3 ms·

"Different Views" Conservapedia is a collection of re:re:re:re:re email forwards sent by your dumbest relative. The first few articles I clicked on Vaccines:

"Different Views" Conservapedia is a collection of re:re:re:re:re email forwards sent by your dumbest relative. The first few articles I clicked on Vaccines: > Many vaccines, including the Covid vaccines, are based on aborted fetal tissue, apparently as a way to try to increase public acceptance of abortion. > There are numerous reasons why many people prefer to avoid vaccines, but laws and other rules (often pushed into place by those who stand to make significant profit) frequently mandate them. Quantum Mechanics: > Quantum mechanics is the branch of physics describing fundamental uncertainty in subatomic behavior.[1] Observation converts infinite uncertainty about where a particle is into a definite position. The logic of quantum mechanics predicts the possibility of the Resurrection, akin to quantum tunneling. Atheism: > Not possessing a religious basis for morality, which can provide a basis for objective morality, atheism is fundamentally incapable of providing a coherent system of morality.[1] See also: Atheism and ethics and Atheism and the problem of evil > For example, atheists have been the biggest mass murderers in history (see: Atheism and mass murder and Atheistic communism, mass murder and sociopathic leaders). Dr. R. J. Rummel's mid estimate regarding the loss of life due to atheistic communism is that communism caused the death of approximately 110,286,000 people between 1917 and 1987 (See also: Atheism and communism).[2]

aww_dang 4y ago
You're presenting a false set of alternatives here. Wikipedia doesn't represent "objective truth" in my view. Nor do I agree with everything Conservapedia has to say. Do Wikipedia editors claim divine revelation as a source, or are they just omnipotent? As a point of fact, Wikipedia editors get into their own brand of legalese where they decide which establishment press sources are canon. So maybe the CNN reporters are omnipotent or acquire information via divine revelation? No, this is plainly false. Trivial research will reveal that both CNN reporters and online encyclopedia editors are fallible humans. Worth thinking about the premises involved here. If objective truth exists, is it accessible for humans? Some would go as far as saying it doesn't exist at all. Not my personal view. There are axiomatic propositions we can understand to be true independent of our fallible senses. Two parallel lines will never meet. A triangle has three sides. Men are fallible, imperfect observers and prone to corruption. I'd rank these much higher in precedence than anything Wikipedia has to say. YMMV, but starting from these premises I try to exercise a bit of tolerance when encountering different views.
- mikeyouse 4y ago
  Of course Wikipedia isn't "objective truth" but that doesn't mean you should give one moment's credence to garbage like Conservapedia, or the schizophrenic yelling at pigeons down by the river. You don't need a philosophical treatise on why to ignore dumb things, you can just call them dumb and ignore them recognizing that they add absolutely no value to the world, as evidenced by the halfwitted defenses seen here.
  - aww_dang 4y ago
    I don't deride "schizophrenics down by the river" or equate them with terrorists. I disagree with their views and choices. Honestly haven't wasted much time looking at Conservipedia, nor am I a fan of Wikipedia. There's a contingent of online fact checkers, would be censors and their fellow travelers pushing a scientismic world view. I do take exception with this promotion. Invoking "objective truth" is symptomatic of this meme. Personally I find it more concerning than fringe views.

aww_dang 4y ago

You're presenting a false set of alternatives here. Wikipedia doesn't represent "objective truth" in my view. Nor do I agree with everything Conservapedia has to say. Do Wikipedia editors claim divine revelation as a source, or are they just omnipotent? As a point of fact, Wikipedia editors get into their own brand of legalese where they decide which establishment press sources are canon. So maybe the CNN reporters are omnipotent or acquire information via divine revelation? No, this is plainly false. Trivial research will reveal that both CNN reporters and online encyclopedia editors are fallible humans. Worth thinking about the premises involved here. If objective truth exists, is it accessible for humans? Some would go as far as saying it doesn't exist at all. Not my personal view. There are axiomatic propositions we can understand to be true independent of our fallible senses. Two parallel lines will never meet. A triangle has three sides. Men are fallible, imperfect observers and prone to corruption. I'd rank these much higher in precedence than anything Wikipedia has to say. YMMV, but starting from these premises I try to exercise a bit of tolerance when encountering different views.

mikeyouse 4y ago
Of course Wikipedia isn't "objective truth" but that doesn't mean you should give one moment's credence to garbage like Conservapedia, or the schizophrenic yelling at pigeons down by the river. You don't need a philosophical treatise on why to ignore dumb things, you can just call them dumb and ignore them recognizing that they add absolutely no value to the world, as evidenced by the halfwitted defenses seen here.
- aww_dang 4y ago
  I don't deride "schizophrenics down by the river" or equate them with terrorists. I disagree with their views and choices. Honestly haven't wasted much time looking at Conservipedia, nor am I a fan of Wikipedia. There's a contingent of online fact checkers, would be censors and their fellow travelers pushing a scientismic world view. I do take exception with this promotion. Invoking "objective truth" is symptomatic of this meme. Personally I find it more concerning than fringe views.