Conservapedia

[actsnoblemartin]

I agree with you 100%

Lots of things are...and if they are negative, like bias is, we should struggle to overcome them. Not embrace it.

 

[musicman]

Bias is not inherently bad, unless you envision some human enterprise that manages to circumvent human nature. I submit that this is a vain hope; that we must simply factor in bias's existence; that bias only takes on an evil countenance when its existence is denied in a human endeavor (the thirty-year MSM/DNC monopoly on the dissemination of information in this country, for example).

Wikipedia's page on homosexuality is shot through with pro-gay bias; the users and contributors who've helped with its content are obviously interested in portraying the behavior in as positive a light as possible. But, do "facts" necessarily equal truth? Is, "I'm not advancing any inaccuracies" the same as "I'm telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth"? Certainly not in this case - and I can give you a quick example, without even breaking a sweat.

Wikipedia cites the FACT that scientific studies show a marked physiological difference in the INAH-3 glands of male homosexuals. However, this study purported to prove that homosexuality is, then, inborn; the man who conducted the experiment SAID so. And this simply did not withstand scientific scrutiny. The study was blown out of the water years ago. Strange, isn't it, that Wikipedia's page manages to skim over THIS fact?

A lie by omission is just a lie, that's all. Bias is not evil in and of itself, but lying in the advancement of the CAUSE of one's bias IS.

 

[mattskramer]

Wikipedia's page on homosexuality is shot through with pro-gay bias; the users and contributors who've helped with its content are obviously interested in portraying the behavior in as positive a light as possible. But, do "facts" necessarily equal truth? Is, "I'm not advancing any inaccuracies" the same as "I'm telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth"? Certainly not in this case - and I can give you a quick example, without even breaking a sweat.

Wikipedia cites the FACT that scientific studies show a marked physiological difference in the INAH-3 glands of male homosexuals. However, this study purported to prove that homosexuality is, then, inborn; the man who conducted the experiment SAID so. And this simply did not withstand scientific scrutiny. The study was blown out of the water years ago. Strange, isn't it, that Wikipedia's page manages to skim over THIS fact?

By the way, if you see a study quoted by Wikipedia that you believe does not stand up to scrutiny, please sign onto it and place a comment with evidence to suppory your position.

Please give a specific example of where there is pro-gay bias. I simply do not see it. On the other hand, I do see where it suggests that the issue of homosexuality is debated.

In the years since Krafft-Ebing, homosexuality has become a subject of considerable study and debate…. Viewed by some as a pathology to be cured,…. The legal and social status of people who perform homosexual acts or identify as gay or lesbian varies enormously across the world and remains hotly contested….

Societal attitudes towards same-sex relationships vary over time and place, from expecting all males to engage in same-sex relationships, to casual integration, through acceptance, to seeing the practice as a minor sin…

Nevertheless, LGBT parenting in general, and adoption by LGBT couples in particular, are controversial in many Western countries.

See further discussion at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Homosexuality

Also see the issue of Wikipedia’s neutrality at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

 

[musicman]

By the way, if you see a study quoted by Wikipedia that you believe does not stand up to scrutiny, please sign onto it and place a comment with evidence to suppory your position.

Please give a specific example of where there is pro-gay bias. I simply do not see it. On the other hand, I do see where it suggests that the issue of homosexuality is debated.

In the years since Krafft-Ebing, homosexuality has become a subject of considerable study and debate…. Viewed by some as a pathology to be cured,…. The legal and social status of people who perform homosexual acts or identify as gay or lesbian varies enormously across the world and remains hotly contested….

Societal attitudes towards same-sex relationships vary over time and place, from expecting all males to engage in same-sex relationships, to casual integration, through acceptance, to seeing the practice as a minor sin…

Nevertheless, LGBT parenting in general, and adoption by LGBT couples in particular, are controversial in many Western countries.

See further discussion at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Homosexuality

Also see the issue of Wikipedia’s neutrality at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

Wikipedia's flagrant gloss-over of the debunked LeVay study amounts to nothing less than a lie of omission.

 

[mattskramer]

Wikipedia's flagrant gloss-over of the debunked LeVay study amounts to nothing less than a lie of omission.

Simply click the ling and go to the criticism of the LeVay study also provided by Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_LeVay#Controversy

Criticism has also come from contemporaries, some of whom have questioned LeVay's measurements, noting the structures themselves are difficult to see in tissue slices, and LeVay measured in volume, where others state cell count is more accurate. Nancy Ordover notes "he has also been criticized for his small sample size and for compiling inadequate sexual histories." Several of his colleagues have noted that the size of the nuclei could be impacted by AIDS, since INAH-3 is dependent on testosterone levels.

It should be point out, however, that many of LeVay's critics have religious or other agendas that raise concerns. One of LeVay's most vocal critics, Dean Byrd, Ph.D, is a Conservative Mormon who speaks at LDS events about the success of so-called Conversion Therapies which purport to change sexual oriention through intensive religious counseling.

Ruth Hubbard (author of numerous articles and one book highly critical of explaining human behavior through genetics) and her son Elijah Wald noted in their co-authored book, "Though, on average, the size of the hypothalamic nucleus LeVay considered significant was indeed smaller in the men he identified as homosexual, his published data show that the range of sizes of the individual samples was virtually the same as for the heterosexual men. That is, the area was larger in some of the homosexuals than in many of the heterosexual men, and smaller in some of the heterosexual men than in many of the homosexuals. This means that, though the groups showed some difference as groups, there was no way to tell anything about an individual’s sexual orientation by looking at his hypothalamus."

Byne noted "LeVay’s work has not been replicated, and human neuroanatomical studies of this kind have a very poor track record for reproducibility. Indeed, procedures similar to those LeVay used to identify nuclei have previously led researchers astray." Biologist Joan Roughgarden notes that this is the tiniest of four "rice-grain" sized parts of the brain, and that sex and sexual orientation do not uniformly correspond to the hypothesis that "gay" brains are similar to "female" brains.

LeVay cautions against misinterpreting his findings: "It’s important to stress what I didn’t find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn’t show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain." He has also stated in a Newsweek interview "if I didn’t find anything, I would give up a scientific career altogether," a comment critics claim is evidence of bias.

LeVay has been criticized for advocating fetal screening for traits like homosexuality in order to abort fetuses with unwanted traits. A New York Times book review noted, "Indeed, he cheerfully looks forward to the day when the 'new eugenics' born of the human genome project will enable women to abort fetuses likely to be carrying any traits they don't much care for, including homosexuality."

The criticism is there for people who are interested. I’m sorry that you think that it is insufficient. Perhaps you would provide wikipedia with more. I think that this criticism of LeVay is good enough criticism for me.

 

[musicman]

You're missing the point, matts. You didn't find this comparatively exhaustive analysis in Wikipedia's "homosexuality" entry. You didn't see LeVay's name mentioned there AT ALL. All that is given on this page is an incomplete recounting of the cherry-picked parts of LeVay's findings - those which put the desired SLANT on his study. That his study was found by the scientific community to be loaded, agenda-driven garbage would have been mentioned by anyone interested in the truth.

 

[mattskramer]

You're missing the point, matts. You didn't find this comparatively exhaustive analysis in Wikipedia's "homosexuality" entry. You didn't see LeVay's name mentioned there AT ALL. All that is given on this page is an incomplete recounting of the cherry-picked parts of LeVay's findings - those which put the desired SLANT on his study. That his study was found by the scientific community to be loaded, agenda-driven garbage would have been mentioned by anyone interested in the truth.

Okay. The article on homosexuality is very long. It has many sections (biological, social, and even religious elements), citations, and links. It mentions that it is a hotly debated topic, and controversial. In the biology section you find one little study that you was not discredited to your satisfaction.

Look, the article was about homosexuality. It was not about the study. The article on homosexuality was long enough as it stood. The article would have turned into a book if it were to include every study, and every criticism of every study, related to homosexuality. That is why it provided links to the specific studies and other information that it referenced. If you are interested in the detail of a particular study, go to the article about that study. There you will find the compliments and criticisms of it.

I think that the author of the homosexuality article was fair. He provided a long and detailed article without making it too long. He said that it is debatable and contested. He provided links to studies where you can find criticisms to those studies.

 

[Larkinn]

Bias is not inherently bad, unless you envision some human enterprise that manages to circumvent human nature.

Its not bad...because it can't ever be removed completely? Shoddy argument.

I submit that this is a vain hope; that we must simply factor in bias's existence; that bias only takes on an evil countenance when its existence is denied in a human endeavor (the thirty-year MSM/DNC monopoly on the dissemination of information in this country, for example).

I've never seen this alleged liberal bias in the MSM...but even assuming there is one, you must admit that the bias on Fox news/rightwing talk shows is much more extreme.

Wikipedia's page on homosexuality is shot through with pro-gay bias; the users and contributors who've helped with its content are obviously interested in portraying the behavior in as positive a light as possible.

Incorrect. They could do the exact opposite as conservapedia and say that homosexuality is moral, right, and acceptable.

And this simply did not withstand scientific scrutiny. The study was blown out of the water years ago. Strange, isn't it, that Wikipedia's page manages to skim over THIS fact?

Please provide a link to where it was "blown out of the water".

A lie by omission is just a lie, that's all. Bias is not evil in and of itself, but lying in the advancement of the CAUSE of one's bias IS.

Congratulations on showing your own incredible sense of bias.

IF Wikipedia is biased (and I am not willing to grant that), you claim that their bias includes omissions...which are lies, which is unethical. But yet conservative bias (lets take the conservapedia) which not only omits things (such as that a huge part of our population does NOT agree that homosexuality is immoral) is somehow ok?

That his study was found by the scientific community to be loaded, agenda-driven garbage would have been mentioned by anyone interested in the truth.

I call bullshit. Give us links from the scientific community that say this.

 

[musicman]

Its not bad...because it can't ever be removed completely? Shoddy argument.

I said not INHERENTLY bad; an inevitable consequence of our human-ness. Not shoddy - realistic. Come down here and live with the rest of us, Larkinn.

I've never seen this alleged liberal bias in the MSM...but even assuming there is one, you must admit that the bias on Fox news/rightwing talk shows is much more extreme.

Why worse - because YOU don't agree with it? Statements such as yours - which purport to be objective assessments - are going to require subjective criteria. Got any?

Incorrect. They could do the exact opposite as conservapedia and say that homosexuality is moral, right, and acceptable.

Give all the little pro-gay Winston Smiths some time, Larkinn. They have an entire culture and centuries of common sense to undo. Be patient; they're making "progress".

Please provide a link to where it was "blown out of the water".

Glad to - it's waiting for you at the bottom of this post. And, this is just the one I was able to find quickly; I tire easily these days, and this is ground I have covered in many Internet chats before. Please feel free to do a little research on your own - challenge your comfortable beliefs.

Congratulations on showing your own incredible sense of bias.

IF Wikipedia is biased (and I am not willing to grant that), you claim that their bias includes omissions...which are lies, which is unethical.

No - you're all confused. Omissions - especially CONVENIENT ones - are not the natural consequence of bias. Convenient omissions are caused by dishonesty.

But yet conservative bias (lets take the conservapedia) which not only omits things (such as that a huge part of our population does NOT agree that homosexuality is immoral) is somehow ok?

If Conservapedia had asserted that homosexuality is immoral, and EVERYBODY THINKS SO, that would have been dishonest. They didn't do this. They presented what could reasonably be called a conservative view of homosexuality. Where is the lie? Bias - understandable. Lies - bad.

I call bullshit. Give us links from the scientific community that say this.

http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/_PDFArchives/streams-of-life/SL2W0703.pdf

And, this particular link doesn't even address what I consider the most obvious, damning argument: LeVay reached his conclusions by studying the hypothalamus glands of autopsied male homosexuals. In other words - ADULTS. How could such an experiment - even if NOT carried out in a shamefully sloppy fashion (which this was) - hope to prove ANYTHING about a genetic link to homosexuality?

 

[musicman]

Okay. The article on homosexuality is very long. It has many sections (biological, social, and even religious elements), citations, and links. It mentions that it is a hotly debated topic, and controversial. In the biology section you find one little study that you was not discredited to your satisfaction.

Look, the article was about homosexuality. It was not about the study. The article on homosexuality was long enough as it stood. The article would have turned into a book if it were to include every study, and every criticism of every study, related to homosexuality. That is why it provided links to the specific studies and other information that it referenced. If you are interested in the detail of a particular study, go to the article about that study. There you will find the compliments and criticisms of it.

I think that the author of the homosexuality article was fair. He provided a long and detailed article without making it too long. He said that it is debatable and contested. He provided links to studies where you can find criticisms to those studies.

All of this might have had some merit had the author not elected to CHERRY-PICK THOSE PARTS OF LEVAY'S STUDY THAT SUPPORTED HIS "PHYSIOLOGICAL ORIGINS" THEME. I know the article was running long and all, but "LeVay's findings were laughed out of the scientific community" might have been a useful tidbit of information. This was a lie of omission, matts. Kid me all you want - but don't kid yourself.

 

[musicman]

http://mtsu32.mtsu.edu:11071/courses/abnormal/Is homo hardwired.pdf

Even LeVay's ardent admirers had to admit that he had proven nothing. Trust me - it's in there, among the glowing praise.

 

[red states rule]

----The definition of Homosexuality.

Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality


---According to Conservapedia, Homosexuality is defined as thus:




http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexuality


Amusing, to say the least.


This was on the Daily Show.

The liberal dictionary has the following

Illegal Alien \’ill-e-gall a-lee’un\ n: a racist, bigoted term used by wicked Republicans to viciously slander hardworking Democrat voters; the preferred term to be used for such Democrat voters is “undocumented workers”.


Loch Ness Monster \Lock ‘nes mon-stur\ n: a first-cousin of the blessed and elegant manatee (an endangered species needlessly slaughtered by Neanderthal and unsophisticated redneck beer-guzzling American boaters); a once fruitful creature driven to extinction by imperialistic Europeans; the last known specimen is believed to have lived in relative peace and tranquility in a Scottish lake until learning of George W. Bush’s reelection. He is now dead. Your crying children can thank George W. Bush


Republican \Re-‘puhb-lick’uhn\ n: racist, xenophobic, bigoted homophobe beholden to Pat Robertson; enemy of the Democrat Party even when in total agreement with Democrat policies because such extremist ideologues currently hold power and ‘progressive’ Democrats do not; can be found in a normal dictionary between the words ‘reptile’ and ‘repugnant’


Achiever \’uh-che-eve’ur\ n: a person or citizen of the United States of America who is allowed by the government to personally elevate themselves above the masses, usually as a product of egotism or narcissism; such persons are deemed ‘winners of life’s lottery’ because their station in this world is the result of complete happenstance.


Democracy \duh-mock’crass-ee\ n: a form of government in which members of the Democrat Party retain eternal power; during elections or election recounts in which Democrats are losing, it is said that ‘the very principles of our democracy are in peril’ or ‘Republicans have undermined the very foundation of our democracy’.


Bird Flu \burr’ed phlu’ew\ n: a highly contagious and incurable disease that will likely cause the death of everyone on earth because the idiot frat boy George W. Bush hasn’t done anything to prepare the world for its onslaught; could easily be cured if Bush would allow stem cell research; most likely a hybrid of the deadly AIDS virus developed and unleashed on gays by Ronald Reagan.


Provisional Ballot \pro-visz’uhn-al bal-uht\ n: a means by which Democrat voters can cast two or more “votes” in a hotly contested political election. If Democrats lose the first ballot count (which they inevitably do), then a legal challenge can be mounted calling for all provisional ballots (i.e. extra Democrat votes) to be added to the final count; also known as a means by which expired people, undocumented workers, and oppressed animals (otherwise known as “pets&#8221 can express their right to vote Democrat in a democracy.

http://rushlimbaughshow.blogspot.com/2006/01/liberal-dictionary.html

 

[Superlative]

The liberal dictionary has the following

Snip.......

http://rushlimbaughshow.blogspot.com/2006/01/liberal-dictionary.html

How long have you been waiting to bust out those nuggets?

 

[Larkinn]

I said not INHERENTLY bad; an inevitable consequence of our human-ness. Not shoddy - realistic. Come down here and live with the rest of us, Larkinn.

No, shoddy. Morals have nothing to do with whether its "human nature or not" unless you have a very strange moralistic system going on. So unless you want to explain why something is not bad because its a consequence of us being human (by the way, we are have a very strong survival instinct...I would claim its huma nature what the donner party did...do you think that was moral?), then your argument is ridiculous.

Morals aren't how the world is, rather they are how the world OUGHT to be. Hence pointing to human nature to justify them is a mistake.

Why worse - because YOU don't agree with it? Statements such as yours - which purport to be objective assessments - are going to require subjective criteria. Got any?

Subjective criteria? Why yes, I have a lot. What you were actually asking was whether I have any objective critera, which no I don't, as none reliably exists.

And no...its worse because its extreme. As I've stated in other threads there are many conservative writers and essayists out there who are quite good, and not biased. They have their point of view, but they don't automatically assume everything republican/conservative is good.

Give all the little pro-gay Winston Smiths some time, Larkinn. They have an entire culture and centuries of common sense to undo. Be patient; they're making "progress".

I don't need too. You said they were "positive as possible", I refuted that. Hence, you were incorrect.

An entire culture to undo? What are you, a conspiracy theorist? Centuries of common sense? Yeah...in the past we had lots of common sense. Want me to research a list of atrocities for you? Oh wait...they were probably ok in your eyes becase its "human nature"...

Glad to - it's waiting for you at the bottom of this post. And, this is just the one I was able to find quickly; I tire easily these days, and this is ground I have covered in many Internet chats before. Please feel free to do a little research on your own - challenge your comfortable beliefs.

Oh no, your right I never challenge my beliefs. Which is why I am on a right-wing message board arguing with Republicans.

No - you're all confused. Omissions - especially CONVENIENT ones - are not the natural consequence of bias. Convenient omissions are caused by dishonesty.

Yes, actually they are the natural consequences of bias. You omit something...why...to try and put a particular spin on something.

If Conservapedia had asserted that homosexuality is immoral, and EVERYBODY THINKS SO, that would have been dishonest. They didn't do this. They presented what could reasonably be called a conservative view of homosexuality. Where is the lie? Bias - understandable. Lies - bad.

Note that Conservapedia never noted that some scientific studies have found that its hereditary. Omission...hence lie.

http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/_P...e/SL2W0703.pdf

Hi, I asked for a link from the scientific community. You gave me a link to someone who is obviously biased. He refers to the "secular media", he obviously has a strong pro-religion bias.

So,I ask again, please give me a link where the scientific community says its fake, not a Doctor posting on his blog. A published article in a scientific journal, preferably.

And, this particular link doesn't even address what I consider the most obvious, damning argument: LeVay reached his conclusions by studying the hypothalamus glands of autopsied male homosexuals. In other words - ADULTS. How could such an experiment - even if NOT carried out in a shamefully sloppy fashion (which this was) - hope to prove ANYTHING about a genetic link to homosexuality?

Umm, do you think Adults don't have genes or something?

Please explain how them being adults negatively would affect the data and make it unreliable.

Even LeVay's ardent admirers had to admit that he had proven nothing. Trust me - it's in there, among the glowing praise.

No shit he didn't prove anything. That is a sign of their intellectual honesty, they admire his work because its good not because they are trying to claim something. It shows evidence of a correlation between a part of the brain and ones sexual orientation. That means nothing except...guess what, there is a correlation between ones brain and ones sexual orientation. It gives some credence to the idea that homosexuality is, in part, genetic, but no it proves nothing. They, unlike you, seem to understand that correlation is not causation.

All of this might have had some merit had the author not elected to CHERRY-PICK THOSE PARTS OF LEVAY'S STUDY THAT SUPPORTED HIS "PHYSIOLOGICAL ORIGINS" THEME. I know the article was running long and all, but "LeVay's findings were laughed out of the scientific community" might have been a useful tidbit of information. This was a lie of omission, matts. Kid me all you want - but don't kid yourself.

Somehow I think it wasn't included because it wasn't laughed out of the scientific community. Some Quacks like Ackerman briefly looked at the evidence and make some bullshit up against it because they have a religious agenda, but the scientific community, who has no such bullshit agenda, was fine with the study.

 

[mattskramer]

If Conservapedia had asserted that homosexuality is immoral, and EVERYBODY THINKS SO, that would have been dishonest. They didn't do this. They presented what could reasonably be called a conservative view of homosexuality. Where is the lie? Bias - understandable. Lies - bad.

Are facts established by consensus or do facts exist outside of popular opinion?

An object is a solid, liquid, or gas based on objective and scientific principles. It lies outside of public sentiment. The word “immoral” is very relative and subjective. Yet, the conservative web site stated that homosexuality is immoral as if that was an established fact. It did not even provide a reference to a survey or scientific study to support the allegation that homosexuality is immoral. That shows extreme bias to me. It has more bias than the subtle lack of sufficient criticism of a study on the homosexuality page of wikipedia.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

i agree with you.

Are facts established by consensus or do facts exist outside of popular opinion?

An object is a solid, liquid, or gas based on objective and scientific principles. It lies outside of public sentiment. The word “immoral” is very relative and subjective. Yet, the conservative web site stated that homosexuality is immoral as if that was an established fact. It did not even provide a reference to a survey or scientific study to support the allegation that homosexuality is immoral. That shows extreme bias to me. It has more bias than the subtle lack of sufficient criticism of a study on the homosexuality page of wikipedia.

 

[red states rule]

How long have you been waiting to bust out those nuggets?

Turn about is fair play

 

[Larkinn]

Turn about is fair play

It is, but try and post something intelligent next time.

Something that some blogger posted does not qualify as a liberal dictionary. Hell, if that were true I'll write my own dictionary in the next 5 minutes. Want to buy it rsr? Only $44.99+ tax.

 

[red states rule]

It is, but try and post something intelligent next time.

Something that some blogger posted does not qualify as a liberal dictionary. Hell, if that were true I'll write my own dictionary in the next 5 minutes. Want to buy it rsr? Only $44.99+ tax.

Before you ask someone to post something inte;;igent - you should do so first


Racist: Anyone who is opposed to Affirmative Action or the immigration of undocumented workers.

Reagan, Ronald: Created greed and despair in the 1980's and toppled utopia in the Soviet Union. Also known as Ronald Raygun

Right Wing Conspiracy: The Neo-Cons attempt to smear our exhalted leader Bill Clinton just because he had sex with an intern.


http://www.angelfire.com/freak2/tsrightdominion/libberish.html

 

[mattskramer]

Before you ask someone to post something inte;;igent - you should do so first


Racist: Anyone who is opposed to Affirmative Action or the immigration of undocumented workers.

Reagan, Ronald: Created greed and despair in the 1980's and toppled utopia in the Soviet Union. Also known as Ronald Raygun

Right Wing Conspiracy: The Neo-Cons attempt to smear our exhalted leader Bill Clinton just because he had sex with an intern.


http://www.angelfire.com/freak2/tsrightdominion/libberish.html

Here is a pretty funny one:

http://moralscienceclub.blogspot.com/2005/02/new-age-liberal-dictionary.html