Talk:Essay: Does Thunderf00t lack machismo?

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

What is with you and machismo ?

If the agnostic Richard Dawkins finally agreed to debate Dr. William Lane Craig and a scientist at Creation Ministries International instead of making pitiful excuses, would Hispanic ladies finally believe Señor Dawkins has machismo? [1] Olé! Olé! Olé!

Please see: Does Richard Dawkins have machismo? and Atheism and evolution essays

(photo obtained from Flickr, see: license agreement)
Conservative, I find it really intriguing that you spend so much time and energy writing disputable essays about machismo.

What is with you and machismo ? No offense but have you heard of overcompensation ?--ARamis 16:58, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

It is because one of the more humorous things about atheists/evolutionists/liberals is that they are a bunch of cowardly blowhards. See: Atheism and arrogance and Atheism and cowardice and Does Richard Dawkins have machismo? and Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates.
For example, the term "effete liberals" is a commonly used term of disparagement towards liberals (see the definition of effete at But whoever heard of the stereotype "effete conservatives"? The stereotype doesn't exist! :) Olé! Olé! Olé!  :) Conservative 19:49, 3 October 2014 (EDT)
That is exactly what I was asking myself: why does Andy do nothing about Conservative, who is clearly not helping CP ?--ARamis 17:07, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
Who knows? I wish he would, because I'd really rather NOT leave here; there are plenty of good, decent editors who'd love to help make it into what Andy wanted it to be, but are prevented by that idiot and his obsession with looking at atheist's bodies. I'll just add that Conservative is also a pathologically dishonest individual who refuses to answer questions, changes the subject (Usually to "Why don't you write MORE inane articles of the sort you're criticising me for writing if you think I'm doing a bad job?") and makes 100 edits a day while his (locked - the coward) talk page claims he won't be doing much at Conservapedia for a while. Oh no; he's doing PLENTY at Conservapedia - mainly destroying its credibility. --JMairs 17:09, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

ARamis, I do understand that atheists/liberals have a penchant for armchair internet psychology (which I think is rather humorous given the issue of Atheism and mental health), but I do think you would would be better off addressing the content of the satire. Although there is some good work being done in cognitive psychology and other branches of psychology (cognitive psychologist help designing products, etc.), it certainly can be argued that counseling psychology suffers from a lack of effectiveness in many cases. And of course, armchair internet psychology is probably even more inane.

Christian author Todd A. Sinelli wrote in an article entitled To Whom Shall We Go?:

Psychology is ineffective, impotent, and embarrassingly deceptive. The great humbug is that “the psychological industry has successfully concealed its ineffectiveness from the general public. Pastors, churches, and the laity have been brainwashed into believing that only psychologically trained professional counselors are competent to deal with serious problems.”

Empirical research indicates the exact opposite. In a study done by J.A. Durlack entitled Comparitive Effectiveness of Paraprofessional and Professional Helpers he writes, “The research reviewed forty-two studies that compared professional counselors with untrained helpers. The findings were ‘consistent and provocative.’ Paraprofessionals achieve clinical outcomes equal to or significantly better than those obtained by professionals . . . The study, on the whole, lent no support to the major hypothesis that . . . the technical skills of professional psychotherapists produce measurably better therapeutic change.”

At the conclusion of this study, psychologist Gary Collins reluctantly admits, “Clearly there is evidence that for most people, laypeople can counsel as well as or better than professionals.” Again, the bottom line is that Christians are not to turn to psychologist for guidance. Primarily because the Word of God instructs us not to and God has given us the ability to counsel one another through His Word.[2]

See also: Abstract - Comparative effectiveness of paraprofessional and professional helpers and PubMed citation - Comparative effectiveness of paraprofessional and professional helpers

A 1985 paper entitled Does professional training make a therapist more effective? which was published by the University of Texas reported there was no substantial difference in between the results that laymen and trained psychologists are able to achieve.[3][4]

Who are you, and who asked your opinion? --JMairs 17:21, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
Actually he is Conservative and I did ask his opinion. Thank for the info Conservative but you did not answer my first question: What is with you and machismo ? Why do you make such a fuss about it ? And a whole new question: do you think evolutionists can have machismo ?--ARamis 17:25, 20 September 2011 (EDT)
ARamis, I still think you should address the satires content and do it in an adequate manner. Conservative 17:32, 20 September 2011 (EDT)




Deleted videos

The videos "Evolutionists are "weak sauce" part 1, 2 and 3 were deleted. Please remove them.--JoeyJ 15:09, 3 October 2014 (EDT)

Done. Conservative 20:15, 3 October 2014 (EDT)