I'm not saying that the effects of social darwinism should be brushed under the rug, but throwing an image of Hitler into an article about evolution is ridiculous and is fully intended to evoke emotion rather than thought. I could just as easily throw up an image of Osama Bin Laden in an article on the evils of religious faith, but that would be lazy. Once you have your facts about evolution, THEN you can worry about discussing it's social misunderstandings. Insufficient 02:11, 9 December 2009 (EST)

First of all, that's not Andy's claim, that's what conservative MEANS. Second, there are no valid arguments for evolution. If you wish to deny that social darwinism came from regular darwinism, go do it on Wikipedia. Finally, throwing UBL on a page on relgiious extremism would be silly - there are many fundamentalist Islamic clerics who, despite whatever other shortcomings they may have, are not terrorists. JacobB 02:19, 9 December 2009 (EST)

That's exactly my point. There are even more evolutionists that, "despite whatever shortcomings they may have," aren't Hitler, thus making his picture silly. As for valid arguments for evolution, there are many...they're not hard to find either. Despite what this site would have you believe, there is fossil evidence to support it, it follows naturally from what we already know (beyond doubt) from animal domestication, and it's been shown experimentally in the lab with bacteria (some of the only lifeforms with short enough lifespans that we can observe it occur). Even if an individual chooses to ignore all of this evidence, which is fully within their right to do, it is still far more support than exists for any opposing argument. Yet it's all noticeably missing from the article on evolution...and I have a feeling that if I added it, it would quickly disappear. Insufficient 02:35, 9 December 2009 (EST)

All your supposed arguments are wrong, just as any argument supporting a "flat earth" are wrong, because they draw a false conclusion. We don't put falsehoods into the encyclopedia. Hitler practiced the theory of evolution; any evolutionist who does not support Hitler may be morally admirable but lacks the courage of their convictions. Terrorism is not the practice of religious fundamentalism, it is the practice of a very specific kind of Islamic fundamentalism - there is a difference. JacobB 02:50, 9 December 2009 (EST)

Your arguments just keep further proving the point I'm trying to make. Yes, there is a difference between religion and terrorism, just as there is a difference between evolution and eugenics. You don't get to hand pick your facts in order to support your conclusion while denying others. Hitler didn't practice "the theory of evolution," he practiced eugenics. It's possible to believe in evolution and be morally opposed to eugenics, just as it is possible to be a religious fundamentalist and oppose terrorism. There is nothing inherent in the theory of evolution that promotes eugenics, just as there is nothing inherent in religion that promotes terrorism. Yet in each case, the two occasionally coexist. Also, claiming that all my arguments are wrong without giving any clear reason doesn't actually refute the arguments. I could just as easily claim that the earth doesn't revolve around the sun because all of the evidence in support of it draws a "false conclusion" (this argument can be made for ANY theory). However, I can deny it until I'm blue in the face, but at the end of the day, the evidence does exist, and the heliocentric theory of the solar system is in plenty of encyclopedias, along with evolution. Scientific theories are never "proven." They are only supported or refuted. In the case of evolution, there is strong support--far more than for any alternative explanations. If support for evolution draws a false conclusion, it is impossible to argue that support for creationism is any different. Insufficient 03:35, 9 December 2009 (EST)

No, Insufficient, it is your argument that proves our point. You're basically stating that evolution is a fact based on "support". What kind of "support"? Scientific consensus? A lot of people agreeing that it's true? Where's the proof? All I've been seeing is Mr. Scientist saying that animal-A evolved into animal-B - he's saying it is true; he's not proving it's true. As to your argument that it was settled in the lab with bacteria or the animal farm with domestication, well, that involves the interference of man in the results. Sorry to break your bubble, but your explanations are just insufficient. Karajou 11:17, 9 December 2009 (EST)

No, actually I didn't claim that evolution was a "fact," and saying so is blatantly misrepresenting my argument. I'm saying that it is a scientific theory that has ample evidence to support it...moreso than is necessary for a theory to be generally accepted by the scientific community. That is the definition of a good scientific theory. Any theory that doesn't have any evidence to support it isn't worth anyone's time. I don't actually care whether you or anyone else believes in evolution, but when you (or anyone) outright lies about facts, I'm going to call you on it. Whether you want to admit it or not, there is evidence to support it, and by discrediting evolution for "lack of evidence," you are actually doing even greater harm to the theory of creationism, which has significantly less (arguably none, but I will humour you and pretend there is some). That is why there is no scientific debate about the existence of evolution. Is it a fact? Like any scientific theory, we can never say yes, but it is likely beyond reasonable doubt. As for the interference of humans, that doesn't actually matter as much as you like to believe. Whether humans interfered or not, animal domestication has proven that the heritability of traits can lead to huge changes in animal appearance and behaviour, so that after many generations, it becomes generally unrecognizable. How does this shaping occur? By utilizing natural processes: to breed an animal in favour of a particular trait, you select animals that have that trait and allow them to spread their genes. That isn't evolution; that's genetics, and we already know that it occurs from something as basic as family resemblance (for the record, this is what inspired Hitler, not evolution). The theory of natural selection merely takes what we already know about genetics and takes it to the next logical step. Why wouldn't the same rules that apply to a domesticated animal also apply in nature? If an animal has some advantage that allows it to spread its genes more than others, why wouldn't it follow the same laws? If they are in fact God's laws, you're accusing Him of inconsistency without any clear justification. And with regard to Andy's argument about "evolution syndrome," that's just called a lazy argument. I could just as easily claim the existence of a "creationist syndrome," with the exact same symptoms, but I should hope that if I was that desperate for an argument, someone would call me on it. If my explanations are insufficient (using a self-disparaging username for a pun isn't nearly as clever as you might think...), then I recommend making some of your own. Perhaps you should educate me on what a good argument with solid, logical conclusions would look like. Because so far it has all been denial, straw man arguments, and ad hominem attacks. Insufficient 13:32, 9 December 2009 (EST)

What rubbish. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yj_lNQerUJ4 What is "wrong" about this? What doesn't make sense of the theory of evolution? Where are you saying "that's impossible"? Your, or my, inability to comprehend a theory doesn't make it lies. 13:22, 9 December 2009 (EST) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rutger (talk)
You don't have proof that Evolution is fact. --Jpatt 13:36, 9 December 2009 (EST)
No I don't as unlike many conservapedia regulars I don't claim to be an expert on every subject rather I defer to people who are and who do have evidence which you can continue to deny. I noticed you failed to answer to the questions though (you want to wait for Andy's script so you don't get anything wrong?) and now that Andy is trying to pretend this isn't a dictatorship those who dare question your fragile world view aren't being immediatly banned. How inconvienient for you. Rutger 00:41, 10 December 2009 (EST)

I'd just like to ask here for the opinions of some of the people here: Do you believe that the best place to learn about a topic is an encyclopedia that has bias but doesn't admit it, that has bias and admits it, or that has no bias whatsoever? LucyJ 07:35, 9 December 2009 (EST)

Just watched the show and I was surprised that Colbert didn't go as hard on Mr. Schlafly as I expected. For instance, Schlafly claimed that Conservapedia is a site where the best of the common people make their contributions and the correct information 'bubbles to the top.' However, it's hard to see how this can happen if articles like Evolution ("ARTICLE OF THE YEAR EDITION") are completely locked down. Granted, I understand the administrators have a legitimate need to prevent vandalism - Wikipedia has the same problem sometimes - but the article is basically cemented in a controversial, inaccurate, and poorly written form. For instance, the first paragraph includes the sentence -- "Since World War II a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the evolutionary position which employs methodological naturalism have been atheists." This has nothing to do with the rest of the paragraph, doesn't transition into the next paragraph, and just feels like a cheap attempt to take a shot at the theory within a poor thesis statement. And seriously guys, the pictures of Hitler and Stalin are laughable. Did they also get slapped into the articles on socialism, homosexuality, and Islam? - Montag

We keep as many articles open for general editing as often as possible. Even when an article is "locked", it is still open for editing by frequent contributors who have earned additional privileges. Unfortunately, there is a characteristic known as evolution syndrome that will obsessively rant and rave about the topic, deny clear factual truths, and never stop until all criticism of evolution and its adherents is censored. Wikipedia is a home for that approach, but not here.--Andy Schlafly 09:20, 9 December 2009 (EST)

public school education: i am a loyal fan of Colbert and would like to say a couple of things. 1) i am half republican and have democrat (my dad is republican and my mom is a democrat and i like different ideas from both groups.)2)i have gone to a private school my entire life and i have never gone to the office once. i have never been punished and i have received straight A's since i was in fifth grade. therefore by you guys saying that every Colbert nation member has been public school educated and are all rebellious is not only overly general but obviously not true. you undermine any true statement that you make by obviously making up information.

Private school students are less than 10% of the population, so you're the exception rather than the rule.--Andy Schlafly 12:09, 9 December 2009 (EST)
have you actually taken a scientific survey or are you making up information that would suit your argument. How sad because no doubt some of the things that you say are true but by being intellectually dishonest you blur any positive potential education of your viewers. if however, your statistic is correct (please share with me the citation) that doesn't mean that only 10% of the Colbert Report viewers are privately educated.
The article on evolution is a keeper! Don't change a bit: I love reading sentences like 19th century European naturalists were wrong about ant behavior. The Bible was correct about ant behavior (according to the source, both were partly right, partly wrong) ComedyFan 12:02, 9 December 2009 (EST)
You'll like our entry on evolution syndrome even better. In fact, maybe you can prove first-person examples!--Andy Schlafly 12:09, 9 December 2009 (EST)

Yes, you've managed to completely ignore a school of thought without having to rely on a single fact (though I'm sure that you believe otherwise). Congratulations. If your strongest arguments against evolution are ad hominem attacks, I can live with that. I have no vested interest in the theory of evolution, and I don't make a nickel for each person that I "convert." At the end of the day, you can believe whatever you want. In fact, if you want to believe that there is insufficient evidence for evolution, I am even fine with that (though I disagree), but don't outright lie and say that it doesn't exist. That doesn't fool anyone that has actually done the slightest bit of research. Just be aware that it is extremely inconsistent to argue that there is "insufficient" evidence for evolution and that people who believe in it are fools, yet argue that creationism is somehow founded on sound logic and conclusions. It's called hypocrisy and it seriously undermines your arguments. If your belief is based on faith, that is fine, but don't try to present it as something else. Don't pretend that the entire group of evolutionists can be summarized as closed-minded, because in addition to being gossip, it neither argues against our belief nor in favour of yours. By all means, disagree, but don't use lies to try and discredit others. Also, why is the burden of responsibility on evolutionists in order to prove themselves? Creationists are under the same obligation to rationalize their beliefs, and their arguments have to be held up to the same standards. So far, that isn't what I've seen on this site. Insufficient 19:14, 9 December 2009 (EST)

Wow, the article is great, too! You should add some other syndromes, while you are at it: relativism syndrome? ComedyFan 12:16, 9 December 2009 (EST)

If evolution is undeniable fact, how come we never evolved a third set of teeth? Since you cannot observe evolution, and you can observe many things that would be different were evolution true, it seems to me the sensible starting point is to assume that evolution didn't happen, and wait to be proven wrong. As that has not happened yet, I'll continue to believe evolution is just an justification for social Darwinism and policies like the Nazis enacted.--Gonzo55 18:38, 9 December 2009 (EST)

A third set of teeth? I'm not sure who taught you the theory of evolution, but just know that you are WAY off the mark. I'm starting to think that disbelief in evolution comes from a complete misunderstanding of anything about it. Insufficient 19:18, 9 December 2009 (EST)

Exactly. Before you discount something, actually know what you are talking about. However, if people on here knew what they were talking about, most of this website, if not all of it, would not exist. As for your example, if you knew anything about evolution, you would know that we don't have a third set of teeth because we don't need one. If it benefitted people, then if and when the mutation took place in our genes, that person would thrive and have more offspring than other people, promoting this gene in future generations. I can see why evolution might confuse you if you think that it "just happens."

But it would benefit people; that's unambiguous. Teeth go rotten, get cavities, fall out. Only recently has it become commonplace for people to keep their teeth into middle age and beyond. You need teeth to eat, see how long a chimpanzee lasts in the wild with no teeth, so I would think someone who can regrow teeth as an adult would be at a huge advantage relative to those who couldn't. Plus a full set of teeth is more attractive to the opposite sex than not, no? My argument is precisely that it does benefit us, and so the fact that it hasn't caught on is proof that evolution doesn't exist. Your problem is your mind is closed to ideas that you don't already have. I concur with Andy that you might find the article on evolution syndrome useful.--Gonzo55 22:54, 9 December 2009 (EST)

Only recently has it become commonplace for people to live into middle age and beyond.Captain2obvious 00:07, 10 December 2009 (EST)

All the more reason why a third set of teeth would benefit humans. Can anyone here over the age of 25 really claim that getting fresh teeth would not be nice?--Gonzo55 00:11, 10 December 2009 (EST)
Captain2obvious- It's only common place for liberals who want to enact global warming legislation. Liberals want everyone to live in huts of straw and forfeit the modern ages which is bad bad bad for the Earth.--Jpatt 00:15, 10 December 2009 (EST)
That's what's called a strawman. If your arguement has no merit please continue to use them and think you're superiour. Rutger 00:41, 10 December 2009 (EST)

Two things: First a question. HUH?; Secondly, I am not a "liberal", as you are so implying.Captain2obvious 00:21, 10 December 2009 (EST)

Why do people who state "I am not a liberal" never state what they actually call themselves? Jinx McHue 00:25, 10 December 2009 (EST)

The simplest reason would be that until I came to this site I considered myself a Conservative.Captain2obvious 00:28, 10 December 2009 (EST)

Oopsy, I read your reply wrong (middle ages / middle age). I never said you were liberal, just misinterpreted your remark.--Jpatt 00:28, 10 December 2009 (EST)

Perfectly understandable Jpatt, its not the first misunderstanding that's occurred on the Internet.Captain2obvious 00:35, 10 December 2009 (EST)

"until I came to this site I considered myself a Conservative" Forgive me for my conflicted feelings between seriously asking exactly what that means and being simply baffled by the silliness of such a statement. Split the difference: what does that mean and how in the world could a brief visit to a single website change what you consider yourself to be? Also, you still haven't stated exactly what you consider yourself. Jinx McHue 00:41, 10 December 2009 (EST)

Let me clarify a bit then. Visiting the site has not in not the slightest changed the way I think about myself. I still consider myself Conservative. However in my "brief" time visiting this website, and after reading several of the articles and discussions, has made me question whether other people would classify me as such.Captain2obvious 00:50, 10 December 2009 (EST)

And I repeat, Gonzo: your understanding of natural selection is incorrect. With all due respect, it completely undermines your attempt to discredit natural selection when you don't know what you're arguing against. Evolutionists don't argue that humans (or any other species) are currently at their "peak" of evolution. People have this inflated self-view about the world revolving around them, but aside from a more advanced central nervous system, we're just another spec on the evolutionary time line. Your argument assumes that we are done evolving, which isn't the case at all (nor have I ever heard an evolutionist make this claim). That is partly why your "why aren't we the absolute best that we can be?" straw man argument doesn't work. Second, you are assuming that just because something is beneficial, that means that it will naturally occur through evolution. This is also not the position of modern evolutionists. If that were the case, beavers would have naturally evolved with chainsaws and gazelles would be able jump over rivers to escape predators. We don't automatically evolve everything that would be useful. We evolve based on the genes that are available in the gene pool. Several factors come into play here (minor random mutations, sexual selection, genetic drift...things that we know occur through research unrelated to evolution), but what is important is that evolution has to work with the genes that are available. Those that are beneficial will tend to spread, while those that are detrimental will tend to recede (though not necessarily disappear). Once again, this is fully in line with what I already described earlier with animal domestication. You can't breed a dog to fly, but you can create a lot of variability based on the existing gene pool. Finally, even if a gene does appear in the gene pool, it is more difficult to determine usefulness than you seem to think. For example, suppose that a gene did arise for an extra set of teeth (might as well work with the argument you've given). Who knows, maybe this gene does exist, did at some point, or some day will. However, it's not just a simple matter of extra teeth = good. These teeth have to come from somewhere. Your body needs to find the resources to create them. This can mean less calcium available for other sets of teeth (thus resulting in an overall reduction in a person's tooth quality), less calcium for bone production, an increased necessity for nutritious resources, etc. Everything costs something, and teeth aren't free. Every modification becomes part of a complex equation of costs versus benefits. And that, my friend, is a simplified explanation for why you can't just make up random hypothetical creatures (e.g., people with extra teeth) in order to discredit evolution. NOTHING about evolution requires (or even asserts) that those hypothetical animals need to exist. Then again, I'm sure that this lengthy explanation will be brushed off as an "obsessive rant," because that is easier than taking it seriously... Insufficient 12:06, 10 December 2009 (EST)

"And that, my friend, is a simplified explanation for why you can't just make up random hypothetical creatures (e.g., people with extra teeth) in order to discredit evolution." - Insufficient. "Simplified?" Not so much. Wordiness is what comes to mind. On the subject of evolution, do you believe evolution happens because of environment or because of a need, or is it simply a random gene mutation? Why does the Panda bear have a thumb? ;-) ...I think philosophical debates can be fun, but in many cases it doesn't prove or disprove anything, because there's usually a counter-argument to an argument. But it can bring up interesting debate topics. DerekE 16:06, 10 December 2009 (EST)
I apologize that it takes WORDS to explain a complicated process like evolution. You demand that I answer your questions, but then complain that it can't be done in two sentences or less? I'm sorry that the world isn't that simple. Believe me, what I gave was a simplified answer to Gonzo's question. You keep asking for more questions to be answered, yet you make it clear that the answers are above your head...which is it? I wouldn't be so judgemental of your position if you yourself even knew what (or why) it is. Instead you lure with baited questions, yet you have no interest in whatever answer you get. As I've stated before, I have no problem with someone disagreeing with evolution on the grounds of faith, but at least admit it to yourself. Don't pretend to be intellectual by faking interest in the other position. Don't outright lie about the facts and demonize those who choose to take a non-faith based search for the truth. If someone says that 2+2=4, don't argue that it's because of "human interference." I know that I could take you by the hand through each step of evolution and it wouldn't change your mind. One of creationism's central arguments is that it is infallibly true. I personally dislike circular arguments, so I choose to find my own path to the truth, but that is a personal choice. Even if evolution turned out to be a big hoax (I bet Andy would host a parade), at least I can say that I believed in what seemed like the most rational answer to an unbelievably complex question. I understood and questioned what I believed because I would rather LEARN that I am wrong than be TOLD that I am right. I didn't limit my knowledge by trying to keep it simple (i.e., I wasn't afraid of words). Suppose that all of this was true and evolution was finally removed from the history books...would this really help your position for creationism? Not according to the unrealistic (and silly) standards that you've a set for evolutionists. Your demand for "proof" has always been doubly harmful to creationism. But who knows? With all of that objective truth that you claim to have on your side, I imagine that you guys must be hoarding a ton of undeniable scientific evidence. In fact, with all of this ample evidence that you have (because not having it would, of course, make you a hypocrite), why would you even worry about evolution? Show us the truth. Insufficient 21:07, 10 December 2009 (EST)
Woah..woah...hold up. No demands or complaints from me. Thus far I've only pushed buttons; testing the sensitive spots for a reaction. All I did was attempt to open a possible door for you, as another approach for you to argue for evolution. Hence the Panda's thumb theory, which was more of a test to see if you've heard of the theory. You might like it. Point being: the best argument(s) attempting to prove a point should always be willing to counter the best argument(s) on the other side, which of course are trying to prove different point. You say, "Even if evolution turned out to be a big hoax, at least I can say that I believed in what seemed like the most rational answer to an unbelievably complex question." The logic you're using to make that conclusion, I find it interesting -- so, earlier I 'prodded' for more (or 'baited'). But it seems like you're judging me based on the community I enjoy being a part of, not on what I have said to you. I was only asking questions and looking for a logical, concise answer. Nothing more and nothing less. DerekE 01:10, 11 December 2009 (EST)
Fair enough, but you can understand why this discussion might feel like hitting one’s head against a brick wall for me. It is pointless to bother answering questions when I know that no possible response will be taken seriously. With regards to the panda thumb, it does sound interesting, but I know very little about pandas and cannot begin to speculate on its evolutionary history. I personally can’t think of any reasons why it would throw a wrench in evolution’s gears, but I would be interested to see these theories you mentioned. I also apologize if it seemed like I was attacking you specifically. I realize that I am talking to several different people in here, and it can be difficult keep the arguments from blending together. I actually have no problem with creationism or those who believe in it. I come from a religious family and I certainly don’t think of my mother as dumb for her beliefs. She knows that her beliefs are based on faith, and although we disagree on the matter, I accept her difference of opinion. However, she doesn’t feel the need to discredit evolution because if you truly have faith in creationism, there is no need to. I respect that. I believe that my brother’s belief is more integrative. There is, after all, nothing about evolution that cannot fit into the central doctrines of Christianity. The only concession is that several stories in the Bible would need to be interpreted metaphorically rather than literally. I’ve always considered this to be a better interpretation anyway, but many people do not wish to make that concession. Fair enough. My pet peeve is hypocrisy. A truly faithful creationist should have no vested interest in evolution and shouldn’t really care what side of the debate science supports. A casual interest in the matter would be fine. There’s nothing wrong with being curious about other people’s explanations. However, if a creationist decides that he or she is going to enter the science debate and fervently argue against evolution on scientific grounds, they have forfeited their “faith” argument. They have made it clear that they do believe scientific evidence is important, and thus they have to play by the same rules as evolutionists. If they try not to, I will call them on it. Admittedly, I was also trying to push some buttons. Andy has implied that there is scientific evidence for creationism, but it seems to be some closely guarded secret that nobody will share. I was trying to evoke someone into spilling the beans. It didn’t work. Insufficient 14:59, 11 December 2009 (EST)
I believe that that was a simplified version of evelotion. Books upon books have been written on the subject. It can be summed up in a few sentences, but then it is lacking in the crucial details you all demand.
Exactly. And I'll point out that unlike my friends in the secular left, I don't pretend that I'm smart enough to know all of the mysteries of creation. I'm merely pointing out that it's hard to get my head around evolution when there's so many adaptations that would have been useful that we don't have, like extra teeth or the eradication of homosexuality and other deviant behaviors. But you're exactly right, I'm not smart enough or knowledgeable to understand everything about how the world works. That's why we have science, why we have the bible, indeed why we have this site, and it's all of our job to ask questions like I'm doing.--Gonzo55 17:38, 10 December 2009 (EST)
So...you admit that you don't know the answer to these questions, but you smugly ask them with a clear answer in mind, denying any evidence to the contrary? I just wanted to make sure that I properly interpreted what you said. It's a bit tricky, given that I have to reconcile it with your previous comments. I agree, most people aren't scientists and don't have direct access to the evidence, but ignorance isn't a argument against evolution. Scientists do agree on evolution based on the understanding that they DO have. It sounds like you would believe in evolution if you practiced what you preached. You are also correct that science grows out asking questions...but what's the point if you don't intend to stay to hear the answer? Insufficient 21:27, 10 December 2009 (EST)
Well, I've done my best to ascertain what the scientific community has to say about evolution. There are some who are in favor of evolution, there are some who are against it. My personal assessment is that secular humanist scientists are relatively more likely to let their own views distort their research, and I anyway find the creationist perspective more persuasive based on the facts. You should peruse our evolution entry. I certainly don't know everything, but my point was that people on the left are so sure of evolution that it might as well be some other, inaccurate religion.--Gonzo55 21:32, 10 December 2009 (EST)
With all due respect, it doesn't seem like you want to hear what the "scientific community has to say about evolution." I'm not a biologist and certainly not an expert, but it is a side interest of mine, and I have been surrounded by scientists for several years now. Also, it is not difficult to find tons of information on evolution. Although I am not biologist, I am in a discipline that works closely with biology. In all of my years at multiple universities, I have personally never met a scientist that didn't believe in evolution. I don't deny that they exist, but they are actually relatively rare. What scientists DO sometimes disagree upon is the micro-level causes for it. There is ample evidence that animals changed over time and we know a great deal about genetics as it is, but there is still more to learn. This is exactly how scientific theories emerge and it is not in any way atypical. First, the scientific community learns that a process occurs (e.g., the earth revolves around the sun), and then disputes the reasons WHY this is the case. The same controversy emerged when the aforementioned earth-sun controversy arose, and it proved that the church isn't always right on matters of science. Despite what Conservapedia would have you believe, scientists are no more stubborn than are creationists. They're both equally stubborn, but for different reasons. Scientists are stubborn because everything that creationists say is in opposition to what we see from historical evidence. Creationists are stubborn because the infallibility of their argument is one of its central tenants. I am aware of the viewpoint of evolution as another form of religion, but I would argue that it is no more a religion than is believing that the earth revolves around the sun. By that logic, believing in anything would qualify as a religion, at which point the argument becomes meaningless. Insufficient 22:21, 10 December 2009 (EST)
"Insufficient", you need to get out more if you've never met a scientist who doesn't believe in evolution. And you need to respect logic more if you think consensus establishes truth. Better yet, I urge you to give equal time to the Bible, the most logical book ever written. Based on your postings, I bet you don't spend even 5% of your spare time reading or analyzing the Bible. Am I right?--Andy Schlafly 22:35, 10 December 2009 (EST)
Andy, like I've said, I'm sure that there are scientists out there that do deny evolution. There are fringe scientists that deny most accepted theories. I know it's pretty crucial to your argument that you disagree with me, but they are by far in the minority. Being in the fringe doesn't mean that they are wrong (I have never stated that evolution is "fact"), but it also doesn't help your argument very much. I have also never said that consensus establishes truth (you need to respect logic more if you think that lying about my argument changes the actual argument). Ironically, you are implying that consensus establishes truth with your beliefs about the Bible. What I HAVE said is that there is ample evidence for evolution--far more than is available for any competing theory. I have presented a small, simplified section of it in this discussion, but as is typical in evolutionary debates, it has been ignored. You are free to disagree and I have offered numerous opportunities for individuals to do so, but you need to do better than telling me to read the Bible. Everyone here has made it quite clear that you all have very high scientific standards for the theory of evolution--high enough that literally NO answer will ever suffice. If that is truly the standard that you wish to use, so be it, but you are obliged to be consistent in your conviction. Creationism must be held to the same strictly scientific standards, and thus I implore you to present your counter evidence. I was raised in a highly religious household, so I can say with certainty that the Bible is certainly not the most logical book ever written. It has some useful life lessons (as do many books), but my understanding is that you are currently trying to remove these useful lessons from it, so I doubt we will come to a consensus on this. What it comes down to is that you are trying to have the best of both worlds. You want to be a scientist when it comes to refuting evolution, but then be immune to the rigors of science when touting creationism. If that works for you, then you have no right to preach to me about logic. The few arguments that I've been able to draw out of this discussion have ranged from misunderstanding to blatant hypocrisy. If these are the sirens of creationism, then they need to work a bit harder on their song. Insufficient 14:54, 11 December 2009 (EST)
Andy, isn't the whole philosophical underpinning of a wiki that collaboration and consensus lead us closer to some kind of truth? In your interview, you said something along the lines of "the best of the public" engages in a "process that brings out the best," and "the truth rises to the top." Isn't this a form of consensus-making? You also likened the process to a jury decision, which is also a process of consensus-making. So, what do you mean when you when you say that someone needs "to respect logic more if [s/he] think[s] consensus establishes truth?" Also, since the discussion here seems to hinge on people demanding "proof" from other people, could you provide proof that the Bible is the most logical book ever written? By what standards do you judge logic? Have you read every single book in existence in order to come to your conclusion? --WideAngle 12:27, 11 December 2009 (EST)
The straight scientific "consensus" on the shape of the earth in 1491 was that it was flat. Was that a right or a wrong consensus? And yes, the Bible is the most logical book ever written; by what standards do you think it's not? Karajou 13:00, 11 December 2009 (EST)
I'm not making the assertion that consensus=truth. I merely wanted Andy to explain how he can reconcile the claim that consensus does not establish truth with the philosophical underpinnings of a wiki. And the onus isn't on me to establish the standards for evaluating the logic of the Bible. I didn't make the claim that it was the most logical book ever written. It's your responsibility to support your claim that the Bible is the most logical book ever written, not mine. As people are fond of saying here, assertion is not argumentation. --WideAngle 13:23, 11 December 2009 (EST)
(edit conflict) Actually, as reverted User:GrahamGore pointed out, scientists then considered the earth spherical - and they actually had a better idea of its size than Columbus, and they knew he couldn't get to Asia - what they didn't know was that America was in the way. I think a better example would be bloodletting: the scientific consensus for ages was that it helped patients, when it actually was hurting them. --EvanW 13:26, 11 December 2009 (EST)
I mentioned the consensus of 1491; the previous troll went to an an hominem - and completely ignorant - argument immediately upon entering the site. As far as user WideAngle goes, he dosn't come here and make demands of us to answer his questions when he knows full well that it has been answered many times within these articles and talk pages. Now I have a question of him, and he will answer: explain the "philosophical underpinnings of a wiki" and how it's supposed to be different from everything else, and why we must conform to that explanation. Karajou 13:32, 11 December 2009 (EST)
Since this site values conciseness, I'll be brief. I take the philosophical underpinnings of a wiki to be an investment in the idea that collaboration is the best way to produce knowledge. Rather than rely on "elite" gatekeepers, wikis rely on communal gatekeeping to establish knowledge. In other words, knowledge is formed from the bottom up, through compromise and consensus. I mentioned this in my first post, but I'll reiterate - how does this idea of publicly-formed knowledge (which, during his Colbert interview, Andy claimed was the goal of Conservapedia) fit with the kind of gatekeeping performed by the Conservapedia editors? I think it's obvious that Conservapedia is selective in presenting its facts, which is fine. Just don't claim that the site is truly user-generated. Also, if you could point me to an article that conclusively demonstrates that the Bible is the most logical book ever written, I'd be more than willing to read it. --WideAngle 16:12, 11 December 2009 (EST)
Karajou, you should read conservapedia's article on Flat earth:
The Flat Earth theory was mostly invented and promoted by evolutionists for the purpose of slandering Christians.
Thinking that the scientific consensus in 1490 (or even 1300) was that the earth is flat, is silly. The consensus of the educated people - especially the clergy - was that the earth is spherical...
ComedyFan 18:03, 11 December 2009 (EST)


It's nice to finally have all of the fallacy, racism, sexism, and homophobia in one easily accessible place. I think my favorite thing about Conservapedia is the use of the Bible in what seems like every article (I haven't read every article so perhaps this is a gross generalization. But when it comes to, say, immigration is the Bible really the best source?) I will probably be using this website when I have to write papers on current situations. It will be a lot easier to just come here than to have to seek out the few religious right wingers I know for a quote. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Writerfish (talk)

Try taking our open-mindedness test. You might break the record for the lowest score!--Andy Schlafly 18:30, 10 December 2009 (EST)
Your "open mindedness" test is pretty closed minded. Peio 00:50, 12 December 2009 (EST)
Sounds like you failed.JacobB 00:53, 12 December 2009 (EST)

I actually came on here to talk about climate change. I thought about jumping onto the evolution bandwagon, but it's obvious to me that many of the folks on here seem determined to vehemently misunderstand natural selection while not providing any of the "facts" that dispute it, so I'll leave that one alone. In any case, while there is constant debate about whether or not climate change is real, I wonder what exactly would be so horrible about changing our habits a little bit just out of being good stewards of the Earth? You know, our ONLY home. I mean, isn't there something about that in the Bible anyway? (I'm no Bible expert, so that's why I frame that as a question.) Even if climate change is a ruse, wouldn't it be nice to have clean air and water? You can't tell me California doesn't have smog and that perhaps it would be nice if we figured out a way to reduce that smog for our own benefit, even if it isn't raising Earth's temperature. Though, admittedly, smog does produce lovely sunsets. Also, it would be nice to go to the beach without seeing trash wash up, don't you think? Also, supposedly all this "green living" stuff is supposed to produce jobs...something quite a few Americans desperately need. So isn't living greener actually rather patriotic? I use vinegar, tea tree oil, and lemon juice as a cleaning solution. It's cheap, it works, and it doesn't have any chemicals. Huzzah! Now really conservatives, was that so hard? Peio 01:00, 12 December 2009 (EST)

PS - It's called "Don't defecate where you masticate...or some such blather. Peio 01:07, 12 December 2009 (EST)
Peio - yeah. You're right. I'm sick of seeing litter in the streets and the bay (I live near the San Francisco bay) is filthy. The question we have to ask is, is it governments place to interfere? I would like a world without smog, yes. But does the government have the right to tell me not to drive my car? No! I would like it if my downstairs neighbor didn't smoke, because sometimes it wafts into my apartment. But does that mean I would support a law forbidding him to smoke in his own home? No! The market will decide if green cars or green energy will prevail. If people really want businesses to stop polluting, then they will boycott those businesses and they'll have to convert. But government regulation kills the economy, and I'd rather have a little bit of garbage on the beach than a major economic depression like the one comrade Obama is driving this country into right now. Government has no place regulating business - ever. JacobB 01:08, 12 December 2009 (EST)

Registration

You don't make it easy for a place that wants people to edit, do you? I tried after the show last night, couldn't figure it out, but managed to stumble upon one of your (stupider, and rather well hidden) policies on user names. I was able to register this morning, but if it hadn't worked, you probably would have lost a contributor forever. JTutone 13:11, 9 December 2009 (EST)

Welcome. I don't believe stupider is an actual word.--Jpatt 13:14, 9 December 2009 (EST)
It isn't, but it fits the flow of what I wrote better than "more stupid" which is more correct. My word is truthier. --JTutone 13:22, 9 December 2009 (EST)
Perhaps now is a good time for me to re-suggest the Welcome Banner, as discussed on the New Welcome Banner proposal page. DerekE 15:42, 9 December 2009 (EST)
Wow. Could you guys stop whining about registration already? I'd rather not be associated with people who can't pass the rigors of user-name creation. --Montag 21:24, 9 December 2009 (EST)
The argument I'm making from the New Welcome Banner has more to do with creating a more welcoming entrance to the site, but also improving ease of navigation to pages that are valuable to newcomers. At one point or another every one of us was a wiki-newbie. While the easiest way to learn is through trial and error, I see no harm in facilitating the learning process by allowing new-comers to be more cognizant of the encyclopedia's rules, guidelines, how-to's, and other salient information that more advanced members already know about. DerekE 21:59, 9 December 2009 (EST)

Open letter to Conservapedia

I've known about Conservapedia for months. I've been fascinated with it since my initial introduction (when the special project to reform Jesus's "groovy liberal" image was anounced on a news site).

There's some equivocating concerning the obvious bias (I think the device of substituting the word "truth" for "bias" is entertaining), but the corporation does not actually conceal its mission. Conservapedia is candid with the following facts: It represents the conservative socio-political viewpoint, it is alligned with fundamentalist Protestant Christianity, and it is hostile to opposing viewpoints. I note the distinction between this candor and react differently to Conservapedia than I do to a corporation like News Corp (Fox News), who boasts fairness and balance. Remember: Conservapedia does not promise balance. Yet Conservapedia is predominantly fair.

Despite an open allignment with fundamentalist Protestant Christianity, Conservapedia is not contemptuous of other forms of Christianity, or even other religions. They dutifully note the basic interpretations of other scriptures like the Q'aran and Torah and tell the stories respectfully. They also include other denominations' interpretations of Biblical text without condemning them. Conservapedia articles suggest outside doctrine is foolhardy, but stops short of actually calling adherents fools.

What Conservapedia actually does is compile the conservative viewpoint in a way that incorporates most of the world's features and topics (from science to history to theology) in such a way that has the potential to reconcile problems (such as science versus ideology) and unify conservatives into a more cohesive bloc than was possible before technology of this scale. It is also a reference for non-conservatives to understand their fellow countrymen better. In my opinion, both functions have a benefit - even if I am an apostate by Conservapedia's rigid measure.

The only problem I see with Conservapedia is its deliberate mission to be more concise than its rival (and source of inspiration and design), Wikipedia. Some topics are completely sterile and do not admit any sort of bias (gravity, for example). Yet a comparison of the topics on the two "'pedias" returns a discrepancy in depth and length. Wikipedia's longer articles may merely be the result of more popularity and the work of accretion. However, Conservapedia probably actively seeks to limit the length of its articles to conform with its mission. If the latter is true, Conservapedia has turned the clock back on the encyclopedia as reference source to the days of the hopelessly out of date set of World Books that were the staple of every suburban home in the 60s and 70s. Good for identifying major breeds of dogs, but inadequate for much else.

My advice to the Colbert Nation (an informal society of which I am also a citizen) is to use Conservapedia to understand what you perceive to be mass delusion, even an institutionalized national evil. Conservatives are often our parents and grandparents, co-workers and countrymen. They are not evil men and women. They just seem to have a pathological inability to make good decisions on a large scale. If one's mission is truly to correct this pattern of civic behavior, the progressive must respect and understand his/her opponent. Never before has there been such a big picture window into the soul of the opposition.

Respectfully, Steech, December 10, 2009.

"Yet a comparison of the topics on the two "'pedias" returns a discrepancy in depth and length. Wikipedia's longer articles may merely be the result of more popularity and the work of accretion." Interesting observation. My take is that it has more to do with the number of editors using Conservapedia versus the much larger number using Wikipedia. At the very start of Wikipedia, I can all but imagine its article were similarly lacking depth and/or length. But over time this will be fixed, as a result of more information becoming available and from an increase in the number of editors using Conservapedia. Conservapedia is still relatively new, despite its early success. DerekE 13:17, 10 December 2009 (EST)
Steech, your open letter displays the high word-to-substance ratio common to liberal thought. It is the anathema to conciseness, so it's obvious you don't like Conservapedia's rule to be concise. We've had that rule since the very beginning and it is essential to quality learning. Wikipedia is a like a 3rd grade essay contest that gives points for more words. Here, we focus on learning and teaching, which is why we've helped hundreds of teenagers get into top colleges while I don't think Wikipedia has helped anyone do so.--Andy Schlafly 17:05, 10 December 2009 (EST)
Mr. Schlafly, accept my thanks for personally answering me. I find the attention a sign of your generosity and sincerity in your endeavor.
My "open letter displays the high word-to-substance ratio common to liberal" arts educations. It also reflects a personality trait and characteristic style of communicating. Many editorialists from across the philosophical spectrum have found comfort in loquacity. My word count is high; I concede the point. However, I respectfully disagree with your accusation that I've offered a poor show of points.
In bullet-point style, the recap reads as follows:
  • Conservapedia does not generate conservative news stories. It is a repository of conservative ideas.
  • Conservapedia acknowledges there are alternative views.
  • Conservapedia rejects alternative views, albeit with some tact.
  • Conservapedia codifies the conservative worldview in a way that will inform adherents and detractors alike.
  • Conservapedia is not an academic reference source. It is only a codex for a specific value set.
Prosaic style does not harmonize with your editorial prerogative. I understand that and admit I would be a poor Conservapedia contribitor. However, your site and your interview on The Colbert Report prove that you are personally an intelligent man and believe your readers are intelligent as well. I think there is room in this world for people like me.
(As an aside, I took your "Quantifying Openmindedness" article self test and satisfied your basic criteria. According to your "example questions and topics," I am not a polar ideological enemy of yours. It would seem we merely respectfully disagree.)
To other commenters, let me be more clear on the subject of "'pedias" as academic resources. No encyclopedia article will constitute research by any discriminating instructor's measure. Maybe in elementary or junior high school. But by the time a student reaches high school or college, the encyclopedia is effectively disqualified as a citation in a research paper.
"'Pedias" have made basic reference immediate and increased the efficiency of writers in an unprecedented way. Need to know the name of an Andy Griffith Show cast member or the name of the movie in which Don Knotts played a cartoon fish? Dial it up electronically with the help of a "'pedia."
But do you have to write a term paper about Alexander Hamilton? Don't consult an open source, democratic 'pedia, because it will by nature contradict itself. The old school World Book and Funk and Wagnel's avoid such inconsistency only by being abbreviated to oblivion.
My advice to the kids: Education (regardless of whether it is a conservative or liberal one) is still conducted primarily in the theaters of the juried manuscript, lecture hall, and laboratory.
Steech 16:56, 11 December 2009 (EST).
we've helped hundreds of teenagers get into top colleges That's really impressive - at least, if you can give some corroboration for this claim... ComedyFan 17:13, 10 December 2009 (EST)
BTW, on your user-page, you state My students have typically been admitted to their first choices in colleges , followed by a list of fifty colleges. Do you think that all of these are top colleges? Only sixteen are linked to an article here at conservapedia, I suppose that these are the best. OTOH, you say that at least 6 students [were] admitted at Grove City College, so taking this as an upper bound for admissions, I'd say that less than 100 students of you were helped by you into a top college. So, which other programs here at conservapedia are responsible for the next 100 successful applications?
Otherwise: Shouldn't you leave such hyperbole to the liberals?
ComedyFan 17:28, 10 December 2009 (EST)
ComedyFan, based on your assumption and opinion, let's say the teaching and education provided by Andy Schlafly and Conservapedia helped 100 students get into the college of their choice. That's 100 more students who benefited from the use and information from Conservapedia than what Wikipedia can claim. Conservapedia has assisted in educating 100% more students than Wikipedia - that's quite the accomplishment if you ask me. In fact, if I remember correctly, there was a story awhile back about a kid who used Wikipedia as a reference for a paper - and failed the assignment for it. Yikes. If only Wikipedia held itself accountable for the quality of its articles... DerekE 17:40, 10 December 2009 (EST)

I benefit from information on wikipedia...I mean, it would be foolish to use it for a project, but anyone with an open mind who intends on doing more research, or just needs some tiny fact on an ovbscure subject (history of video gaming), than its good. DerekSmalls 22:56, 10 December 2009 (EST)

ComedyFan, I've personally taught nearly 200 teenagers, and 10 or 100 times as many have benefited from our materials here. Take a look at the page views on my lectures. They are in the many thousands for each lecture.
I didn't add that many of my students have won scholarships, and even graduated from college in 3 years.
How many lectures does Wikipedia have? Zero. How many model answers? Zero.--Andy Schlafly 17:59, 10 December 2009 (EST)
Wikipedia isn't supposed to have lectures and model answers for one. Its an open encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Unlike this one, which is used as a tool for teaching homeschool kids. Wikipedia isnt out to change the world into something conservative or liberal, its there to be a quick look up for random information. DerekE, If a student used wikipedia as a reference in one of my classes i would fail them too. Same if they used conservapedia...or metapedia or any other wiki type thing. They are not good sources, if you want to cite something use the original source.--JAiken 18:22, 10 December 2009 (EST)
"If a student used wikipedia as a reference in one of my classes i would fail them too. Same if they used conservapedia ... if you want to cite something use the original source." -- JAiken. You just proved my point. Wikipedia doesn't allow original sources as references, while Conservapedia does. From your example, and based on the differences between Conservapedia and Wikipedia, if I were using both as a tool to help for researching purposes, Wikipedia would provide me with zero references to help assist further research; likewise, Conservapedia will provide a vast number of properly cited, original sources for academic purposes. Wikipedia is simply filled with opinion articles from journalists. If I wanted to go read The New York Times or HuffingtonPost, I'd go directly to their Web site. DerekE 00:29, 11 December 2009 (EST)
I am sorry DerekE, but that claim is 100% false. Wikipedia does link to the original sources in their reference section. What they do not allow is original research/ideas. I think you have confused these terms and the meaning behind them. An original source is linking to the original full research paper by Craig Venter on the human genome. Wikipedia allows this and it is one of the only reasons a person should ever go to Wikipedia when doing serious work. On the other hand I cannot go to Wikipedia and post my own original thoughts/ideas/unverified research as fact. I would hope that Conservapedia does not allow that either. --JAiken 12:07, 11 December 2009 (EST)
That's simply false. Wikipedia is propagating liberal falsehoods and censoring conservative truths, as illustrated by Bias in Wikipedia. One of the entries on that list discusses how Wikipedia editors have been 6 times more liberal than the general public.
If Wikipedia were designed to help people as Conservapedia does, it would be very different indeed. Instead, I know of no evidence that Wikipedia has helped a single student in any meaningful way.--Andy Schlafly 18:28, 10 December 2009 (EST)
Andy, just because Wikipedia doesn't set out to "help(?)" individual students, it is still a place of information. I'm sure that plenty of people who might otherwise no have access to information have benefited from it.Captain2obvious 21:29, 10 December 2009 (EST)
The National Enquirer "is still a place of information," so you can't be serious in proposing that as the test. Verbose gossip and/or liberal distortions may cause more harm than good, particularly for students.--Andy Schlafly 21:28, 10 December 2009 (EST)
You may be right on that fact. Conservapedia is a place of "information," but "conservative" distortions may cause more harm than good, particularly for the easily manipulated.Captain2obvious 21:33, 10 December 2009 (EST)
You're long on rants, but awfully short on specifics ... because you have none.--Andy Schlafly 21:34, 10 December 2009 (EST)

If you still want evidence that Wikipedia helps students, it has certainly helped me. And before you say that all it does is teach liberal bias, I'd like to see how you bias math. In fact, Andrew used math as an example of objective truth in the interview. Wikipedia has numerous and detailed articles on numerous math topics and is an invaluable resource on learning things that the public education system never teaches. I have been unable to find any similar math articles on Conservapedia by the way.EdmundG 21:36, 10 December 2009 (EST)

The National Enquirer is in no way a reputable source of information. Nor is Wikipedia, unless you only use it for the primary sources it lists in the citations section. 6 times as liberal? Pray tell. How do you quantify liberality? Is it just some litmus test you randomly developed on this site or is there some sort of physical test? Tell me, if I support evolution, oppose gun control, and think Obama is a traitor, how many times more liberal am I than you? Would that number change if I was believed that evolution was false? What about if I wanted to burn all the books dealing with relativity because it distracts from reading the bible? --JAiken 21:40, 10 December 2009 (EST)
I can give an example of a conservative distortions being used to cause harm, Uganda. --JAiken 21:40, 10 December 2009 (EST)

In response to Edmund, your claim is not credible because it lacks specifics. Many liberals like Wikipedia's bias and would claim it has helped them simply to promote it further. That doesn't wash. I've looked at many of Wikipedia's math entries and can't say I've learned anything of value from any of them. They are not concise and clear, and many of them seem to deliberately obscure. Their entry on Wiles' proof of Fermat's Last Theorem, for example, omits how it relies on the Axiom of Choice. Wikipedia even deleted its entry on the important concept of an elementary proof, and only added its current version after I pointed that out as an example of bias. Our explanation is better even now.--Andy Schlafly 22:57, 10 December 2009 (EST)

I hate to break it to you Andy, but you can’t tell someone, “No, you didn’t learn anything from Wikipedia.” That’s a lazy argument, even by the standards of this website. I’ve learned things from Wikipedia many times, specifically to clarify statistical concepts. Your argument doesn’t even try to make sense here. There are SOME errors on mathematical concepts, ergo absolutely nothing on Wikipedia is useful? Well, I better bring my last assignment back to the professor and inform him that he accidentally marked several incorrect questions as correct; I was apparently using liberal statistics! Do you have any idea how many math related pages there are on Wikipedia? Of course there are going to be errors. Even my TEXTBOOK has errors. Also, I don’t want my encyclopedia to dumb material down for the sake of being concise. A complex mathematical concept shouldn't be simplified so that "even Andy can understand it." It should be explained in it's entirety because it targets a more educated audience than, say, an article on Pokemon. If I am reading an article that is above my head, I don't try to blame someone else for my own shortcomings. If you don’t want to read, maybe an encyclopedia isn’t the place to go...I’m sure there are lots of picture books at the local library. Insufficient 15:11, 11 December 2009 (EST)

It seems that this website is full of contradictions. An encyclopedia with an admitted bias, but says its trustworthy? Bias is inherent in everything but if we say that it is okay even good then there is no attempt to actually reach the unbiased truth. Bias is not good but shouldn't we be trying to move away from it and not embracing it. If this website says something that is completely at odds with what the rest of the world believed it wouldn't matter because there is an inherent interest in providing one side. That tends to come at the expense of truth. This website seems to dislike the MSM but if they so something with obvious bias someone can call them on it. If this website does something with obvious bias that's fine. If journalists are all biased in the main stream media then how do you get information? There are plenty of right wing commentators but you can't create facts out of commentary. People have to actually report the information. Why are there adults making fun of people who don't agree with them? I would also like to take issue with what truth is thought of as. Taking original intent in your view of the constitution and reducing government power does not make your political ideology any more truthful. Just as trying to make the government more powerful and interpreting the constitution more broadly does not make a political ideology any more truthful. I am mystified how believing these things adds to truth. Truth is what is actual reality. Neither changing government power or interpreting a piece of writing really leads to truth. --User:johnsm 21:30, 10 December 2009 (est)

One thing i've noticed is that there has been no data actually presented in these cases aside from anecdotal evidence. Also, just because You, or someone, hasn't learned from something doesn't make it invalid, it just means that you either A) knew the information already and didn't need to re-learn it, or B) didn't take the effort to learn, and therefor passed it by.
Also, conservative distortions, just like liberal ones, cause harm every day in the world. Take for example Iran, Sudan or Somalia [all of which follow 'religious conservative' governments], the deaths of Dr. Teller or Dr. Gunn, the thousands of children that died from measles [easily preventible by vaccination] last year, or any other examples you would wish me to point out. I won't get into the historical arguments here, to save space. That is not to say that liberalism doesn't have the same, or worse, negative effect on the world. The current Swiss ban on minarets comes to mind. I just wanted to point out that distortions from both sides are harmful and should be eliminated.
And, to finish off, I just wanted to say it's good to be back. I'll be looking forward to debating with you all again. -- CodyH 08:50, 11 December 2009 (EST)
Cody, we explain what conservative means, and it includes limited government. This concept is not running the governments you mentioned. Next you act like liberal/conservative are symmetric with respect to the truth. That's plainly false, as illustrated by our entry on deceit. I urge you, I beseech you, I beg you: spend at least 5% of your spare time reading or translating a logical book: the Bible.--Andy Schlafly 09:28, 11 December 2009 (EST)
Andy, I like how you frequently use your own articles to support your arguments, yet condemn liberals for using biased resources. Keep up the good work! Insufficient 15:31, 11 December 2009 (EST)
Conservatives don't want limited Government, they want their own government, as outlined by their moves to block stem cell research, abortion, gun control, amnesty, alternative energy, and a range of other topics at the national and federal levels. The truth is symmetric to the truth, and is both apart from and twisted by both sides of the political spectrum, conservatives and liberals alike. And I have read the bible before, once as a child and once during my crisis of belief after entering the military, which led me to my agnosticism. If you want me to read it again, then I find it fair that I ask you to look at the evidence for relativity, evolution, and other topics without the biblical worldview. I may find something new in my next reading of the Bible, or you might find something new in your next examination of the secular world. As they say, Nothing is True, Everything is Permitted. How about it? -- CodyH 14:32, 11 December 2009 (EST)

Cody, There is a marked difference between limited govt. and no govt. A conservative recognizes the need for government to perform certain necessary roles. (including the abolition of outlawing such moral travesties as Slavery, the slaughter if innocent children, i.e. abortion, etc.) The nation must have laws, and those laws that we do have must be enforced. (including immigration laws) If you don't enforce the laws, they cease to be relevant. And FYI, the conservative position on gun control is one of limited government. More gun control = more government. I don't know of any conservative who is opposed to alternative energy. It's wasteful government subsidies that we oppose, once again in keeping with our ideas of limited government. --Ben Talk 15:00, 11 December 2009 (EST)

Personal tools