Disgusting

Page 4 of 7 [ 104 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next

Caitlin
Deinonychus

Joined: 20 Feb 2010
Gender: Female
Posts: 379
Location: Canada

22 Mar 2010, 1:23 pm

But Panda, aren't you falling into your own trap here? You argue that conservapedia is an unreliable propagandic junkyard (which it is) but yet you want to quote them as an authority on homeschooling.

They can either be trusted as a source or they cannot. If you don't believe their bull about politics, don't believe their bull about homeschooling.

_________________
Caitlin
Embracing change as a blessing in disguise at www.welcome-to-normal.com

pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

22 Mar 2010, 1:30 pm

No-one can tell when I'm just kidding?

I thought that this thread was more about Conservapedophiles (which means lovers of Conservapedia) than about home schooling.

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

22 Mar 2010, 2:38 pm

pandabear wrote:

No-one can tell when I'm just kidding?

No, panda, a lot of people on this site really can't. Sarcasm is hard enough over the Internet without adding autism to the mix.

_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

fidelis
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 567
Location: Somewhere in the deeper corners of my mind.

22 Mar 2010, 2:51 pm

The very first sentence is biased. After that it just rants about vaccines and refrigerator mothers.

http://www.conservapedia.com/Autism

Quote:

Autism is a developmental disability, characterized by the tendency to be self-absorbed...

Quote:

External Links

1. http://www.autismspeaks.org/
2. http://www.autismdigest.com/
3. http://www.nationalautismassociation.org/
4. http://www.autism-society.org/site/PageServer
5. http://www.autismlink.com/
6. Opposing Views: Are Autism and Vaccines Linked?
7. Neurodiversity - An Incredible Resource for Autism Related Information

I don't think they are too concerned about homeschooling autistic children.

Quick note on sarcasm. If it makes no logical sense, and you are sure the person saying it is somewhat intelligent, then it is sarcasm. It works 95% of the time. The other 5% is personal error on my part. I have used it since I was ten and people can't even tell that I have no real clue when people are sarcastic. It's when they rely solely on tone of voice that it doesn't hold too well.

_________________
I just realized that I couldn't possibly realize what I just realized.

PLA
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 May 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,929
Location: Sweden

22 Mar 2010, 3:39 pm

fidelis wrote:

Quick note on sarcasm. If it makes no logical sense, and you are sure the person saying it is somewhat intelligent, then it is sarcasm. It works 95% of the time. The other 5% is personal error on my part. I have used it since I was ten and people can't even tell that I have no real clue when people are sarcastic. It's when they rely solely on tone of voice that it doesn't hold too well.

Isn't that a real clue? I thought everybody used that one.

_________________
I can make a statement true by placing it first in this signature.

"Everyone loves the dolphin. A bitter shark - emerging from it's cold depths - doesn't stand a chance." This is hyperbol.

"Run, Jump, Fall, Limp off, Try Harder."

fidelis
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 567
Location: Somewhere in the deeper corners of my mind.

22 Mar 2010, 3:50 pm

PLA wrote:

Isn't that a real clue? I thought everybody used that one.

It is. I just felt too lazy to go back and edit. What I meant by real clue was tones of voice and the like. I also think that not all people use that. NTs are probably too used to just basing it on vioce alone, and I don't think it's intuitive for anyone, let alone autistics. For example, Panda wrote one thing and then contradicted it by citing a source that I don't think many people here would cite. According to the rule, it would be sarcasm, but not everyone got that it was sarcasm, which means they didn't use the rule. Or something along those lines.

_________________
I just realized that I couldn't possibly realize what I just realized.

waltur
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 May 2009
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 924
Location: california

22 Mar 2010, 6:30 pm

www.conservapedia.com.... my new favorite source of comedy for the next (looks like) 14 hours. ppr reminds me why i love the internet.

pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

22 Mar 2010, 9:25 pm

I'm starting to wonder whether the Conservapedia was really put together by "Liberals" for the sake of lampooning Conservatives.

The entire Conservapedia comes across as a big joke--who would actually take it seriously?

It just succeeds in making Conservatives appear profoundly stupid.

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

22 Mar 2010, 11:02 pm

pandabear wrote:

The thing about the far right (and fundamentalists) is that it is often very difficult to distinguish between a right-winger and a parody of a right-winger.

_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

Avarice
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Oct 2009
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,067

23 Mar 2010, 5:14 am

ruveyn wrote:

Orwell wrote:

ruveyn wrote:

but the matter has not been well established to my satisfaction.

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

The U.N would find a way.

visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

23 Mar 2010, 1:43 pm

I'll stick up for ruveyn's cognition. Although I disagree with him on just about every significant issue of public policy, there is no question in my mind that he reprsents the deeper end of the right wings intellectual pool. Perhaps with a few more ruveyns and fewer Ann Coulter's, we might actually have a meaningful public policy debate. (That's not to say that we don't need to shed some major deadwood on the left, either).

As far as homeschooling is concerned, neither I, nor anyone is in a position to stop parents from indoctrinating their children. If a child comes home having learned that 2 + 2 = 4, and his parents teach him that it's actually 5, and reward him for repeating the lie, eventually he is going to incorporate that lesson. He might even learn to dissemble, regurgitating the expected answers at school, and at home.

But for every creationist fundamentalist out there, there are also parents who are rejecting their school districts' attempts to ban books, and introduce "intelligent design" into the curriculum. If the price of a liberal education is allowing homeshooling parents to do as they wish, then I will gladly pay that price. After all, diversity makes us stronger.

As for climate change, I don't believe that the scientific jury is out any longer. There are, of course, dissenters--and that's a healthy part of scientific research. But the consensus is well formed, now.

But even if the scientific evidence was still uncertain, I would still take steps to lessen my carbon footprint from a purely economic standpoint. Every action I take involves the consumption of energy--to the extent that I can more efficiently use that energy, I can reduce my consumption, and the cost that it takes to maintain my place in the world--leaving more supply available for others' use, and reducing the cost, overall, on a basic supply and demand basis.

_________________
--James

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

23 Mar 2010, 2:57 pm

visagrunt wrote:

But even if the scientific evidence was still uncertain, I would still take steps to lessen my carbon footprint from a purely economic standpoint. Every action I take involves the consumption of energy--to the extent that I can more efficiently use that energy, I can reduce my consumption, and the cost that it takes to maintain my place in the world--leaving more supply available for others' use, and reducing the cost, overall, on a basic supply and demand basis.

is

I switched over to CFL illumination years ago. Why? The CFL lamps last longer and use less current. The electric company is already rich. I see no reason to make them any richer then they are. My consumption decisions are based on rational self interest, the highest form of selfishness.

Visagrunt is wise. The Force is with him.

ruveyn

MEATGRINDER
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

Joined: 20 Dec 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 50

26 Mar 2010, 11:47 am

ruveyn wrote:

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

The Standard Model of fields and particles is one of the most incomplete and least solid modern scientific theories. In many ways the Standard Model is an article of convenience, a lot like String Theory is, and has some major problems that are likely to lead to its downfall. The standard model is not consistent with Relativity Theory which HAS been experimentally verified, and most of all it fails to allow for a quantum theory of gravity.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

26 Mar 2010, 2:30 pm

MEATGRINDER wrote:

Bull crap! The Standard Model predicts non-gravitational effects and phenomena to 12 places accuracy. It is the best scientific theory yet devised. But for all that, it is incomplete since it does not handle gravitation. There is no contradiction between the Standard Model (which assumes special theory of relativity) and the General Theory of Relativity since the two theories are disjoint. The first is for non-gravitational phenomena and effects, the latter for gravitation. The two theories speak to different matters.

On the other hand climate "science" consists of statistical models which have many adjustable parameters. One can get whatever results are politically expedient.

ruveyn

ruveyn

Master_Pedant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,903

26 Mar 2010, 8:40 pm

pandabear wrote:

Satrical leftists may contribute some of the content, but it was founded and is administred by genuine conservatives.

http://www.eagleforumu.org/EAGLEFORUMU/ ... gistered=1

Andy Schlafly is a genuine conservative (see the "links" page for a link to conservapedia).

Progressive satirists have written parody articles for conservapedia - and received praise by conservative administrators for it.

http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Conservapedia:Parodist (Yes, I know Rational Wiki is satrical. But this article is semi-serious & their have been many "deep cover liberals" at conservapedia).

The line between satire and the irrationality of the religious ultra-right is very fine at the best of times.

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

26 Mar 2010, 9:00 pm

ruveyn wrote:

MEATGRINDER wrote:

Whatever the mathematical basis for the analysis anyone who doubts that the ice at the poles is melting or that the life patterns of large numbers of wild creatures is radically changing or that sea level is rising or that global temperatures are rising or that methane from tundras is increasingly emitted and cannot see the raw measurements is a damned fool whatever his technical expertise. See http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 101117.htm

Page 4 of 7 [ 104 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next

Jump to:

Disgusting Post Reply New Topic

Disgusting