234
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 415:
Line 415: +
Debate:Is Conservapedia fair and balanced? (view source)
Revision as of 18:23, May 6, 2011
, 18:23, May 6, 2011→No, But...
::::::I think conservative's first comment is the most apropos illustration of silliness of this site. KingHanksley: "I have some serious objections to how information is presented on this site". Conservative: "Atheists are fat". Touché , conservative - argument over. [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 19:59, 5 May 2011 (EDT)
::::::I think conservative's first comment is the most apropos illustration of silliness of this site. KingHanksley: "I have some serious objections to how information is presented on this site". Conservative: "Atheists are fat". Touché , conservative - argument over. [[User:EricAlstrom|EricAlstrom]] 19:59, 5 May 2011 (EDT)
:::::::You complain over lack of substance but you fail to provide any. So, where did Conservative make a fallacious argument? One of the main points of Consevapedia is to hold liberals to account, and Conservative's articles do this in a fun and informative manner. Wikipedia already exists, why try to turn Conservapedia into a copy of it? [[User:JimmyRa|JimmyRa]] 21:02, 5 May 2011 (EDT)
:::::::You complain over lack of substance but you fail to provide any. So, where did Conservative make a fallacious argument? One of the main points of Consevapedia is to hold liberals to account, and Conservative's articles do this in a fun and informative manner. Wikipedia already exists, why try to turn Conservapedia into a copy of it? [[User:JimmyRa|JimmyRa]] 21:02, 5 May 2011 (EDT)
::::::::Jimmy - I never said that Conservative in particular made fallacious arguments, although it is true that he has done so. At least on the atheists and obesity page, he made hasty generalizations by giving a few atheists (the board of one organization) as evidence that atheism causes obesity, made a non sequitur argument by suggesting that a Gallup study showing that the non-religious are generally less healthy than the very religious showed that atheists were obese...but conservative is one user, he is not the issue, and for all I know he could work very hard and make positive contributions, and I have only seen the negative ones. That's a fair point, I don't know. But my impression is that a lot of the site contains a lot of ad hominem attacks, hasty and sweeping generalizations, and I think the most honest users see it...as for "lack of substance," see the pages on the characteristics of atheists and liberals, the pages on the Obamas, PZ Myers, etc. There's lots of irrelevant information that falls under the category of petty attacks....As for the point of Conservapedia - taking liberals to account certainly does matter, and I think it's great to satirize faulty logic on their side. This does not mean sinking to the level of triviality, making arguments we do not fully believe just because it's funny. I agree that liberals use illogical arguments all the time, but the way to address them is by showing how ''a liberal makes those arguments,'' not making them from a conservative standpoint and making ''ourselves'' look like the idiots. For example, [[Stephen Colbert]] is a liberal, but he mocks conservatives by making specious arguments from the "conservative" side. Some articles on this site seem like Colbert pieces, and those are mocking ourselves more than liberals...I don't think Conservapedia should be a copy of Wikipedia. Wikipedia claims to be from a neutral standpoint, but nobody knows what that is, so it can't possibly meet that standard. Conservapedia, on the other hand, does have a standpoint - that God does exist, and that fundamental American conservatism is correct - and that makes it different and more coherent than Wikipedia. And some parts of it do a great job at doing that. But these petty attacks on things like PZ Myer's weight and Michelle Obama's fashion, and the idea that all atheists are bad at everything and that everything Obama does is bad don't seem to contribute anything. If it's not (whatever else it is) a genuinely useful resource for conservatives, what is it? No liberals are going to read this seriously and be converted. Is it just a place to vent? If so, it's too bad that people are ranting and venting at the same place where lots of editors seem to have put in work creating informative articles [[User:KingHanksley|KingHanksley]] 14:23, 6 May 2011 (EDT)