|
|
|
On fire for Christ
SFN Regular
Norway
1273 Posts |
Posted - 05/13/2012 : 01:47:35 [Permalink]
|
there's like a zillion lists about catholics on there I think the guy who runs it J. Frater is blatantly a catholic and spends most of his time attempting to justify it, even the lists which have "bad catholics" always have some kind of disclaimer, e.g
| "This list is not a denunciation of Roman Catholicism, which dates back to Christ Himself. The Church today is a very honorable institution" |
AHEM.
I'll try to find some right wing examples if I have time, but I distinctly remember sensing that bias when I pretty much read the entire site about a year ago. I remember reading one list that urged people to breed more because one scenario for the apocalypse was underpopulation. One of the problems is that they let anybody write lists and no one seems to vet them, (or they are vetted by someone of the same idealogy). It's a popular site with some very interesting lists, which makes it more worrying that there are some lists sneaked in occasionally with a religious or political agenda. A brief scan of the comments will also you a clue as to the kind of people who frequent the site...
Another gripe is their paranormal reporting, which ranges from lists which are pretty skeptical, to lists which perpetuate all kinds of debunked or totally unsupported "mysteries", e.g The "Green Children of Woolpit"...? I thought that one was dead, but it made #1 of their "top 10 mysterious people" list.
It sure is a pretty addictive site, but it's 90 pulp, and those moments when the list makers are blatantly using it for propoganda really irk me. |
 |
| Edited by - On fire for Christ on 05/13/2012 02:00:24 |
 |
|
|
On fire for Christ
SFN Regular
Norway
1273 Posts |
 Posted - 10/26/2012 : 23:29:06 [Permalink]
|
Update:
Got bored at work and checked the site out today.
First thing that struck my eye was the article "top ten Evil homosexuals". Classy. The author felt the need to point out that it isn't just straight people who can be evil and went searching for examples of evil gays. Or alternatively found some evil people and decided to out them. As if it's not bad enough they were evil, they were also evil in a gay kind of way.
Also checked out "7 reasons for a failing society", number 3 is "losing our religion" with a picture of, you guessed it, the Pope. The accompanying text actually makes the case religion isn't necessary, which doesn't make any sense. I can only conclude the writer didn't understand the premise of his own article.
This one promotes all kinds of nut conspiracy theories http://listverse.com/2012/08/19/top-10-strange-topics-that-need-more-explanation/
But the most entertainingly idiotic one has to be this:
http://listverse.com/2011/02/15/top-10-reasons-we-should-revive-the-dark-ages/
Authored by the site founder James Frater. |
|
|
|
|
On fire for Christ
SFN Regular
Norway
1273 Posts |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 05/08/2013 : 07:18:48 [Permalink]
|
Hmmm... Okay. Maybe I should edit my pick to say that I don't agree with everything there. I've linked to sites before and included that disclaimer.
I also found this:
Top 10 Bizarre Biblical Tales
And this:
10 Reasons for Man to Leave Religion Behind
The above list opens with this disclaimer from listvers:
Regular readers of our site know that it is the purpose of Listverse to inform, entertain, and occasionally spark (ideally) healthy debate. We publish material from many different authors of widely varying backgrounds, and as such, are able to present articles on a huge variety of subjects containing myriad points of view. Since you read the title of the article, you may see where we’re going with this.
It is not our purpose to belittle the beliefs of others, nor to declare any one point of view on such a dense and divisive topic as religion to be the correct one. We assume that our readers are intelligent, well-informed, and capable of thinking for themselves, and that is the end of this disclaimer.
It’s been reported recently that atheism is on the rise worldwide, while religiosity is declining. The relationship between the religious and non-religious has always been a tricky one; while many from each group eventually find themselves forced to admit that there is much to learn from the other, atheists still generally have a tough time accepting the role that religion plays in society—and are of the opinion that humanity would be better off leaving it behind, for a number of reasons. Here are ten of them. |
So there it is.
As for it being a conservative leaning site, there is this:
9 Ways the One Percent Are Screwing You Over
And:
10 Arguments for Gun Control
If there is a heavy conservative bias, I'm not getting it. The lists are provided by readers, and if the editors like them, they are posted. I have no idea what has been turned down. But I'm still comfortable with my pick. It seems to me that a small edit to my pick will suffice. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
On fire for Christ
SFN Regular
Norway
1273 Posts |
Posted - 05/08/2013 : 21:51:23 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Whaddaya know, not a single good reason in the list.
|
I think they are all excellent. Each one more excellent than the last. |
|
| Edited by - On fire for Christ on 05/08/2013 21:52:09 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 05/09/2013 : 03:56:49 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by On fire for Christ
I think they are all excellent. Each one more excellent than the last. |
Care to defend even #10 as excellent?Reason: People want it
Regardless of your personal feelings on the matter, the wants and needs of the many out weigh the wants and needs of the few and according to a poll of several thousand Americans, twenty percent believed that only evolution should be taught in schools, and sixteen percent believed that only creationism should be taught. The remainder supported the notion of teaching both: evolution in the science class, and creation in a philosophy class. Either way you look at it, that’s a decent chunk of people asking for the same thing. You don’t even need that many people to agree on something to elect the president. Ignoring the fact that the people who are advocating that creationism be taught in public schools do not advocate that it be taught as philosophy but as science, how does this reason not open all of our childrens' educations up to mob rule? Shouldn't lesson plans be created on the basis of sound pedagogy by subject-matter experts, and not left to the whims of a fickle majority that, for example, has reversed its position on a number of conservative issues in a mere 25 years (like immigration or the debt)? "A decent chunk of people" have believed demonstrably false nonsense (Iraq's WMDs; "creeping Sharia"), so why is popularity of belief an "excellent" reason to teach our kids anything? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 05/09/2013 : 10:23:29 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by On fire for Christ
I think they are all excellent. Each one more excellent than the last. |
Care to defend even #10 as excellent?Reason: People want it
Regardless of your personal feelings on the matter, the wants and needs of the many out weigh the wants and needs of the few and according to a poll of several thousand Americans, twenty percent believed that only evolution should be taught in schools, and sixteen percent believed that only creationism should be taught. The remainder supported the notion of teaching both: evolution in the science class, and creation in a philosophy class. Either way you look at it, that’s a decent chunk of people asking for the same thing. You don’t even need that many people to agree on something to elect the president. Ignoring the fact that the people who are advocating that creationism be taught in public schools do not advocate that it be taught as philosophy but as science, how does this reason not open all of our childrens' educations up to mob rule? Shouldn't lesson plans be created on the basis of sound pedagogy by subject-matter experts, and not left to the whims of a fickle majority that, for example, has reversed its position on a number of conservative issues in a mere 25 years (like immigration or the debt)? "A decent chunk of people" have believed demonstrably false nonsense (Iraq's WMDs; "creeping Sharia"), so why is popularity of belief an "excellent" reason to teach our kids anything?
|
Cue relabling of the Civil War as the War of Northern Aggression in Southern states in 5....4.....3....2....1..... |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 05/09/2013 : 12:32:24 [Permalink]
|
Actually, let's run through the fallacies real quick:
#10: Argument from popularity
#9: Nearly identical to #10
#8: Non-sequitor (teaching creationism is not anything like a "religious studies" class)
#7: Non-sequitor (there are many ways to "inspire debate and" yadda-yadda in entirely secular ways and without lying)
#6: Non-sequitor (the government has no right to free speech)
#5: Non-sequitor (old-Earth creationists aren't the ones advocating), and argument from authority
#4: Nearly identical to #5
#3: Non-sequitor (those advocating the teaching of creationism want the Bible taught as truth, not "here's what some people believe")
#2: Non-sequitor (and if these brilliant children always reject creationism, then teaching it is a waste of taxpayer money)
#1: Argument from mere possibility (which ignores the fact that the most-damning science against creationism has been performed by people who wanted it to be true) and an argument from ridicule (they may have laughed at Semmelweis, but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
On fire for Christ
SFN Regular
Norway
1273 Posts |
Posted - 05/09/2013 : 20:00:25 [Permalink]
|
| Since I said that each excellent reason was more excellent than the last, the 10th excellent reason was the least excellent. That's axiomatic. But it's still a very excellent reason. If children are taught things outside of the beliefs of their community they may become isolated or even ostracized. Sometimes it's more important to preserve a closely knit community and family unit than to teach whatever it is that scientists currently believe. |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 05/09/2013 : 20:35:41 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by On fire for Christ
Since I said that each excellent reason was more excellent than the last, the 10th excellent reason was the least excellent. |
Indeed, that's why I started there. If you could defend that one as excellent, then the others would have to be more excellent.| But it's still a very excellent reason. If children are taught things outside of the beliefs of their community they may become isolated or even ostracized. |
That wasn't reason #10. Reason #10 was that creationism is popular. You're instead defending the idea that ignorance is bliss.| Sometimes it's more important to preserve a closely knit community and family unit than to teach whatever it is that scientists currently believe. |
Was it Jesus who said that fiction is more comforting than reality? Surely it is, but if one wanted to preserve a closely knit community or family unit, why send the children out into the big, bad world to have them educated at a public school? You're not defending the idea that creationism should be taught in public school because it's popular, you're instead defending the idea that families should sometimes ensure their childrens' ignorance. Why? Under which "sometimes," exactly, should preserving ignorance for the sake of family (or close-knit community) be a high priority, in the context of a public-school education?
That's the critical question: why do you think government should be involved in deciding for which families it's important to remain unexposed to current science? That's awfully Big Brotherish, don't you think? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
On fire for Christ
SFN Regular
Norway
1273 Posts |
Posted - 05/09/2013 : 22:04:57 [Permalink]
|
| Yes but I'm all for big government. |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 05/10/2013 : 04:20:27 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by On fire for Christ
Yes but I'm all for big government. |
Hope your job at the Ministry of Truth pays well. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
On fire for Christ
SFN Regular
Norway
1273 Posts |
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 05/11/2013 : 02:33:47 [Permalink]
|
| The question remains... On fire for Christ hasn't successfully defended any of the reasons as excellent. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
 |
|
The Skeptic Summary
