Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Conservapedia talk:Are atheists productive

2008-02-26T11:08:11Z

CabbageCrate:

Statements like this require data. It would be a very interesting study, and not that hard to do, for a real researcher. As it stands, there is no data to support the assertion, although it may be right.[[User:KarlJ|KarlJ]] 23:41, 25 February 2008 (EST)

: I welcome more research. The [[Google]] search is a start, and speaks for itself.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:42, 25 February 2008 (EST)--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:42, 25 February 2008 (EST)
::Seeing as the phrase "second generation atheist" (in quotation marks) only yields 849 Google hits to begin with (a pretty meager number), I wonder if this isn't slightly begging the question. [[User:Aboganza|Aboganza]] 23:45, 25 February 2008 (EST)
:::Well, my personal anecdote is about as valid as andy's google search. Me and my sisters are all second generation atheists, and we are all successful professionals with great families.[[User:KarlJ|KarlJ]] 23:47, 25 February 2008 (EST)
::::I'll save Aschlafly the trip - see item 5 in [[Liberal logic]] [[User:Aboganza|Aboganza]] 23:52, 25 February 2008 (EST)

:::: You beat me to it by a matter of seconds! Also, KarlJ, your grammar is atrocious, rendering your claim somewhat dubious.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:53, 25 February 2008 (EST)
:::::Good point, sir. I will attempt to improve both my language and grammar. I will achieve heights of eloquence never before reached by man!![[User:KarlJ|KarlJ]] 23:55, 25 February 2008 (EST)
:::::And you still need to tell me how a search string that generates such a tiny number of hits can't be seen as a case of number 32 in [[Liberal style]] . [[User:Aboganza|Aboganza]] 23:57, 25 February 2008 (EST)
:::::: The tiny number of hits for the term reinforces the point rather than detracts from it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:06, 26 February 2008 (EST)
::::::: Your point being, presumably, that because it is a term nobody uses it must mean that so-called second generation atheists are not doing notable things in the world. Genius. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 00:11, 26 February 2008 (EST)

:::::::: No, you're clueless. The term is used, as in "second generation Christian." But when the set of accomplished subjects is virtually the null set, as in [[second generation atheists]], very little shows up.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:12, 26 February 2008 (EST)
:::::::::I ''told'' you he was smarter than you, Dewey. You shoulda believed me.[[User:KarlJ|KarlJ]] 00:13, 26 February 2008 (EST)
:::::::::: Well. I get 862 hits for "second generation atheist" and 2090 for "second generation christian". Looks like neither group are making much of an impression. --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 00:16, 26 February 2008 (EST)
:::::::::: Actually, according to Conservapedia atheists make up only 4% of the US population. Christians are at (I believe) about 80%. That puts the second generation atheists well ahead of the second generation Christians on a Google hit per capita basis, doesn't it? --[[User:GDewey|GDewey]] 00:32, 26 February 2008 (EST)

The only fair way to compare "second generation atheists" with "second generation Christians" is on a per-capita basis. The number of Google hits ''might'' reflect the relative numbers of the two groups, but says ''nothing'' about the relative per-capita productiveness of the two groups. As such, although it wouldn't surprise me to find the claims in the article to be true, as it stands the article is without any substantiation. I expect people making claims to me to be able to back them up, and in return I would not use an argument, such as this one, that I could not back up.

GDewey, your comparison is flawed if you are comparing ''American'' figures with ''world-wide'' Google hits.

Furthermore, a proper study could (in theory) be done, and the results might be quite interesting, but a proper study would need to have clear criteria. As the article stands, there is no clear definition of "productive" and "accomplishments".

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:30, 26 February 2008 (EST)

: My dear boy! Don't you know data is no substitute for faith? I mean, just look at the [[minister's son]] article. No attempt to examine or explain the supposed phenomenon, no definition of "success", no hard data, a quote that seems to suggest that the sons of dentists seem to outperform the sons of ministers in terms of success, and frequent appeal to hallowed antiquity where the clergy was a method whereby commoners could launder their caste origins and become essentially petty nobility whose offspring could indeed engage in scientific or philosophical enquiry while the serf had no such liberty. How indeed are we to know someone is a second generation atheist? It matters not. All that matters is that we have faith that atheists are intellectually inferior to the theist. --[[User:CabbageCrate|CabbageCrate]] 06:08, 26 February 2008 (EST)

Talk:Liberal bias in academia

2008-02-26T10:43:36Z

CabbageCrate: /* Parody */

Fine, let's add some citations. No one seriously doubts that [[liberal grading]] occurs.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:26, 25 February 2008 (EST)
:As undeniable as [[liberal bias]], [[liberal tricks]] and [[liberal hypocrisy]] - well, actually, [[liberals]] probably do [[liberal denial|deny]] those, haha. :-) [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 19:38, 25 February 2008 (EST)

:: Indeed they do deny it, along with the long list at [[liberal denial]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:41, 25 February 2008 (EST)

== Parody ==

This page was created as a parody, and I don't think that we should have it. While I do believe that some teachers would actually grade like that, I think that it is rare enough to not warrant it's own page. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 23:27, 25 February 2008 (EST)
:Looking at the edit history, it would seem that Aschlafly might disagree. Indeed. [[User:Aboganza|Aboganza]] 23:28, 25 February 2008 (EST)

:What evidence do you have that it was created as a parody? It doesn't read any differently than many of the other liberal behavior essays on the site. Many editors have contributed to it including Andy who clearly doesn't see it as a parody. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 23:30, 25 February 2008 (EST)

:: Many teachers grade like that. In a mere 5 minutes I found a clear example. If you researched it, then I'm confident you could find others. And the reported examples are just the tip of the iceberg. Ask ''any'' [[conservative]] student who has taken classes from many [[liberal]] outside of pure math and science.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:32, 25 February 2008 (EST)

::::Your example is not grading students based on political views. It is an example of teachers rushing to judgement and punishing students for a crime they did not commit. there is nothing liberal about it. Oh, and i have taken classes from liberal teachers. In fact I got an A when I probably deserved a B. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 23:37, 25 February 2008 (EST)

:::Andy, I agree with you that this is a real issue and a serious one at that. If a student wants to write a conservative essay about the role of a conservative economic policy, then the essay should be judged on its style and merits and shouldn't be graded down purely because of an ideological disagreement. The question is whether or not the article as it was originally written was a parody. Tim seems to think so. Indeed, so much so that he blocked the original author. Where's the evidence for this being a parody? [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 23:35, 25 February 2008 (EST)

:::discussion witnessed at another wiki which is not allowed to be named here. I would post you a diff, but that would not be allowed either. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 23:37, 25 February 2008 (EST)

::: I don't know -- or care -- whether a parodist contributed to the entry. Often the truth is ridiculed and parodied. I do know that [[liberal grading]] is a real problem and the student was not downgraded at Duke because anyone seriously thought he was a criminal. He had not even been charged with a crime. He was downgraded as a pure result of [[liberal grading]], because the student had done something [[politically incorrect]]. And that was an example I found in a mere 5 minutes on the internet. Have others here done as much research?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:41, 25 February 2008 (EST)

::::What did the student do that was "politically incorrect"? --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 23:43, 25 February 2008 (EST)
:::::You also have yet to explain how the grading was liberal. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] (CPAdmin1)[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]] [[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]] 00:28, 26 February 2008 (EST)

:::::: Oh come now, you've been here long enough to know the score. The "politically incorrect act" was rape, because - you know - mentioning what the person was actually accused of might weaken the case just a wee bit. The grading was liberal because EVERY professor at a major university is a liberal, QED. It's best not to argue the toss, because otherwise ''someone'' is 95% certain to question your position on school prayer to avoid having to actually present a rational argument. --[[User:CabbageCrate|CabbageCrate]] 05:35, 26 February 2008 (EST)

Well you know, Andy I see what you mean when you say Liberal grading - and I do believe that grades on papers will occasionally be bumped up if the paper represents a view that agrees with the teacher (and let's face it - a lot of public school teachers are liberal); but at the same time, I don't think it's significant enough or frequent enough for an encyclopedia article.--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]] 00:41, 26 February 2008 (EST)

: Do you believe ''any'' of the "liberal x" articles deserve an entry? I think there's a reason why Britannica doesn't have an article on [[Liberal style]], [[Liberal denial]], [[Liberal friendship]], [[Liberal tricks]], [[Liberal obfuscation]], [[Liberal logic]], [[Liberal tools]], [[Liberal denial]], [[Liberal Myths]], [[Liberal hypocrisy]], [[Liberal hysteria]], [[Liberal celebrity obsession]] or [[Hollywood values]], and that reason isn't liberal censorship of "conservative facts" --[[User:CabbageCrate|CabbageCrate]] 05:43, 26 February 2008 (EST)

Talk:Liberal bias in academia

2008-02-26T10:35:42Z

CabbageCrate: