Conservapedia: relativistic concept of "curvature of space" promotes broad legal right to abortion

[Revtim]

More comedy from our friends at Conservapedia:

http://www.conservapedia.com/Relativity#Political_aspects_of_relativity

Some liberal politicians have extrapolated the theory of relativity to metaphorically justify their own political agendas. For example, Democratic President 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.[63]

Footnote 63:

Tribe, acknowledging help by Obama, argued that the Constitution should be interpreted to establish a right to federally funded abortion and that, more generally, Roe v. Wade does not go far enough. They insisted that a relativistic “curvature of space” could achieve this result by expanding application of the Constitution based on its impact on personal choice. “The Roe v. Wade opinion ignored the way in which laws regulating pregnant women may shape the entire pattern of relationships among men, women, and children. It conceptualized abortion not in terms of the intensely public question of the subordination of women to men through the exploitation of pregnancy, but in terms of the purportedly private question of how women might make intimately personal decisions about their bodies and their lives. That vision described a part of the truth, but only what might be called the Newtonian part. … [A] change in the surrounding legal setting can constitute state action that most threatens the sphere of personal choice. And it is a ‘curved space’ perspective on how law operates that leads one to focus less on the visible lines of legal force and more on how those lines are bent and directed by the law’s geometry.” Laurence H. Tribe, The Curvature of Constitutional Space: What Lawyers Can Learn from Modern Physics, 103 Harv. L. Rev. 1, 16-17 (1989).

[Smeghead]

Clearly it’s time to ban Einstein.

[Abe_Babe]

Well, his Theory of Relativism was clearly marxist/liberal/socialist.

[Measure_for_Measure]

Einstein’s description of the universe provides metaphors for lawyers. Shocking.

That’s a profoundly weird argument, considering the routine use of biblical narrative is common speech. But hey, I understand that Conservapedia wants to rewrite the Bible as well to make it more conserva-friendly.

[BrainGlutton]

Nothing new here. From RationalWiki:

The sysops at Conservapedia believe there is a link between scientific relativity (special and general relativity) and moral relativism, even though the concepts are utterly unrelated and have nothing in common other than using a form of the word “relative”.

Based on this comically misguided premise, and perhaps a mistrust of science in general (derived from their opposition to the scientific theories of evolution and global warming), they attempt to denigrate the science of relativity as part of an agenda against moral relativism. As a result, the relativity-related articles at Conservapedia are riddled with incorrect interpretations, distortions of fact, out-of-context quotes from scientists and scientific journals, and elementary errors. Some of these mistakes may be due to basic misunderstanding of the physics involved, but attempts to correct them have been met with admonishments, reversions and blockings from the administrators, suggesting willful ignorance.

It is important to note that Andrew Schlafly, founder of Conservapedia and author of most of these articles, has a degree in electrical engineering and would have studied relativity in first-year physics courses required for the degree.

[Darth_Panda]

It seems clear that families are responsible for abortions, given that they are all relatives.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Measure_for_Measure

That’s a profoundly weird argument

Elliptical, one might say. Perhaps even hyperbolic.

[Darth_Panda]

@Bryan_Ekers

Elliptical, one might say. Perhaps even hyperbolic.

If these people were to ever come so close as a tangent, I’d be impressed.

[hotflungwok]

Conservapedia is the laughing stock of the internet. Uncyclopedia is more informative and accurate.

[JackieLikesVariety]

this is the first I’ve heard of conservapedia…might be a good thing. keep those busy with it out of wikipedia, I mean.

[Kenm]

@Smeghead

Clearly it’s time to ban Einstein.

Well, it wouldn’t be the first time, would it.

[Measure_for_Measure]

@BrainGlutton

Nothing new here. From RationalWiki:

No, there is absolutely nothing new here. Brad DeLong encountered such arguments in the early 1990s, published in the American Spectator, a conservative magazine.
[QUOTE=Brad DeLong]
It was not all that long ago that the American Spectator published articles about relativity very much like those it still sometimes publishes about evolution. The one I saw was, in fact, in the first issue of the American Spectator I ever read–the one when I was still getting my bearings working at the Treasury, and asking “who are these clowns?” and one of the Deputy Assistant Secretaries for Public Affairs handed me this:
…

From that moment on, my working hypothesis was that the conservative wing of the Republican Party is composed exclusively of people who have completely disabled their bullshit detectors. That working hypothesis has served me very well for seventeen years now.
[/QUOTE]

[Hershele_Ostropoler]

It’s telling that they insist science supports their ideological opponents.

[GIGObuster]

@hotflungwok

Conservapedia is the laughing stock of the internet. Uncyclopedia is more informative and accurate.

Heck, even Encyclopedia Dramatica is more accurate.*

From their entry on Conservapedia:
“The fact that it is a wiki is amusing because all liberals want to do is change things while conservatives want things to stay the same. Every edit made on the site goes against CP’s purpose.”
*And that folks is a very low, low bar. So no links to them as who knows when one can get a NSFW ad or image there.

[Flywheel]

@Darth_Panda

If these people were to ever come so close as a tangent, I’d be impressed.

Point taken.

[hotflungwok]

I mean really, these people think the Bible is too liberal.

[Stranger_On_A_Train]

@Darth_Panda

If these people were to ever come so close as a tangent, I’d be impressed.

With the appropriate definition of Lorentzian manifold, one could create a timelike curve along which one could return to the point of one’s conception and abort one’s own fetus, thereby creating a cosmic paradox which could destroy the universe. Q.E.D. abortion should be prohibited, not only from this point forward but retroactively throughout all space and time as well.

Stranger

[Trinopus]

I am the Eschaton; I am not your God.
I am descended from you, and exist in your future.
Thou shalt not violate causality within my historic light cone. Or else.

[Simplicio]

It is important to note that Andrew Schlafly, founder of Conservapedia and author of most of these articles, has a degree in electrical engineering and would have studied relativity in first-year physics courses required for the degree.

Andrew’s brother Roger has a website devoted to proving the Einstein was a fraud who plagiarized his famous theories. The Schlaflys seem to have a really weird hang-up regarding Relativity

[thelurkinghorror]

Poe’s law in effect. Sometimes it is hard to tell what is honestly written there.

Conservapedia is one of the stupidest “serious” websites around. FYI RationalWiki is a close #2. Oscar Wilde once said: “Dramatica and Uncylcopedia are better at their worst.”