5
   

Why is the right so anti-science?

 
 
Reply Tue 15 Jan, 2013 11:50 am
I can't help but notice that righties love engineering and technology and probably use (squander) those things as much as and more so than lefties.

This is Conservapedia which does not shy away from criticizing science, all within the imagination of those who create the entries.

Conservapedia is an English-language wiki encyclopedia project written from a self-described American conservative and Christian point of view.

The website was started in 2006 by homeschool teacher and attorney Andrew Schlafly, son of conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly,[3][4] to counter what he called the liberal bias of Wikipedia.[5][6] It uses editorials and a wiki-based system to generate content.

Examples of the ideology of Conservapedia in its articles include: accusations against and strong criticism of US President Barack Obama, strong criticism of the Democratic Party, criticism of evolution, criticism of a wide array of alleged liberal ideologies, criticism of Wikipedia's supposed liberal bias, criticism of the theory of relativity as promoting moral relativism,[7] claiming a proven link between abortion and breast cancer, praise of a number of Republican politicians, praise of celebrities and artistic works that it views as "conservative" and/or promoting moral standards in line with Christian family values, and asserting that the goals of a so-called homosexual agenda include indoctrination.

Conservapedia's "Conservative Bible Project" is a crowd-sourced translation of the Bible which Conservapedia claims will be "free of corruption by liberal untruths".[8]

The site has received negative reactions from the mainstream media, as well as from notable political figures, including commentators and journalists,[9][10] and has been criticized for bias and inaccuracies.[11][12][13]



History and overview


Conservapedia was created in November 2006 by Andrew Schlafly, a Harvard- and Princeton-educated attorney and a homeschool teacher.[4] He started the project after reading a student's assignment written using Common Era dating notation rather than the Anno Domini system that he preferred.[14]

Although he was "an early Wikipedia enthusiast," as reported by Shawn Zeller of Congressional Quarterly, Schlafly became concerned about bias after Wikipedia editors repeatedly reverted edits to the article about the 2005 Kansas evolution hearings.[9] Schlafly expressed hope that Conservapedia would become a general resource for American educators and a counterpoint to the liberal bias that he perceived in Wikipedia.[5][11][15]


The "Eagle Forum University" online education program, which is associated with Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum organization, uses material for various online courses, including U.S. history, stored on Conservapedia.[6][16][17] Editing of Conservapedia articles related to a particular course topic is also a certain assignment for Eagle Forum University students.[17]


Running on MediaWiki software,[3][6] the site was founded in 2006, with its earliest articles dating from November 22.[5][6][15] By January 2012, Conservapedia contained over 38,000 pages, not counting pages intended for internal discussion and collaboration, minimal "stub" articles, and other miscellany.[18]

Regular features on the front page of Conservapedia include links to news articles and blogs that the site's editors consider relevant to conservatism.[19] The site also hosts debates in which its users may participate; subjects discussed include religion and politics.[20] Editors of Conservapedia also maintain a page titled "Examples of Bias in Wikipedia" that compiles alleged instances of bias or errors on Wikipedia pages.[11][21] It was, at one point, the most-viewed page on the site.[22

Editorial viewpoints and policies

Conservapedia has editorial policies designed to prevent vandalism and what Schlafly sees as liberal bias. According to The Australian, although the site's operators claim that the site "strives to keep its articles concise, informative, family-friendly, and true to the facts, which often back up conservative ideas more than liberal ones", on Conservapedia "arguments are often circular" and "contradictions, self-serving rationalizations and hypocrisies abound." [23]
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Question • Score: 5 • Views: 1,760 • Replies: 10
No top replies

 
tsarstepan
 
  2  
Reply Tue 15 Jan, 2013 12:08 pm
@plainoldme,
Quote:
but notice that righties love engineering and technology

Other then pork projects and tech companies that exist in their particular state that directly effect an individual Republican congressman or Republican senator, can you give me an example of this statement?

I think it's more like they love the end product (weapons, bridges that lead to nowhere, etc...) but not how the high tech sausage is made (AKA the importance of math and science in public education; colleges and universities where liberal thoughts and ideas are spread; how public funding enters and subsidizes many tech industries; etc...) then anything else.

I think if you told your average Republican base voter that Jesus built the Eisenhower Interstate Highway System with his own hands and money then they would believe you wholeheartedly and soon that concept would be part of the Fox News talking points agenda forever after.
0 Replies
 
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jan, 2013 12:41 pm
@plainoldme,
Quote:
…….criticism of Wikipedia's supposed liberal bias
Interesting indeed, Pom. I note the Right accuses other so-called neutral media such as CNN of sinister proclivity (pun intended of course)

Though I had never myself detected any such bias in either, it might be that Today's Average Independent Thinker or reporter leans ever-so-slightly lib but only imperceptibly, perhaps only a subliminal tendency, as compared to the extent to which Fox consciously tips dexter
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Jan, 2013 04:58 pm
I'm a conservative, and this is the first time I have ever heard of conservapedia.
I guess I'm not conservative enough to know about it.
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jan, 2013 08:34 pm
tsarstephan -- I think they do like the products of technology. I always felt that leftie women cooked and baked more and used fewer convenience foods while rightie or middle of the road women were more likely to rely on ready made food.

0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  2  
Reply Wed 23 Jan, 2013 11:09 pm
@plainoldme,
A group of friends and I found the conservative Bible project a couple of years ago.

Watching them try to twist the "original Greek" so that passages where Jesus said "sell your possessions and give the money to the poor" meant something other than "sell your possessions and give the money to the poor" is rather amusing. It seems that in a conservative mind a camel can fit rather easily through the eye of a needle, and "turning the other cheek" is some kind of violent assault.

It is good fun.

plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jan, 2013 11:27 pm
@maxdancona,
I bet it was. This "twisting" seems to be what the right takes as its mission.
shopnoguro
 
  0  
Reply Sat 2 Feb, 2013 11:34 pm
@plainoldme,
Probably the cause is they don't brood over the matter or they have no interest to think over the subject.
0 Replies
 
Miller
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Feb, 2013 07:37 am
Quote:
claiming a proven link between abortion and breast cancer,


I've never heard of this link. Why do you suppose, if this link is correct, that some males are breast cancer victims, although they've never had an abortion?
0 Replies
 
Miller
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Feb, 2013 07:39 am
Quote:
"Conservative Bible Project" is a crowd-sourced translation of the Bible


What is a "crowd-sourced translation"?
0 Replies
 
Miller
 
  1  
Reply Sun 3 Feb, 2013 07:47 am
@plainoldme,
plainoldme wrote:

I bet it was. This "twisting" seems to be what the right takes as its mission.


Their mission?

"Twisting" seems to be the mission of many Christian interpretations of the Hebrew Bible ( Torah or "Old Testament"), as most Christian readers of this material neither speak, nor are able to read and translate the Hebrew contained within the Hebrew Bible. Attend any good course on the Talmud and you'll easily see why the Christian interpretation of many, if not most of the Hebrew Bible is "twisted".
0 Replies
 
 

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Why is the right so anti-science?
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/19/2019 at 12:37:20