Conquer Club

thegreekdog wrote:This has to be a parody web page right?

It most certainly is not.

Woodruff wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

Woodruff wrote:Conservapedia is...seriously...bizarre

The best one is the Lenski dialogue. There's a short part of the wiki about it: here

It's the point where much of the site collapsed.

Holy crap...right below that it talks about them rewriting the Bible to take out the liberal parts? Egads!

Best line in that part,

the College Republican chapter at a rural institution of Bible learnin'"

interesting that they have no understanding of the importance of honestly forgiving others to allow room in your heart for God.

Woodruff wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:This has to be a parody web page right?

It most certainly is not.

Well... it is and it isn't - at one point it got to the point where you couldn't tell the difference between serious contributors and parodists - the guy who started the site appears to be 100% serious, but many people who contribute to the site are not... even many of the highest-ranking moderators on the site have turned out to be parodists.

natty dread wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:This has to be a parody web page right?

It most certainly is not.

Well... it is and it isn't - at one point it got to the point where you couldn't tell the difference between serious contributors and parodists - the guy who started the site appears to be 100% serious, but many people who contribute to the site are not... even many of the highest-ranking moderators on the site have turned out to be parodists.

Ah, that's interesting and good to know. I knew the lawyer dude was completely serious and also that he was pretty hardcore about maintaining the site "in his view", so I just presumed he'd be cracking down on any trolls pretty quickly.

It is difficult to defend against that which you do not see.

Woodruff wrote:

natty dread wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:This has to be a parody web page right?

It most certainly is not.

Well... it is and it isn't - at one point it got to the point where you couldn't tell the difference between serious contributors and parodists - the guy who started the site appears to be 100% serious, but many people who contribute to the site are not... even many of the highest-ranking moderators on the site have turned out to be parodists.

Ah, that's interesting and good to know. I knew the lawyer dude was completely serious and also that he was pretty hardcore about maintaining the site "in his view", so I just presumed he'd be cracking down on any trolls pretty quickly.

He does crack down on anyone who disagrees with him openly, or posts any "liberal" views - where "liberal" means anything that doesn't fit into a particular narrow fundamentalist view of conservative christianity.

However, due to the bizarre qualities of the content of the site, and possibly because the views of the site founder are so far away detached from reality, it's really hard to spot parodists.

Army of GOD wrote:http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&redirs=0&search=boobs&fulltext=Search&ns0=1

=(

Search uncyclopedia for boobs and look at the Louisiana state coin. -Haha!

Haggis_McMutton wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

Woodruff wrote:Conservapedia is...seriously...bizarre

The best one is the Lenski dialogue. There's a short part of the wiki about it: here

It's the point where much of the site collapsed.

The exchange really is pretty good: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lenski_affair

My favorite part in Richard Dawkin's second response... (Quoting Dr. Paley)

I think there’s a great deal of misunderstanding here from the critics of Mr. Schlafly and obfuscation on the part of Prof. Lenski and his supporters. The real data that we need are not in the paper. Rather they are in the bacteria used in the experiments themselves. Prof. Lenski claims that these bacteria ‘evolved’ novel traits and that these were preceded by the evolution of ‘potentiated genotypes’, from which the traits could be ‘reevolved’ using preserved colonies from those generations. But how are we to know if these traits weren’t ‘potentiated’ by the Creator when He designed the bacteria thousands of years ago, such that they would eventually reveal themselves when the time was right? [...]

Maugena wrote:[spoiler]

Haggis_McMutton wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

Woodruff wrote:Conservapedia is...seriously...bizarre

The best one is the Lenski dialogue. There's a short part of the wiki about it: here

It's the point where much of the site collapsed.

The exchange really is pretty good: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lenski_affair

[/spoiler]
My favorite part in Richard Dawkin's second response... (Quoting Dr. Paley)
[spoiler]

I think there’s a great deal of misunderstanding here from the critics of Mr. Schlafly and obfuscation on the part of Prof. Lenski and his supporters. The real data that we need are not in the paper. Rather they are in the bacteria used in the experiments themselves. Prof. Lenski claims that these bacteria ‘evolved’ novel traits and that these were preceded by the evolution of ‘potentiated genotypes’, from which the traits could be ‘reevolved’ using preserved colonies from those generations. But how are we to know if these traits weren’t ‘potentiated’ by the Creator when He designed the bacteria thousands of years ago, such that they would eventually reveal themselves when the time was right? [...]

[/spoiler]

I think you mean "Lenski".

MeDeFe wrote:

Maugena wrote:[spoiler]

Haggis_McMutton wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

Woodruff wrote:Conservapedia is...seriously...bizarre

The best one is the Lenski dialogue. There's a short part of the wiki about it: here

It's the point where much of the site collapsed.

The exchange really is pretty good: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Lenski_affair

[/spoiler]
My favorite part in Richard Dawkin's second response... (Quoting Dr. Paley)
[spoiler]

I think there’s a great deal of misunderstanding here from the critics of Mr. Schlafly and obfuscation on the part of Prof. Lenski and his supporters. The real data that we need are not in the paper. Rather they are in the bacteria used in the experiments themselves. Prof. Lenski claims that these bacteria ‘evolved’ novel traits and that these were preceded by the evolution of ‘potentiated genotypes’, from which the traits could be ‘reevolved’ using preserved colonies from those generations. But how are we to know if these traits weren’t ‘potentiated’ by the Creator when He designed the bacteria thousands of years ago, such that they would eventually reveal themselves when the time was right? [...]

[/spoiler]

I think you mean "Lenski".

Indeed I do. Oops.

The scariest thing about Conservapedia is that some people actually let their children to be taught by the guy behind that site.

Yes, he's a homeschool teacher who teaches other people's kids. Using conservapedia as teaching material.

How the f*ck is that even allowed... I thought raving lunatics weren't allowed to be school teachers in most civilized countries...

natty dread wrote:The scariest thing about Conservapedia is that some people actually let their children to be taught by the guy behind that site.

Yes, he's a homeschool teacher who teaches other people's kids. Using conservapedia as teaching material.

How the f*ck is that even allowed... I thought raving lunatics weren't allowed to be school teachers in most civilized countries...

Again, the question is who cares. I figure it like this: if some jackass was homeschooled into believing something that isn't true at the expense of something that is true, that person will do poorly in college or university and will thus be less prepared than me (or someone that was educated correctly). Thus, that person will not be able to compete with me (or the better educated person) for good jobs. They are not receiving the best tools to succeed in life. That's fine with me.

It's like the guy who wants to be an accountant, but refuses to use a calculator, prefering to use an abacus instead. Go ahead dude.

thegreekdog wrote:

natty dread wrote:The scariest thing about Conservapedia is that some people actually let their children to be taught by the guy behind that site.

Yes, he's a homeschool teacher who teaches other people's kids. Using conservapedia as teaching material.

How the f*ck is that even allowed... I thought raving lunatics weren't allowed to be school teachers in most civilized countries...

Again, the question is who cares. I figure it like this: if some jackass was homeschooled into believing something that isn't true at the expense of something that is true, that person will do poorly in college or university and will thus be less prepared than me (or someone that was educated correctly). Thus, that person will not be able to compete with me (or the better educated person) for good jobs. They are not receiving the best tools to succeed in life. That's fine with me.

It's like the guy who wants to be an accountant, but refuses to use a calculator, prefering to use an abacus instead. Go ahead dude.

Who cares? Maybe someone who is capable of empathy...

Most kids don't get to choose what they are taught when they are kids. That's pretty much something that comes with the territory, of being a kid I mean. So I don't really see how you can call someone a "jackass" simply because their moron parents made them get their education from someone who thinks the theory of relativity is a liberal conspiracy...

natty dread wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

natty dread wrote:The scariest thing about Conservapedia is that some people actually let their children to be taught by the guy behind that site.

Yes, he's a homeschool teacher who teaches other people's kids. Using conservapedia as teaching material.

How the f*ck is that even allowed... I thought raving lunatics weren't allowed to be school teachers in most civilized countries...

Again, the question is who cares. I figure it like this: if some jackass was homeschooled into believing something that isn't true at the expense of something that is true, that person will do poorly in college or university and will thus be less prepared than me (or someone that was educated correctly). Thus, that person will not be able to compete with me (or the better educated person) for good jobs. They are not receiving the best tools to succeed in life. That's fine with me.

It's like the guy who wants to be an accountant, but refuses to use a calculator, prefering to use an abacus instead. Go ahead dude.

Who cares? Maybe someone who is capable of empathy...

Most kids don't get to choose what they are taught when they are kids. That's pretty much something that comes with the territory, of being a kid I mean. So I don't really see how you can call someone a "jackass" simply because their moron parents made them get their education from someone who thinks the theory of relativity is a liberal conspiracy...

Two of my cousins are very religious, very conservative, and home schooled. I think one of them went to that super conservative college in the south (I can't recall the name). They are both highly intelligent and have excellent jobs. That's why I don't have any empathy... mostly because it doesn't really hurt the home schooled folks. There are a lot more pressing needs in terms of education than whether or not a rich white kid from South Carolina learns about creationism instead of evolution. I prefer to use my empathy for people that deserve empathy (acknowledging of course that my empathy is not infinite).

On a related note, I suspect if a home-schooled, conservative, Christian Coalition-type dude starts posting in this thread, you will use the term "jackass" or similar term numerous times when referring to that person (regardless of whether that person was taught by their moron parents). In fact, I bet I could find that very post.

thegreekdog wrote:

natty dread wrote:The scariest thing about Conservapedia is that some people actually let their children to be taught by the guy behind that site.

Yes, he's a homeschool teacher who teaches other people's kids. Using conservapedia as teaching material.

How the f*ck is that even allowed... I thought raving lunatics weren't allowed to be school teachers in most civilized countries...

Again, the question is who cares. I figure it like this: if some jackass was homeschooled into believing something that isn't true at the expense of something that is true, that person will do poorly in college or university and will thus be less prepared than me (or someone that was educated correctly). Thus, that person will not be able to compete with me (or the better educated person) for good jobs. They are not receiving the best tools to succeed in life. That's fine with me.

It's like the guy who wants to be an accountant, but refuses to use a calculator, prefering to use an abacus instead. Go ahead dude.

If it's an adult making that decision (about their schooling), then I agree. But a child being put into that position by a parent...I see that as tantamount to child abuse, in all seriousness.

thegreekdog wrote:Two of my cousins are very religious, very conservative, and home schooled. I think one of them went to that super conservative college in the south (I can't recall the name). They are both highly intelligent and have excellent jobs. That's why I don't have any empathy... mostly because it doesn't really hurt the home schooled folks. There are a lot more pressing needs in terms of education than whether or not a rich white kid from South Carolina learns about creationism instead of evolution. I prefer to use my empathy for people that deserve empathy (acknowledging of course that my empathy is not infinite).

The problem isn't that they are homeschooled. I actually support the right to homeschool. But to use such material as part of the curriculum...that's a different animal.

It's brainwashing and indoctrination in order for a child to grow up to hold a certain viewpoint. It's replacing education with training.

natty dread wrote:The scariest thing about Conservapedia is that some people actually let their children to be taught by the guy behind that site.

Yes, he's a homeschool teacher who teaches other people's kids. Using conservapedia as teaching material.

How the f*ck is that even allowed... I thought raving lunatics weren't allowed to be school teachers in most civilized countries...

No, the scariest part is that a combination of historically poor science education for teachers, compounded by the extreme difficulty in keepin up with the many advances AND a very active lobby group, including some very subtle and intentional anti-science thinking are moving our kids away from a good education in science.

Its not just sex education that is being curtailed in public schools, anything about climate is "controversial" (even though scientifically it is not) and now evolution is quickly moving into that realm.. something teachers actively avoid even teaching until maybe high school. AND, the worst part is that many good teachers do this either because they just don't knwo enough to realize what they are doing OR because the requirements are so intentionally NOT about understanding science. The standardized tests are almost all vocabulary, not how to figure things out, how to analyze, test or actually think.

thegreekdog wrote:
Again, the question is who cares. I figure it like this: if some jackass was homeschooled into believing something that isn't true at the expense of something that is true, that person will do poorly in college or university and will thus be less prepared than me (or someone that was educated correctly). Thus, that person will not be able to compete with me (or the better educated person) for good jobs. They are not receiving the best tools to succeed in life. That's fine with me.

A. its not just some jackasses.
B. You generally have to PAY for those jackass's education. A lot are now using cyberschooling. Cyberschools bill the district not based on their own costs, but a rate based on the cost of educating that student in the home district. Special education kids get a much higher rate. BUT.. worse yet, the home district is held responsible if the student is found truant. The home public school district, however, has no say in the quality of the education. They are held responsible, but are constrained from really taking responsibility.
C. When you are talking science, the movement now is to pretend that a LOT of evidence out there just does not exist. You may disagree on whether we should restrict oil drilling/put up a particular factory, etc. However, if you and I don't each understand the basic factual impacts of that decision, then it comes down to not who has the best argument, but who has the money to bully enough people or subvert enough thinking. It comes down to not who is making the best decision, but plain and simply who has the most money.

If you wish to believe that making a lot of money makes someone better able to make scientific decisions.. well, then take your child to Donald Trump, not your local doctor for any major illness.

thegreekdog wrote:
It's like the guy who wants to be an accountant, but refuses to use a calculator, prefering to use an abacus instead. Go ahead dude.

NO, its more like the guy who sets the standards for construction does not believe earthquakes happen. As a result, he convinces a large percentage of people in the state to lobby against any requirements for earthquake standards.

People who think that God created all species exactly as they are don't care about adaptation to pesticides, don't understand the emergence of disease resistant bacteria, etc, etc. All of those things hurt our public health.

AND -- there is such a thing as the climate of a community. It is absolutely no accident that silicone valley happened where it did and the proximity to Stanford, Berkeley AND the high level of education in most public schools at that time were a key reason. You cannot have prosperity without education, not just individual education, but universal education. Else, all you have is a Mozart in a community that not only has no pianos, it does not have music at all.

Okay, so again, what's the big deal? Humor me. Child X is taught creationism and that evolution is scary liberal propaganda. What happens to Child X? What happens to society?

Woodruff wrote:If it's an adult making that decision (about their schooling), then I agree. But a child being put into that position by a parent...I see that as tantamount to child abuse, in all seriousness.

How? What is the detriment to the child?

I'm honestly wondering how I should spend my time: trying to solve the problem of public schools or worrying about the indoctrination of home schooled Christian children.

the only truth is natty(_)dread's truth.

PLAYER57832 wrote:AND -- there is such a thing as the climate of a community. It is absolutely no accident that silicone valley happened where it did and the proximity to Stanford, Berkeley AND the high level of education in most public schools at that time were a key reason.

I'm pretty sure that Silicone Valley is around Las Vegas.

thegreekdog wrote:

Woodruff wrote:If it's an adult making that decision (about their schooling), then I agree. But a child being put into that position by a parent...I see that as tantamount to child abuse, in all seriousness.

How? What is the detriment to the child?

I'm stunned to hear you ask that question. The detriment to the child is obvious in that they will be fully lacking an active knowledge base for how the world works and how to effectively deal with people.

thegreekdog wrote:I'm honestly wondering how I should spend my time: trying to solve the problem of public schools or worrying about the indoctrination of home schooled Christian children.

This seems obvious to me too...whichever you feel is the more significant problem, relative to the costs involved.

Woodruff wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Woodruff wrote:If it's an adult making that decision (about their schooling), then I agree. But a child being put into that position by a parent...I see that as tantamount to child abuse, in all seriousness.

How? What is the detriment to the child?

I'm stunned to hear you ask that question. The detriment to the child is obvious in that they will be fully lacking an active knowledge base for how the world works and how to effectively deal with people.

You need to convince me that someone not believing evolution is "lacking an active knowledge base for how the world works and how to effectively deal with people."

thegreekdog wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Woodruff wrote:If it's an adult making that decision (about their schooling), then I agree. But a child being put into that position by a parent...I see that as tantamount to child abuse, in all seriousness.

How? What is the detriment to the child?

I'm stunned to hear you ask that question. The detriment to the child is obvious in that they will be fully lacking an active knowledge base for how the world works and how to effectively deal with people.

You need to convince me that someone not believing evolution is "lacking an active knowledge base for how the world works and how to effectively deal with people."

If Conservapedia dealt only with a disbelief in evolution, then I would agree with you. Sadly, it does not.

Woodruff wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Woodruff wrote:If it's an adult making that decision (about their schooling), then I agree. But a child being put into that position by a parent...I see that as tantamount to child abuse, in all seriousness.

How? What is the detriment to the child?

I'm stunned to hear you ask that question. The detriment to the child is obvious in that they will be fully lacking an active knowledge base for how the world works and how to effectively deal with people.

You need to convince me that someone not believing evolution is "lacking an active knowledge base for how the world works and how to effectively deal with people."

If Conservapedia dealt only with a disbelief in evolution, then I would agree with you. Sadly, it does not.

I thought we were talking about evolution vs. creationism.

thegreekdog wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Woodruff wrote:If it's an adult making that decision (about their schooling), then I agree. But a child being put into that position by a parent...I see that as tantamount to child abuse, in all seriousness.

How? What is the detriment to the child?

I'm stunned to hear you ask that question. The detriment to the child is obvious in that they will be fully lacking an active knowledge base for how the world works and how to effectively deal with people.

You need to convince me that someone not believing evolution is "lacking an active knowledge base for how the world works and how to effectively deal with people."

If Conservapedia dealt only with a disbelief in evolution, then I would agree with you. Sadly, it does not.

I thought we were talking about evolution vs. creationism.

I thought we were talking about the guy using Conservapedia as one of his reference sources for homeschooling kids.