Conservapedia

[panic_teh_s00prn00b]

I was wandering around consevapedia.com because lately I find it entertaining to read opinions and views drastically different from my own. On a whim, I looked up 'asexual' not really expecting there to be a relevant article. I wasn't far off either.

It said simply this:

"Asexuality is the sexual orientation of those who do not feel sexual attraction to people of either gender.[1] It should not be confused with autosexuality, which is quite different."

That's it. Two full sentences more than Liberpedia had to say on the subject. Hardly with mentioning until I clicked the blue words 'Sexual orientation.'

In it's entirety:

"The sexual orientation theory asserts that a person's sexual preferences are immutable and should therefore be accepted by society, as theorized by some developmental psychologists and advocated by many social advocates and partisans.

Many social advocates assert that unknown biological factors are responsible for sexual orientation. Thus, they argue that is by no means a matter of choice, and that it is pointless to try to change one's orientation. Some go so far as to say that the attempt would cause harm, so mental health professionals must not offer assistance even if asked.

In contrast, sexual preference refers to a person's preferred mode of sexual activity, fantasy or desire.

Advocates of homosexuality frequently argue that sexual orientation is fixed at birth, i.e. one is "born that way". This forms the basis of an argument that homosexuality is not a matter of choice, and thus should not be criticized. One may as well criticize a person for having blond hair, or dark brown skin.

Some homosexuality advocates make a weaker claim, i.e., that sexual orientation is caused by a number of factors but does not become unchangeable until early childhood. Likewise, this forms the basis of the argument that no one can be held morally responsible for being homosexual.

There is no scientific consensus on when sexual orientation is fixed, or whether it is fixed at all. All attempts to find a "gay gene" have failed.

Many people generally disagree with the premises of these homosexuality arguments.

* A person "born" with a strong craving for alcoholic drinks would still be held responsible if he got drunk and injured someone in a car accident.

* A person with an "inherent" hatred of blacks would still be considered a racist (and in violation of the rule, "Love your neighbor as yourself").

Some Bible passages suggest that the normal, God-given orientation for human beings is heterosexuality. Jesus taught,

* "Did you not read that He made them at the beginning of creation, male and female, did He not?

* "And it said, because of this a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife and they become both one flesh.

* "From then on they are not two, except one body. What God has thus united, a human being does not separate." (Matt. 19:4-6) "

... Things that make you go 'Hmm..."

[SlightlyMetaphysical]

These people are really irritating. They would be amusing, but there are some areas of the world in which they still seem to have power, which makes them scary. It's obvious from a second's thought that orientation is immutable. Can they force themselves to turn gay? Can they choose who they will be sexually attracted to? QED, go figure (the fact that they have an article on asexuality surprised me, though. Especially since they then denied the existance of sexual orientation altogether)

And now I suggest we raise the riot shields and prepare for what I suspect will be a painful debate.

[Kelly]

Conservapedia is in itself evil, and I did not expect to see a grain of truth in it. Perhaps the reason why they do not go out of their way to misrepresent us is that they have no political reason to at this time.

But their propaganda against gays, yes, that is standard Conservapedia. :twisted:

[Næt.]

Conservapedia is a lovely place.

Anyway, I thought they found a gene which increased one's predisposition to be gay?

[Lord Happy Toast]

As I was looking around it, I kept wondering if it was for real or some giant joke to make fun of hardcore conservatives.

About the gay gene, there was someone who claimed to find one (I think his name was Hammer), but no one could replicate his results.

[panic_teh_s00prn00b]

Does it really matter weather or not there is a 'gay gene?' Does society at large really need it to be proven that orientations are in fact genetically predetermined in order for alternative orientations to be acceptable?

Suppose genetics have nothing at all to do with the equation. Does that make ones personal preferences any less valid?

I'm not saying it isn't possible, but a sexual orientation doesn't need to be defined by DNA, in my opinion, in order to be real.

I, for instance, have never needed to find which bit of code I inherited to prefer metal to pop music.

One may as well look for chromosome that makes people conservative...

As for conservapedia being satirical, who knows. A part of me hopes so. Although I think that if it were, it might be written to be funnier.

The internet provides a means for people to get together and express their views, like them or not. The web is a breeding ground for nonsense.

As I said, in a weird way, I can't help but find articles like this somewhat amusing. I'm not sure why. Maybe I just like debate and conflict.

[Eddie7]

As I was looking around it, I kept wondering if it was for real or some giant joke to make fun of hardcore conservatives.

Sadly not. From Wikipedia: "Conservapedia is a wiki-based web encyclopedia project written from a socially and American Conservative Christian viewpoint. Conservapedia was founded by Andrew Schlafly, son of conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly. He stated that he founded the project because he felt Wikipedia had a liberal, anti-Christian, and anti-American bias."

[mumbleberry]

.

[Næt.]

As I was looking around it, I kept wondering if it was for real or some giant joke to make fun of hardcore conservatives.

Sadly not. From Wikipedia: "Conservapedia is a wiki-based web encyclopedia project written from a socially and American Conservative Christian viewpoint. Conservapedia was founded by Andrew Schlafly, son of conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly. He stated that he founded the project because he felt Wikipedia had a liberal, anti-Christian, and anti-American bias."

And Conservapedia isn't biased at all, quite clearly. Nope. No bias. A bias free zone. Bias will the shot on sight. Yup. No bias whatsoever.

[thylacine]

"Conservapedia was founded by Andrew Schlafly... " Is he the one who's gay?

... I dunno... heard Phyllis has a gay son... anyone know 'bout it?

[Næt.]

"Conservapedia was founded by Andrew Schlafly... " Is he the one who's gay?

... I dunno... heard Phyllis has a gay son... anyone know 'bout it?

He is called John.

But this info was on wikipedia, so it might be liberal slander.

[Pizza]

Look at this: http://www.boingboing.net/2007/11/21/top-t...ost-viewed.html

The ten most viewed pages on conservapedia:

Main Page‎ [1,906,729]

Homosexuality‎ [1,572,713]

Homosexuality and Hepatitis‎ [517,086]

Homosexuality and Promiscuity‎ [420,687]

Gay Bowel Syndrome‎ [389,052]

Homosexuality and Parasites‎ [388,123]

Homosexuality and Domestic Violence‎ [365,888]

Homosexuality and Gonorrhea‎ [331,553]

Homosexuality and Mental Health‎ [291,179]

Homosexuality and Syphilis‎ [265,322]

I wondered why the main page isn't called Homosexuality and the Main Page. :)

When I found out about it, when this news just *ahem* came out, I went to the main page to try to edit the name of it to that but it wouldn't work. :(

[Kelly]

One of the problems with the Conservative view that the age of the universe is only 6000 years old (as deduced from bible genealogies rather than science) is the fact that many stars (and all distant galaxies) that you see are more than 6000 light-years old, meaning that the light must have originated more than 6000 years ago, even millions of years ago.

So, there must be ways that we can think of to make these millions-of-lightyear-distant stars/galaxies fit into the creationist model.

Crazy, yes, but here are some of Conservapedia's explanations:

http://www.conservapedia.com/Starlight_problem

Humphreys' model

In 1994 Dr. Russell Humphreys proposed a new cosmology that includes a bounded universe with a center and an edge, that God had created 6,000 years ago as a much smaller body than today, then stretched it out, making it much larger. In Humphreys' model, because the universe has a center and an edge (unlike the unbounded model of the Big Bang universe), the center of the universe is also the center of a gravity well, meaning that gravity is stronger at the center of the universe than at the edge.

As gravity can affect the rate at which time passes, he calculated that while the six days of creation week were passing on Earth, billions of years' of time was passing at the edge of the universe. According to this idea, the Biblical references to time are according to an observer (real or imaginary) on Earth, so ages are given in "Earth time".

This model receives cautious but wide support among creationists.

Time dilation field

Dr. John Hartnett, a creationist physicist, spurred by Humphreys' model, has proposed an alternative time dilation model, by theorizing the Earth was trapped in a time-dilation field caused by extremely strong gravitation during the first few days of creation, from Earth's point of view, while billions of years passed for the rest of the universe. He attributes the field, its removal and the continued balance in our solar system (after the field was removed) to divine intervention.

Erm, OK.

[AVENCakes]

There's a quote somewhere, somebody talking about the 6 references that warn against homosexual behavior in the bible that are constantly being thrown up as arguments against it- while ignoring the 300+ warning against heterosexual behavior. Even in ClockWork Orange, Alex mentions that he likes all the parts with raping women and killing and such, but after it gets all preachy he loses interest. It's kind of funny how people ignore the parts that don't suit them and cling to the parts that do.

Also- how can you think the earth is 6000 years old? That means you don't believe in dinosaurs! Who would want to not believe in dinosuars?!

[Næt.]

There's a quote somewhere, somebody talking about the 6 references that warn against homosexual behavior in the bible that are constantly being thrown up as arguments against it- while ignoring the 300+ warning against heterosexual behavior. Even in ClockWork Orange, Alex mentions that he likes all the parts with raping women and killing and such, but after it gets all preachy he loses interest. It's kind of funny how people ignore the parts that don't suit them and cling to the parts that do.

Also- how can you think the earth is 6000 years old? That means you don't believe in dinosaurs! Who would want to not believe in dinosuars?!

Jesus was minister to the dinosaurs. They were based on God's cousin, Ted.

[Pizza]

Also- how can you think the earth is 6000 years old? That means you don't believe in dinosaurs! Who would want to not believe in dinosuars?!

Some of them don't accept that dinosaurs existed but others say that dinosaurs and humans lived alongside each other.

http://www.fstdt.com/fundies/comments.aspx?q=35012

What evidence to the contrary????? There is plenty of evidence that man and dinosaur walked side my side. Usually when they find dinosaur bones they usually find human bones with it, often INSIDE it cause the dinosaur ate them. Archeologists always remove the human remains first when they find a dinosaur so they can continue the LIE. Dinosaurs became extinct right around the time we first started writing, thats why you don't find dinosaurs in history books except the bible which was written by god. It's likely they were killed by a lack of global warming, if only they had held on just a little bit longer!

[Næt.]

Also- how can you think the earth is 6000 years old? That means you don't believe in dinosaurs! Who would want to not believe in dinosuars?!

Some of them don't accept that dinosaurs existed but others say that dinosaurs and humans lived alongside each other.

http://www.fstdt.com/fundies/comments.aspx?q=35012

What evidence to the contrary????? There is plenty of evidence that man and dinosaur walked side my side. Usually when they find dinosaur bones they usually find human bones with it, often INSIDE it cause the dinosaur ate them. Archeologists always remove the human remains first when they find a dinosaur so they can continue the LIE. Dinosaurs became extinct right around the time we first started writing, thats why you don't find dinosaurs in history books except the bible which was written by god. It's likely they were killed by a lack of global warming, if only they had held on just a little bit longer!

Why 'LIE' about something like that?

[Asterion Orestes]

Look at this: http://www.boingboing.net/2007/11/21/top-t...ost-viewed.html

The ten most viewed pages on conservapedia:

The Boing Boing page contains this link to another suggesting (not surprisingly) that the story is a hoax.

[Pizza]

Look at this: http://www.boingboing.net/2007/11/21/top-t...ost-viewed.html

The ten most viewed pages on conservapedia:

The Boing Boing page contains this link to another suggesting (not surprisingly) that the story is a hoax.

I am aware of the intervention causing the top ten to be what it was (a disclaimer is in bold at the top of the article I linked to). I'm not sure whether the word "hoax" entirely fits, though. My understanding is that the pages did actually get those numbers of hits (even though it was only because of the "intervention").

[Kelly]

You can get the most viewed pages of Conservapedia from Conservapedia itself. It is here:

http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Statistics

It states (at this time):

Most viewed pages

Homosexuality‎ [3,102,317]

Main Page‎ [2,681,955]

Portsmouth F.C.‎ [414,211]

Wikipedia‎ [399,173]

Homosexual Agenda‎ [333,376]

Arguments Against Homosexuality‎ [333,181]

Ex-homosexuals‎ [318,002]

Homosexuality and choice‎ [312,373]

Federal Bureau of Investigation‎ [300,804]

Examples of Bias in Wikipedia‎ [296,724]

(also, Portsmouth F.C.‎ ? )

[Næt.]

How can homosexuality be viewed more times than the Main Page? Surely you have to search for Homosexuality from the Main Page?

[Kelly]

You can get there from links in other pages or sites or from searches, as well as bookmarks. It is wacky that that page is more popular than the main page.

Perhaps we should call it Wackypedia.

[thylacine]

"One of the problems with the Conservative view that the age of the universe is only 6000 years old ... " WTF??? The freakin' universe is 6,000 years old? Oh come on. I know a couple of pyramids in Egypt that claim to be older than that!

If that's the best that creation scientists can do, then I can see why they don't teach it in schools... oh wait a minute, they are teaching it in some schools... I just remembered why I'm glad I don't have kids, because then they'd be in schools, learning about creation science!

Okay. Now I remembered why I'm glad to be asexual in the first place -- CREATION SCIENCE!!! YES!!!

[queerunity]

sometimes i read conservapedia for the humor

[Hailtheplatypus]

I know its prolly morally wrong to do, but i go on there from time to time and change things just to irritate them...

[queerunity]

I know its prolly morally wrong to do, but i go on there from time to time and change things just to irritate them...

actually id argue thats morally right lol

[Kelly]

They have their hands full deleting and editing the site to weed out anything that does not follow their conservative bent. They close the site for 5 hours every day to do this. The site even says so.

They say so on their sit. You may need to translate the text from Wingnut to English, but here it is:

http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?tit...mp;oldid=260940

There seem to be times when the entire site is protected. What's going on? -Pipkin 16:34, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

Yes, indeed there is. Editing, except by those with special rights, is usually turned off over-night (generally 1:00AM to 6:00AM) East Coast United States time. This is due to the high degree of vandalism at the hands of deceitful Liberals. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 16:43, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

Wacky stuff.

[thylacine]

Oh my goodness gracious! You mean to tell us that those awful, nasty, deceitful liberals are at it again? NO!

Well... all I can say is... God bless our wonderful President Bush!

[Atheno]

http://www.conservapedia.com/Starlight_problem

Humphreys' model

In 1994 Dr. Russell Humphreys proposed a new cosmology that includes a bounded universe with a center and an edge, that God had created 6,000 years ago as a much smaller body than today, then stretched it out, making it much larger. In Humphreys' model, because the universe has a center and an edge (unlike the unbounded model of the Big Bang universe), the center of the universe is also the center of a gravity well, meaning that gravity is stronger at the center of the universe than at the edge.

As gravity can affect the rate at which time passes, he calculated that while the six days of creation week were passing on Earth, billions of years' of time was passing at the edge of the universe. According to this idea, the Biblical references to time are according to an observer (real or imaginary) on Earth, so ages are given in "Earth time".

This model receives cautious but wide support among creationists.

Time dilation field

Dr. John Hartnett, a creationist physicist, spurred by Humphreys' model, has proposed an alternative time dilation model, by theorizing the Earth was trapped in a time-dilation field caused by extremely strong gravitation during the first few days of creation, from Earth's point of view, while billions of years passed for the rest of the universe. He attributes the field, its removal and the continued balance in our solar system (after the field was removed) to divine intervention.

Cool!

[Næt.]

Did anyone else watch the programme about Christian Fundamentalists in Britain last night? There was one scene in a Christian school and the students where being taught (read: indoctrinated) 'science' - that God created the world in six days, Creationism, basically, and that the world was between six and ten thousand years old. Any other theories (and that's all anything on the creation of the universe can be, a theory) were condemned as lies.