Wikipedia and Logical Falicies

[Theory?]

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

There's a very familiar quote in there, I just found it funny.

Brings back memories, eh?

[Anjin-San]

http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page

AHAAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAH! HA AHA AH AH HA HA HA AHA HA HA HA HA HA!

HA HA HA HA HE-HAW HA HAW HA HA HURR HURR HAR HURR HAHAHAA

HA!

[Ace_ofspade]

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

There's a very familiar quote in there, I just found it funny.

Brings back memories, eh?

Oh lawd. Good times, good times.

[Tollwutig]

It's pretty sad when it's such an obvious example Wikipedia uses it.

[Michael James Nock]

My cunning plan:

1: Find a Floridian GP'er.
2: Get him/her to enable mailback on the entire forums.
3: Hide this post. (very important)
4: Let him read and post here again.
6: Sue under the same law he was threataning us with.

[Theory?]

My cunning plan:

1: Find a Floridian GP'er.
2: Get him/her to enable mailback on the entire forums.
3: Hide this post. (very important)
4: Let him read and post here again.
6: Sue under the same law he was threataning us with.

Your cunning plan causes harm to my digestive system. Please refrain.

[Anjin-San]

Is Wikipedia luring minors to sex-related entries? See the new point #3 in Bias in Wikipedia.

[KN]

Is Wikipedia luring minors to sex-related entries? See the new point #3 in Bias in Wikipedia.

Not only that.

See here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Aris_Katsaris/Archive1#Image:Missionary_Sex_Position.png)

I saw that you did some cleanup on this (and the related small version), and I was wondering what you think of removing the teddy bear from the photo? My concern is that it lends a vague air of pedophilia to an otherwise excellent illustration. Do you have an opinion on this? Jimbo Wales 17:21, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Over at Talk:Missionary_position the question of removing the teddy bear had also been mentioned, though there wasn't much of a discussion. The pedophilia angle hadn't occured to me, I only thought it was vaguely distracting to have such an object in the pic. I have no problem with deleting it therefore, though obviously I don't have any real authority on this question: my cleanup was mainly just removing the various garbage that the JPG form added, it was User:Rama who drew it. Gonna be readying updated pics with teddy bear removed. Aris Katsaris 17:41, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Original image is here (http://pr0n.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/9/9d/Missionary_Sex_Position.png)

[Grahamr]

"Nobody shoots anybody in the face unless you're a hitman or a videogamer." [1]

the qoute in question.

[steelcobra]

Hey, If all I can see is the bad guy's face, that's where the bullet goes.

[Grahamr]

How conservapedia differs from wikipedia
1. We do not allow gossip, just as a real encyclopedia avoids it.
2. We do not allow opinions of journalists to be repeated here as though they are facts. Instead, we require authoritative support. Wikipedia presents as facts numerous assertions that are based merely on journalists' (biased) opinion.
3. We do not allow obscenity, while Wikipedia has many entries unsuitable for children.
4. We do not attempt to be neutral to all points of view. We are neutral to the facts. If a group is a terrorist group, then the label "terrorist" is used here but not on Wikipedia.
5. We allow broader reuse of our material than Wikipedia does. Wikipedia claims to allow free use of its material, but in fact it is burdensome to comply with all of Wikipedia's copyright restrictions.
6. We do 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.
7. We allow original, properly labeled works, while Wikipedia does not.
8. We respect users' control over their own talk pages as much as possible. Wikipedia treats users' own talk pages like community property belonging to everyone, and it becomes a place for Wikipedia editors to bully users.


What conservapedia thinks of wikipedia


1. Wikipedia allows the use of B.C.E. instead of B.C. and C.E. instead of A.D. The dates are based on the birth of Jesus, so why pretend otherwise? Conservapedia gives the credit due to Christianity and exposes the CE deception.
2. Wikipedia awarded "good article" status[1] to a biased description of liberal Balboa High School, saying it has "a progressively nurturing environment" undergoing "a steady renaissance marked by academic innovation."[2] Nowhere in Wikipedia's 4,468-word description does it admit that half the 9th graders lacked proficiency on a statewide English test.[3] Instead, Wikipedia editors apparently like how this public school converted its metal shop into a sex-based "health" clinic.
3. One can confirm that sex-related entries are attracting many viewers, including young viewers, by viewing Wikipedia statistics. But Wikipedia gives no warning to parents or viewers about the pornographic images on popular pages, and Wikipedia would probably be disabled in many homes and schools if a proper warning were given.
4. Wikipedia's entry on the "Palestinian People" omits any mention of terrorism.[4] Click on the PLO and you'll find no discussion of its connection to the massacre of innocent athletes at the 1972 Olympics in Munich.[5] The Israel News Agency reports:
5. No where will you ever find Al-Qaeda, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah described as terror organizations by Wikipedia. Wikipedia will quote the US State Department or the United Nations Security Council as saying that they are terror groups, but Wikipedia itself will only describe these organizations as "militants."
6. Polls show that about twice as many Americans identify themselves as "conservative" compared with "liberal", and that ratio has been increasing for two decades.[6] But on Wikipedia, about three times as many editors identify themselves as "liberal" compared with "conservative".[7] That suggests Wikipedia is six times more liberal than the American public.[8]
7. Wikipedia features an entry on "anti-racist mathematics" that "emphasizes the sociocultural context of mathematics education and suggests that the study of mathematics (as it is traditionally known in western societies) does exhibit racial or cultural bias."[9]
8. In the mid-20th century, a Soviet encyclopedia contained the assertion that Jesus was a myth.[10] Wikipedia's entry on Jesus has the following: "A small number of scholars and authors question the historical existence of Jesus, with some arguing for a completely mythological Jesus."[11] But no credible historian makes such a claim.
9. Wikipedia's entry for the Renaissance denies any credit to Christianity, its primary inspiration.
10. About 60% of Americans accept the account of the Great Flood in the Bible.[12]. But enter "Great Flood" into Wikipedia and it automatically converts that to an entry entitled "Deluge (mythology)." That entry then uses "myth" or "mythology" nearly 70 times in its description.[13] Its entry on "Noah's Ark" is just as biased.[14]
11. Wikipedia editors are about 4 times as atheistic or non-religious as the American public. In a Newsweek poll in 2006, 92% of Americans said they believed in God and only 8% said they did not believe in God or didn't know. But among Wikipedia editors responding to a request for identification of beliefs, 35% described themselves in the categories of "No religion, atheist, agnostic, humanist, secular, other."[15]

[Thefremen]

What I really love about Conservapedia is checking the articles on Eurasia and Oceania. It's handy to know which one we were always at war with and which one we have always been allied to.

Also, the article on math is always updated in case Big Brother discovers that 2+2=5.

[PyroHazard]

Why don't they just cut to the chase and say Wikipedia is a thinly-veiled propaganda machine made by the liberal gay jews?

[Theory?]

Why don't they just cut to the chase and say Wikipedia is a thinly-veiled propaganda machine made by the liberal gay jews?

Liberal gay BLACK jews.

[nightwng2000]

Hahahahahahahahahaha!

AH Hahahahahahahahahahaha!

He's not on Conservapedia!

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!

[Theory?]

Hahahahahahahahahaha!

AH Hahahahahahahahahahaha!

He's not on Conservapedia!

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!

It may seem funny, but think about it. Why on earth would he be? He's not in any way important. His actions affect no one, his reach is gamers, who hate his guts, and that's about it. There is no reason on earth why a bunch of conservative acolytes would even consider about a numskull lawyer who crusades against video games.

[KN]

It may seem funny, but think about it. Why on earth would he be? He's not in any way important. His actions affect no one, his reach is gamers, who hate his guts, and that's about it. There is no reason on earth why a bunch of conservative acolytes would even consider about a numskull lawyer who crusades against video games.

He claims butthurt about being oppressed by the 'liberal' Florida Bar. I suppose that should make them interested.

[Theory?]

He claims butthurt about being oppressed by the 'liberal' Florida Bar. I suppose that should make them interested.

How would they find out about him.

Again, you're assuming he's an important person, which outside the scope of US, he really isn't.

Ask anyone who isn't a gamer if they've heard of Jack Thompson and you'll either get one of two responses:

a) The actor?

or

b) No.

[nightwng2000]

It may seem funny, but think about it. Why on earth would he be? He's not in any way important. His actions affect no one, his reach is gamers, who hate his guts, and that's about it. There is no reason on earth why a bunch of conservative acolytes would even consider about a numskull lawyer who crusades against video games.

There's one thing for sure, as holier-than-thou as the site claimed to be, it's filled as much with butting heads as Wikipedia.

Just for the heck of it, I checked "homosexuality". Just to see how "fair" they really intended to be. It's the "discussion" page that is most interesting. Even there, they have out of control editors.

I didn't check to see when conservapedia started. But honestly, I'd expect one of the members there to know of him and his "warrior for God" and "Crusade" to have put him up there by now.

[Theory?]

What blew my mind was the article on Judaism.

Apparently Christians gave up on hating Jews.

[KN]

What blew my mind was the article on Judaism.

Apparently Christians gave up on hating Jews.

They finally figured out the bible says "Leave the jews alone, they are cannon fodder for holy wars".

No seriously, you can interpret that from the bible while completely sober.

[Ace_ofspade]

What blew my mind was the article on Judaism.

Apparently Christians gave up on hating Jews.

O_O

Conservipedia is run by the Secular-Zionist-Communist-Facist-Hollywood Fatcat Jews intent on destroying Catholicism Pat Robertson and Will Donohue were talking about. It's just a front to divert attention from the truth.

[KN]

Someone check the article on Catholicism and see if it mentions it being responsible for the creation of islam.

[Grahamr]

Hahahahahahahahahaha!

AH Hahahahahahahahahahaha!

He's not on Conservapedia!

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!

GASP!:eek:

Let's make an article about him!

We've heard his tirades so often, that we can make it TOTALLY Authentic

And the Conservapedians won't even know!!!
:D

[nightwng2000]

GASP!:eek:

Let's make an article about him!

We've heard his tirades so often, that we can make it TOTALLY Authentic

And the Conservapedians won't even know!!!
:D

Oh, I'm sure "conservative" will lock it off, as he has other articles, and warp it to his version of "facts". That's the big reason I'm surprised it isn't there.

[bayushisan]

Yeah Christians hate Jews so much. I mean its not like we have a yearly Night to Honor Israel, an International Fellowship of Christians and Jews, or pay for the transportation of Jews from all over the world so that they can return to the Holy Land or anything. Yup lots of hatred there.

I fail to see how a conservative version of Wikipedia is a bad thing though. If there is an obvious bias within Wikipedia then its hardly the neutral source everyone claims. It thus become necessary to create a secondary encyclopedic source that can remain neutral on factual matters but also present evidence for its point of view on opinion based matters.

[Theory?]

Yeah Christians hate Jews so much. I mean its not like we have a yearly Night to Honor Israel, an International Fellowship of Christians and Jews, or pay for the transportation of Jews from all over the world so that they can return to the Holy Land or anything. Yup lots of hatred there.

I fail to see how a conservative version of Wikipedia is a bad thing though. If there is an obvious bias within Wikipedia then its hardly the neutral source everyone claims. It thus become necessary to create a secondary encyclopedic source that can remain neutral on factual matters but also present evidence for its point of view on opinion based matters.

The issue is they claim to be NON biased, moreso than Wikipedia.

As for Jew hateration, let's think back to blood libels, inquisitions, holocausts, Mel Gibson's "The Passion", etc.

Still can't figure out why I'm surprised?

[weatherlight]

The issue is they claim to be NON biased, moreso than Wikipedia.

As for Jew hateration, let's think back to blood libels, inquisitions, holocausts, Mel Gibson's "The Passion", etc.

Still can't figure out why I'm surprised?
"We do not attempt to be neutral to all points of view. We are neutral to the facts."
I think that says it all

[bayushisan]

The issue is they claim to be NON biased, moreso than Wikipedia.

As for Jew hateration, let's think back to blood libels, inquisitions, holocausts, Mel Gibson's "The Passion", etc.

Still can't figure out why I'm surprised?

I'll grant you the inquistion as the Catholic church was behind that. However that's really another thread as there are a number of differences between the type of Christianity espoused by the Catholic church and what the evangelical community endorses. As for the Passion, well I haven't seen the movie myself; however from an historical perspective both the Roman Authority and the Sanhedrin were responisble for the crucifixtion. Though ulitmately I suppose you could say that all mankind was responsible; although that is a more philosophical point than a historical one.

[Tollwutig]

"We do not attempt to be neutral to all points of view. We are neutral to the facts."
I think that says it all

Neutral to the point of Penis (http://www.conservapedia.com/Penis)= his page has been deleted, and protected to prevent re-creation. So male anatomy must not be discussed in Conservapedia. And the scientifically accurate and wonderfully frank article Testes (http://www.conservapedia.com/Testes).

Of course other articles show a completely fair and neutral point of view to the facts Homosexuality (http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexuality) comes to mind. Since in this article there are several factual errors in it.

I can find many others

[Demontestament]

The issue is they claim to be NON biased, moreso than Wikipedia.

As for Jew hateration, let's think back to blood libels, inquisitions, holocausts, Mel Gibson's "The Passion", etc.

Still can't figure out why I'm surprised?

Or the whole "Jews hate jesus, they put him on the cross!" claims people make. Yeah I know not all Christians believe that, but there are alot who do.
Alot of the entries in there thought claimed as 100% fact seem to be very biased and in some entries just plain bashing. The sites claims towards Wikipedia should point out right there that the site was made in pure spite of Wikipedia and they supposed "refusal" to construct their site in the way of America and Christianity. I mean hell they even claim that Wikipedia hates Christians and silences them at every chance while allowing article bashing their people and their religion all the time.

[Theory?]

A LOT!

A

LOT

Two words!

Not one!

[nightwng2000]

A LOT!

A

LOT

Two words!

Not one!

http://www.amazon.com/Websters-World-Pocket-Misspellers-Dictionary/dp/0028617207

You should put that in your sig to save yourself time. :)

[nightwng2000]

On the "neutrality" thing, I agree with Toll and others.

Just because they are claiming to be neutral doesn't mean they are.

Even the supporters of conservapedia can't agree on the same "facts".

In the discussion part of Homosexuality, someone actually argues about the one "true" version of the Bible. And when you have people locking articles just so their version is the only accepted version (as argued in the same discussion), there can be no real "neutrality".

[Demontestament]

A LOT!

A

LOT

Two words!

Not one!

I know :D I just wanted to mess with ya :)

[Thefremen]

Or the whole "Jews hate jesus, they put him on the cross!" claims people make. Yeah I know not all Christians believe that, but there are alot who do.
A lot of the entries in there though claimed as 100% fact seem to be very biased and in some entries just plain bashing. The site's claims towards Wikipedia should point out right there that the site was made in pure spite of Wikipedia and their supposed "refusal" to construct their site in the way of America and Christianity. I mean hell they even claim that Wikipedia hates Christians and silences them at every chance while allowing articles bashing their people and their religion all the time.

fix'd (mostly) damn that was sloppy, reminded me of the articles in conservapedia!

How do you create an account? I need to edit their article on Transformers!

[Demontestament]

fix'd (mostly) damn that was sloppy, reminded me of the articles in conservapedia!

How do you create an account? I need to edit their article on Transformers!

Hey not my fault I type bad when low, and no I am not drunk :D

[Hank the Tank]

http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexual_agenda

Oh NOES!

The first goal and the last part of The Agenda are funny.

[Thefremen]

Hey not my fault I type bad when low, and no I am not drunk :D

Well now I know what that hip-hop song that says "get low" is about.

[Thefremen]

http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexual_agenda

Oh NOES!

The first goal and the last part of The Agenda are funny.

Bayu and Weather and Yuki, can you explain to me how that article is based in facts?

[Demontestament]

Bayu and Weather and Yuki, can you explain to me how that article is based in facts?

"The agenda of homosexual activists is basically to change America from what they perceive as looking down on homosexual behavior, to the affirmation of and societal acceptance of homosexual behavior." [1]

Focus on the Family quotes below from a leading book in the homosexual movement in outline the points of the agendas:

"Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and as often as possible."
"Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers."
"Give homosexual protectors a just cause."
"Make gays look good."
"Make the victimizers look bad."
"Get funds from corporate America."

The Goals
The goals of the homosexual movement include:

censoring biblical condemnations of homosexuality[2]
establishing affirmative action for homosexuals[3]
expand hate crimes legislation to include sexual orientation[4]
ending the military's and Boy Scout's restrictions on homosexuality[5]
promote homosexuality in schools[6]
promote science that legitimizes homosexuality, such as claims of a never-identified gay gene[7]
The state-by-state push for same-sex marriage can be viewed as a means to the above goals, or a goal in itself.[8]

Opposing Christian Agenda
Liberals are critical of Christian groups that oppose homosexuality. These criticisms include Christian activities of:

Soliciting donations
Encouraging email activism
Producing and disseminating anti-gay information
Influencing local media in what stories they produce
Lobbying local, state and federal government officials to vote in the desired way on pending legislation

Yeah this is Totaly Neutral :rolleyes:

Lucky for me I know the backdoor at work so I can get to this site, since it is blocked as "Hate Speech" at my job. I guess hate speech is neutral if you think like they do.(not saying anyone on here does) But then again Gays are not real people and should not have the rights of Good moral christians so it is ok to look down on them and think they are godless monsters. God I hate this site, can /b/ just raid it now please?

Yeah it is that bad, I just called on /b/ to do a raid.

[bayushisan]

Because the opinions of conservatives are "hate speech" while the opinions of anyone else is protected under the first ammendment and never hateful at all.

[KN]

[QUOTE=Tollwutig] You either quote someone or not..... do I need to start dropping more bans? QUOTE]

Wait, what? So let's say some politician (and I'm going to assume it's going to be Lieberman, who changes stance on everything whenever he finds the happy pills) says all christians, be they evangelical ****ers or not, should be shot. Appearantly, because this politician wouldn't be a conservative, we would consider this awwwright.

You have a very twisted view of what we regard as hate speech.

[steelcobra]

No, hate speech is hate speech, conservative or liberal. It's just that, in attempting to maintain the status quo, those who support the more hateful opinions do tend to be on the conservative side of the line. Not to say that liberal extremists are any better, of course.

[Thefremen]

Because the opinions of conservatives are "hate speech" while the opinions of anyone else is protected under the first ammendment and never hateful at all.

The contents of that article constitute hate speech and are NOT unbiased by even the most liberal definition of the word. Or the most conservative definition.

[bayushisan]

My point was that there is virtually no acknowledgement of hateful comments that are made by those of a liberal persuasion. If you call them on it the first thing they argue is "don't you believe in free speech" yet any time a conservative voice says ANYTHING they're accused of being evil hatemongers. I know this from observation and personal experience.

[KN]

My point was that there is virtually no acknowledgement of hateful comments that are made by those of a liberal persuasion. If you call them on it the first thing they argue is "don't you believe in free speech" yet any time a conservative voice says ANYTHING they're accused of being evil hatemongers. I know this from observation and personal experience.

Just about every idiot who has said 11/9 was the work of the Bush administration comes to mind. Not only has the media constantly talked about and exposed their bull****, but even uttering the perfectly valid claim that the administration knew it would happen, and did absolutely nothing to stop it, will cause people to lump you in with the crazy conspiracy theorists.

I know this doesn't fit your "I'll only see the evidence I want to see" approach, but just to let you know it's there ;)

[Thefremen]

My point was that there is virtually no acknowledgement of hateful comments that are made by those of a liberal persuasion. If you call them on it the first thing they argue is "don't you believe in free speech" yet any time a conservative voice says ANYTHING they're accused of being evil hatemongers. I know this from observation and personal experience.

You have any sources on this? And don't bring up Rosie or Eminem or Kramer...you know they've caught hell for their various moments.

Ching chong ding dong, every damn album he's made and HE'S A NIGRA HE'S A NIGRA etc.

If you're speaking of this forum then check a look at any thread where myself or KN say something mean about you...

@KN actually some of the 9/11 deniers are conservative, especially the "jews did 9/11" ones.

[bayushisan]

Just about every idiot who has said 11/9 was the work of the Bush administration comes to mind. Not only has the media constantly talked about and exposed their bull****, but even uttering the perfectly valid claim that the administration knew it would happen, and did absolutely nothing to stop it, will cause people to lump you in with the crazy conspiracy theorists.

I know this doesn't fit your "I'll only see the evidence I want to see" approach, but just to let you know it's there ;)

See here's the issue though. When the 9/11 conspiracy nutjobs came out of the woodwork they were defended. The most common thing that was said was "yeah its outrageous, but don't you believe in honest debate and free speech". Compare that with what happens anytime a conservative commentator says something that you don't like. I believe the common response is "you don't have the right to say that" or "you're disrespecting this group of people". Regardless of the context of what the commentator was saying this is an almost universal truth based on my own observations and experiences.

[KN]

See here's the issue though. When the 9/11 conspiracy nutjobs came out of the woodwork they were defended. The most common thing that was said was "yeah its outrageous, but don't you believe in honest debate and free speech". Compare that with what happens anytime a conservative commentator says something that you don't like. I believe the common response is "you don't have the right to say that" or "you're disrespecting this group of people". Regardless of the context of what the commentator was saying this is an almost universal truth based on my own observations and experiences.

The very same people also speak up whenever Ann Coulter opens her mouth. Of course, then you don't hear them, because no one eeeever defends conservatives!

I highlighted a part of your post to show how you purposefully block out information that does not further your opinion.

[Thefremen]

See here's the issue though. When the 9/11 conspiracy nutjobs came out of the woodwork they were defended. The most common thing that was said was "yeah its outrageous, but don't you believe in honest debate and free speech". Compare that with what happens anytime a conservative commentator says something that you don't like. I believe the common response is "you don't have the right to say that" or "you're disrespecting this group of people". Regardless of the context of what the commentator was saying this is an almost universal truth based on my own observations and experiences.

You have any sources on this? And don't bring up Rosie or Eminem or Kramer...you know they've caught hell for their various moments.

Ching chong ding dong, every damn album he's made and HE'S A NIGRA HE'S A NIGRA etc.

If you're speaking of this forum then check a look at any thread where myself or KN say something mean about you...

Answer the valid points that are made to counter yours instead of just further trolling.

[Anjin-San]

The logic behind Conservapedia (or lack therof) is what really stuck to me. Some conservative hag's son founded it as logic and reality is lost on insane jackasses. There is no counter-argument to the statement I say next:

Conservapedia is completely, and utterly (without a shadow of a doubt) dumbtarded.

[bayushisan]

You want evidence here you go. From personal experience even.

In college I took classes on philosophy and political science. During the poli-sci classes we talked about the issue of welfare. MY opinion was, and still is, that a system that weened people off of the assistance was preferable because it enabled them to better take care of themselves rather than have the government take care of them.

For daring to voice this opinion I was called a racist. No matter what kind of liberal nonsense was spouted, even basically saying that those on welfare are incapable of taking care of themselves, was ever called into question. Just the opinion of the lone conservative in the class.

I've personally observed that anytime the issue of homosexuality comes up on this very forum that the common opinion is that unless you unquestioningly support it and consider it normal then you must be a bigot and look down on people. I've tried to explain the matter from an evangelical's perspective, only to be accused of looking down on people myself.

There you go. Evidence from my own personal experience.

[Thefremen]

You want evidence here you go. From personal experience even.

In college I took classes on philosophy and political science. During the poli-sci classes we talked about the issue of welfare. MY opinion was, and still is, that a system that weened people off of the assistance was preferable because it enabled them to better take care of themselves rather than have the government take care of them.

For daring to voice this opinion I was called a racist. No matter what kind of liberal nonsense was spouted, even basically saying that those on welfare are incapable of taking care of themselves, was ever called into question. Just the opinion of the lone conservative in the class.

I've personally observed that anytime the issue of homosexuality comes up on this very forum that the common opinion is that unless you unquestioningly support it and consider it normal then you must be a bigot and look down on people. I've tried to explain the matter from an evangelical's perspective, only to be accused of looking down on people myself.

There you go. Evidence from my own personal experience.

BAAAAAAAAAAAW.

It's called debate and I challenge you to find anywhere where the Lord Himself said that homosexuality is a sin. Not some dude who happened to be around, but The Lord Jesus Christ, the son of God who died for your sins. Do not use your religion as an excuse for your bigotry.

Also, Jesus Christ said that we should render unto God what is God and unto Caesar what is Caesar's. That doesn't mean that we should allow God's law to become Caesar's law.

I had classes in High School were I have had to debate teachers endlessly about land closures and why they don't work in some cases, I've been called racist just for being white. Boo-hoo, the world isn't fair and unless you surround yourself with like minded people if you hold a controversial opinion you had better be damn well ready to defend it. Maybe that's not fair but the world isn't fair.

People who hold a different opinion will question yours, that's how it works. Don't go to stormfront.org and talk about Zionism without being ready to have a huge flamewar, don't go to GP and talk about how homosexuality is a sin without being ready for a smaller flamewar which will be modded and KN will be banned in.

[Demontestament]

You want evidence here you go. From personal experience even.

In college I took classes on philosophy and political science. During the poli-sci classes we talked about the issue of welfare. MY opinion was, and still is, that a system that weened people off of the assistance was preferable because it enabled them to better take care of themselves rather than have the government take care of them.

For daring to voice this opinion I was called a racist. No matter what kind of liberal nonsense was spouted, even basically saying that those on welfare are incapable of taking care of themselves, was ever called into question. Just the opinion of the lone conservative in the class.

I've personally observed that anytime the issue of homosexuality comes up on this very forum that the common opinion is that unless you unquestioningly support it and consider it normal then you must be a bigot and look down on people. I've tried to explain the matter from an evangelical's perspective, only to be accused of looking down on people myself.

There you go. Evidence from my own personal experience.

Dude the entry on conservapedia was Bigotry, nobody can deny that well they can but they are a moron. And the question wasn't about hate speech, it was about the so called "facts" and "being Neutral" that conservapedia claims to have. You picked hate speech out of my post and decided to go on a tiraid about it almost as if you were tying to distance yourself from the real question. Big ****ing deal you were called a racist, that word has lost meaning anymore and is thrown around as much as monkey ****. Even though it is hate speech it is still protected under the first ammendment, but places of employment have the right to block them out because they are not of a professional nature and can cause problems in the work place. Hell the PTC website at my job is blocked as hate speech and propaganda.

Back to the original question, how can they claim to be 100% neutral facts when they post **** like that?

And on the topic of welfare I agree with your idea, but I am in no wy conservative or liberal. I refuse to lable myself.

[Pelor]

hehehe... sex (http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Sex&redirect=no).

I think this weekend I'll go and change every instance of "sex" in the website to "gender."

...homogenderality...

[Demontestament]

hehehe... sex (http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Sex&redirect=no).

I think this weekend I'll go and change every instance of "sex" in the website to "gender."

...homogenderality...

Well the entry on Anal Sex was deleted and is now blocked from being posted on.

[bayushisan]

BAAAAAAAAAAAW.

It's called debate and I challenge you to find anywhere where the Lord Himself said that homosexuality is a sin. Not some dude who happened to be around, but The Lord Jesus Christ, the son of God who died for your sins. Do not use your religion as an excuse for your bigotry.

Also, Jesus Christ said that we should render unto God what is God and unto Caesar what is Caesar's. That doesn't mean that we should allow God's law to become Caesar's law.

I had classes in High School were I have had to debate teachers endlessly about land closures and why they don't work in some cases, I've been called racist just for being white. Boo-hoo, the world isn't fair and unless you surround yourself with like minded people if you hold a controversial opinion you had better be damn well ready to defend it. Maybe that's not fair but the world isn't fair.

People who hold a different opinion will question yours, that's how it works. Don't go to stormfront.org and talk about Zionism without being ready to have a huge flamewar, don't go to GP and talk about how homosexuality is a sin without being ready for a smaller flamewar which will be modded and KN will be banned in.

Thank you for proving my point. Its not a debate when you're only resort is to start throwing words like fundie, homophobe or bigot around. At that point all you have is an argument.

[Thefremen]

Thank you for proving my point. Its not a debate when you're only resort is to start throwing words like fundie, homophobe or bigot around. At that point all you have is an argument.

Not once did I use any one of those words. Now debate me. Don't debate me like I'm secular, don't say you're the final authority on the Christian position because you are and I'm not. Just because I can speak for those who are secular doesn't diminish my faith in the Almighty. Stop skirting the issue, stop making excuses, explain yourself! In what way do you believe Jesus Christ, the one true Messiah sent by God Himself in His infinite wisdom ever said that Homosexual sex is a sin?

[bayushisan]

You're not interested in debate. You're interested in an argument. Believe I do know the difference and I can readily recognize the bating tactics. Though your combative attitude continues to prove my original point; which was and still is that whenever a conservative voices an opinion people get their dander up and start screaming about it. Contrast that to whenever a liberal voices an opinion, the reaction tends to be "free speech" and "don't you believe in honest debate".

But to answer your heated and combative query:
New Testament (Epistles)
1 Corinthians 6:9 - Do you not know that the unrighteous and the wrongdoers will not inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived (misled): neither the impure and immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who participate in homosexuality
Romans 1:26-27 - For this reason God gave them over and abandoned them to vile affections and degrading passions. For their women exchanged their natural function for an unnatural and abnormal one, and the men also turned from natural relations with women and were set ablaze (burning out, consumed) with lust for one another--men committing shameful acts with men and suffering in their own bodies and personalities the inevitable consequences and penalty of their wrong-doing and going astray, which was [their] fitting retribution.

[KN]

I'm going to apply an appropriate quote header to your bible quotes now, Bayu, as you seem to have misunderstood the question.


New Testament (Epistles)
1 Corinthians 6:9 - Do you not know that the unrighteous and the wrongdoers will not inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived (misled): neither the impure and immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who participate in homosexuality
Romans 1:26-27 - For this reason God gave them over and abandoned them to vile affections and degrading passions. For their women exchanged their natural function for an unnatural and abnormal one, and the men also turned from natural relations with women and were set ablaze (burning out, consumed) with lust for one another--men committing shameful acts with men and suffering in their own bodies and personalities the inevitable consequences and penalty of their wrong-doing and going astray, which was [their] fitting retribution.

He asked if Jesus, your messiah and the son of your god, has ever, beyond all doubt, in a stern voice, comdened homosexuality. He did not ask for someone's account of the apostles' emo letters.

You also seem to be using a fairly retarded bible, as 'Paul' speaks of 'sodomites', not "THOSE WHO PARTICIPATE IN HOMOSEXUALITY". I suppose freedom of translation is an unalienable right, but so is my freedom to call it retarded and pull up a better translated bible ;)

[Thefremen]

You're not interested in debate. You're interested in an argument. Believe I do know the difference and I can readily recognize the bating tactics. Though your combative attitude continues to prove my original point; which was and still is that whenever a conservative voices an opinion people get their dander up and start screaming about it. Contrast that to whenever a liberal voices an opinion, the reaction tends to be "free speech" and "don't you believe in honest debate".

But to answer your heated and combative query:
New Testament (Epistles)
1 Corinthians 6:9 - Do you not know that the unrighteous and the wrongdoers will not inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived (misled): neither the impure and immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who participate in homosexuality
Romans 1:26-27 - For this reason God gave them over and abandoned them to vile affections and degrading passions. For their women exchanged their natural function for an unnatural and abnormal one, and the men also turned from natural relations with women and were set ablaze (burning out, consumed) with lust for one another--men committing shameful acts with men and suffering in their own bodies and personalities the inevitable consequences and penalty of their wrong-doing and going astray, which was [their] fitting retribution.

I'm sorry but that's not in red in my copy of KJV new testament. Ya know, the one where the words of Christ are in red.

I'm not bating you, i'm trying to finish this thing where you say something, KN attacks and gets banned, and I feel awful for not jumping in before he says something stupid. I'm sick and tired of people who claim that they believe homosexual intercourse is a sin because Jesus Christ said so. I'm sick and tired of seeing my Lord defiled by those who worship in public while people like myself worship in private and are therefore considerd secular.

[bayushisan]

Here's your problem though. I have never said that Jesus said it was wrong. I've said that the Bible said it was wrong. Two different things entirely, though I do believe that the Bible is inerrant and infalible Word of God.

However, that does not negate the fact that my original point was proven. No one has stepped up to show otherwise. In fact quite the opposite.

[Thefremen]

Here's your problem though. I have never said that Jesus said it was wrong. I've said that the Bible said it was wrong. Two different things entirely, though I do believe that the Bible is inerrant and infalible Word of God.

However, that does not negate the fact that my original point was proven. No one has stepped up to show otherwise. In fact quite the opposite.

You believe that God wrote the entirety of the Bible? That it wasn't translated and re-translated and re-translated? It was just handed down in modern english?

I already used examples of several liberal people who have caught hell for stupid **** they've said and explained that when you enter a forum about beastiality you have to expect that they won't like it if you say they're commiting cruelty against animals, and if you are in America and you say you want religion brought into your government and specifically a religion whose messiah spoke out against that very action, you can't expect to be recieved well.

So what if you're accused of being racist/bigoted/whatever, grow up it happens, not more than an hour ago you accusted me of saying you were a bigot/homophobe/fundie and I said no such thing. **** happens, people throw around accusations and attempt to remove the mote from another's eye before removing the great wall of china from their own.

[Ace_ofspade]

Summarization of pages 5-7:

http://ants.planet.ee/opendir/internet%20-%20serious%20business%20framed.jpg

[nightwng2000]

On the "Homosexual Agenda" article:
"Further reading
Homosexuality and the Nazi Party (http://www.leaderu.com/jhs/lively.html) by Scott Lively. Excellent discussion of the anti-Christian and homosexual origins of the Nazism. "

Yeah, unbiased.

[Theory?]

Fair and balanced.

[nightwng2000]

Ok warriors.... attack!

http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Video_Game

"Video games have borrowed both content and marketing strategy from contemporary film for both better and worse. Some current titles encourage ridiculously senseless violence, prostitution and even cop-killing. A rating system has been introduced and parents should be acutely aware that many of the titles are much different than Pong or Ms. Pac Man. "

After reading the last sentence, why does this come to mind:
This ain't yo daddy's Pac-Man.

:)

[Pelor]

Well the entry on Anal Sex was deleted and is now blocked from being posted on.
But I betcha "anal gender" isn't blocked... :D

[bayushisan]

Isn't it just a tad on the immature side to try and vandalize a site you don't like? I mean if its wrong for people to vandalize Wikipedia, which has a history of these incidents, then its wrong for people to do it to Conservapedia.

[KN]

Isn't it just a tad on the immature side to try and vandalize a site you don't like? I mean if its wrong for people to vandalize Wikipedia, which has a history of these incidents, then its wrong for people to do it to Conservapedia.

You still have a question to answer. Quit dodging it.

[nightwng2000]

Isn't it just a tad on the immature side to try and vandalize a site you don't like? I mean if its wrong for people to vandalize Wikipedia, which has a history of these incidents, then its wrong for people to do it to Conservapedia.

True.

It's doing fine vandalizing itself without anyone else's help.

[Theory?]

Ok we're done here.

8 pages, not bad. You've done better.