tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12623101.post5484772596385355120..comments2023-06-25T09:40:13.649-05:00Comments on Russell Glasser's blog: Fish in a barrel: another look at ConservapediaAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05324968314168283095noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12623101.post-16981218800902881092011-04-14T12:21:28.634-05:002011-04-14T12:21:28.634-05:00I look at Conservapedia every day to see who they ...I look at Conservapedia every day to see who they tar and for what reason. Also the "facts" they spew can be hilarious.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12623101.post-44119885788957199302009-02-07T12:45:00.000-06:002009-02-07T12:45:00.000-06:00Holy shit, their article on the Bible says Moses w...Holy shit, their article on the Bible says Moses wrote the Torah. These people are nimrods.FreePlayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13211650671189898841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12623101.post-14239460311950837432009-01-30T12:09:00.000-06:002009-01-30T12:09:00.000-06:00Sure the pope is an expert on catholic sin because...Sure the pope is an expert on catholic sin because <I>they made it all up</I>. It's easy to be an expert on a work of fiction when it's your work of fiction.The Everything Else Atheisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07093271058217498246noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12623101.post-72115665891107565032009-01-27T11:38:00.000-06:002009-01-27T11:38:00.000-06:00Glad to see Conservapedia is getting some of Kazim...Glad to see Conservapedia is getting some of Kazim’s razor. When I stumbled upon it purely by accident I honestly thought it was an intentional piece of great satirical comedy. <BR/>How dismayed I was when I realised the truth. <BR/>In all honesty, I don't think the rest of the world has heard of or even cares about Conservapedia. I wish to protect free-speech but it certainly has more than it's fair share of dubious, unfounded, dogmatic and simply untrue "facts". Alarm bells start ringing the moment you land on its home page. One to ignore for sure.Kerusohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00145610587274807909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12623101.post-19308426652493634552009-01-26T20:54:00.000-06:002009-01-26T20:54:00.000-06:00I think we're mostly in agreement. But the point I...I think we're mostly in agreement. But the point I was trying to make was that it seems to me that in many right-wingers' eyes, people are incapable of figuring stuff out on their own, at least the important stuff like the meaning of life and the origins of the universe. That sort of thing has to be handed down from above. And furthermore, when someone says that God created humans or that species evolve, it's not so much a statement about what's most likely to be objectively true, but rather a declaration of allegiance to a particular tribe.<BR/><BR/>This would explain why people like Ray Comfort like to say that atheists reject God because we don't want to submit to him, or that we worship ourselves; or the accusation that liberal university professors indoctrinate their students. For them it's not a matter of getting at the truth, but of being seduced by a competing tribe.arensbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15251547886605570242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12623101.post-83286327162895967092009-01-26T16:02:00.000-06:002009-01-26T16:02:00.000-06:00Hmmm, there's that pesky equivocation fallacy agai...Hmmm, there's that pesky <A HREF="http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Equivocation_fallacy" REL="nofollow">equivocation fallacy again.</A> Merriam-Webster tells me that "authority," among other things, may mean either "an individual cited or appealed to as an expert" or "persons in command."<BR/><BR/>I use using the word in the sense of the first definition, which is why I contrasted it with "authoritarianism." I can understand the confusion, and I think we are saying the same thing in the end, but maybe you put it better.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05324968314168283095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12623101.post-11215571553503307402009-01-26T15:57:00.000-06:002009-01-26T15:57:00.000-06:00resentment of authoritative knowledge....Nobody ex...<I>resentment of authoritative knowledge.</I><BR/>...<BR/><I>Nobody except a trusted religious leader has the right to tell you what to think.</I><BR/><BR/>Your post seems to have a split personality; perhaps we mean different things by "authoritative". To me, an authority is someone whose word makes something true: the Pope decides what constitutes sin, and is therefore the authority on Catholic sin. The Supreme Court is an authority, in that its job is to decide what the law means.<BR/><BR/>This is in contrast to an expert, someone who is more likely to be right than a lay person, by virtue of having studied the matter at hand.<BR/><BR/>So the problem as I see it with Conservapaedia is that to these people, knowledge is not something people figure out for themselves; rather, knowledge has to be handed down from above, whether from parents, teachers, priests, or a god. That is, they see scientists not as experts, but as authorities.<BR/><BR/>Of course, if "I believe X" is just a restatement of "my authority says X", then there's no way to settle disputes, and shouting matches ensue. One bit of irony is that this looks a lot like the "everyone creates their own reality" that postmodernists are accused of, often by right-wingers.<BR/><BR/>As far as I can tell, a lot of people <EM>do</EM> think that knowledge has to come from some authority, and what you believe is a matter of allegiance to one authority or another.arensbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15251547886605570242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12623101.post-63892634095739779732009-01-25T10:56:00.000-06:002009-01-25T10:56:00.000-06:00Conservapedia's articles are just plain insane at ...Conservapedia's articles are just plain insane at places, and their evolution, atheism and homosexuality ones are by far the most wacko of them all. I've never found a more useful site to link to under the header 'this is what fundamentalist christians really think.'Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10398861911561955425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12623101.post-37924934305232092242009-01-24T02:40:00.000-06:002009-01-24T02:40:00.000-06:00I got it! here"Without a winking smiley or other b...I got it! <A HREF="http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Poe%27s+Law" REL="nofollow">here</A><BR/><BR/>"Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing." -- Poe's Lawrgzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00299003818364105534noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12623101.post-90544226101181574082009-01-23T18:54:00.000-06:002009-01-23T18:54:00.000-06:00Woah wait, wasn't conservopedia some sort of parod...Woah wait, wasn't conservopedia some sort of parody site? What was the name of that paradox?rgzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00299003818364105534noreply@blogger.com