Colbert Report Viewers

FAQ

This section will be expanded as it becomes apparent what our new audience wishes to know.

See also : How Conservapedia Differs from Wikipedia

Why is registration necessary?

Conservapedia discourages anonymous contribution, preferring to lend accountability to our articles by requiring users contribute with an account, based on their real name (first name, last initial).

Does Conservapedia have a conservative bias?

Conservapedia is up front about our beliefs and our politics - obviously. Despite this, some might say we have a bias towards the truth. To those who have gone to public schools and been inundated with mainstream media their whole life, this may seem like a strong conservative bias.

WELCOME COLBERT REPORT VIEWERS

Please comment or ask questions here:

Please sign all comments with "~~~~". Thank you.

"To those who have gone to public schools and been inundated with mainstream media their whole life, this may seem like a strong conservative bias." Not to forget those who have ever read a book and the ones that did not grow up in a cave.

I'm a wakkkkkkyyyyyyyy dem haha so everything I see on this site are such lies. It's apparent to me that you run your whole site off of lies and brainwash of the general public. So I have a question how do you sleeep at night if I wad you I'd just huddle in my bed sucking my thumb yelling for my momy. This site makes me wonder do you have a mom or a sole for that matter or did you just spawn out of the mud one day. The sad part is, I'm 15 and I see through your lies. Who ever reads this should tell me what you think at www.myspace.com/brenton_lemay "Brenton".

I'll start. How are we supposed to do that when you haven't opened this page up to editing by users who aren't registered? Whoops!

By registering, I'd say. --Ben _Talk 23:39, 8 December 2009 (EST)

Doesn't that seem needlessly insular to you? While registering is simplistic, this also seems heavily uninviting to new visitors.

Well ultimately, we're about building an useful educational resource. Anyone who wouldn't even bother registering probably isn't really interested in making substantive contributions. --Ben _Talk 23:45, 8 December 2009 (EST)

I'd forgotten how full of himself Colbert is. Unbelievable. It's a good thing O'Reilly is a rerun tonight, or I don't think I could take this.--Gonzo55 07:07, 9 December 2009 (EST)

The one night Colbert might have some honest, conservative viewers, and he gives half his show over to this Marxist nutcase.--Gonzo55 07:08, 9 December 2009 (EST)

Haha. Colberts the man. People anyone who has a problem with colbert caz hes full of himself?! Thats an act... COlberts the man!!!! bill o reilly is a hypocrit nut job along with glenn beck and all of his fox news hypocritical bias friends. u might as well delete this because you don't agree with me, bias BS. 00:48, 9 December 2009 (EST)00:48, 9 December 2009 (EST)00:48, 9 December 2009 (EST)~~

So, if you look at the entry on Global Warming here on Conservapedia it's blatantly obvious that there is extreme conservative bias. The first paragraph is nothing more than a subtle attack on the subject from a right wing point of view. A non bias entry would give a definition and only state the evidence for and against it and nothing else. An objective viewpoint sits in the middle and draws no conclusions. Anything that disagrees with the values of Conservapedia is immediately deemed "liberal." Here is the first paragraph from the Global Warming entry: The Global warming theory asserts that human activity causes dangerous increases in temperatures, despite studies showing the the Earth has been in a cooling pattern since 1998. Liberal scientists have insisted that man-made pollution has caused dangerous warming, but all of their computer models failed to predict cooling that the Earth is experiencing. [1] By pushing their liberal bias, they are misinforming citizens. In November 2009, emails were publicly released that demonstrated wrongful manipulation and concealment of data by scientists who have insisted that there is dangerous man-made global warming.

Conservapedia, it's great that your publishing the ultra-conservative point of view. Just don't try to claim that it is objective. It's not. DaveGBx 09:49, 10 December 2009 (EST)

I heard about this on the colbert report. I haven't had much time to explore the site, but being a senior in a public high school that was raised in an extremely conservative household, I think it's great that someone would take the time to put something like this together. Having just done a paper on organic foods, I also think it's good to see a mass media source that dares to show the conservative side of the argument and not a bunch of liberal bs about how great a starving, communist society would be.Desertdog

I'm a big Colbert and Jon Stewart fan. So obviously I was hesitant to come to this website after the interview on the Report. But I did, mostly because the guest told Colbert that this is a non-liberal-biased website. Now, to me (and my stupid little non-conservative brain), that meant that this website would try and steer clear of any bias because it claims to present the truth. I read some pages. And now I want to throw up. Thank you all for cementing my political and personal beliefs by creating a website that is the antithesis to it all. I know now why we'll never reach an understanding; your beliefs are based on false "facts" and ignorance, mine aren't. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. God only knows that you'll probably start a war on me though. Oh well.

Wow - reading this site I can't tell if you people are insane, ignorant, malicious or a combination of the above. I don't consider myself a liberal by any means but good heavens you just HAVE to know that most of your articles are outright lies. None of the articles I've read are not at all suitable for research and some contain almost no truth. I also find your complete idiocy regarding the e.coli experiment unfathomable. It makes me physically ill to see people so uneducated, so superstitious and so ideologically poisoned affecting young minds. I understand now why this site is such a laughing stock. Most of your views are for comic reasons. I know the colbert nation is going to find this quite amusing. I hope you grow up one day and give up the lie your living on conservapedia. Hryden 00:49, 9 December 2009 (EST)

I can't wait to watch the interview. Also, I'm actually Hojimachong. Hi Andy and TK and other assorted admins! I'm sincerely looking forward to acquiring a copy of this conservative Bible. Godspeed! -DavidCarlson 00:44, 9 December 2009 (EST)

I'm a little new here, but isn't most of this website in violation of Commandment #6: "Do not post personal opinion on an encyclopedia entry."?

You're joking right? This entire site is opinion - I mean they do have an article here that claims dinosaurs may still be among us ... Hryden 00:54, 9 December 2009 (EST)

Yeah I was kidding, actually I originally thought that Colbert's team had made this site up a some sort of joke.

In response to the comment about Colbert "wasting" half his show - he has guests from all over the political spectrum. I respect that a lot, despite disagreeing with several of his guests. And though it's masked in comedy, he does give enough speaking time to let the guest get a point across. It's a good way to complete complete one-sidedness. And on that note, just because this site can boast of not having a liberal bias, doesn't mean it is superior. Any bias at all provides only partial information; so don't think a conservative bias is something to brag about.

Liberal/conservative is not symmetric with respect to the truth. Conservative approaches give priority to original intent and the truth. Liberal approaches give priority to an "evolving" Constitution and holding government power. Conservatives don't care much about government titles; liberals care everything about government titles, at the expense of the truth. The liberal Hillary Clinton, for example, will never say anything that might interfere with her political ambitions, regardless of what the truth is. And I don't mean to single her out; her approach is typical for liberals.--Andy Schlafly 01:05, 9 December 2009 (EST)

Society evolves. You don't think the rules by which society lives should evolve to match that? Either way, only giving the arguments for one side of the story isn't a good thing, no matter which side of the fence you're on. Even the most specific statistics can be skewed, and unless you're giving only raw facts, and ALL raw facts, you're not giving the entire story. Is that really possible in the media? No. But deliberately giving only half the information available is essentially a lie of omission.

Though I don't know your name since you didn't sign your comment, I like where you're going when you mentioned, "only giving the arguments for one side of the story isn't a good thing, no matter which side of the fence you're on," because that's exactly what you see and what you get from Wikipedia. It's what sets Conservapedia apart from the liberal bias and censorship practices used by the MSM and the liberal Wikipedia. Unlike Wikipedia, Conservapedia understands and knows that, as Andy Schlafly said,

“

Liberal/conservative is not symmetric with respect to the truth. Conservative approaches give priority to original intent and the truth. Liberal approaches give priority to an "evolving" Constitution and holding government power. Conservatives don't care much about government titles; liberals care everything about government titles, at the expense of the truth.

”

And that's the truth. DerekE 04:12, 9 December 2009 (EST)

Actually, Derek, it's a circular argument. Conservatism cannot lay claim to the truth any more than liberalism can. Despite what Andy would have you believe, there is nothing inherent in conservatism that makes it rely more heavily on objective truth. Both ideologies respond to truth and morality as they see it. Liberal extremists are just as convinced that their beliefs are based on the world as it is, as opposed by the conservative desire to blindly maintain the status quo. Only a truly egocentric person would believe either of these extreme viewpoints. Insufficient 21:26, 9 December 2009 (EST)

Insufficient, I think you missed the primary argument regarding the differences between Conservapedia and Wikipedia. Two major differences include: (A) Conservapedia does not allow liberal censorship of conservative facts. Wikipedia editors who are far more liberal than the American public frequently censor factual information. Conservapedia does not censor any facts that comport with the basic rules. (B) Conservapedia allows original, properly labeled works, while Wikipedia does not. This promotes a more intellectual atmosphere on Conservapedia. On Wikipedia, observations based on personal experience and interviews have been dismissed as "original research." Conservapedia does not restrict research for articles in that manner. Wikipedia, however, restricts research to that of mostly opinion articles written by journalists who are mostly or always liberal; and thus, censor facts because of their personal ideology. DerekE 00:41, 10 December 2009 (EST)

No, I did read the primary argument regarding the difference. I just happen to think that it's silly. At best, you've replaced liberal censorship of conservative facts with conservative censorship of liberal facts. I think that if that were simply the case and if it were done at the same level of Wikipedia, most people would be fine with this site (though still disagree). In fact, that's what people expect when they visit the site. However, the reason that so many people are opposed to Conservapedia is that you take the issues of Wikipedia and multiply them tenfold. You replace minor biases in wording with complete lies. You replace fringe sections of ideological dissent with complete removal of disagreement. You literally mock those who disagree rather than actually trying to prove them wrong (see Evolution Syndrome). Believe me, nothing about the articles on this site is more "intellectual." As one of those "educated liberals" that Andy dislikes so much, I can say that with confidence. It promotes a more emotional atmosphere, which is an entirely different thing. Insufficient 12:41, 10 December 2009 (EST)

You failed to grasp the point I was making. I'm not defending Wikipedia. I'm simply saying that it's hypocritical of you to condemn Wikipedia for being biased, and then proudly proclaim your own bias. I've said twice now, all that means is that you're boasting of a lie of omission. Just because we agree that a liberal bias is a bad thing, doesn't mean you're better because you're biased to the conservative side instead. And if you agree with where I was going that it's wrong either way, then you agree that you are just as wrong with your conservative bias as many other "sources" are with their liberal bias. That's all I'm saying. KatieCol 11:14, 9 December 2009 (EST)

Also, BOTH sides have basis in truth. It's a matter of to what extent they ignore other truths that don't support their opinion that the factual basis they start out with builds up to falsehoods. And both sides are guilty of that. Not to mention, many things hotly debated in politics are either matters of perspective (i.e. moral issues, where there really is no clear-cut right and wrong, as everyone reaches their own set of values through their own life experiences), or matters of educated guessing (i.e. economic issues, where you can look at how it's worked historically and look at the various ways you think things will pan out, but you won't know exactly how an economic policy will affect the economy at any specific time or under any specific circumstances until it's been enacted). (Holy run-on sentence, Batman. Sorry about that. Having trouble articulating myself today.) Even for other issues, like environmental issues, it comes down to realizing there is some truth in both arguments. I guess my frustration is how dogmatic you are about conservatism, and I can't help but wonder how you can see that as a good thing. KatieCol 11:36, 9 December 2009 (EST)

The problem with your logic is that you're assuming the only difference between Wikipedia and Conservapedia is strictly political. It's not. It's also the academic resources that are allowed in Conservapedia but not Wikipedia. The fact is that Wikipedia allows opinions of journalists to be repeated there as though they are facts. Instead, Conservapedia requires authoritative support. Wikipedia presents as facts numerous assertions that are based merely on journalists' biased opinion. DerekE 00:54, 10 December 2009 (EST)

We're not HIDING a liberal view. This is CONSERVAPEDIA - if somebody wants to hear the liberal side of an issue, they're not going to come here. They go to wikipedia or metapedia or a site of vandals and troublemakers or some other liberal wiki. We exist to provide a conservative resource, and we fill that role very well. JacobB 01:10, 9 December 2009 (EST)

Yes, but in admitting that, you are admitting to the aforementioned lie of omission, which is essentially the entire basis for the site. Not something to brag on. So if there's going to be an argument about how terrible a thing liberal bias is, it would by hypocritical not to acknowledge that you are doing the exact same thing with the other end of the political spectrum and thus are, by your own definitions, equally wrong.

Not really. Wikipedia claims to have a neutral point of view; Conservapedia can hardly be accused of the same thing. But before you accuse us of being one-sided, I encourage you to be a little more open-minded and read some of our articles. You'll be surprised how often a straightforward and honest presentation of facts will come off as conservative - there's a good reason for this. Conservative thought is based on facts and reason, so it's no surprise that in being honest and accurate, we're accused of having a strong bias by people who don't realize this. Also, please sign your comments with 4 tildes. JacobB 01:17, 9 December 2009 (EST)

A lot of places "claim" to be neutral. But true neutrality is impossible; even if all you give is facts, the selection of facts will still present a bias. Basic knowledge of mass communications tells you that. And anyone who has had enough experience with rhetoric and propaganda can pick up on things like that. KatieCol 01:19, 9 December 2009 (EST)

A question, while yes Colbert reminded of this website, I do remember coming here a few years and it saddens me to see you are now "trustworthy." Doesn't seem like anywhere is truly "trusworthy" anymore :-( Stjimmy33 01:27, 9 December 2009 (EST)

It's probably worth noting that Colbert's "full of himself" act is an intentional parody of various right-wing political commentators (particularly Bill O'Reilly). I did find it funny when Andy discussed the number of viewers that this site receives. I'm sure that there are lots of people who prefer Conservapedia because it reinforces their worldview (woe to the poor youth that are brought up to think of it as unbiased alternative to Wikipedia), but I think that Andy seriously underestimates (or chooses to ignore) the large number of people who visit this site for personal amusement. Conservapedia was personally recommended to me as a "hilarious way to waste time" between meetings, and that is how all of my colleagues view it. Some of it's assertions are so extreme and hypocritical that many people believe it to be a satire in itself, comparable to Stephen's Colbert's act. Overall, the interview began relatively uninteresting, but improved when Stephen brought up the fact that a select few individuals get to decide on the "truth" of this website. Those who disagree get banned. What Andy described (i.e., individuals monitoring each other to ensure authenticity) does exist; it's called Wikipedia. It's true that Wikipedia is vulnerable to vandalism, but that is the price of having access to a wide breadth of knowledge with the benefit of self-monitoring. You can't have it both ways. Insufficient 01:33, 9 December 2009 (EST)

Insufficient, it's true that we block a lot more often than Wikipedia, and we don't give vandals 3 or 4 chances as Wikipedia does. However, for every vandal Wikipedia receives, there are a dozen legitimate users just waiting to undo the vandalism. Here, we have comparitively few editors trying to hold back a tide of vandalism, many of it quite shocking and disgusting, on this site, which is designed to be family-friendly. We ban users for vandalism, and we get a lot of it. But we do not ban because somebody disagrees with us, and I can prove it.

A user, BMcP, has done tremendous work contributing to our astronomy articles, but repeatedly put old-Earth viewpoints in. He wasn't banned, though! Instead, he and I reached an amicable agreement where we would treat old-Earth and young-Earth views in seperate sections, and that is how it is done now. Conservapedia is full of examples of conflict resolution and fair treatment of users just like that. JacobB 01:39, 9 December 2009 (EST)

But, for a counter-example, look at the entire relativity talk pages. A handful of technically competent editors (including RSchlafly, who appears to be a solid contributor to the site, have been shouted down by one person: ASchlafly. The relativity page is not "the best of the public" but rather the personal (and scientifically incorrect!) opinion of ASchlafly. --WLink 10:30, 9 December 2009 (EST)

"..but improved when Stephen brought up the fact that a select few individuals get to decide on the "truth" of this website. Those who disagree get banned." Insufficient, that remark of yours sounded exactly like the emails from CRU. Karajou 01:42, 9 December 2009 (EST)

Best. Response. Ever. And so true! I think he'd fit right in with the Climategate scientists. DerekE 12:30, 10 December 2009 (EST)

If that is the case Jacob, why does the article on evolution seem to neglect the vast abundance of supportive evidence in its favour? It certainly isn't hard to find someone that is able to make a valid argument for evolution, and yet the page not only makes no reference to it, but often falsely denies its existence. That page alone fully disproves Andy's claim that conservatism gives priority to truth. In the place of real facts, we get denial and an irrelevant picture of Hitler to ensure that everyone gets the idea (whether consciously or unconsciously) that evolution is evil. This is in spite of the fact that social darwinism (a misnomer) is actually not part of natural selection. I'm not saying that the effects of social darwinism should be brushed under the rug, but throwing an image of Hitler into an article about evolution is ridiculous and is fully intended to evoke emotion rather than thought. I could just as easily throw up an image of Osama Bin Laden in an article on the evils of religious faith, but that would be lazy. Once you have your facts about evolution, THEN you can worry about discussing it's social misunderstandings. Insufficient 02:11, 9 December 2009 (EST)

First of all, that's not Andy's claim, that's what conservative MEANS. Second, there are no valid arguments for evolution. If you wish to deny that social darwinism came from regular darwinism, go do it on Wikipedia. Finally, throwing UBL on a page on relgiious extremism would be silly - there are many fundamentalist Islamic clerics who, despite whatever other shortcomings they may have, are not terrorists. JacobB 02:19, 9 December 2009 (EST)

That's exactly my point. There are even more evolutionists that, "despite whatever shortcomings they may have," aren't Hitler, thus making his picture silly. As for valid arguments for evolution, there are many...they're not hard to find either. Despite what this site would have you believe, there is fossil evidence to support it, it follows naturally from what we already know (beyond doubt) from animal domestication, and it's been shown experimentally in the lab with bacteria (some of the only lifeforms with short enough lifespans that we can observe it occur). Even if an individual chooses to ignore all of this evidence, which is fully within their right to do, it is still far more support than exists for any opposing argument. Yet it's all noticeably missing from the article on evolution...and I have a feeling that if I added it, it would quickly disappear. Insufficient 02:35, 9 December 2009 (EST)

All your supposed arguments are wrong, just as any argument supporting a "flat earth" are wrong, because they draw a false conclusion. We don't put falsehoods into the encyclopedia. Hitler practiced the theory of evolution; any evolutionist who does not support Hitler may be morally admirable but lacks the courage of their convictions. Terrorism is not the practice of religious fundamentalism, it is the practice of a very specific kind of Islamic fundamentalism - there is a difference. JacobB 02:50, 9 December 2009 (EST)

Your arguments just keep further proving the point I'm trying to make. Yes, there is a difference between religion and terrorism, just as there is a difference between evolution and eugenics. You don't get to hand pick your facts in order to support your conclusion while denying others. Hitler didn't practice "the theory of evolution," he practiced eugenics. It's possible to believe in evolution and be morally opposed to eugenics, just as it is possible to be a religious fundamentalist and oppose terrorism. There is nothing inherent in the theory of evolution that promotes eugenics, just as there is nothing inherent in religion that promotes terrorism. Yet in each case, the two occasionally coexist. Also, claiming that all my arguments are wrong without giving any clear reason doesn't actually refute the arguments. I could just as easily claim that the earth doesn't revolve around the sun because all of the evidence in support of it draws a "false conclusion" (this argument can be made for ANY theory). However, I can deny it until I'm blue in the face, but at the end of the day, the evidence does exist, and the heliocentric theory of the solar system is in plenty of encyclopedias, along with evolution. Scientific theories are never "proven." They are only supported or refuted. In the case of evolution, there is strong support--far more than for any alternative explanations. If support for evolution draws a false conclusion, it is impossible to argue that support for creationism is any different. Insufficient 03:35, 9 December 2009 (EST)

No, Insufficient, it is your argument that proves our point. You're basically stating that evolution is a fact based on "support". What kind of "support"? Scientific consensus? A lot of people agreeing that it's true? Where's the proof? All I've been seeing is Mr. Scientist saying that animal-A evolved into animal-B - he's saying it is true; he's not proving it's true. As to your argument that it was settled in the lab with bacteria or the animal farm with domestication, well, that involves the interference of man in the results. Sorry to break your bubble, but your explanations are just insufficient. Karajou 11:17, 9 December 2009 (EST)

No, actually I didn't claim that evolution was a "fact," and saying so is blatantly misrepresenting my argument. I'm saying that it is a scientific theory that has ample evidence to support it...moreso than is necessary for a theory to be generally accepted by the scientific community. That is the definition of a good scientific theory. Any theory that doesn't have any evidence to support it isn't worth anyone's time. I don't actually care whether you or anyone else believes in evolution, but when you (or anyone) outright lies about facts, I'm going to call you on it. Whether you want to admit it or not, there is evidence to support it, and by discrediting evolution for "lack of evidence," you are actually doing even greater harm to the theory of creationism, which has significantly less (arguably none, but I will humour you and pretend there is some). That is why there is no scientific debate about the existence of evolution. Is it a fact? Like any scientific theory, we can never say yes, but it is likely beyond reasonable doubt. As for the interference of humans, that doesn't actually matter as much as you like to believe. Whether humans interfered or not, animal domestication has proven that the heritability of traits can lead to huge changes in animal appearance and behaviour, so that after many generations, it becomes generally unrecognizable. How does this shaping occur? By utilizing natural processes: to breed an animal in favour of a particular trait, you select animals that have that trait and allow them to spread their genes. That isn't evolution; that's genetics, and we already know that it occurs from something as basic as family resemblance (for the record, this is what inspired Hitler, not evolution). The theory of natural selection merely takes what we already know about genetics and takes it to the next logical step. Why wouldn't the same rules that apply to a domesticated animal also apply in nature? If an animal has some advantage that allows it to spread its genes more than others, why wouldn't it follow the same laws? If they are in fact God's laws, you're accusing Him of inconsistency without any clear justification. And with regard to Andy's argument about "evolution syndrome," that's just called a lazy argument. I could just as easily claim the existence of a "creationist syndrome," with the exact same symptoms, but I should hope that if I was that desperate for an argument, someone would call me on it. If my explanations are insufficient (using a self-disparaging username for a pun isn't nearly as clever as you might think...), then I recommend making some of your own. Perhaps you should educate me on what a good argument with solid, logical conclusions would look like. Because so far it has all been denial, straw man arguments, and ad hominem attacks. Insufficient 13:32, 9 December 2009 (EST)

What rubbish. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yj_lNQerUJ4 What is "wrong" about this? What doesn't make sense of the theory of evolution? Where are you saying "that's impossible"? Your, or my, inability to comprehend a theory doesn't make it lies. 13:22, 9 December 2009 (EST) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rutger (talk)

You don't have proof that Evolution is fact. --Jpatt 13:36, 9 December 2009 (EST)

No I don't as unlike many conservapedia regulars I don't claim to be an expert on every subject rather I defer to people who are and who do have evidence which you can continue to deny. I noticed you failed to answer to the questions though (you want to wait for Andy's script so you don't get anything wrong?) and now that Andy is trying to pretend this isn't a dictatorship those who dare question your fragile world view aren't being immediatly banned. How inconvienient for you. Rutger 00:41, 10 December 2009 (EST)

I'd just like to ask here for the opinions of some of the people here: Do you believe that the best place to learn about a topic is an encyclopedia that has bias but doesn't admit it, that has bias and admits it, or that has no bias whatsoever? LucyJ 07:35, 9 December 2009 (EST)

Just watched the show and I was surprised that Colbert didn't go as hard on Mr. Schlafly as I expected. For instance, Schlafly claimed that Conservapedia is a site where the best of the common people make their contributions and the correct information 'bubbles to the top.' However, it's hard to see how this can happen if articles like Evolution ("ARTICLE OF THE YEAR EDITION") are completely locked down. Granted, I understand the administrators have a legitimate need to prevent vandalism - Wikipedia has the same problem sometimes - but the article is basically cemented in a controversial, inaccurate, and poorly written form. For instance, the first paragraph includes the sentence -- "Since World War II a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the evolutionary position which employs methodological naturalism have been atheists." This has nothing to do with the rest of the paragraph, doesn't transition into the next paragraph, and just feels like a cheap attempt to take a shot at the theory within a poor thesis statement. And seriously guys, the pictures of Hitler and Stalin are laughable. Did they also get slapped into the articles on socialism, homosexuality, and Islam? - Montag

We keep as many articles open for general editing as often as possible. Even when an article is "locked", it is still open for editing by frequent contributors who have earned additional privileges. Unfortunately, there is a characteristic known as evolution syndrome that will obsessively rant and rave about the topic, deny clear factual truths, and never stop until all criticism of evolution and its adherents is censored. Wikipedia is a home for that approach, but not here.--Andy Schlafly 09:20, 9 December 2009 (EST)

public school education: i am a loyal fan of Colbert and would like to say a couple of things. 1) i am half republican and have democrat (my dad is republican and my mom is a democrat and i like different ideas from both groups.)2)i have gone to a private school my entire life and i have never gone to the office once. i have never been punished and i have received straight A's since i was in fifth grade. therefore by you guys saying that every Colbert nation member has been public school educated and are all rebellious is not only overly general but obviously not true. you undermine any true statement that you make by obviously making up information.

Private school students are less than 10% of the population, so you're the exception rather than the rule.--Andy Schlafly 12:09, 9 December 2009 (EST)

have you actually taken a scientific survey or are you making up information that would suit your argument. How sad because no doubt some of the things that you say are true but by being intellectually dishonest you blur any positive potential education of your viewers. if however, your statistic is correct (please share with me the citation) that doesn't mean that only 10% of the Colbert Report viewers are privately educated.

The article on evolution is a keeper! Don't change a bit: I love reading sentences like 19th century European naturalists were wrong about ant behavior. The Bible was correct about ant behavior (according to the source, both were partly right, partly wrong) ComedyFan 12:02, 9 December 2009 (EST)

You'll like our entry on evolution syndrome even better. In fact, maybe you can prove first-person examples!--Andy Schlafly 12:09, 9 December 2009 (EST)

Yes, you've managed to completely ignore a school of thought without having to rely on a single fact (though I'm sure that you believe otherwise). Congratulations. If your strongest arguments against evolution are ad hominem attacks, I can live with that. I have no vested interest in the theory of evolution, and I don't make a nickel for each person that I "convert." At the end of the day, you can believe whatever you want. In fact, if you want to believe that there is insufficient evidence for evolution, I am even fine with that (though I disagree), but don't outright lie and say that it doesn't exist. That doesn't fool anyone that has actually done the slightest bit of research. Just be aware that it is extremely inconsistent to argue that there is "insufficient" evidence for evolution and that people who believe in it are fools, yet argue that creationism is somehow founded on sound logic and conclusions. It's called hypocrisy and it seriously undermines your arguments. If your belief is based on faith, that is fine, but don't try to present it as something else. Don't pretend that the entire group of evolutionists can be summarized as closed-minded, because in addition to being gossip, it neither argues against our belief nor in favour of yours. By all means, disagree, but don't use lies to try and discredit others. Also, why is the burden of responsibility on evolutionists in order to prove themselves? Creationists are under the same obligation to rationalize their beliefs, and their arguments have to be held up to the same standards. So far, that isn't what I've seen on this site. Insufficient 19:14, 9 December 2009 (EST)

Wow, the article is great, too! You should add some other syndromes, while you are at it: relativism syndrome? ComedyFan 12:16, 9 December 2009 (EST)

If evolution is undeniable fact, how come we never evolved a third set of teeth? Since you cannot observe evolution, and you can observe many things that would be different were evolution true, it seems to me the sensible starting point is to assume that evolution didn't happen, and wait to be proven wrong. As that has not happened yet, I'll continue to believe evolution is just an justification for social Darwinism and policies like the Nazis enacted.--Gonzo55 18:38, 9 December 2009 (EST)

A third set of teeth? I'm not sure who taught you the theory of evolution, but just know that you are WAY off the mark. I'm starting to think that disbelief in evolution comes from a complete misunderstanding of anything about it. Insufficient 19:18, 9 December 2009 (EST)

Exactly. Before you discount something, actually know what you are talking about. However, if people on here knew what they were talking about, most of this website, if not all of it, would not exist. As for your example, if you knew anything about evolution, you would know that we don't have a third set of teeth because we don't need one. If it benefitted people, then if and when the mutation took place in our genes, that person would thrive and have more offspring than other people, promoting this gene in future generations. I can see why evolution might confuse you if you think that it "just happens."

But it would benefit people; that's unambiguous. Teeth go rotten, get cavities, fall out. Only recently has it become commonplace for people to keep their teeth into middle age and beyond. You need teeth to eat, see how long a chimpanzee lasts in the wild with no teeth, so I would think someone who can regrow teeth as an adult would be at a huge advantage relative to those who couldn't. Plus a full set of teeth is more attractive to the opposite sex than not, no? My argument is precisely that it does benefit us, and so the fact that it hasn't caught on is proof that evolution doesn't exist. Your problem is your mind is closed to ideas that you don't already have. I concur with Andy that you might find the article on evolution syndrome useful.--Gonzo55 22:54, 9 December 2009 (EST)

Only recently has it become commonplace for people to live into middle age and beyond.Captain2obvious 00:07, 10 December 2009 (EST)

All the more reason why a third set of teeth would benefit humans. Can anyone here over the age of 25 really claim that getting fresh teeth would not be nice?--Gonzo55 00:11, 10 December 2009 (EST)

Captain2obvious- It's only common place for liberals who want to enact global warming legislation. Liberals want everyone to live in huts of straw and forfeit the modern ages which is bad bad bad for the Earth.--Jpatt 00:15, 10 December 2009 (EST)

That's what's called a strawman. If your arguement has no merit please continue to use them and think you're superiour. Rutger 00:41, 10 December 2009 (EST)

Two things: First a question. HUH?; Secondly, I am not a "liberal", as you are so implying.Captain2obvious 00:21, 10 December 2009 (EST)

Why do people who state "I am not a liberal" never state what they actually call themselves? Jinx McHue 00:25, 10 December 2009 (EST)

The simplest reason would be that until I came to this site I considered myself a Conservative.Captain2obvious 00:28, 10 December 2009 (EST)

Oopsy, I read your reply wrong (middle ages / middle age). I never said you were liberal, just misinterpreted your remark.--Jpatt 00:28, 10 December 2009 (EST)

Perfectly understandable Jpatt, its not the first misunderstanding that's occurred on the Internet.Captain2obvious 00:35, 10 December 2009 (EST)

"until I came to this site I considered myself a Conservative" Forgive me for my conflicted feelings between seriously asking exactly what that means and being simply baffled by the silliness of such a statement. Split the difference: what does that mean and how in the world could a brief visit to a single website change what you consider yourself to be? Also, you still haven't stated exactly what you consider yourself. Jinx McHue 00:41, 10 December 2009 (EST)

Let me clarify a bit then. Visiting the site has not in not the slightest changed the way I think about myself. I still consider myself Conservative. However in my "brief" time visiting this website, and after reading several of the articles and discussions, has made me question whether other people would classify me as such.Captain2obvious 00:50, 10 December 2009 (EST)

And I repeat, Gonzo: your understanding of natural selection is incorrect. With all due respect, it completely undermines your attempt to discredit natural selection when you don't know what you're arguing against. Evolutionists don't argue that humans (or any other species) are currently at their "peak" of evolution. People have this inflated self-view about the world revolving around them, but aside from a more advanced central nervous system, we're just another spec on the evolutionary time line. Your argument assumes that we are done evolving, which isn't the case at all (nor have I ever heard an evolutionist make this claim). That is partly why your "why aren't we the absolute best that we can be?" straw man argument doesn't work. Second, you are assuming that just because something is beneficial, that means that it will naturally occur through evolution. This is also not the position of modern evolutionists. If that were the case, beavers would have naturally evolved with chainsaws and gazelles would be able jump over rivers to escape predators. We don't automatically evolve everything that would be useful. We evolve based on the genes that are available in the gene pool. Several factors come into play here (minor random mutations, sexual selection, genetic drift...things that we know occur through research unrelated to evolution), but what is important is that evolution has to work with the genes that are available. Those that are beneficial will tend to spread, while those that are detrimental will tend to recede (though not necessarily disappear). Once again, this is fully in line with what I already described earlier with animal domestication. You can't breed a dog to fly, but you can create a lot of variability based on the existing gene pool. Finally, even if a gene does appear in the gene pool, it is more difficult to determine usefulness than you seem to think. For example, suppose that a gene did arise for an extra set of teeth (might as well work with the argument you've given). Who knows, maybe this gene does exist, did at some point, or some day will. However, it's not just a simple matter of extra teeth = good. These teeth have to come from somewhere. Your body needs to find the resources to create them. This can mean less calcium available for other sets of teeth (thus resulting in an overall reduction in a person's tooth quality), less calcium for bone production, an increased necessity for nutritious resources, etc. Everything costs something, and teeth aren't free. Every modification becomes part of a complex equation of costs versus benefits. And that, my friend, is a simplified explanation for why you can't just make up random hypothetical creatures (e.g., people with extra teeth) in order to discredit evolution. NOTHING about evolution requires (or even asserts) that those hypothetical animals need to exist. Then again, I'm sure that this lengthy explanation will be brushed off as an "obsessive rant," because that is easier than taking it seriously... Insufficient 12:06, 10 December 2009 (EST)

Registration

You don't make it easy for a place that wants people to edit, do you? I tried after the show last night, couldn't figure it out, but managed to stumble upon one of your (stupider, and rather well hidden) policies on user names. I was able to register this morning, but if it hadn't worked, you probably would have lost a contributor forever. JTutone 13:11, 9 December 2009 (EST)

Welcome. I don't believe stupider is an actual word.--Jpatt 13:14, 9 December 2009 (EST)

It isn't, but it fits the flow of what I wrote better than "more stupid" which is more correct. My word is truthier. --JTutone 13:22, 9 December 2009 (EST)

Perhaps now is a good time for me to re-suggest the Welcome Banner, as discussed on the New Welcome Banner proposal page. DerekE 15:42, 9 December 2009 (EST)

Wow. Could you guys stop whining about registration already? I'd rather not be associated with people who can't pass the rigors of user-name creation. --Montag 21:24, 9 December 2009 (EST)

The argument I'm making from the New Welcome Banner has more to do with creating a more welcoming entrance to the site, but also improving ease of navigation to pages that are valuable to newcomers. At one point or another every one of us was a wiki-newbie. While the easiest way to learn is through trial and error, I see no harm in facilitating the learning process by allowing new-comers to be more cognizant of the encyclopedia's rules, guidelines, how-to's, and other salient information that more advanced members already know about. DerekE 21:59, 9 December 2009 (EST)

Open letter to Conservapedia

Steech, December 10, 2009.......................................................

I've known about Conservapedia for months. I've been fascinated with it since my initial introduction (when the special project to reform Jesus's "groovy liberal" image was anounced on a news site).

There's some equivocating concerning the obvious bias (I think the device of substituting the word "truth" for "bias" is entertaining), but the corporation does not actually conceal its mission. Conservapedia is candid with the following facts: It represents the conservative socio-political viewpoint, it is alligned with fundamentalist Protestant Christianity, and it is hostile to opposing viewpoints. I note the distinction between this candor and react differently to Conservapedia than I do to a corporation like News Corp (Fox News), who boasts fairness and balance. Remember: Conservapedia does not promise balance. Yet Conservapedia is predominantly fair.

Despite an open allignment with fundamentalist Protestant Christianity, Conservapedia is not contemptuous of other forms of Christianity, or even other religions. They dutifully note the basic interpretations of other scriptures like the Q'aran and Torah and tell the stories respectfully. They also include other denominations' interpretations of Biblical text without condemning them. Conservapedia articles suggest outside doctrine is foolhardy, but stops short of actually calling adherents fools.

What Conservapedia actually does is compile the conservative viewpoint in a way that incorporates most of the world's features and topics (from science to history to theology) in such a way that has the potential to reconcile problems (such as science versus ideology) and unify conservatives into a more cohesive bloc than was possible before technology of this scale. It is also a reference for non-conservatives to understand their fellow countrymen better. In my opinion, both functions have a benefit - even if I am an apostate by Conservapedia's rigid measure.

The only problem I see with Conservapedia is its deliberate mission to be more concise than its rival (and source of inspiration and design), Wikipedia. Some topics are completely sterile and do not admit any sort of bias (gravity, for example). Yet a comparison of the topics on the two "'pedias" returns a discrepancy in depth and length. Wikipedia's longer articles may merely be the result of more popularity and the work of accretion. However, Conservapedia probably actively seeks to limit the length of its articles to conform with its mission. If the latter is true, Conservapedia has turned the clock back on the encyclopedia as reference source to the days of the hopelessly out of date set of World Books that were the staple of every suburban home in the 60s and 70s. Good for identifying major breeds of dogs, but inadequate for much else.

My advice to the Colbert Nation (an informal society of which I am also a citizen) is to use Conservapedia to understand what you perceive to be mass delusion, even an institutionalized national evil. Conservatives are often our parents and grandparents, co-workers and countrymen. They are not evil men and women. They just seem to have a pathological inability to make good decisions on a large scale. If one's mission is truly to correct this pattern of civic behavior, the progressive must respect and understand his/her opponent. Never before has there been such a big picture window into the soul of the opposition.

Respectfully, Steech, December 10, 2009..............................................