Difference between revisions of "Talk:Essay: Richard Dawkins and peanut butter"

Revision as of 20:25, July 14, 2012

Man this page is insane. :) Cmurphynz 08:42, 14 July 2012 (EDT)

Could you make your criticism more specific, please? --Ed Poor ^Talk 10:16, 14 July 2012 (EDT)

User Ed Poor, the person who wrote this comment can't be more specific, they have been blocked for 1 day. Davidspencer 12:53, 14 July 2012 (EDT)

(chuckle) That's even funnier than the page itself. ^_^ --Ed Poor ^Talk 13:32, 14 July 2012 (EDT)

Yep, possibly. It wasn't really intended to be that though. But thanks anyway, now lets see what he says. Davidspencer 14:36, 14 July 2012 (EDT)

Why this page is beyond substandard and quite frankly embarrassing:

• It is not actually an essay. It is actually a collection of captioned pictures and links. In fact, there are no words in it that are not links or captions to pictures.
• It claims that one's "machismo" is linked to one's preference in peanut butter, despite no link ever being shows between the two.
• The main thesis, that Richard Dawkins likes creamy peanut butter, has never been proven anywhere.
• Other main points of this piece, like the claims that Chuck Norris and John Wayne enjoy/enjoyed chunky peanut butter, have never been proven.
• Large components of it, namely the bunny and bullfighting pictures, have been used in countless other "essays" by User:Conservative and don't really prove anything.

Ed Poor, if you can't see that this page is an utter embarassment to the readers and editors of Conservapedia, then I don't know what else to say. I am interested in hearing your defense of this article. AndrewTompkins 11:20, 14 July 2012 (EDT)

I agree that it's not actually an essay. It looks like a joke: i.e., the page author is probably using it to tease atheists.

Please don't respond as if you think it wasn't meant humorously. There's no "thesis"; he's just kidding around.

You may wonder whether kidding and teasing atheists will promote Conservapedia's cause. But if you can't tell it was comedic material, there's probably no point discussing it further. --Ed Poor ^Talk 12:33, 14 July 2012 (EDT)

It may have been intended as comedic material, but it has not been realized as comedic material due to its distinct lack of humor. CasparRH 14:43, 14 July 2012 (EDT)

There isn't much sign that this is intended as humor, given User:Conservative's other output (much of which is in this style). If it is humor I propose it be moved from the essay space to the humor space, along with other "essays" like this one. AndrewTompkins 13:46, 14 July 2012 (EDT)

I see that proud atheists/agnostics/evolutionists are still gagging on this web page material. The gagging will intensify now that I added Atheism and cowardice in the caption of the picture! Just have Dawkins address Daniel Came's concerns about Dawkins's behavior and I will gladly delete this particular material. Conservative 15:13, 14 July 2012 (EDT)

I am hardly "gagging" on this material, just making some observations. Clearly we have a difference of opinion on the value of this page and all of the other essays of this sort, but I do have a question for you, User:Conservative—why would an atheist/agnostic/evolutionist take this essay seriously, given its content and tone (mostly unrelated pictures with boisterous captions and links to similar articles)? AndrewTompkins 16:24, 14 July 2012 (EDT)