What Price ‘Info’


Conservapedia (I’m sure you can find the link) is the reaction’s reply to Wikipedia. Wikipedia, apparently, is “anti American, and anti-Christian” and the guys over at Conservapedia are going to fix that.
How? Well, this is their entry on global warming:

On February 2, 2007, an internatonal panel of hundreds of scientists and representatives of 113 governments issued a report concluding:

“The observed widespread warming of the atmosphere and ocean, together with ice-mass loss, support the conclusion that it is extremely unlikely that global climate change of the past 50 years can be explained without external forcing, and very likely that is not due to known natural causes alone.”[3]

It should be noted that these scientists are motivated by a need for grant money in their field of climatology. Therefore, their work can not be considered unbiased, though no more than any scientist in any other field .[4]. Also, these scientists are mostly liberal athiests, untroubled by the hubris that man can destroy the Earth which God gave him.[5]


Thanks to Maxine at Petrona for pointing that one out.

And this is from their entry on abortion:

The majority of scientific studies have shown that abortion causes an increase in breast cancer, including 16 out of 17 statistically significant studies. However, like the tobacco industry in the 1950s, the abortion industry has so far kept this important information away from much of the public. This may be due to the profitability of selling fetal parts for Chinese medicine.

Does anyone have a solution to the problem of mad people?

Possibly Related Classroom Projects From DonorsChoose.org Powered by Social Actions

Information and Links

Join the fray by commenting, tracking what others have to say, or linking to it from your blog.

Information
March 2nd, 2007
Comments
Feeds and Links
Comment Feed
From This Author
Del.icio.us
Digg
Technorati
Categories
Uncategorized

Other Posts
The Definition of Friendship
This Is Not a Review of The Queen Either

Readers

Shop newcritics

Featured books:


Viewing 23 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    One of my definitions of a "conservative" is "Someone who believes that agenda transcends truth." Whenever truth gets in the way of their agenda, they lable it as liberal bias.

    It reminds me of this .
    • ^
    • v
    I won't be the first to point out that a 'conservative' encyclopaedia that explicitly excludes or depracates certain categories of thought, opinions, activities and so on can't be a very useful study resource. Although I suppose it's handy to have these people all in one place where we can keep an eye on them...
    • ^
    • v
    This is why democracy is antithetical to the pursuit of knowledge. The best have to be employed in whatever field.

    Not too oddly. Left Wing PC has much in common w its ideological opposite, as proven with this nonsense.
    • ^
    • v
    John Stuart Mills once said "Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative"

    Ergo conservpedia.

    It's important to keep in mind that even within the ranks of the fringe-right xtian conservative set, there's a powerful movement, a real live grassroots rebellion, to address climate change.

    The leadership is working hard to quell this uprising, but those efforts are failing and the people who make up that demographic are beginning to wrest some of the power away from the money/politics/ideology-mongers who have led them to where they are today.

    So, I think conservepedia will die a death of attrition, because it is, as Steve Bowbrick says, as useful and worthwhile as a pet rock. Nothing needs to be done.
    • ^
    • v
    I can't say I'm terribly worried by Conservapedia, feeling much the same as the other commenters on this thread.
    It's good to note what you have to say, though, B Tween. A rebellion, eh? Lovely.
    • ^
    • v
    This has to be a parody. I mean it HAS to be:

    "The entry for the Renaissance in Wikipedia refuses to give enough credit to Christianity."

    Mind you, that is the Number Two Example of Bias in Wikipedia.

    I smell conspiracy. Someone is trying to make conservatives look, well, silly.
    • ^
    • v
    How hard do you have to try to make conservatives look silly?
    On the other hand you might be right. What if, no, I can't believe it, but . . .what if some liberal-faggot-atheists have been messing with the text . . .
    • ^
    • v
    But, Brendan, Mill was speaking of the Tories, who really have nothing to do with U.S.-style conservatism (itself a difficult enough thing to define). See: http://politicalspectrum.blogspot.com/2005/11/a...
    • ^
    • v
    John -- this looks like a job for Michelle Malkin! No one but Our Michelle could possibly have the assistants and resourcefulness and goshdarned stick-to-itiveness to ferret out just what these nefarious LFAs are putting into this site.

    Which reminds me ... I should see if Conservapedia an article on the Japanese internment. I couldn't help noticing that Wikipedia, in its biased way, seemed to cover that event like it was a bad thing.
    • ^
    • v
    This post is the gift that keeps on giving.
    Victor Hugo - a slender post that nonetheless says "Christianity animated his work."
    FDR - also slim, but apparently Roosevelt was really a big-time Christian.
    George Clinton is listed as president of the united states - not Funkadelic, the old-time NY governor.
    Lincoln - "Lincoln was perhaps the only President who appeared to move from being an unbeliever to believer while in office."
    John Scopes - "As crafty as the day is long, he arrived in Tennessee armed with his bag of tricks."
    "Crusades... Good or Bad?" Yes, that's an article.
    "Moby-Dick" - "Now, 155 years after its publication, it is less popular among teachers. The shifting popularity of the novel may reflect the shifting views toward Christianity in American schools, as the novel's invocation of religion was perhaps too superficial for schools in the 1850s but too much for schools today."
    I could go on....
    • ^
    • v
    Tom, you are so right. I love the Warren Court entry. It "found many new rights not expressly in the U.S. Constitution." Right after that, you get a decision list that includes Griswold v. Connecticut and Brown vs. Board of Education.

    And the end of the Copernicus entry, we have this gem:

    "To this day, most Protestant countries reject the Copernican theory."
    • ^
    • v
    “To this day, most Protestant countries reject the Copernican theory.”
    That's a real beauty, capped only by the ending to the article on Jesus:
    "believed by Christian followers to be God's dad, who came to earth as a human c 2 AD. However, God has recently revealed on His blog that Jesus is actually His nephew, not His son."
    • ^
    • v
    Oh lordie, this gets better:

    George Washington - "Washington is perhaps the only person other than Jesus who declined enormous worldly power, in Washington's case by voluntarily stepping aside as the ruler of a prosperous nation."

    Thomas Jefferson: "...often credited as the author of the Declaration of Independence, though key portions of that document were simply taken from the Virginia Declaration of Rights.

    Andrew Carnegie: "Though a Christian for much of his life, he had a crisis in faith in his elder years, becoming an atheist, and a proponent of proponent of the One World Government, in the form of a "league of nations."

    Henry David Thoreau - "Thoreau is sometimes thought of as a sort of 1800s hippie, but in fact Thoreau was completely serious about carrying on the family business, which was the manufacturing of pencils."

    Harry Potter: "At Hogwarts, chapel is conspicuously absent."
    • ^
    • v
    B Tween: 'John Stuart Mills once said “Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative”

    1st off, it's Mill, not Mills. 2nd- libs and cons are generally not positions arrived at via cogitation, but by predisposition, so intellect has little to do with it. Just as smart men do not necessarily prefer redheads to blonds or brunets.

    When it comes to such temperamental things, people usually feel somthing, then rationalize it intellectually.

    Mill's quote is as biased as those he tries to lampoon.
    • ^
    • v
    Also, the site is less a conservative site than a Fundy Christian site, and there's really a diff.
    • ^
    • v
    I still like the John Stuart Mill quote, despite what you say, Dan.
    But politicians have understood that voters have an allegiance to a certain party and that they don't, usually, think about it very much, and have taken advantage of it frequently.
    One of the best examples is Tony Blair, because his 'natural' party would have been Conservative. But instead of going with them he changed the name of the British Labour party to New Labour and pushed its policies to the right while retaining the traditional labour party voters.
    • ^
    • v
    Well, you can agree w the quote, but it's still biased.

    That said, you are correct re: the Blair thing. Don't know if you're an Am or Brit, but in the USA I tire of the bastardization of words in general, and esp. politics.

    Libs and Cons are no longer what they really are. A true conservative, as example, wd support abortion rights straight down the line, and not give a damn about gays and who sleeps w whom. Yet the people who obsess over sex the most in this country are not Libs but Cons. They are therefore Right Wingers and extremists, not the reverse.

    But so-called Liberals are as bad. In the last two decades 90% of the calls for banned books have come from the Left. Yes, there are nuts who still want all sexual refs removed from books, but when a work w a racist term, or a term about gays or any ethnic group- save Christians, comes up, it's always a so-called Liberal behind it.

    The same bastardization has taken place w Feminists- who no longer are concerned with the overall plight of women, but have painted themselves into a corner w a narrow Lesbian agenda. Libertatians in the US are a joke. They are not true Libertarians, but shills for corporations and deregulation, whereas any true Libertarian acknowledges that Corporate power is an even bigger threat to the individual's liberty than the government is.

    It's insane, but people have been so narcotized by Ipods, DVDs, cable TV, MP3s, etc., that nothing really moves them. An election is stolen, a war that is not just is launched, the gov'y tries to usurp a husband's right to carry out his wife's final wishes, and on and on, and people just accep the crap, because they gotta watch American Idol or Desperate Housewives.

    Sad.
    • ^
    • v
    But so-called Liberals are as bad. In the last two decades 90% of the calls for banned books have come from the Left. Yes, there are nuts who still want all sexual refs removed from books, but when a work w a racist term, or a term about gays or any ethnic group- save Christians, comes up, it’s always a so-called Liberal behind it.

    I don't think this is true. I can't remember even one instance where a liberal, "so called" or otherwise was ever for the banning of a book. Liberals tend to speak out against what they perceive to be hate-speech, or politically incorrect statements. We may call for boycotts and try to persuade corporate sponsors to disassociate themselves with certain books or authors of those books, but banning them?
    • ^
    • v
    Viscount. This is the real world. Books that have been considered classics are removed for refs re: sex, race, religion, etc. and it's Leftists. Ask teachers.

    'Hate speech' is often the cover for the sotto voce fascism. The Left is every bit as intolerant as the right, and in the arts that's only amplified.

    PC is a sick dogma, every bit as destructive as Right Wing Christian BS.

    And boycotts of things are merely de facto bannings, because they often force others to ban things.
    • ^
    • v
    Viscount,

    On this thread, re: Pete Townshend, http://newcritics.com/blog1/2007/02/28/pete-tow...

    Tom proves my point, unless my latest post has again been removed.

    This is serious business. Unles there is libel or defamation, or someone is threatening another, info online shd be left- good, bad, or indifferent. This is part of free discourse, and what the Internet is all about. Yes, it leads to porno and spam, but it also leads to occasional wisdom. To act as censor is shameful.
    • ^
    • v
    Dan,
    I strongly disagree with your statement as it applies to this blog: "To act as censor is shameful."
    This is my blog. I've paid for it. Not a lot of money in the grand scheme of things, but enough for my modest budget.
    I've invited writers in, and kept comments open. But I do reserve the right to choose what appears here, even if I don't exercise that right very often.
    Not to belabor the point on Pete Townshend, who is a wealthy rock star and can defend himself - but I've invited him to blog here. He may or may not choose to do so, but in making that invite, he has become part of this little community (in my mind at least). So I feel it necessary to extend the same courtesies I'd extend to you. It's my call. Hope you're okay with it.
    • ^
    • v
    Dan:
    1) It's "brunettes", not "brunets", unless you are referring to smart men liking MALEs, who would then be referred to as blonds and bruns.
    2) it may be true that thoughtfulness is not prerequisite to the outer-lying (not fringe) edges of a social idea, but in my experience, as in Mill's, most of the hundreds (or more likely thousands) of "Liberals" I have met have been very learned, well read and intellectual. In contrast, the overwhelming majority of so-called "conservatives" I've met in my days have been disdainful of intellectualism, empiricism and logic, preferring to trust the messages their "guts" send them that confirm a narrow worldview.
    If your experience is different than mine, great.
    And Tom K, there's not a hell of a lot of difference between the tories and our conservatives today, just as there isn't a lot of difference between Scotch-Irish rednecks of the 19th century and our very own today.
    • ^
    • v
    Now that everybody's winded...
    I think Mill's comment was meant as a witticism somewhat more than it was meant as a general statement of fact.
    I personally don't find the terms liberal or conservative much use in a political discussion. I certainly agree that political correctness is corrosive no matter which wing of the bird is flying off the handle with it.
    As for the Dan v Tom censorship issue, in essence this site is a commons, a property chartered to a landlord who allows certain activities here, and disallows certain others. I certainly have no issue with that, and if people feel censored there's 900,000 million other blogs to go to, including one's own commons.
    As for conservapaedia, I suspect it's a joke, or it could simply be the work of people over reaching themselves to put up content.
    I certainly agree with John that leaving it to its own fate is the best option, if it's a real Wiki then it's in for a hell of a ride from visitors, including irate conservatives angry about being made to look moronic by satirists or their own fellow travelers.
 

Trackbacks

(Trackback URL)

close Reblog this comment
Powered by Disqus · Learn more
blog comments powered by Disqus