Conservapedia talk:What is going on at CP?

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

What is going on?

(talk) (talk) (talk) (talk) (hic)

As a point of etiquette, please use the [add section] tab above, or the "Add new section" link below, when adding a new topic, and the appropriate [edit] tab when commenting on existing topics. This will lessen the incidence of edit conflicts. Thank you.

When adding a link to Conservapedia that is not already on What is going on at CP? please place <capture></capture> around the link.


This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: Archive list

1990sguy: copyright and lack of self-respect[edit]

Deletion log

It is clear that conservative content, let alone non-biased content, will not grow on Conservapedia so long as 1990sguy remains within Andy's good graces. First, he finds writing prose difficult and prefers a set of bullet points to paragraphs. Second, he has no idea of copyright law in terms of what is permitted or what is not permitted. img Finally, he is a control freak who casts distain on anything that he did not create himself. One cannot tell whether he is clueless or an extremely dedicated parodist trying to sink the CP editorial clique. Hclodge (talk) 01:52, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps we should just bomb the shit out of 'em? Ɖøn Ĵuan Harass 02:31, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
His behavior on Wikipedia doesn't seem different from there, so I am leaning on genuine moron, also applying Hanlon Razor. Copyright, also, has never been a concern for Conservapedia's editors, given their love for plagiarism and no idea how copyright in images work either. To be fair, yeah, plagiarism is bad and Wikipedia doesn't allow it... --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 07:58, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
@LeftyGreenMario So you're up for bombing the shit out of 'em? I`m game. Ɖøn Ĵuan Harass 14:28, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't want to. Bombing, I am never in to. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 21:50, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
@LeftyGreenMario Party pooper. >:( Ɖøn Ĵuan Harass 15:08, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

1990sguy decision tree:

Is the author an admin or Andy's pet?  Y--> leave edit alone
              N   |
                  V
Is the new article non-threatening and non-controversial?   Y --> piss on the article (to add
                  |                                               Conservative spin) to mark 
              N   |                                               1990sguy territory
                  V
Does the article have footnotes?  N -->  Delete article for failure to source adequately
              Y   |
                  V
Can those sources also be found in Wikipedia article?  N --> Add Wikipedia sources
              Y   |
                  V
Delete article as copyright infringement even though it is completely different than the prose in the Wikipedia article.
Hclodge (talk) 14:57, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

I know we don't have much of a focus on Conservapedia, but doesn't this guy need an article? --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 17:22, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Probably. I know @BadPiggies 9 recently created one for Northwest, so one might be in the works already. CPWatcher (talk) 17:51, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, the Conservapedia:1990'sguy article was previously created by User:Kingdamian1. However, it was DELETED by the same user WITHOUT EVEN going through the PROPER procedures at RationalWiki:Articles for deletion! SHOULDN'T the article be IMMEDIATELY RESTORED to its RIGHTFUL, EXISTENT status, so that it can be UPDATED with GOOD INFORMATION? t 12:19, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
See: Conservapedia talk:1990'sguy. t 10:14, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Mormons[edit]

Watching Andy throw an entire religion under the bus, based on the actions of, what, 4 people, really is a thing of beauty. His ideological purity is just so batshit insane - either everybody agrees 100% with 100% of his viewpoints, or they're filthy liberals. The problem is that Andy has so many crazy toes that even his arch-thugs in Ken and Karajerk are likely to step on one at some point. It's a shame DeanS isn't around to watch Andy trash his beliefs. LongLostLegend (talk) 16:54, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Aye. It's especially funny given that, back in the day, Andy used to fight tooth and nail to block any criticism of Mormonism as heretical, precisely because he believed "they" were such reliably rock-ribbed conservatives. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 23:01, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
i thought they've always viewed mormons as suspect until romney was their man against obama AMassiveGay (talk) 00:40, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Atheism and dogs[edit]

[1] Any suggestions what to have for dinner? I have two dogs, a Border collie and a Staffordshire bull terrier. The collie is getting old so may be rather tough but the staffy is red meat so would not help my health. He has another dig at the UK. Listen Twathead, bestiality is illegal here and the rare cases are always prosecuted, unlike West Virginia, Kentucky, Wyoming and New Mexico. Three of which are very conservative and the other which is purple. Sort out the problems in your own back yard.--Mercian (talk) 18:01, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Ah yes, the well known argumentum ex canibus. CPWatcher (talk) 19:58, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
"Look at these evil Asians eating commodities that we happen to keep as pets!" Look, I don't condone kidnapping pets to eat them but I also don't see anything morally reprenhisble in eating cats or dogs either. It's special pleading to elevate those animals but also don't brush an eyelid when we regularly eat pigs and mindlessly kill crows. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod)
Not to mention a lot of argument seems to rest on the fact dogs are clever forgetting to mention pigs just as if not more clever. Acei9 23:35, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Not to mention that lambs have personalities, and Jesus ate them. Whoover (talk) 06:00, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
I've seen the light. Having read cp:Communist China and cat eating, I've found the combination of argumentum ex canibus and argumentum a manducans feles to be very convincing and have decided to leave atheism. CPWatcher (talk) 15:28, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
I've never understood this argument. Lots of other animals, e.g. rabbits, fish, turtles, guinea pigs, horses, pigeons, pigs, goats, dormice and sundry other rodents can either be used as companion-animals or food, even by Christians, based largely on factors of size and cuteness. Does the Hindu Conservapedia have an essay on barbaric cow-eaters? --Annanoon (talk) 16:25, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
judging from some of the more extreme hindu nationalists, probably. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:40, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
considering in the past ken talked up the beauty and physical fitness of south koreans as a dig at supposedly fat western lesbians, gays and/or atheists it seems odd that south korea - the country that always springs to my mind when you talk about dog eating - doesnt get a mention. i guess the last line 'most atheists in the world are east asian' says all. east asians eat dog so therefore savages so therefore atheists are savages. nothing like a bit of racism to underpin your spurious logic and more specific bigotries. AMassiveGay (talk) 17:56, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
You bet that this is racist when literal racists use the dog-eater accusation as a spring board in tandem with slurs to inflict serious verbal and sometimes physical damage on random Asians. Also, South Koreans are stereotyped to engage in plastic surgery, but plastic surgery is very popular over there, and it's rather sad that Ken probably bases his perception of how attractive South Koreans are on this plastic surgery culture. But, I always thought China was the one that springs to mind when it comes to dog eating, but whatever, these people should eat dogs, horses, and cats as they please as we let the French eat rabbit and turtles, we didn't make much issue when Australian aboriginals ate cockatiels, and no one except me is crying when hunters eat crows and pigeons. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 21:05, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
it was always south korea in uk due tabloid journalism for the dog eating association. i shouldnt give it too much thought - its more than the prick deserves and hes not like hes making a valid point based on any facts or reasoned ethical basis. hes literally the internet equivalent of a chimp flinging his shit AMassiveGay (talk) 22:37, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Maybe I am sadist and just like particular kinds of shock imagery but seeing cats and dogs in cages in restaurants prior to getting eaten always makes me laugh. I have no idea why I laugh, probably from the hypocrisy of cat and dog lovers (and horse lovers to an extent) that successfully pass stupid laws to ban eating the animals and the pathetic appeal to emotion that the photographs are often used for, especially in Conservapedia's case. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 07:05, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Ken again[edit]

Dude, use your account here and engage. You can’t declare victory otherwise. Really easy to say “I won” without actually having anyone to spar with. Do it or lose - you either start a discussion or you’re a coward. Prove me wrong....Acei9 02:13, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Anyone can be a hard man if they are sitting in Andy's proverbial main battle tank where those outside are armed with a particularly sharp piece of mango fruit. As for this article[2] I retract what said completely and this article [3], he is going to huge lengths to defend Wyoming's pro bestiality stance. Of course there are no reported cases of bestiality being prosecuted where it is legal. Looking at the map West Virginia is only a few hundred miles from Buffalo. A small upheaval for him to be able to shag his doggy girlfriend without fear of prosecution or being ostracized considering that I am considering moving 8000 miles so I am able to enjoy my Labrador Sunday roast. Gross I know but if he can use animal abuse as a subject of humour [4] then so can I.--Mercian (talk) 16:25, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
To add. I don't think I have ever mentioned I am an atheist. I might have done but if so I was wrong to do so as it is not strictly true. If I did I was confused as to the definition of atheism. I rule out the Abrahamic religions of Christianity and Judaism and the major world socio-political system that is Islam[5] but I do not rule out that a being put the Big Bang into motion. I think it is unlikely but possible, that makes me agnostic. Ken, you do not have to be a militant atheist to disagree with your views, you just need to have a tiny bit of reason about yourself.--Mercian (talk) 16:35, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Ken, RW doesn't have checkuser. You won't be giving up your IP address by editing here. I'm not interested in debating with you across 2 sites. Either come here and engage or allow me to have a Conservapedia account and I'll meet you there. This back and forward is stupid and it just speaks to your cowardice. By doing none of these makes you a coward who is fearful of defeat (which you must certainly have been in the past). Engage properly or cower like the spinless jellyfish you are. Acei9 23:28, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
The man who is the biggest abuser of the checkuser function does not want his IP address known. I once made an account to politely comment on an article and the next message from Ken was about me being from The UK, Darwinism, atheism, decadence etc, he admitted using checkuser. It's that proverbial M1 Abrams again. His cowardliness knows no bounds.--Mercian (talk) 18:23, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Oh Dear Ken[edit]

Hiding in your bunny-hole, claiming victory. Ken - either man up here or let me use CP. If your position is so strong why don't you actually engage? You don't have to come here - allow me to talk to you directly at CP by letting me create an account. It's very simple - let someone debate with you directly. I don't recall any Sun Zhu quotes that say "Taunt your enemies from a place where they can't engage with you so you can claim assumed victory". No, you are a coward. Proven to have no machismo. Acei9 09:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

This pedantic, but the correct spelling of "Sun Zhu's" name is Sun Tzu, not Sun "Zhu". Ɖøn Ĵuan Harass 16:07, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Modern Pinyin doesn't use the Tz dipthong for transliteration to English. Tsu maybe? Zhu would mean "pig" though, so lol. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 16:17, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
It would be "zi", but in the Western world for certain people we still use the Wade-Giles system of transliteration. Ɖøn Ĵuan Harass 16:51, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Oh wow, that's way off from what I was expecting based on how people say his name. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 17:03, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Zi and Tzu both translate to master in English, so in either way the literal meaning of his name hasn't changed, "Master Sun," only the transliteration has. Ɖøn Ĵuan Harass 17:48, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
How about just Mister Sun? Acei9 20:39, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Sun didn't become one of the most famous people in Chinese cultural history for you to call him "Mister". DuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 20:55, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
@Ace McWicked I think we're getting off topic. Ken, get off your ass and debate Ace. You can do it on CP or on some other medium. I'm sure The NonSequitur Show would be more than willing to host your debate, were you to ask. I could also find a right-wing equivalent if were you to request one. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 20:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
@GrammarCommie Sun didn't become one of the most famous people in Chinese cultural history for you to say that discussion of him is "off topic." Sun Zi is ALWAYS on topic. DuceMoosoliniYour friendly RW dictator moderator 20:58, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Yep - come on, Ken. Allow me the ability to access CP and we can talk properly. The floor is yours. I'm even suggesting CP as a venue because if you lose you can oversight the whole thing anyway. What do you have to lose? You're either a defender of the faith or a coward? Which is it? Acei9 22:29, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Wake up and smell the coffee Ace, that is not going to happen. Remember the weedy kid who stood behind the school bully raising his fist and shouting "yeah" when the bully stole some poor lad's dinner money then when you found him on his own later and he is all apologetic and submissive? That's Ken that is.--Mercian (talk) 01:10, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Ace McWicked Master Sun would be more correct, IOW. Ɖøn Ĵuan Harass 15:37, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Ken, you’ve lost now. It was very simple - open me an account on CP and we’ll talk. You were afraid of having your IP exposed here so I said let me talk to you directly on CP. A totally reasonable request. You failed to do this for...reasons. So you lose. You have exposed yourself as a failure and a coward. Once again; if you want to show yourself as a debater then let’s debate. All you have to do is let me register at CP - that’s it. You’re failure is also your epitaph. Coward to the end. No machismo. Unable to even allow anyone to engage with you. You’re like a guy hiding behind a fence yelling about how I can’t fight you. Weak man, so weak. I’m glad to have exposed you for what you are. Acei9 03:20, 18 January 2019 (UTC)