[Found in the "Reference" sections of Conservapedia pages.]
This page is proudly free from citations
To insist on finding a reference elsewhere for every statement made, as Wikipedia does, is to be a slave to hearsay. The authors of this page have enough confidence in their own insight not to lean on the opinions and assertions of others.
75 comments
Wow... just, wow. Someone needs to learn the definition of hearsay.
"We're so right, we don't even need to prove how right we are!"
But by doing so, they are promoting hearsay, because no one can verify what you say. Fragrantly stating the opposite of the truth like that is characteristic of both fundies and commies, which is why it is fallacious to compare secularists to communists.
Truthiness at its finest. "I don't need to prove that pi is exactly 3. I'm just perfectly confident that it is, and that's enough for me. Now, if these sources were to somehow hint at potentially confirming what's written in the (KJV) bible, on the other hand, we shall waste no time in trumpeting them to the high heavens."
I'm not sure whether Schlafly is descending into madness, or whether being an all-powerful administrator is just bringing out his inner tyrant.
Either way, I think it's safe to say that Conservapedia has become Andrew Schlafly's own personal cult, even by Conservapedia's own standards.
This is another one of those instances in which I'm absolutely certain the entry is from a troll, despite all of the evidence to the contrary. There is no possible way that someone could be this willfully ignorant of reality and still be able to dress themselves in the morning. But no, if this website demonstrates anything it's that humans truly can be this stupid.
Welcome to the conservative solipsist rabbit hole. Once you are free from the confines of verified facts you are sucked into a mystical land of nonsense where anything can be true if you just believe it hard enough. Want gay marriage to automatically outlaw straight marriage, communists and Nazis to be the same thing, the Theory of Relativity to be completely false, or the founders to have all been Southern Baptists or evangelicals? Anything is possible here!
"This page is proudly free from citations"
And facts, logic, reason, intelligence, educated opinion, educational content of any kind, and the general interest of anyone but Andy Schafly.
"To insist on finding a reference elsewhere for every statement made, as Wikipedia does, is to be a slave to hearsay."
It's called supporting your argument, you doofus. For all that fancy education you supposedly have, it's astonishing how little you actually know about, well, anything .
"The authors of this page have enough confidence in their own insight not to lean on the opinions and assertions of others."
Having "enough confidence" not to consult experts is often equal to "too much stupidity" to do so.
I really want to go to Conservapedia and make a post claiming that Andy Schafly is totally insane, and instead of a reference I'll just claim that I have enough confidence in my own insight to not need a citation. I mean really, all you have to do is read anything on that site to make that conclusion.
Andy Schafly is actually a devil worshiping homosexual who created Conservapedia to lure good Christians away and join him in sin.
Sorry Andy, but if I provide a source for this then I'll be another slave to hearsay and I have enough confidence in my own assertions.
Translation: our opinions are so insecure that we will not back up our bullshit.
Hey that's fine asshat, but don't expect anyone to ever take you seriously (something that you've probably never had to worry about).
Opinions are like, well, you know. But facts, if they aren't made up out of thin air, need to have some basis, and the reader is entitled to know what that basis is so they can make a judgment as to how reliable they are. If someone tells me "Xerox made a profit last year", I'd like to know that it came from their annual report, or at least the Wall Street Journal, and not from somebody's brother-in-law's personal trainer before I trust it. Assertions without references - or worse yet, a refusal to even give references - would set off most peoples' personal BS meter.
A quick trip to rationalwiki turns up no mention of CPalmer. New parodist?
On a more amusing note:
Do you suppose there is an alternate universe wherein their Andy Schafly is a gay Secular Humanist who backs up his opinions with hard scientific evidence and almost always makes sense?
Would he wear a goatee?
Aside to Anon-e-Moose: You know an argument is not worth annihilating when you feel the urge to throw peanuts (or bananas) to the author.
Andy did not write this.
Andy has compared requiring citations to hearsay, but this particular bit was written by CPalmer . If you are going to submit a quote from Conservapedia do NOT assume it was written by Andy . There is crazy shit on Conservapedia written by other nuts or by parodists.
That being said, Andy told CPalmer this template was "very interesting" .
The authors of this page have enough confidence in their own insight not to lean on the opinions and assertions of others.
Or verifiable data, for that matter.
Andy, even Jesus used quotes or attributions. (Sorry. I prefer the term more commonly used in the version of English I happen to speak.)
Do you remember when Jesus was in the synagogue (when's the last time YOU were in sysnagogue, Andy?) and read from Isaiah? That was quoting. If it was good enough for Jesus, it's not good enough for Andy.
@ Nicole
Thanks for the Conservipedia link. There are certainly enough references given on the page that opens. When is a reference not an attribution?
"Just because a reference can't be found for something doesn't mean it's not true" -CPalmer
Uhhh, actually, I think that's exactly what it means. True things have corroborative evidence, even things as simple as "The sky is blue" (Window, "Looking Up", 2012).
What the hell this is the stupidest thing I have ever read in my life. DURRRR EDUCATION AND SCHOLARSHIP IS FUR IDIOTS DURRRR
Like, seriously, man, I'm tearing my hair out at how infuriating this statement it.
Thanks for removing any doubts that you are just making shit up. After all, it's effectively how all religion works anyway, so why buck the trend?
The only original thing here is your definition of hearsay.
Encyclopedias need (trustworthy) references in order to be seen as credible.
You know, so they can't throw around bullshit claims without backing them up with reliable sources?
If I were fully confident that Gorillas could speak English, by your low standards of proof, all I would need to do is write it the fuck down.
And hearsay is a legal term and I doubt it's really applicable here.
Fuck, Andy...how did you EVER become a lawyer? You suck at EVERYTHING.
"This page is proudly free from citations"
without citations you have no proof to your claims and without proof you are just another liar.
So in short "Prove it or get the fuck out!"
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
