Difference between revisions of "Talk:Essay: Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?"

From Conservapedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Replaced content with "Archive1")
Line 1: Line 1:
−
Should we not attack his view point than attack the person? This essay does not appear to be in a very good taste. --[[User:Johntalbot|Johntalbot]] 22:28, 22 May 2010 (EDT)
+
[[Talk:Essay: Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?/Archive1|Archive1]]
−
::::Are you saying that an essay cannot comment on a person's behavior or use satire?  If so, please justify.  [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 01:51, 23 May 2010 (EDT)
 
−
:::::No I am not saying that. But I do not have any special knowledge about Richard Dawkin's manhood or machismo. I don't think any information is publicly available about his manhood related behaviour as well, So how do you comment on that? Satire is great if used well. For example Catch 22 is a great satire, but unfortunately your essay is not. It would be rude if I really express what I think about it. --[[User:Johntalbot|Johntalbot]] 15:41, 23 May 2010 (EDT)
 
−
::::Perhaps, you should read the essay and the linked resources a few times more and see if you can spot a pattern of cowardice by Richard Dawkins. Anyways, I wrote the essay when I was rather tired and I am made some revisions to it.  By the way,  the Google algorithm loves the essay.  It ranks #1 for Richard Dawkins and Machismo and  ranks #1 for Dawkins and machismo.  However, I am guessing given Dawkins' behavior that many people don't associate the Richard Dawkins with machismo so there is probably not too many searches for this term.  There are a 11,900 Google search results for Richard Dawkins and cowardice, just in case you are looking for further evidence concerning the subject of Richard Dawkins and cowardice.  By the way, could you define "special knowledge".  Also, do all Conservapedia essays need to pass a "special knowledge" litmus test? [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 20:12, 23 May 2010 (EDT)
 
−
::::::I wouldn't use the number of google results to prove a point, it's not a very accurate indicator.[[User:RaymondP|RaymondP]] 21:22, 28 May 2010 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
so.. are you writing this for google algorithm. Sorry to burst your bubble, but no one is going to search for Dawkins and Machismo. May be you should clear your cache and search it, because when I do that, your page is not even in the top 10. I don't understand what you aim to say by 11900 results for Dawkins and cowardice. conservative and cowardice brings up 287000 results. does that mean anything? I am not sure why you are so much obsessed  about Richard Dawkins' manhood. Shouldn't you be trying to refute his arguments in that precious time? --[[User:Johntalbot|Johntalbot]] 20:24, 23 May 2010 (EDT)
 
−
::::I guess you need to take some reading comprehension classes.  I did indicate that I didn't believe there were going to be many searches for the term Dawkins and machismo.  I also noticed you also didn't answer my questions.  I will return the favor and not answer yours.  [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 20:57, 23 May 2010 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
 
 
−
I was given a link to this essay on youtube, and I can say that it certainly hits the target!  Dawkins is well know for being a coward with regards to avoid all debate with those who don't agree with his worldview, so this kind of hard-hitting satire suits him perfectly!  Keep up the good work Mr Conservative, sadly it's no surprise that the the liberal 'Dawkins Defenders' do nothing but criticize anything that exposes their evolutionist leaders for the frauds that they are. - Andrew.
 
−
::::Thanks for the positive review.  Here is something I just put at the bottom of the essay: '''QUICK NOTE:'''  The above essay was produced as part of the [[Conservapedia:Richard Dawkins Project]].  If you like this essay, please feel free to give it three "oles!" by creating a [[YouTube ]] video on it.  Also, feel free to mention it on your blog or [[Facebook]] page.  There are also some tips [[Conservapedia:Richard Dawkins Project - Spreading the News|HERE]] on spreading the word about this essay. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCZYpGzu7rA&feature=related Ole!][http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAYSQXSMnss&feature=related Ole!][http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQwWvw3uTJM&feature=related Ole!]  [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 17:31, 24 May 2010 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
== Unconservapedia? ==
 
−
 
 
−
What's the point of all those essays about Richard Dawkinds? Is this the embryo of an ''unconservapedia'', parody of ''uncyclopedia'', the ''official'' parody of ''wikipedia''? That would be fun, a parody of a parody. Might as well be called ''liberopedia'', and have articles with the Khaddaffi Peace Prize or the Stalin Human Rights awards. [[User:Sunda62|Sunda62]] 10:01, 27 May 2010 (EDT)
 
−
::::All those essays?  Two essays have been written.  Did Richard Dawkins teach you how to count? :) [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 00:57, 7 June 2010 (EDT)
 
−
:: Yes! There are three kinds of people: those that can count, and those that can't! [[User:Sunda62|Sunda62]] 16:49, 18 June 2010 (EDT)
 
−
:::::The collection of articles has expanded since my June 7, 2010 post.  I thought liberals like the concept of "[[Evolution|change over time]]" - especially when they engage in equivocation. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 17:07, 18 June 2010 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
== Messed up ==
 
−
 
 
−
Purposefully creating provocative pages and then limiting the editing for such pages is ridiculous.  I can't even fix the spelling errors.
 
−
: First prove yourself by fixing up or writing other articles. We're not here just to talk, talk, talk. --[[User:ReligiousRight|ReligiousRight]] 22:39, 6 June 2010 (EDT)
 
−
::Obviously this user needs to open his mind. He probably doesn't support school prayer and I'm 96% certain he also believes in gun control. [[User:KevinO|KevinO]] 22:46, 6 June 2010 (EDT)
 
−
::::If there are typos and/or spelling errors, please list them on the talk page.  Unless, of course, you lack the machismo to do so!  :) [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 00:53, 7 June 2010 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
 
 
−
== Grammar/Spelling problems: ==
 
−
 
 
−
 
 
−
Senor ---> Señor
 
−
 
 
−
Ole ---> Olé
 
−
 
 
−
 
 
−
 
 
−
Polling in 2006 indicates that less than half of the US and British populace accept the evolutionary paradigm as the best description for the development of life. 
 
−
 
 
−
In addition.
 
−
 
 
−
polling indicates that the evolutionary paradigm is losing public support in the United States.[8]
 
−
 
 
−
So the key question stirring around the much discussed U.S Religious Landscape Survey released in late February by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life is what tale does it state about the state of the union.
 
−
 
 
−
But atheist make up only 1.6% of respondents to this survey....
 
−
 
 
−
Within the evolutionaryscience community and the creation science community, Richard Dawkins has faced charges of engaging in pseudoscience and has also faced charges of committing elementary errors.[10]
 
−
 
 
−
Of course, if Senor Dawkins published fine works in the field of Christian apologetics, Senor Dawkins would have great confidence his work could withstand scrutiny and he wouldn't have to spend so much time in his "intellectual bunnyhole" hiding from strong debaters of the opposition.
 
−
 
 
−
And there's more.  This article needs many, many corrections. {{Unsigned|AnnaO}}
 
−
 
 
−
:And you're unable to work on other articles, why?  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:10, 7 June 2010 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
::This article is in the forefront right now. There are many errors on it.  Keeping this article in the condition its in paints the entire Conservapedia in a bad light.  The deflection "work on something else" is weak and garners no enthusiasm for effort elsewhere. {{Unsigned|AnnaO}}
 
−
:::Then why are you so desperate to fix the "errors" in just this article?  Is there something about you you're not telling us?  [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:30, 7 June 2010 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
*AnaO, you should be aware this is not an encyclopedic article, but a personal essay by the editor. As such changes are at the whim of the editor.  --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big><sub>/Admin</sub><sup>[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</sup> 14:41, 7 June 2010 (EDT)
 
−
:::::Something just occurred that I thought was entirely impossible, but is absolutely and unequivocally true.  With the adding of the words Señor and Olé, this essay now superpasses all essays at Conservapedia in terms of its unadulterated machismo and it now has entered the realm of über-machismo! :)  So unfortunately for Señor Dawkins, the hispanic ladies might become even more troublesome given his extreme reluctance to debate strong debate opponents (see: [[Instances of Richard Dawkins ducking debates]] ).  [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 02:50, 8 June 2010 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
== Spanish ==
 
−
 
 
−
I think it's supposed to be mucho machismo, not mu machismo (in one of the captions.) [[User:RaymondP|RaymondP]] 17:34, 30 June 2010 (EDT)
 
−
:::Gracias,Señor. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 03:10, 6 July 2010 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
== Over 5,000 views for the essay: Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?  Olé! Olé! Olé! ==
 
−
 
 
−
Over 5,000 views for the essay: Does Richard Dawkins have machismo? [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCZYpGzu7rA&feature=related Olé!][http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAYSQXSMnss&feature=related Olé!][http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQwWvw3uTJM&feature=related Olé!] Will efforts be made to get this essay much more web traffic?  Please stay tuned for further developments!  [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 00:06, 7 July 2010 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
==You are having an effect==
 
−
 
 
−
During the time before his lecture at the UAF Davis concert hall yesterday I heard a group of students in a [[three syllable chant]] of "much-is-Mo! much-is-Mo! much-is-Mo!" and I didn't know what it was about (I thought they were saying "much is more") until I saw this essay. Keep it up Conservative! Maybe you can shame him into growing a backbone and becoming a man  finally in his late 60's. I regret that I couldn't ask a question of my own but there were some real zingers asked, and he cut a few people short before the could hit him hard, I suspect it wont be too long before his untenable positions catch up with him and he is forced to silence everyone in an attempt to silence his critics!  --[[User:AbbieM|AbbieM]] 20:35, 16 July 2010 (EDT)
 
−
:::Were the students Spanish ladies?  Seriously, the article has not been distributed widely (yet). :)  [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 22:48, 16 July 2010 (EDT)
 
−
::::AbbieM, are you a commuter student?  The reason I ask is that you appear to be editing from Alaska. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 00:24, 17 July 2010 (EDT)
 
−
:::::Not anymore, Conservative. I decided it was best that she conserve fuel. ;-) --<big>[[User:TK|'''ṬK''']]</big><sub>/Admin</sub><sup>[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]]</sup> 00:29, 17 July 2010 (EDT)
 
−
:::::::It does appear as if the UAF Davis concert hall is in Alaska.  At the same time, being a Christian and [http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism#Reasonable_Explanations_for_Atheism not a gullible atheist], I do need good evidence before believing historical claims. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 08:45, 19 July 2010 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
== Clarification ==
 
−
 
 
−
So...is Dawkins supposed to be the bull or the matador?
 
−
Also, Dawkins fans are...bunny rabbits? I'm not trying to be facetious here; I just don't get it. [[User:JoeFerguson|JoeFerguson]] 09:48, 17 July 2010 (EDT)
 
−
::::I added some footnotes for the bunny rabbits for you so you could more clearly see that birds of a feather do flock together. :)  In addition, despite the fact that Dawkins spreads plenty of unpleasant verbal and written bull manure in the public square, Dawkins was never represented as a bull in the satirical essay ''Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?''.  On the other hand, Dawkins' courage is shown as a dead bull. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 13:36, 18 July 2010 (EDT)
 
−
:::::Welll that makes sense. Thanks for clearing that up; I feel like a big dummy now for not getting it in the first place. :) [[User:JoeFerguson|JoeFerguson]] 23:02, 19 July 2010 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
== Bad Debate ==
 
−
 
 
−
In the spirit of Christianity and good debate, shouldn't Dawkins be treated with more respect? I do understand that this is satire, but shouldn't we generally be concise, factual and exclude gossip? There are plenty of Dawkins' views to attack without hurling insults about his masculinity.
 
−
 
 
−
Also, sweeping generalizations about Hispanic and Asian women (not to mention the line "more yang than yin") can be offensive. [[User:Emba|Emba]] 10:08, 31 July 2010 (EDT)
 
−
:::Emba, you haven't shown that Richard Dawkins should be treated with more respect and I find that quite humorous. I found your other complaints to be equally non-supported. Are you an atheist?  If so, why do atheists [[Essay: Atheism is a clown and it did not know it|have such a hard time supporting their contentions and worldview]]? [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 17:12, 9 September 2010 (EDT)
 
−
:::::Emba, tell you what.  Since [[Richard Dawkins]] considers [[intelligent design]] adherents to be creationists and since Dawkins debated [[Richard Dawkins' public refusal to debate creationists|John Lennox who holds to the position of intelligent design]], you can tell Richard Dawkins that I am willing to debate him on the subject of [[evolution]] so he can gain some of the machismo back that [[Richard Dawkins and Rabbi Shmuley Boteach|he lost in the events surrounding the Rabbi Boteach debate.]] I still think it would be better if he once again debated Rabbi Boteach though and Rabbi Boteach has graciously extended an invitation to debate him once more. By the way, can you tell me why [[Richard Dawkins and Rabbi Shmuley Boteach|Dawkins claimed he never debated Rabbi Boteach?]]  A debate which was videotaped. Was it because [[Richard Dawkins and Rabbi Shmuley Boteach|Dawkins lost the Dawkins-Boteach debate according to the college audience?]]  If you could gain some clarification concerning this matter through Mr. Dawkins, Conservapedia would be most indebted to you.  [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 17:32, 9 September 2010 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
==This is strange to me==
 
−
 
 
−
¿Is good to have machismo? If Mr Dawkins no is machist then is good.  You say he respects women.--[[User:RobertoCuestion|RobertoCuestion]] 07:18, 4 August 2010 (EDT)
 
−
:::I wrote:  "One of the definitions of machismo is an 'exhilarating sense of power or strength'.[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/machismo]  Concerning Richard Dawkins' work, it would be very difficult for Señor Dawkins to have and exhilarating sense of power or strength....([[Essay: Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?|I then explain why]])."  Plus I wrote: "Also, given all the courageous Christian women martyrs in history, Christian women debate opponents could serve as a role model for Señor Dawkins so he could be less of  [http://www.conservapedia.com/File:Senor_Richard_Dawkins.jpg a chicken]. Through continual debating of worthy opponents perhaps some day Señor Dawkins could earn the right to debate one of the most manly Bible believers in all of Chistendom - Señor [[Chuck Norris]]." [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 12:20, 8 August 2010 (EDT)
 
−
 
 
−
== Dawkins gif ==
 
−
 
 
−
I found a very amusing .gif image [http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2010/8/2/ffc98835-4623-433e-b553-f1a7d686533b.gif here] that would perhaps be suitable for this essay if you want to use it. :) [[User:JoeFerguson|JoeFerguson]] 17:49, 8 August 2010 (EDT)
 
−
:::I saw something very similar, but I am not willing to cross that line. :)  [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 17:53, 8 August 2010 (EDT)
 
−
::::Oh well, it's still pretty funny tho. I thought of you when I saw it. ;) [[User:JoeFerguson|JoeFerguson]] 17:58, 8 August 2010 (EDT)
 

Revision as of 06:08, May 27, 2011

Archive1

Retrieved from "https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Essay:_Does_Richard_Dawkins_have_machismo%3F&oldid=872540"