Conservapedia

by **Trulliana** » Thu Jul 14, 2011 7:45 am

Hey, give them a break... they're just trying to see what's really there.
Cus everyone knows reality has a liberal bias

by **Siorafrica** » Thu Jul 14, 2011 7:46 am

Conservapedia and Wikipedia are both biased but at least Conservapedia is upfront about its bias and gives a good list of Wikipedia's failings. Wikipedia still expects people to be neutral long after Jimmy Wales (whose views are out in the open) said it wasn't possible.

by **Soviet Haaregrad** » Thu Jul 14, 2011 7:47 am

Siorafrica wrote:Conservapedia and Wikipedia are both biased but at least Conservapedia is upfront about its bias and gives a good list of Wikipedia's failings. Wikipedia still expects people to be neutral long after Jimmy Wales (whose views are out in the open) said it wasn't possible.

Because they're equally biased, instead of one at least attempting for objectivity.

by **Unhealthy2** » Thu Jul 14, 2011 8:39 am

Soviet Haaregrad wrote:Because they're equally biased, instead of one at least attempting for objectivity.

Well, of course they are. After all, they represent "both sides" of the issue, and both sides are always equally bad, meaning that only the middle is ever good. He's posted these kinds of bullshit arguments before.

So, what is the "bias" of Wikipedia, a site which does its very best to maintain a neutral point of view and only report verifiable facts about political, religious, and moral ideologies?

by **The Archregimancy** » Thu Jul 14, 2011 8:47 am

Daircoill wrote:i found this site a few months ago and whenever I feel stupid or depressed I go there and make myself feel better. My very favorite thing that this site has done is the Conservative Bible Project.
http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project
Conservatives going through the Bible with a fine tooth comb to remove Liberal Bias from it.

Because the authors of the Septuagint and Saint Jerome were all well-known activist socialists.

Isn't that obvious?

Some of them might even have taken that whole rich man / camel / eye of the needle bit seriously.

by **Callosamia** » Thu Jul 14, 2011 9:05 am

Oh Conservapedia, I love that site and its draconian moderators. It's a place where you can get accused of "Liberal bias" for correcting them on issues you can see from your window.

by **Miss Defied** » Thu Jul 14, 2011 9:09 am

Unhealthy2 wrote:So, what is the "bias" of Wikipedia, a site which does its very best to maintain a neutral point of view and only report verifiable facts about political, religious, and moral ideologies?

I've come to the conclusion that anything that isn't conservatively biased has an inherent left leaning bias in the mind of a conservative. Meaning, something that is truly neutral will always seem to have a liberal bias to a conservative. And to be fair, it probably works the same way in reverse in certain cases.

I visit Conservapedia for the same reason I visit Encyclopaeda Dramatica-the outstanding LULZ!

by **Augarundus** » Thu Jul 14, 2011 9:19 am

Conservapedia

I thought that they might be a legit wiki, just written from conservative point of view (I used to think that at least some conservatives like libertarianism... I was wrong). After I read their articles on atheism and Ayn Rand, I gave up ~~on life~~.

by **Soviet Haaregrad** » Thu Jul 14, 2011 9:25 am

Miss Defied wrote:I've come to the conclusion that anything that isn't conservatively biased has an inherent left leaning bias in the mind of a conservative. Meaning, something that is truly neutral will always seem to have a liberal bias to a conservative.

Reality has a well-known left-wing bias.

by **Frisivisia** » Thu Jul 14, 2011 9:48 am

Anyone read the Republican page? I love the picture of the GOP Presidents sitting around a table laughing. lol on Teddy Roosevelt being friends with Nixon.

by **Free Soviets** » Thu Jul 14, 2011 10:24 am

Soviet Haaregrad wrote:Reality has a well-known left-wing bias.

which reminds me. stephen colbert is still dead to NSG until he acknowledges that he stole that line from me and RPP.

by **Seperate Vermont** » Thu Jul 14, 2011 10:25 am

Conservapedia doesn't deserve it's name.

by **Farnhamia** » Thu Jul 14, 2011 10:26 am

Frisivisia wrote:Anyone read the Republican page? I love the picture of the GOP Presidents sitting around a table laughing. lol on Teddy Roosevelt being friends with Nixon.

Yeah, and I think Lincoln would be appalled at an actor having been elected President. Especially given the circumstances of his death.

by **Free Soviets** » Thu Jul 14, 2011 10:32 am

The Archregimancy wrote:Some of them might even have taken that whole rich man / camel / eye of the needle bit seriously.

the lengths people go to try to make that mean something other than what it clearly does is amusing. and sad, really. but amusing.

by **Derpusherpus** » Thu Jul 14, 2011 10:33 am

Lol, I just made a user, "Broham", that I'm going to troll with. By that I mean making the wiki even more biased and ridiculous. Guise, join in!

by **Lunatic Goofballs** » Thu Jul 14, 2011 10:37 am

Soviet Haaregrad wrote:
JJ Place wrote:I like Conservapedia; it's one of the best comedy sites that I can find.

Be careful, every time you read it you need to roll a save against losing sanity points. I believe it's a secret plot by ~~Cthulhu~~ Lunatic Goofballs.

Fixed.

by **Nationstatelandsville** » Thu Jul 14, 2011 10:44 am

Unhealthy2 wrote:http://conservapedia.com/Counterexamples_to_Relativity

My god, look at number 12.

Should I laugh, or should I cry?

I read the first one. Just the first one. I cried.

by **Siorafrica** » Thu Jul 14, 2011 10:44 am

To first dude you're on my foes list and to second dude I'm not a conservative and now you're on it aswell. Cripes...

by **Soviet Haaregrad** » Thu Jul 14, 2011 10:44 am

Lunatic Goofballs wrote:
Soviet Haaregrad wrote:
Be careful, every time you read it you need to roll a save against losing sanity points. I believe it's a secret plot by ~~Cthulhu~~ Lunatic Goofballs.

Fixed.

Well, as long as there's tacos involved I don't mind. I'm not opposed to losing sanity, just losing it to the Great Old Ones.

by **Derpusherpus** » Thu Jul 14, 2011 10:47 am

Aw, man, the fuckers banned me.

by **New Lusitaniagrad** » Thu Jul 14, 2011 10:48 am

I love Conservapedia.

by **Fallos Miriai** » Thu Jul 14, 2011 10:48 am

I was hoping this was a troll site...how can anyone be that stupid?

by **Farnhamia** » Thu Jul 14, 2011 10:56 am

Nationstatelandsville wrote:
Unhealthy2 wrote:http://conservapedia.com/Counterexamples_to_Relativity

My god, look at number 12.

Should I laugh, or should I cry?

I read the first one. Just the first one. I cried.

#32 is good, too: "It is impossible to perform an experiment to determine whether Einstein's theory of relativity is correct, or the older Lorentz aether theory is correct. Believing one over the other is a matter of faith. Physicists from questionable universities such as MIT claim to have performed experiments involving muons, but they just use scientific mumbo-jumbo to hide the fact that they proved nothing."

by **Nationstatelandsville** » Thu Jul 14, 2011 10:57 am

Fallos Miriai wrote:I was hoping this was a troll site...how can anyone be that stupid?

You'd be amazed. As one man once put it, "Never underestimate stupid people in a large group."

by **Fallos Miriai** » Thu Jul 14, 2011 10:59 am

Nationstatelandsville wrote:
Fallos Miriai wrote:I was hoping this was a troll site...how can anyone be that stupid?

You'd be amazed. As one man once put it, "Never underestimate stupid people in a large group."

I know all about the stupidity of people. I just...I think this site made me lose faith in the human race...

Conservapedia

Who is online