i also did a quick comparison between 2 similar articles(hawaiian kingdom) on wiki and conserva. even though i dont like wikipedia ,becuase users can edit it. But at least you can go back on their many sources and they offer a variety of information on their topics. this no surprise, from what i have seen from too many cons is the lack of intellectual persuites and curiosity. It reflects in their writting.
i took a quick look at some of their articles. not only are they lacking in "meatiness" in research, but lack of variety of sources. plus the obivous skewing of facts... check out their article on hawaiian kingdom and its overthrow via british and america interests.
Haha, Conservapedia was started by some high school teacher who said he wanted a site that wasn't "biased like wikipedia".
So let's get this straight; in order to have a site that's not biased like Wikipedia, where everyone can edit the information, we have a site where only conservatives can edit the information.
Nephilim Free is well reknowned for his willfully misleading arguments.l He tends to like to use the word "kind" alot when referring to species of animals.He's a fucktard for sure.
omg check out the wiki entry for this site and look at the photo of the website founder hahaha what a freak... he looks like a child rapist if ever i saw one!!
shanedk did a refutation of Conservapedia's Atheism page ~3 weeks ago, if you're interested. And yeah, Conservapedia is full of shit. No surprise there.
Great points there, and I love the last line most of all. Thank you.
ristinraccoon 2 years ago
i also did a quick comparison between 2 similar articles(hawaiian kingdom) on wiki and conserva. even though i dont like wikipedia ,becuase users can edit it. But at least you can go back on their many sources and they offer a variety of information on their topics. this no surprise, from what i have seen from too many cons is the lack of intellectual persuites and curiosity. It reflects in their writting.
Xenthoid 2 years ago
i took a quick look at some of their articles. not only are they lacking in "meatiness" in research, but lack of variety of sources. plus the obivous skewing of facts... check out their article on hawaiian kingdom and its overthrow via british and america interests.
Xenthoid 2 years ago
Hope for the future is in the young and you are a good sample of what a rational worldview can produce.
imopman 2 years ago
Haha, Conservapedia was started by some high school teacher who said he wanted a site that wasn't "biased like wikipedia".
So let's get this straight; in order to have a site that's not biased like Wikipedia, where everyone can edit the information, we have a site where only conservatives can edit the information.
ubergossen 2 years ago 4
Nephilim Free is well reknowned for his willfully misleading arguments.l He tends to like to use the word "kind" alot when referring to species of animals.He's a fucktard for sure.
deicidalistic 2 years ago 2
omg check out the wiki entry for this site and look at the photo of the website founder hahaha what a freak... he looks like a child rapist if ever i saw one!!
theforsakenatheist 2 years ago
Conservapedia - because truth has a liberal bias
crikeythesplund 2 years ago 3
Thanks spike & hope your cold goes soon. :)
musicgeniusno1 2 years ago 2
shanedk did a refutation of Conservapedia's Atheism page ~3 weeks ago, if you're interested. And yeah, Conservapedia is full of shit. No surprise there.
TheVigilantMan 2 years ago 3
I forgot to post the link, silly me:
/watch?v=6IAExlOz2OM
TheVigilantMan 2 years ago 2
The point of Conservapedia is to be a masochistic joke for the rest of us.
Demonaphia 2 years ago 7
This comment has received too many negative votes show
lol you did not understand the page.
theanswersofnwo 2 years ago
wow, that site sucked big difference from the wiki entry. Check out the conservapedia entry for Obama. good vid.
giglbox 2 years ago 3