Here's a sane explanation of a "baramin", the creationist pseudo-scientific jargon in the piece above: http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Baramin
― Neil S, Thursday, 21 June 2007 14:50 (5 years ago) Permalink
Thank You, this article got me thinking
This article demonstrates the wonderful thing about conservipedia! I never realized that even my reading of the bible was corrupted by the liberal thought I've been force fed (despite having conservative parents). This article, in laying out the biblical passages on the subject clearly, made me realize that slavery isn't NECESSARILY all bad. Of course, I still think slavery of G-d fearing Christians is appalling, if they are determined slaves just because of the color of their skin. But because liberals decietfully used the obvious immorality of that to discount all slavery, even though G-d plainly wills it, I was even tricked into thinking all slavery was bad.
I had read those passages before of course, I just sort of ignored them, because they made me anxious. I didn't know how to reconcile it with the force-fed liberal ideas on slavery, that ignorantly lump all slavery together with Southern slavery. I never realized how much of a pernicious influence liberal ideas could have on even me. I never even knew any liberals growing up! To think, Satan's trickery could be so wily as to actually instill ideas in me that make me anxious when reading G-d's word.
Is there any movements to reinsitute slavery properly? I mean, I know that we have so much to battle right now, abortion, and secularism in general. But it just seems so wrong that a few impure slave-owners could tarnish a biblical institution. Its hopless right now, we are so embattled, but maybe in a few hundred years we can return to a biblical way of life. And if we are biblically consistent--e.g. opposing abortion, demanding Christianity for citizenship, calling for the institution of slavery--then maybe people will see that and have more respect for our movement.
Could the article have more on the virtues of slavery? Surely there has to be some commentary on it somewhere. Being a biblical institution it has to serve a purpose. And for those of you that say "it only applied in ancient times" I say how dare you insult G-d. He's omniscient, which implies what was right then was right now, or else He would have told us to change. InTheEvent 13:53, 19 June 2007 (EDT)
― and what, Thursday, 21 June 2007 16:46 (5 years ago) Permalink
― Curt1s Stephens, Thursday, 21 June 2007 16:50 (5 years ago) Permalink
Is he volunteering to be a slave, then?
― Neil S, Thursday, 21 June 2007 16:52 (5 years ago) Permalink
I was gonna say - somebody enslave that guy posthaste! He'll be cool with it, it's G-d's will!
― Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, 21 June 2007 16:54 (5 years ago) Permalink
Famous Left-Wing Terrorist Groups
― Curt1s Stephens, Thursday, 21 June 2007 16:57 (5 years ago) Permalink
"Though the liberal media continues to disparage Bush's handling of the economy, they often neglect to report the many aspects of the economy that Bush has improved. For example, during his term Exxon Mobil has posted the largest profit of any company in a single year, and executive salaries have greatly increased as well."
- A thought here: Either this poster is admirably subversive or he is functionally retarded.
― jposnan, Thursday, 21 June 2007 20:15 (5 years ago) Permalink
Many people have reported leaving homosexuality and becoming heterosexual through their Christian faith.
― Eric H., Thursday, 21 June 2007 20:16 (5 years ago) Permalink
The thing about this site is that, except for the bits that idjits like Schlafly or that fundie homeschool textbook write added in themselves, the whole thing is Poe's Law writ large. You can't tell the legit batshit ravings from the fake.
― kingfish, Thursday, 21 June 2007 20:58 (5 years ago) Permalink
Yeah, I think a lot of this is tongue-in-cheek, like that slave thing - "And if we are biblically consistent--e.g. opposing abortion, demanding Christianity for citizenship, calling for the institution of slavery--then maybe people will see that and have more respect for our movement."
― The Yellow Kid, Thursday, 21 June 2007 21:12 (5 years ago) Permalink
yeah, foxes in the henhouse
― river wolf, Thursday, 21 June 2007 21:13 (5 years ago) Permalink
Meanwhile, the folks over at RationalWiki have been compiling a rolling Best of Conservapedia for your amusement and/or horror/pity.
― kingfish, Friday, 22 June 2007 23:01 (5 years ago) Permalink
― Curt1s Stephens, Friday, 22 June 2007 23:15 (5 years ago) Permalink
14:00, 9 June 2007 Crocoite (Talk | contribs) blocked "Sm355 (contribs)" with an expiry time of infinite (troll - removing God from articles)
― Curt1s Stephens, Friday, 22 June 2007 23:18 (5 years ago) Permalink
For you, ILX
― Tape Store, Saturday, 23 June 2007 00:15 (5 years ago) Permalink
Your user name or IP address has been blocked.
The block was made by Hojimachong. The reason given is '.
You can contact Hojimachong or another administrator to discuss the block. You cannot use the 'email this user' feature unless a valid email address is specified in your account preferences. Your current IP address is xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx, and the block ID is #10476. Please include either or both of these in any queries.
― Tape Store, Saturday, 23 June 2007 00:16 (5 years ago) Permalink
― Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 21 November 2007 03:01 (5 years ago) Permalink
― moonship journey to baja, Wednesday, 21 November 2007 03:07 (5 years ago) Permalink
check out the key on this here graph:
lol at the sinbad thing being the final nail in the coffin.
― s1ocki, Wednesday, 21 November 2007 03:55 (5 years ago) Permalink
what i'm sayin
― moonship journey to baja, Wednesday, 21 November 2007 03:58 (5 years ago) Permalink
metapedia: the wikipedia for racists
― and what, Monday, 28 January 2008 21:20 (5 years ago) Permalink
The possibility to influence the language is vital if you want to shape people’s world view. The Frankfurt School and their ideological heirs are good examples in this regard, and have been very successful in stigmatizing previously natural and sound values and attitudes and making them seem pathological by inventing and popularizing concepts such as “xenophobia” and the like. This clearly illustrates the power of language and words, and it is therefore important that we start re-conquering our languages.
Another important purpose of Metapedia is to become a web resource for pro-European activists. Metapedia makes it easy for our cadres to expand their knowledge on various important subjects, and also functions as a searchable reference.
― impudent harlot, Monday, 28 January 2008 21:24 (5 years ago) Permalink
White-Black hybrids usually show strange characteristics, the average intelligence of the first generation of hybrids has, in fact, a much higher rate than the one of pure Negroes, although not as high as the White rate. The main characteristic is a tough attitude to expose violent behavior, mixed race hybrids are in fact one of the most violent races on Earth.
― and what, Monday, 28 January 2008 22:08 (5 years ago) Permalink
this is missing an entry about blipsters
― J0rdan S., Monday, 28 January 2008 22:14 (5 years ago) Permalink
i didn't know that lord byron was a nazi hero???
― Tracer Hand, Monday, 28 January 2008 22:33 (5 years ago) Permalink
you'd think that a genetically crippled gay guy would not exactly be their main dude
― Tracer Hand, Monday, 28 January 2008 22:35 (5 years ago) Permalink
Hitler continues to be a controversial figure, hated by many. However some have referred to Hitler's legacy in neutral or favourable terms. Former Egyptian President Anwar Sadat wrote favourably of Hitler in 1953. Louis Farrakhan has referred to him as a "very great man". Bal Thackeray, leader of the right-wing Hindu Shiv Sena party in the Indian state of the Maharashtra, declared in 1995 that he was an admirer of Hitler.
In the United States, George Lincoln Rockwell revived Hitler’s movement by forming the American Nazi Party. Later other National Socialist parties began to form around the world.
In the United States however, similar to any "defeated" enemy, he is painted as a strictly evil figure, consumed with murder and hatred for Jews, and nothing else.
― J.D., Tuesday, 29 January 2008 04:34 (5 years ago) Permalink
Racism is the realization, recognition and knowledge that distinctive human characteristics and abilities are determined by race. The colloquial meaning of racism is quite different from the natural and realist meaning of the term. The idea of superiority of some races is called racialism. Racial prejudice or dislike or hostility towards other races is called volkenhass.
― Curt1s Stephens, Tuesday, 29 January 2008 04:39 (5 years ago) Permalink
List of famous Negroids
Jump to: navigation, search
* Martin Luther King
* Barack Obama
* Nelson Mandela
* Kofi Annan
* Wallace Fard Muhammad
* Noble Drew Ali
* Hulon Mitchell Jr.
* Elijah Muhammad
* French football team.
― Curt1s Stephens, Tuesday, 29 January 2008 04:43 (5 years ago) Permalink
this list is unbelievable
― and what, Saturday, 21 June 2008 16:58 (4 years ago) Permalink
Wikipedia claims about 1.8 million articles, but what it does not say is that a large number of those articles have zero educational value. For example, Wikipedia has 1075 separate articles about "Moby" and "song". Many hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia articles -- perhaps over half its website -- are about music, Hollywood, and other topics beneath a regular encyclopedia. This reflects a bias towards popular gossip rather than helpful or enlightening information.
Unlike most encyclopedias and news outlets, Wikipedia does not exert any centralized authority to take steps to reduce bias or provide balance; it has a "neutral point of view" policy but the policy is followed only to the extent that individual editors acting in social groups choose to follow it. For example, CNN would ensure that Crossfire had a representative of the political right and one from the political left. In contrast, Wikipedia policy allows bias to exist and worsen. For example, even though most Americans reject the theory of evolution, Wikipedia editors commenting on the topic are nearly 100% pro-evolution. Self-selection has a tendency to exacerbate bias, as in mobs, where there are no restraints. Gresham's Law reflects the problem in economics of bad money driving out good in the absence of corrective action. As a result, Wikipedia is arguably more biased than CNN and other information sources.
― and what, Saturday, 21 June 2008 17:00 (4 years ago) Permalink
The Wikipedia entry for John Peter Zenger links to an incorrect Wikipedia definition of "Philadelphia lawyer," which Merriam-Webster defines as a lawyer knowledgeable in "even the most minute aspects of the law." Wikipedia claims the term comes from the Zenger trial, but Merriam-Webster puts the first use of that term at over 50 years later. Wikipedia is simply unreliable.
^^ man does this PISS ME OFF. if only there was some way of amending... oh.
― banriquit, Saturday, 21 June 2008 17:01 (4 years ago) Permalink
The Wikipedia entry for homosexuality is adorned with the a rainbow graphic but fails to mention the following: the many diseases associated with homosexuality, the high promiscuity rates of the male homosexual community, the higher incidences of domestic violence among homosexual couples compared to heterosexual couples, and the substantially higher mental illness and drug usage rates of the homosexuality community. In addition, the Wikipedia article on homosexuality fails to mention that the American Psychiatric Association issued a fact sheet in May of 2000 stating that "..there are no replicated scientific studies supporting a specific biological etiology for homosexuality."
― and what, Saturday, 21 June 2008 17:02 (4 years ago) Permalink
# Wikpedia's entry on liberal former Vice President Al Gore contains no mention of the drug charges against his son. But Wikipedia's entry on conservative Vice President Dick Cheney prominently mentions his adult daughter's sexuality.
conservapedia MUST be a strawman pisstake, it MUST be
― Just got offed, Saturday, 21 June 2008 17:03 (4 years ago) Permalink
Wikipedia falsely smears Conservapedia by claiming that it has "come under significant criticism for factual inaccuracies." In fact, such criticisms are rare or non-existent, and Wikipedia's cite to a New York Times article for support actually criticizes Wikipedia because it "does dwell on the idea that 'others' have 'criticized and mocked the Conservapedia website for factual inaccuracy.'"
― s1ocki, Saturday, 21 June 2008 17:06 (4 years ago) Permalink
# Wikipedia has a substantial anti-intellectual element, as reflected by silly administrator names and nonsensical entries. Check out Wikipedia's entry for "duh": "Duh is an American English slang exclamation that is used to express disdain for someone missing the obviousness of something. For example, if one read a headline saying 'Scientific study proves pain really does hurt' or 'New reports show death is bad for one's health', the response might be 'Well, duh!'" How about a new slogan: Wikipedia: well, duh!
― s1ocki, Saturday, 21 June 2008 17:08 (4 years ago) Permalink
# Wikipedia has once again deleted all content on the North American Union . The old pages are inaccessible, and re-creation is blocked.
― and what, Saturday, 21 June 2008 17:12 (4 years ago) Permalink
# Wikipedia's entry on the Prodigal Son devotes more words to obscure rock band and liberal media references to it (e.g., "'The Prodigal Son' is the Season 2 opener of the TV series Miami Vice, although it has virtually nothing to do with the parable itself.") than to the parable and its spiritual meaning.
― The stickman from the hilarious "xkcd" comics, Saturday, 21 June 2008 17:13 (4 years ago) Permalink
# Mathematicians on Wikipedia distort and exaggerate Wiles' proof of Fermat's Last Theorem by (i) concealing how it relied on the controversial Axiom of Choice and by (ii) omitting the widespread initial criticism of it.
― and what, Saturday, 21 June 2008 17:13 (4 years ago) Permalink
Wikipedia has a banner to criticize an American treatment of a topic: "The examples and perspective in this article or section may not represent a worldwide view of the subject." "A worldwide view" is fictional liberal terminology for globalists.
― and what, Saturday, 21 June 2008 17:15 (4 years ago) Permalink
About 60% of Americans accept the account of the Great Flood in the Bible. But enter "Great Flood" into Wikipedia and it automatically converts that to an entry entitled "Deluge (mythology)." That entry then uses "myth" or "mythology" nearly 70 times in its description. Its entry on "Noah's Ark" is just as biased.
― and what, Saturday, 21 June 2008 17:16 (4 years ago) Permalink
Mathematicians on Wikipedia distort and exaggerate Wiles' proof of Fermat's Last Theorem by (i) concealing how it relied on the controversial Axiom of Choice and by (ii) omitting the widespread initial criticism of it.
^^^ Mathematical conservatism (Intuitionism, etc.) Note that 99.99% of all published mathematics today relies on the Axiom of Choice.
― libcrypt, Saturday, 21 June 2008 17:25 (4 years ago) Permalink
Keep posting this stuff here. Stuff may change.
― Eric H., Saturday, 21 June 2008 17:29 (4 years ago) Permalink
Wikipedia, its own entries (including talk pages) filled with smears and deceit, features an entry on "deceit (album)" that gushes with a description of it as "austere, brilliant and indescribable" music that is "post-punk". The word "deceit" has no entry on Wikipedia. It was redirected to a different term having a different meaning, and then this redirect was changed 7 times in two days in response to this criticism here. Even now it lacks a clear definition and the numerous examples provided in the entry on deceit here.
― Melissa W, Saturday, 21 June 2008 17:36 (4 years ago) Permalink
Conservapedia is oddly selective too. For instance, there is no entry on Sophie Garry:
― Eric H., Saturday, 21 June 2008 17:42 (4 years ago) Permalink
when Schlafly tries to argue statistics, the laffs come fast and furious:
― J0hn D., Thursday, 24 July 2008 22:27 (4 years ago) Permalink