The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > The BBQ Pit

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-10-2010, 09:19 AM
joebuck20 joebuck20 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
E=mc2 is a liberal conspiracy

At least according to Conservapedia founder Andrew Schlafly (son of Phyllis).

http://gawker.com/5608853/emc2-is-a-liberal-conspiracy
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #2  
Old 08-10-2010, 09:27 AM
Jackknifed Juggernaut Jackknifed Juggernaut is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Well, in fairness to Jesus, I don't recall hearing about any other gods that understood the TOR either. Unless you consider Einstein a god, which I'm sure many do.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-10-2010, 09:33 AM
Really Not All That Bright Really Not All That Bright is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
The truth has a liberal bias, remember.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08-10-2010, 09:41 AM
Lare Lare is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Of course the people living then had the instruments necessary to measure this.

Quote:
Conservapedia defines "action-at-a-distance" as "Action at a distance consists of affecting a distant body instantaneously. At the atom level, this is known as "non-locality." In non-confusing terms, that indicates the ability to cause something to happen instantaneously in another location (i.e., faster than the speed of light). Since Jesus could, reportedly, do this, thus Einstein is wrong. Schlafly's evidence is John 4:46-54, in which Jesus reportedly cured someone's son just by saying it had happened.
Once more he visited Cana in Galilee, where he had turned the water into wine. And there was a certain royal official whose son lay sick at Capernaum.
When this man heard that Jesus had arrived in Galilee from Judea, he went to him and begged him to come and heal his son, who was close to death.
"Unless you people see miraculous signs and wonders," Jesus told him, "you will never believe."
The royal official said, "Sir, come down before my child dies."
Jesus replied, "You may go. Your son will live."The man took Jesus at his word and departed.
While he was still on the way, his servants met him with the news that his boy was living.
When he inquired as to the time when his son got better, they said to him, "The fever left him yesterday at the seventh hour."
Then the father realized that this was the exact time at which Jesus had said to him, "Your son will live." So he and all his household believed.
Because, see, "at the seventh hour" would have been measured by two people, one with Jesus, one at the official's son's sickbed using synchronized timepieces who would then communicate, somehow, to each other exactly when the words were spoken and when the healing happened.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 08-10-2010, 09:43 AM
Yossarian Yossarian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Jesus rose from the dead after three days. DID EINSTEIN???
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 08-10-2010, 09:51 AM
jjimm jjimm is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
And there was me thinking it was phallocentric and sexist because:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Some crazy-ass feminist
it privileges the speed of light over other speeds that are vitally necessary to us
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 08-10-2010, 09:55 AM
Captain Amazing Captain Amazing is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 23,144
Schlafly doesn't like the theory of relativity because of the word "relativity", which he conflates with the word "relativism" But, you know, there are a lot of idiots out there who believe idiotic stuff.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 08-10-2010, 10:03 AM
BrainGlutton BrainGlutton is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Amazing View Post
Schlafly doesn't like the theory of relativity because of the word "relativity", which he conflates with the word "relativism" But, you know, there are a lot of idiots out there who believe idiotic stuff.
Apparently he's read Paul Johnson's Modern Times, which does draw a causal link between the Theory of Relativity and 20th-Century moral relativism. Whether there's anything to that is debatable.

Johnson stresses that Einstein himself had the "proper scientific attitude," stating he would not consider his theory even provisionally proven until at least two of three verification experiments he proposed produced data in agreement with his predictions (they did), and seeing no implications at all for his theory in ethics or politics.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 08-10-2010, 10:06 AM
Chessic Sense Chessic Sense is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Love this comment:

Quote:
Wait a minute, Jesus had mass, and Jesus is the light! The theory stands!
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 08-10-2010, 10:45 AM
Lare Lare is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chessic Sense View Post
Love this comment:

Quote:
Wait a minute, Jesus had mass, and Jesus is the light! The theory stands!

I thought the church had Mass. Usually on Sunday mornings.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 08-10-2010, 11:01 AM
shiftless shiftless is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 3,963
Here we have people who claim that God can break the laws of physics claiming that the laws of physics are wrong because God can break them. Whaa? If we can going to call any statement of fact wrong because God isn't bound by that fact, don't we have to throw out all information as useless?

Circular Jesus logic means nothing is true unless your religious leader tells you so. What a happy place to be if you are a religious leader.

Last edited by shiftless; 08-10-2010 at 11:01 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 08-10-2010, 11:08 AM
Knowed Out Knowed Out is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
OK, so if Jesus can heal people from a distance, how does that negate the ToR? The kid was maybe a few miles away (say 5), and light travels at 186000 miles per second, so Jesus's healing energy would have gotten there in .000003 seconds. It would never have occurred to anybody back then to account for such a small amount of time, so maybe that's why the verse isn't "The fever left him yesterday at the seventh hour plus .000003 seconds."
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 08-10-2010, 11:16 AM
Malacandra Malacandra is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by shiftless View Post
Here we have people who claim that God can break the laws of physics claiming that the laws of physics are wrong because God can break them.
And that's exactly it. If the invalid was healed at the exact same instant Jesus said it, without even a lightspeed delay, all that means is that God can violate the lightspeed constraint just as he can bring the dead back to life. It doesn't invalidate the general principles that nothing can act faster than light and the dead stay dead.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 08-10-2010, 11:20 AM
woodstockbirdybird woodstockbirdybird is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
The Onion should just start plagiarizing Conservapedia for its headlines.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 08-10-2010, 11:26 AM
Steve MB Steve MB is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 9,146
Conservapedia is a perfect example of Poe's Law -- it's impossible to distinguish between the trolls and the sincere nut cases.
__________________
The Internet: Nobody knows if you're a dog. Everybody knows if you're a jackass.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 08-10-2010, 12:00 PM
BrainGlutton BrainGlutton is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yossarian View Post
Jesus rose from the dead after three days. DID EINSTEIN???
With a little help . . .

The rest of that evening I'd just as soon forget.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 08-10-2010, 12:02 PM
BrainGlutton BrainGlutton is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve MB View Post
Conservapedia is a perfect example of Poe's Law -- it's impossible to distinguish between the trolls and the sincere nut cases.
And guess what! Conservapedia has its own entry on Poe's Law.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 08-10-2010, 12:20 PM
elucidator elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
There was a young Christian named Bright
"The Lord is much faster than light!
He was living on Easter
But they nailed up his keister
On Friday, still three days away!"
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 08-10-2010, 12:37 PM
Really Not All That Bright Really Not All That Bright is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrainGlutton View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve MB View Post
Conservapedia is a perfect example of Poe's Law -- it's impossible to distinguish between the trolls and the sincere nut cases.
And guess what! Conservapedia has its own entry on Poe's Law.
Oh, dear God.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 08-10-2010, 12:38 PM
shiftless shiftless is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Virginia
Posts: 3,963
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrainGlutton View Post
Thanks for the link. It's like stepping into topsy-turvy world.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 08-10-2010, 12:39 PM
Euphonious Polemic Euphonious Polemic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
There was a young Christian named Bright
"The Lord is much faster than light!
He was living on Easter
But they nailed up his keister
On Friday, still three days away!"
"away" does not rhyme with "Bright" or "light"

Limerick fail.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 08-10-2010, 12:41 PM
woodstockbirdybird woodstockbirdybird is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
There was a young Christian named Bright
"The Lord is much faster than light!
He was living on Easter
But they nailed up his keister
On Friday, still three days away!"
"away" does not rhyme with "Bright" or "light"

Limerick fail.
"On Friday, three days from tonight!"
Actually, that sucks. But it rhymes.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 08-10-2010, 12:45 PM
Really Not All That Bright Really Not All That Bright is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
It kind of reads like a proof of Poe's Law itself. How meta.

ETA: the Conservapaedia page, that is.

Last edited by Really Not All That Bright; 08-10-2010 at 12:45 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 08-10-2010, 12:54 PM
BrainGlutton BrainGlutton is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by shiftless View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrainGlutton View Post
Thanks for the link. It's like stepping into topsy-turvy world.
On that note, check out today's This Modern World.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 08-10-2010, 01:33 PM
notsoheavyd3 notsoheavyd3 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by shiftless View Post
Here we have people who claim that God can break the laws of physics claiming that the laws of physics are wrong because God can break them. Whaa? If we can going to call any statement of fact wrong because God isn't bound by that fact, don't we have to throw out all information as useless?

Circular Jesus logic means nothing is true unless your religious leader tells you so. What a happy place to be if you are a religious leader.
Umm, these are the same people that claim evolution can't happen because that would break the 2nd law of thermodynamics. When it is then pointed out by that argument then no living thing can grow (IE increasing order) then they claim that living things can break the 2nd law because they're alive. (But still can't do evolution because that'd break the 2nd law.)
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 08-10-2010, 01:44 PM
elucidator elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic View Post

"away" does not rhyme with "Bright" or "light"

Limerick fail.
English majors! Is there no end to their perfidy, misfeasance, villainy, and pusillanimous pulchritude?

Its the Moldavian variation of the limerick, with the rhyme scheme A,A, B,B, and WTF. So there! Besides, check back next week and you'll see I fixed it yesterday.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 08-10-2010, 01:48 PM
BrainGlutton BrainGlutton is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic View Post

"away" does not rhyme with "Bright" or "light"

Limerick fail.
English majors! Is there no end to their perfidy, misfeasance, villainy, and pusillanimous pulchritude?

Its the Moldavian variation of the limerick, with the rhyme scheme A,A, B,B, and WTF. So there! Besides, check back next week and you'll see I fixed it yesterday.
Of course! Who can forget the classic:

Oedipus and Jocasta would pucker
And out if her clothes he would shuck 'er
'Till he got a surprise
And he tore out his eyes
The pitiful, sad, Freudian archetype
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 08-10-2010, 02:30 PM
Alienhand Alienhand is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrainGlutton View Post
Sometimes I forget just how wonderful that website is.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 08-10-2010, 02:58 PM
tr0psn4j tr0psn4j is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Stupid Einstein! We should have burned him for his heresy.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 08-10-2010, 03:17 PM
elucidator elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
They would have, but he was smart enough to know when to split.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 08-10-2010, 03:27 PM
Chessic Sense Chessic Sense is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
They would have, but he was smart enough to know when to split.
Is that a "Nazi" joke or an "atom" joke? Either way, it's funny.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 08-10-2010, 03:31 PM
elucidator elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Gone fission.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 08-10-2010, 03:49 PM
Merijeek Merijeek is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yossarian View Post
Jesus rose from the dead after three days. DID EINSTEIN???
He once had a wicked bad hangover that lasted three days.

That count?

-Joe
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 08-10-2010, 04:14 PM
BrainGlutton BrainGlutton is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
From the Conservapedia page on the Theory of Relativity:

Quote:
Lack of evidence for Relativity

The Theory of relativity assumes that time is symmetric just as space is, but the biggest early promoter of relativity, Arthur Eddington, coined the term "arrow of time" admitting how time is not symmetric but is directional. The passage of time is tied to an increase in disorder, or entropy. The Theory of relativity cannot explain this, and implicitly denies it, specifically allowing for theoretical time travel (e.g., wormholes) and different rates of passage of time based on velocity and acceleration.

Claims that relativity was used to develop the Global Positioning System (GPS) are false. A 1996 article explains:

"The Operational Control System (OCS) of the Global Positioning System (GPS) does not include the rigorous transformations between coordinate systems that Einstein's general theory of relativity would seem to require - transformations to and from the individual space vehicles (SVs), the Monitor Stations (MSs), and the users on the surface of the rotating earth, and the geocentric Earth Centered Inertial System (ECI) in which the SV orbits are calculated. There is a very good reason for the omission: the effects of relativity, where they are different from the effects predicted by classical mechanics and electromagnetic theory, are too small to matter - less than one centimeter, for users on or near the earth."[14][15]
This article, which was published in 1996, goes on to propose relativistic corrections that might be used to design more accurate GPS systems. Clocks on board GPS satellites require adjustments to their clock frequencies if they are to be synchronized with those on the surface of the Earth.

Tom Van Flandern, an astronomer hired to work on GPS in the late 1990s, concluded that "[t]he GPS programmers don't need relativity." He was quoted as saying that the GPS programmers "have basically blown off Einstein."[16] Asynchronization can be easily addressed through communications between the satellites and ground stations, so it is unclear why any theory would be needed for GPS. But other obscure physicists having no connection with GPS design claim that Van Flandern is wrong about GPS, and insist that relativity provides the best explanation for its timing adjustments.[17]

Some internet articles claim that GPS timing differences confirm the Theory of Relativity or its Lorentzian counterpart (which uses a preferred frame of reference). GPS clocks run slower in the weaker gravitation field of the satellites than on ground stations on Earth, with the effects predicted by general relativity far outweighing the effects predicted by special relativity. However, the articles claiming that the slower GPS satellite clocks confirm relativity do not address the effect, if any, of the weaker gravitational force under Newton's theory on the GPS satellite clocks.

Currently, GPS satellites are synchronized to Coordinated Universal Time by radio signals from the ground; therefore, they cannot currently be used to test general relativity.[18]

There are claims that the effects of relativity have been observed with the frequency shift of the signal being sent back to Earth several times as various spacecraft have dipped into the gravity wells around massive objects such as the sun (see image at right)[19] or Saturn[20]. A satellite called Gravity Probe B was put in orbit about the Earth to examine the effects of frame dragging and geodetic warping of space[21][22], but the results were inconclusive. Note, however, that Newtonian mechanics also predicts deflection of light by gravity, and in the initial theory of relativity it predicted the same amount of deflection.[23] Adjustments to the theory of relativity resulted in a prediction of a greater deflection of light than that predicated by Newtonian mechanics, though it is debatable how much deflection Newtonian mechanics should predict.

None of the NASA spacecraft incorporates predictions of relativity into their own timing mechanisms, as Newtonian mechanics is adequate even for probes sent deep into space.[24]

A decade of observation of the pulsar pair PSR B1913+16 detected a decline in its orbital period, which was attributed to a loss in energy by the system. It is impossible to measure the masses of the pulsars, their accelerations relative to the observers, or other fundamental parameters. Professors Joseph Taylor and Russell Hulse, who discovered the binary pulsar, found that physical values could be assigned to the pulsars to make the observed decline in orbital period consistent with the Theory of General Relativity, and for this they were awarded the 1993 Nobel Prize for Physics, which is the only award ever given by the Nobel committee for the Theory of Relativity.[25] In 2004, Professor Taylor utilized a correction to the derivative of the orbital period to fit subsequent data better to the theory. At most, assumptions can be made and altered to fit the data to the theory, rather than the data confirming the theory.

The perihelion of Mercury's orbit precesses at a measurable rate, but even after accounting for gravitational perturbations caused all other planets in the solar system, Newton's theory (assuming a precise inverse-square relationship for distance) predicts a rate of precession that differs from the measured rate by approximately 43 arcseconds per century. General relativity was developed in part to provide an estimate for this rate of precession that better matches observations.[26] [27] [28] Newton's theory can also explain this perihelion by factoring in the gravitational pull due to other planets or making tiny adjustments to parameters in the gravitational equation.

General relativity predicts twice as much bending in light as it passes near massive objects than Newton's theory might predict.[29] This phenomenon is known as gravitational lensing. A large number of instances of gravitational lensing have been observed, and it is now a standard astronomical tool.[30] [31] [32] Note, however, that the extent of bending of light predicted by Newton's theory is open to debate, and depends on assumptions about the nature of light for gravitational purposes.[33]

In 1972, scientists flew extremely accurate clocks ("atomic clocks") around the world in both directions on commercial airlines, and claimed to observe relativistic time dilation; the eastbound clock gained 273 ns and the westbound clock lost 59 ns, matching the predictions of general relativity to within experimental accuracy.[34] However, the inventor of the atomic clock, Louis Essen, declared that the experiment was inaccurate.[35] Dr A. G. Kelly examined the raw data from the experiment and declared it inconclusive.[36] The Nobel Committee chose not to honor this experiment for the significance that was claimed.

Despite censorship of dissent about relativity, evidence contrary to the theory is discussed outside of liberal universities.[37]

<snip>

Political aspects of relativity
Some liberal politicians have extrapolated the theory of relativity to metaphorically justify their own political agendas. For example, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama helped publish an article by liberal law professor Laurence Tribe to apply the relativistic concept of "curvature of space" to promote a broad legal right to abortion.[45] As of June 2008, over 170 law review articles have cited this liberal application of the theory of relativity to legal arguments.[46] Applications of the theory of relativity to change morality have also been common.[47] Moreover, there is an unmistakable effort to censor or ostracize criticism of relativity.[48]

Physicist Robert Dicke of Princeton University was a prominent critic[49] of general relativity, and Dicke's alternative "has enjoyed a renaissance in connection with theories of higher dimensional space-time."[50] Despite being one of the most accomplished physicists in the 20th century, Dicke was repeatedly passed over for a Nobel Prize, and in at least one case Dicke was insulted by the award being granted to others for contributions more properly credited to Dicke.

There has been little recognition by the Nobel Prize committee of either theory of relativity, and particularly scant recognition of the Theory of General Relativity.

Government Support for Relativistic research

The Theory of Relativity enjoys a disproportionate share of federal funding of physics research today.[51] In at least one case that research has been unsuccessful. The $365 million dollar LIGO project has failed to detect the gravity waves predicted by relativity.[52]
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 08-10-2010, 05:26 PM
Malacandra Malacandra is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrainGlutton View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post

English majors! Is there no end to their perfidy, misfeasance, villainy, and pusillanimous pulchritude?

Its the Moldavian variation of the limerick, with the rhyme scheme A,A, B,B, and WTF. So there! Besides, check back next week and you'll see I fixed it yesterday.
Of course! Who can forget the classic:

Oedipus and Jocasta would pucker
And out if her clothes he would shuck 'er
'Till he got a surprise
And he tore out his eyes
The pitiful, sad, Freudian archetype
And in more adventurous vein:

There was an Albanian monk
Who slept on a hard wooden bunk;
He dreamed naked Venus
Was sucking his finger
And woke up all covered in perspiration.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 08-10-2010, 05:38 PM
Knowed Out Knowed Out is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
So, it looks like Conservapedia thinks liberal professors managed to hoodwink entire colleges to mistake the ToR with Moral Relativity, and thus teaching all that quantum physics stuff dismantled all their students' moral structures.

Maybe Einstein is seen as the progenitor of this moral collapse because of quotes like this:

Quote:
Science has therefore been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behaviour should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.
Quote:
There is nothing divine about morality; it is a purely human affair.
So, maybe, MAYBE, that's the rationale behind the OP's link. (I keep trying to figure out why kooks think the way they do. What does that make me?)
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 08-10-2010, 06:39 PM
begbert2 begbert2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Knowed Out View Post
So, maybe, MAYBE, that's the rationale behind the OP's link. (I keep trying to figure out why kooks think the way they do. What does that make me?)
Eternally frustrated, I'd say, if "because they're kooks" doesn't satisfy you.

Last edited by begbert2; 08-10-2010 at 06:40 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 08-10-2010, 06:49 PM
Beware of Doug Beware of Doug is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Knowed Out View Post
So, it looks like Conservapedia thinks liberal professors managed to hoodwink entire colleges to mistake the ToR with Moral Relativity, and thus teaching all that quantum physics stuff dismantled all their students' moral structures.

Maybe Einstein is seen as the progenitor of this moral collapse because of quotes like this:

Quote:
Science has therefore been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behaviour should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.
Quote:
There is nothing divine about morality; it is a purely human affair.
Or it could just be because he was a kike. They tried that with Freud, too.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 08-10-2010, 07:13 PM
cuauhtemoc cuauhtemoc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrainGlutton View Post
From the Conservapedia page on the Theory of Relativity:

Quote:
Lack of evidence for Relativity

The Theory of relativity...predicted by relativity.[52]
This cannot be real, can it? Is Conservapedia like Wikipedia, where the general public can edit the articles? Because my mind won't let me believe this entry is sincere. It has to be a prank, right?
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 08-10-2010, 07:35 PM
Max the Immortal Max the Immortal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by shiftless View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrainGlutton View Post
Thanks for the link. It's like stepping into topsy-turvy world.
I suppose it's more coherent than Timecube. At least by a little bit.
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 08-10-2010, 07:43 PM
Captain Amazing Captain Amazing is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 23,144
Quote:
Originally Posted by cuauhtemoc View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrainGlutton View Post
This cannot be real, can it? Is Conservapedia like Wikipedia, where the general public can edit the articles? Because my mind won't let me believe this entry is sincere. It has to be a prank, right?
The general public can edit the articles, because it is a wiki, but you need a user name to edit, and if you make an edit the admins don't like, they'll revert the edit and ban you. So, if the text is still in the article, that means the admins approve.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 08-10-2010, 08:11 PM
Yllaria Yllaria is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Stockton
Posts: 8,001
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yossarian View Post
Jesus rose from the dead after three days. DID EINSTEIN???
Well, his brain went for a ride 42 years later. Does that count?

Last edited by Yllaria; 08-10-2010 at 08:11 PM.. Reason: Don't tell me the ending - I'm still reading it.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 08-10-2010, 08:53 PM
Rand Rover Rand Rover is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 8,307
This thread shows the need to have a national conversation (or at least an SDMB conversation) on what a "conservative" is. The dude in the OP, while the founder of a "conservative" website, seems to be motivated in this regard by simple religiosity. Lots of religious people are conservatives, but that doesn't mean that any idea thought up by a religious person is a "conservative" idea.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 08-10-2010, 09:04 PM
Duke Duke is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
I don't usually comment on the Google ads at the bottom of a thread, but I couldn't help but notice this thread's ads included one for "Lesbian Personals."
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 08-10-2010, 09:22 PM
Onomatopoeia Onomatopoeia is online now
僕は女性の香りが大好きですよ。フア!
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: 小浜国
Posts: 5,136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rand Rover View Post
This thread shows the need to have a national conversation (or at least an SDMB conversation) on what a "conservative" is. The dude in the OP, while the founder of a "conservative" website, seems to be motivated in this regard by simple religiosity. Lots of religious people are conservatives, but that doesn't mean that any idea thought up by a religious person is a "conservative" idea.
Wow. A conservative exists that even Rand Rover won't defend. Was that a rip in the fabric of space/time I just heard?

But seriously, to your point, and I know this is a complete hijack, so I apologize in advance, how can one objectively define a conservative when conservatives themselves don't, can't, or won't agree on a definition? Hm...probably deserves its own thread.

Last edited by Onomatopoeia; 08-10-2010 at 09:23 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 08-10-2010, 09:25 PM
BrainGlutton BrainGlutton is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rand Rover View Post
This thread shows the need to have a national conversation (or at least an SDMB conversation) on what a "conservative" is.
Here you go.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 08-10-2010, 11:10 PM
DanBlather DanBlather is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
This does basically mean we have to line up all the conservatives and shoot them, right? There is absolutely no reasoning with them.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 08-10-2010, 11:22 PM
Really Not All That Bright Really Not All That Bright is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Well, it's all relative.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 08-10-2010, 11:31 PM
elucidator elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Hey, not all the relatives! I'm from Texas, and some of my kin are just to the left of Otto von Bismarck.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 08-10-2010, 11:42 PM
Knowed Out Knowed Out is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by begbert2 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Knowed Out View Post
So, maybe, MAYBE, that's the rationale behind the OP's link. (I keep trying to figure out why kooks think the way they do. What does that make me?)
Eternally frustrated, I'd say, if "because they're kooks" doesn't satisfy you.
Maybe I should start looking at you closer then.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:12 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright 2013 Sun-Times Media, LLC.