|
Post by Sigmaleph on Sept 7, 2010 14:35:46 GMT -5
...they don't quite know what "comedy" and "satire" mean, do they?
Either that, or they absolutely suck at them.
|
|
|
Post by Haseen on Sept 8, 2010 5:46:06 GMT -5
It's not even a matter of sucking at comedy, it's a complete lack of comedy. It's like they're so butthurt by the existence of atheism that it short-circuits their ability to even attempt humor. The funniest pages are the ones with completely made up shit like www.conservapedia.com/Censorability. They even took the time to make up a math formula in an attempt to make the numbers they pulled out of their butts mean something. Edit: link fixed.
|
|
|
Post by Sigmaleph on Sept 8, 2010 8:47:10 GMT -5
...the fuck was that? Ex(t)=... would imply something that is a function of t, yet the t variable does not appear on the other side of the equation. Who would've thought Conservapædians would attempt to act scientific without understanding what they're talking about?
By the way, the link is slightly broken, there's an extra period at the end.
|
|
|
Post by nightjaguar on Sept 8, 2010 13:18:57 GMT -5
...the fuck was that? E x(t)=... would imply something that is a function of t, yet the t variable does not appear on the other side of the equation. Who would've thought Conservapædians would attempt to act scientific without understanding what they're talking about? To be fair, it would seem 's' and 'o' are dependent on x and t, although it is not made explicit. The idea is ludicrous, of course. 'Censored' and 'uncensored' are not defined. We're not told how to decide whether an idea belongs to ideology x. Also, I think the "censorability" is E, but he also calls E the 'enviroment'. What a fucking mess. Andy also forgot to include the most important random variable: whether he's taking his medication or not. This isn't the funniest example of Andy doing pseudoscience. My personal favourite is 'Conservapedia's Law' (yes, he actually called it that). In a nutshell: After starting his bewildering "Best New Conservative Words" project, Andy began applying statistical analysis to his findings, resulting in a rapid downward spiral of insanity to finally land at one of the most bizarre "insights" ever to grace Conservapedia. This project simply defies all kinds of sense - first, Andy takes a word and decides whether it's a liberal word or a conservative word. Andy then finds out when each word in the "conservative" pile was first used in the English language according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary. Andy then groups the words by century, tabulates the numbers, and has a epiphany: the numbers are increasing at a geometric rate! Andy reinforces his conclusion by selectively adding more words to the project, but only if they conform to this geometric rate. Never before have so many utter failures of logic and common sense been strung together so eloquently into one, seamless brainfart - a brainfart that eventually budded off and became its own article: "Conservapedia's Law". Some examples of what Andy thinks are 'conservative words': transistor, Segway, and aerobics . The man is fuckin' insane.
|
|
|
Post by Sigmaleph on Sept 8, 2010 19:57:13 GMT -5
Other things that bug me: They defined the terms E, x, and t, yet the values for those terms never appear anywhere and are completely irrelevant.
The equation does not result in this alleged censorability, but rather percentage of censored occurrences. The difference being rather huge, because their alleged examples make no sense. Apparently nobody has ever censored a pro-life opinion but every single opinion in favour of classroom prayer has been censored. Each and every one of them, in the history of the universe.
Though, "as determined by faith and logic" pretty much explains everything. Logic says nothing about reality without premises, and faith easily provides premises unconstrained by reality. You can determine anything by the test of "faith and logic"
As for Conservapædia law: The definition of conservative seems awfully arbitrary. Assfly apparently included "politically correct" and "judicial activism", which I always thought they considered liberal concepts.
|
|
|
Post by impatiens on Sept 8, 2010 20:13:38 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Sept 8, 2010 21:22:00 GMT -5
It's not even a matter of sucking at comedy, it's a complete lack of comedy. It's like they're so butthurt by the existence of atheism that it short-circuits their ability to even attempt humor. Exactly. They quite literally do not seem to understand how to make a joke. I get it. Atheism is a clown. It's ridiculous. Not meant to be taken seriously. It's not that I don't "get" the joke, or that I'm offended, it's just plain not funny. There's no delivery whatsoever. The tone is not ironic or sarcastic, which is usually what satire is. And no, Andy, it is not the equivalent of an ad hominem attack. And even if it was, "Christians can do it because they have evidence" is (A) wrong & (B) saying that you can perform a logical fallacies & they won't hurt your argument because you're right. It's like saying that the sky is blue because tea is tasty. The sky being blue does not excuse the non sequitur & the subjective evidence.
|
|
|
Post by Jedi Knight on Sept 13, 2010 1:18:42 GMT -5
Interesting. They named it "Atheists say the darnedest things," but they don't include a single, genuine atheist quote.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Sept 13, 2010 2:36:44 GMT -5
I didn't even notice that. Hurhur. They think they're clever. conservapedia.com/Essay:_Proof_and_evidence_that_atheism_is_true"The Atheists Experience Show has failed. Dprjones has failed. Well, you know they're atheists. They're used to failure...Every atheists has failed."[16] Good Lord, they don't even have the decency to use a big name like Richard Dawkins.
|
|
|
Post by arrowdeath on Sept 13, 2010 3:23:57 GMT -5
Just to be clear: we are absolutely sure he actually believes this stuff, and isn't pulling some deep-cover shit?
I mean, I know they tolerate a much higher level of cognitive dissonance than normal people, but there has to be a point where it goes full circle, right? People like this can't actually exist.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Sept 13, 2010 12:27:01 GMT -5
Schafly? Yeah, he's just that batshit.
|
|
|
Post by priestling on Sept 13, 2010 13:39:18 GMT -5
On top of that... DPRJones has failed? really? since when? I mean, I know he gets bagged by the creationist dipshits what seems like every other week, but he's still kicking ass, last I checked.
... And no one has the balls to go after AronRa. That man is awesome. I'd love to see Schafly last five minutes against him.
|
|
|
Post by Thejebusfire on Sept 13, 2010 14:37:19 GMT -5
"I adore You I adore You And there's none that compares To Your majesty, oh Lord"
Gee, I wonder why?
Christians are more likely to get a divorce than the non-religious.
And why are they quoting some random Joe on Youtube? Whatever happened to all these "christian scientists" they have?
|
|
|
Post by Mira on Sept 13, 2010 15:47:57 GMT -5
Every atheists has failed."[16] Heh.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Sept 13, 2010 20:27:23 GMT -5
Every atheists has failed."[16] Heh. I have transcended atheism.
|
|