Talk:Essay: Penn Jillette's walrus slide vs. thin Indian Christian lady dancers

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

You know, all dancers tend to be slender, regardless of religion. How do you explain the slender Buddhist Thai dancers? or the Indonesian dancers? Or the Japanese? Or, for that matter, the ballet dancers from atheistic Russia? Seriously, you want to make an impact - attack Jillette on his beliefs, his claims, etc, refute his article. But comparing him to walrusses and dancers and ponies is - quite frankly - childish. And before you say anything, no, this is not satire - it's cheap name-calling. TracyS 08:45, 16 July 2011 (EDT)

Greatest article ever!! The left is far more indulgent and excessive than they'd like us all to believe. A little reality and comedy might make one of those plump Communists give their cheese curls/pot money to someone who could use a square meal.Legolas2186 Legolas2186 04:45, 16 July 2011 (EDT)

Tracy, "all dancers"? Apparently, you didn't see the video of Penn Jillette doing the "Cha, cha, cha" with his slick "walrus slide"! :) Conservative 19:55, 16 July 2011 (EDT)
Oh dear. If that's the analogy you want to make, maybe you should compare Jillette's dance with any one of hundreds of wedding reception videos on YouTube. The ones with the fat aunties falling into the buffet. If you want to make comparisons, at least compare like with like. TracyS 08:02, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

Learn Indian culture which is more happy and genteel than low class Western atheist "culture"

I added a section entitled: Learn Indian culture which is more happy and genteel than low class Western atheist "culture" Conservative 19:52, 16 July 2011 (EDT)

It is really great that Indians have opened up to Christ. Good section.--JamesWilson 19:55, 16 July 2011 (EDT)
A lot more work needs to be done. China is seeing explosive growth though. Maybe more trading with China will cause Christianity to spread more in India even through they are economic rivals. Conservative 20:30, 16 July 2011 (EDT)
I really do hope that Christianity greatly expands in southeast Asia. It seems the West is rejecting Christ on a large scale and many across the globe are embracing Him. Perhaps trade will help, as well as missionairies, who are really making progress in Japan, including a missionary from my church.--JamesWilson 20:38, 16 July 2011 (EDT)
That is certainly good news. I wonder if people in the East are more open minded than people in the West? That would also explain the diversity of religions that went on there prior to Christianity. NickP 01:27, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
The British could have behaved better in India which would have made missionary activity easier in the past. If India gets commercially stronger and does more and more trading with other countries, Christianity could make more inroads into India plus there is the indigenous Christian population as well. Conservative 01:44, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
Ah yes, Indian culture, with the caste system, Untouchables, slumdogs, honor killings, children deliberately crippled so they can beg for the family, abuse of young girls. Remind me again just which part of this culture is so "genteel" and admirable? TracyS 08:02, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
You still haven't answered which part of Indian culture is more genteel - the caste system, Untouchables, slumdogs, honor killings, children deliberately crippled so they can beg for the family, abuse of young girls. Which is it, so I know to aspire to it. 11:28, 18 July 2011 (EDT)
آئےگا آئےگا، سب کا مسیح آئےگا Conservative 03:16, 19 July 2011 (EDT)
Wow! Now there's a mature response! Seriously, it's like arguing with a 3-year-old. Who's learnt how to use Babelfish. Then again, copy/paste is what you do best, right? TracyS 07:21, 19 July 2011 (EDT)
TracyS, you have the same IP address as RobS! You are a sockpuppet of RobS! 知彼知己,百戰不殆;不知彼而知己,一勝一負;不知彼,不知己,每戰必殆 :) Conservative 03:06, 12 August 2011 (EDT)

incredibly stupid

The essay is incredibly stupid. I don't know where to begin. Normally I wouldn't worry about something that a specific individual "owns" and has locked (therefore removing it from the "wiki" part of the wiki.) But I find it disgraceful that this essay is linked from the front page. It does no good to try to get math and science articles in good shape (and remove parody, of which there is a lot, from same) if the front page drives away serious readers. SamHB 01:30, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

If you didn't know where to begin, maybe you should have given more deliberation to your post. Conservative 01:46, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
I can have a go. My girlfriend just so happens to be Indian, Catholic and a lindy-hopper, so with the benefit of her insight, I feel there are some salient points to make. 1) South and East Asians across the board are much thinner than Westerners, regardless of their religion or their dancing. Perhaps essays (however "comical") about girth demographics should be better spent examining diet and income over religious affiliation. 2) The article would be funnier if its internal logic made sense on its own terms. If we accept the comic premise that religious folk dance more, so are thus thinner than fatty athiests, then we have to ignore the fact that the more pious USA has far greater rates of obesity than less religious Europeans. 3) This article is one of many that takes the time to examine the personal lives of atheist figures. This means lots of personal remarks about Dawkin's married life, or Jillette's waist line. Say what you will about the philosophies and political actions of atheists, but fat jokes and slights about marriage life should be beneath any self-respecting encyclopedia. Even bad comedians tend to consider such jokes as in poor taste. Maninahat 12:20, 23 July 2011 (EDT)
Maninahat, I hope you are not saying that "superior atheist intellects" are not smart enough to change their diets and that Richard Dawkins is not smart enough to get along with women. By the way, like many Conservapedia atheists, you have not mastered how to spell the words "atheist" and "atheists". I suggest becoming a Christian so you can develop more self-discipline in terms of your study habits. Also, consider learning the statistical concepts of regression analysis and the Generalized linear model (see: Atheism and obesity). I would also suggest looking at the abundance of data that Conservapedia offers in its Atheism and obesity article. Lastly, I am sorry to hear you are a thin skinned atheist who lacks a sense of humor about thick skinned atheists. Conservative 11:38, 23 July 2011 (EDT)
No I wasn't, Conservative. I don't know how you inferred that considering I never mentioned anything about the atheist dieting or relationship acumen. I also don't see why you would assume I'm an atheist, unless you regard any criticism of your writing as proof of an atheist motive (a thin-skinned atheist motive, that is). I took the time to read the articles you posted, though I needn't have bothered reading far; the first sentence of Atheism and obesity alone is inconsistent with what your essay: [from Atheism and obesity] "Very religious Americans are more likely to practice healthy behaviours than those who are moderately religious or nonreligious." Notice the placement of the moderately religious alongside the nonreligious in terms of health. It doesn't state that either group is fat, it merely states the very religious are more healthy than the others. Even if you took that to mean atheists are fat, you'd also have to assume the moderately religious (who are also not as healthy as the very religious) are also fat. Finally, thank you for correcting my spelling. I will now extend the same courtesy to your essay (uncouth does not need an e). Maninahat 13:25, 23 July 2011 (EDT).

I can assure you, I gave plenty of deliberation to my post. My inability to know where to begin has nothing to do with lack of research or preparation on my part; it relates to the fact that the stupidity is just so pervasive that I literally don't know where to begin.

You see, I have been observing your writings for a couple of years now, and I am quite familiar with your efforts. Until recently, everything you wrote was protected, and the talk pages themselves were protected (or made into protected redirects of some of your other (protected) efforts), and you had no email enabled, and your user and talk page were protected. This led to the obvious conclusion that you actually had no interest in communicating with anyone, and were just posting things out of some kind of narcissism or something. In any case, I just dismissed all of your efforts as something that doesn't belong on a wiki (we collaborate) and so I would just laugh and move on.

But now that, perhaps persuaded by other sysops, you have unlocked these talk pages, people have started to engage you, and the effects are equally risible. I know of no 7-year-old who wouldn't be embarrassed to have written these articles and talk page replies.

By the way, I see that your replies of 01:35 and 01:36 on 17 July contained a classic attempt an a total non sequitur. It's gratifying to see that you removed same at 01:45.

Now let's get down to business. While I don't know where to begin, we may as well begin somewhere. The choices are mind-boggling. The flying kitty? The dog chewing the bone? Richard Dawkins? PZ Myers holding a glass of ale? Chuck Norris being "svelte"? The rabbit? The walruses? The clowns? The battleship? The railroad engine? The bullfighter? The dolphin? The pony? The peanut butter? The chickens? The lion? The tumbleweed? The bear? Where to begin? Where to begin?

So let's begin at the beginning. The first sentence. "Unlike atheists, Christians have a great many songs including dance music." Huh? Atheists don't appreciate music? Or dance? You're off to an abysmal start there, and it just goes downhill. I'd critique the second sentence, but it's getting late.

By the way, if you want to engage me on the topics of body mass index, "svelteness", or physical fitness, let me know. SamHB 00:52, 24 July 2011 (EDT)

SamHB, it is interesting that you have followed my writings for years at this point. Are there any individuals who have followed your writings for years at this point? Why don't you show me how its done by creating outstanding works that people want to read? Conservative 13:13, 24 July 2011 (EDT)

That I have followed your writings for years shouldn't have surprised you in the least. I'm sure you know that you are extremely famous among Conservapdia watchers. Perhaps I was just the first person to tell you directly that I follow you. But that's just because you were incommunicado until very recently. To see how famous you are, go to ritionalwaki (sp) and look around. In fact, you must be aware of what's going on over there, because you used to converse with them via messages referring to "gentlemen at a certain website", or something like that, and they referred to all of this as the "red telephone".

Are there any individuals who have followed your writings for years ... ?

I'm nowhere near as famous as you, because I don't go in for flamboyant or provocative writing, but, as a matter of fact, there are. As you presumably know, I have done an enormous amount of writing about science and mathematics, mostly the latter, and this has gotten the attention of Ed Poor on many occasions. You see, he and I are about the only people who have been consistent contributors in these areas for a significant period of time. So we have been collaborators in this area for quite some time. If you look carefully at our respective contributions, you will see that, indeed, we often follow each others' contributions in detail. And we have had many good-natured (and a few not-so-good-natured) disagreements. It doesn't bother me in the least, and I'm sure it doesn't bother him.

A more curious case is Foxtrot, a math contributor who dropped out a couple of years ago. After I chewed him out for inserting parody into a math article (you can look it up), he started following me around, eventually leading to this message, which was really just a case of him stalking me at the Axiom of Choice page.

Then you ask

Why don't you show me how it's done by creating outstanding works that people want to read?

I assume you mean "how does one write good articles", not "how does one get large numbers of people to watch what you do", because I couldn't begin to compete with you in the latter category. I would suggest that you look at my contributions page. You will find that I have, for some time, been a very prolific contributor in the subjects of science and mathematics, and, as far as I know, am very well respected for same. In fact, a number of sysops have praised my work. Of course, if you have criticisms of my writing, feel free to let me know.

By the way, I see that you have made at least one mathematical contribution, Generalized linear model. You might want to flesh that out a bit, and explain how it is used in statistical analysis, since that seems to be the source of your interest in it. This means saying how to figure out what the coefficients are from the statistical data—least squares in N dimensions and all that. I look forward to reading about it.

SamHB 23:23, 25 July 2011 (EDT)

Debate Challenge!

Don't forget! I, User:SamHB, have challenged User:Conservative to a debate on mathematics, with particular emphasis on the "Generalized Linear Model". The original challenge is here. SamHB 21:41, 14 August 2011 (EDT)