Disgusting

Post Reply New Topic

http://www.conservapedia.com/George_Orwell#cite_note-0

... that home "schooled" children get their information from that manure factory.

"The truth is that to many people calling themselves Socialists, revolution does not mean a movement of the masses with which they hope to associate themselves; it means a set of reforms which 'we,' the clever ones, are going to impose upon 'them,' the Lower Orders."

This is the kind of quote that has been cleverly pushed by the Right as a kind of class war of a different type. In the U.S. it's the identification of the ultra-right with pickup-driving working class types against the "liberal elite".

Conservapedia is nothing more than right-wing propaganda. I don't think anybody, with the exception of far right-wingers, takes them seriously.

They also claim to be unbiased and more reliable than Wikipedia.

You'll find a lot of articles and quotes from Conservapedia on the website Fundies Say The Darndest Things.

I really don't know your claim here Master Pedant. You say something about "homeschoolers", but I am missing the reference.

It is true that many homeschoolers do get mis-educated. http://rawstory.com/2010/03/top-homesch ... evolution/

At the same time though, I would have to think that if I had a child and the time, then I would homeschool that child. Mostly because public education is sort of nonsensical and a waste of time for more capable students, and because I honestly hold my judgment on subject-matter in high esteem.

Conservapedia is marketed to and used by fundamentalist home schoolers.

A good friend of mine is a fundamentalist who was home schooled. He's a very bright guy, and it saddens me to see his mind filled with such utter nonsense.

Conservapedia is taken seriously? Most people don't take wikipedia seriously. I can see them using this as a first source online, but seriously, the textbooks that homeschoolers use are likely more suspect than their online encyclopedia.

Please give me a hand here. Which parts of that article on Eric Blair are wrong?

ruveyn

I meant more the general right-wing nonsense, ie creationism, global warming denial, assorted odd economic, religious, and political beliefs.

In regards to the article, it is somewhat misleading by attempting to give the impression that Blair was a conservative. To pretend that he was at any point in his life anything but left-wing is rather silly. In any case, even without glaring lies it gives a very distorted view of his life by de-emphasizing or ignoring many of the most significant details. They provide no evidence for or details of his alleged conservatism, aside from his distaste for the Soviet Union.

That alone put him apart from the massively "pink" intellectual establishment of the 30s and 40s. But I take your reservation. I have never seen that "pedia" before so I have no general opinion on it.

By the way, the science or "science" behind the claim that the current warm phase of the world is primarily driven by human activity is sh***y as science goes. Freeman Dyson, who is not a foam at the mouth Right Winger has said that the climate models are not causal but statistical and therefore are bad science.

They (the politically corrupt IPCC and others) might very well be right about primarily human causes for the current warm phase, but the matter has not been well established to my satisfaction. The entire climatic history of this planet for the last 3.5 to 4.0 billion years has been a succession of warmer and colder phases. The warmest of which were the eruption of the various Traps, such as the Siberian and Deccan Traps and the coldest of which was the "ice ball". Climate is always changing. Sometimes, not to our liking. It could be that we are headed for extinction and not through our own doing.

Since we are being asked to sacrifice our comfort (and perhaps decades of our all too brief lifetime) for the sake of modifying the climatic trend, I insist on a scientific basis as least as good as the Standard Model for Fields and Particles.; accurate to 12 places and overwhelmingly established by experimental means. I am not about to commit sepuko for Giaia. I know I am being a stickler, but there it is.

ruveyn

And frankly, no one gives a damn whether or not you are satisfied by the explanations given. I am not able to seriously discuss climate change science as it is well outside the fields I have personally studied; I suspect it is also well outside your expertise. The best I can do is defer to people who do know the science, and they seem to believe there is cause for concern.

I give a damn and I will act to the extent I can act to prevent my claims to a carbon footprint from being hijacked on fraudulent grounds. And I am not the only one who feels that way. I will vote for those who oppose controls and rationing imposed on grounds I consider insufficient and outright fraudulent. As I said, I am not a lone voice in the night. There are millions who feel and think on the matter as I do, and by God, sir, we will be heard! People like me vote negatively when we are sufficiently motivated. I would like to see the U.N. stop that.

ruveyn

as*holes are a major reason I have impulses towards mass homicide.

Your notion of what an as*hole is, is quite defective. You believe you have Right and Reason on your side. You are mistaken.

ruveyn

How can it be defective? I don't even care who has "right and reason", as nobody knows what those things are. The issue is that you fit into the best approximation I have at the moment, and I can't conceive of an as*hole outside of whatever I am approximating. I am not a Platonist and do not hold to a Platonic as*hole.

Another lovely gem from the Conservapedia (this time, it's hompage):

http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php? ... did=636272