Liberalpedia?

Posted by on Jul 11, 2007 in Links, Rants | 2 comments

As we are all aware of the user-edited Wikipedia. Conservatives now show us that if you don’t like a fact, change it! Conservapedia (notice the “.com” rather than the “.org”) is changing what facts don’t match up to the bible’s standards. According the Conservapedia:

Homosexuality is an immoral sexual lifestyle between members of the same sex. It is more than simply a sexual act, it is going beyond the boundaries that God has setup for marriage; one man and one woman. 

A bit different from Wikipedia‘s entry which is dramatically longer and not nearly as barren:

Homosexuality can refer to both sexual behavior and sexual attraction between people of the same sex (please note gender and sex are not interchangeable terms); or to a sexual orientation. When describing a sexual orientation, it refers to enduring sexual and romantic attraction toward others of the same sex, but does not necessarily involve sexual behavior.[1] Etymologically, the word homosexual is a Greek and Latin hybrid with homo (often confused with the later Latin meaning of “man”, as in homo sapiens) deriving from the Greek word for same, thus connotating sexual acts and affections between members of the same sex, and including lesbianism.[2] [3] Homosexuality is contrasted with heterosexuality, bisexuality, and pansexuality. While the term gay often refers to a homosexual man, it sometimes refers to homosexual people of either sex. Lesbian denotes a homosexual woman. 

There are scientific facts, theories, and explanations for just about everything religious conservatives tend to not understand (because they refuse to).

I’ve been using Wikipedia for a long time now. I’ve checked their articles against other sources. Never once have I received wrong, bad, or biased information. Wikipedia is not biased, just edited by people who know a fact or two. The mere idea that any group of people can just reassign dictionary definitions is quite perplexing. No one is above the law; no one should be above the facts. Truthiness may be fun in practice, but starting an entirely new “fact”-based website because you don’t like the actual facts is just plain sad.

Bookmark/FavoritesEmailPrintShare
Related Posts:
  • Larro

    Yeah, I saw this a wile back and may have blogged about it too.

    Quite ridiculous. Especially calling it conservapedia. Just goes to show how isolated people want to be or make other people be.

  • BEAJ

    Read the origins part of Kangaroo.