I’ve spoken at length about Conservapedia sysop Ken Demyer’s bizarre editing habits and his likely descent into some kind of mental disorder. For a long time Ken was happy to merely toy with his “masterpieces” on CP – atheism, evolution and homosexuality (a topic, which I must say, seems to occupy an awful lot of his waking hours) – articles which where handily locked against another other mere mortal trying to insert facts, or correct his substandard writing style. Even his habit of constantly deleting and recreating pages – especially talk pages – sans any comments he happened to disagree with, was written off as mere conservative deceit; something which abounds on racist bigot Andrew Schlafly’s little hate blog.
However, over the past year or so, something seems to have gone seriously wrong. It started out with the bizarre “The Transitional Animal the Flying Kitty” “essay” – which consisted of the same animated (joke) gif of a jet-propelled cat repeated ad nauseum, and went rapidly downhill from there. Before long, he latched onto his own “Atheists are fat!” meme (based on either a complete misunderstanding of the one source he quotes, or a blatant lie) and began issuing bizarre challenges for people to debate him… as long as a substantial amount of money was involved, and calling those who wouldn’t debate creationist fuckheads “cowards”. The irony being that, even on Conservapedia, where he can hide behind banning editors who ask awkward questions and oversighting their edits, he still runs away and is incapable of standing up for himself.
And all through this, Andrew Schlafly has supported him – admittedly, mostly by doing absolutely nothing, even as the majority of members of his little blog protest against him. However, Ken’s crowing moment came when both Schlafly and fellow sysop Brian Macdonald sided with him, in having former sysop Rob Smith stripped of his rank and banned from the site, for daring to call Ken out on his bullshit. If ever Ken, wallowing in his ever-more bizarre delusions, needed affirmation that as a sysop he’s absolutely untouchable, this was it. It would only be a matter of time until he ramped up the insanity once again.
We didn’t have to wait long. However, before continuing, I should just give a special word of mention of fellow sysop Ed Poor, the man who – amongst his may bizarre edits – first introduced bestiality to the “family friendly” encyclopaedia… in an article helpfully called “Sex with animals.” Given that Ken can only fixate on one thing at a time, and that even in his own befuddled state he must realise that there’s only so many permutations “Atheism and obesity” he can spew out, it was probably just a matter of time before he latched onto some new way to demonize atheists.
Which, when you think about it, is a bit strange given that Ken thinks atheism is being destroyed on the internet, the “Question Evolution!” campaign will convert millions and that atheism is “not even half a squeak in America.” Ken certainly spends a lot of time worrying about something that he seems to think isn’t a threat. Admittedly, it’s still not as much time as he spends projecting his own latent homosexuality onto Conservapedia.
Now as disturbing as this new trend may be, there is a little humour in the matter. Firstly, Ken – an administrator on a so-called encyclopaedia – doesn’t even know how the word is spelled, moving the article from its original spelling, to “Beastiality” and even changing a few – but not all (go figure!) – occurrences of the word within the article. Hardly an auspicious start, and it all goes rapidly downhill from there.
In typical Ken style, he opens the article with an unrelated statement:
The atheist philosopher Peter Singer defends the practice of bestiality (as well as abortion, infanticide and euthanasia).
Now sadly, the only references Ken provides, are to creation.com, from where the above sentence is lifted wholesale. Strangely, I can find no reference – outside of Ken and creation.com’s minds – that he is an atheist. I did find that he feels that “zoophilia is not unethical so long as it involves no harm or cruelty to the animal” and that “and that relationships could form which were mutually enjoyed.” Now, I have to admit that that’s not a world view I can agree with, not only because of a massive personal “squick!” factor, but because it seems to be overlooking the fact that the animal cannot consent to being rogered by some randy New Zealand farmer. All in all, he sounds like a profoundly strange man, but for Ken it’s enough to tar all atheists with the same brush.
Ken goes on to post the following completely unrelated drivel:
A study found that “Psychiatric patients were found to have a statistically significant higher prevalence rate (55%) of bestiality than the control groups (10% and 15% respectively).” The atheist population has a higher suicide rate and lower marriage rates than the general population.
Only in what passes for Ken’s mind is there a link between the two statements. However, at this point, it would appear as if Ken is merely using yet another article to link whore his other emissions, as we are confronted by a raft of “see also” links. Sadly, things nosedive from here.
Ken has had a hard-on for professor, blogger and all round awesome guy, PZ Myers for a while – mostly because Ken has a very thin skin when it comes to criticism, and PZ has dished it out in buckets when it comes to Ken’s “work.” Mostly, this translates into Ken having a go at PZ’s weight, but this time he turns his slack-jawed gaze onto PZ’s daughter. It seems that back in 2008, she wrote an article pondering why zoophilia should be illegal. These were the considered thoughts of a young girl, which were sadly – and typically – quote mined out of proportion by one Salvador Cordova (who would appear to be generally regarded as an utter scumbag). Ken makes the same typical mistake, proving for once and for all that he too is an utter scumbag (or a genius troll, determined to destroy Schlafly’s blog from the inside out… the jury is still out on that one).
The bit that they quote is the following:
Sexual relationships between humans and animals come as such a shock to people, but it doesn’t to me. There can be very deep, meaningful relationships between humans and their pets… That said, I remind you that my position isn’t based on my own personal wants. I just don’t see any reason to ban it other than the same reason things like homosexuality and sodomy were banned: it’s icky. I think it’s bad practice to put social taboos into legislature when no actual logical argument can be made against it.
Again, I can’t say that I agree with her, I think there is more than just an “it’s icky” factor to zoophilia, but that’s a personal opinion. It is interesting to see a young girl applying her mind to a tricky legal subject. However, this is the part that walking scum like Cordove and Demyer handily forget to mention:
Allow me to first tell you that I personally do not have an interest in bestiality. I don’t support it being legal because I want to hump animals.
I suppose in a sense, I shouldn’t blame Ken and his ilk – it’s just that they are completely devoid of abstract thought (not to mention humanity) and cannot process anything alien to their way of thinking. Of course, in this case, it means that Ken cannot process 99% of the world surrounding him.
However, Ken’s still not done. Not content with quote mining a minor child, he goes on to show that he has no idea what zoophilia actually is. As is his wont, he goes on to spew forth more articles – including “Professor values and bestiality” – no doubt an attempt to curry favour with Schlafly, “Professor values” being one of his pet subjects – which merely repeats the Peter Singer allegation and makes mention that he’s the bioethics chair at Princeton University. These articles are all word-for-word repeats of the original. This is because Ken thinks that this will boost his Google rankings.
One of these ‘articles” is “Joseph Stalin’s ape-men experiments” where once again Ken displays his abysmal writing style, relying on a quote from CMI, rather than writing an introduction in his own words. In it he (or rather CMI) talks about Stalin’s bizarre plan to create a “super warrior” by mixing human and monkey eggs and sperm – something any geneticist worth his money will tell you is never going to work.
Now as inhumane and insane this might be, I have one thing to tell Ken: “That’s called genetic engineering, not bestiality.”
Of course, the best part of this is Schlafly’s silence on the matter – he will ignore all the protesting editors and allow Ken to drag CP even further into the mire. This, in turn, will embolden Ken even more and I’m sure we’ll see some more craziness to follow.
I think it’s worth mentioning that of the states in the US where bestiality is legal (I know, the mind boggles), the list includes the most religious states, the most obese sates, as well as the states that voted for McCain and Palin. Maybe Ken is just engaging in some more projection again?
We now have “Evolutionary belief and bestiality” – which isn’t anything new, just another repetition of the same articles. What is illuminating is Ken’s response to the comments made on Schlafly’s talk page… all of which Schlafly is ignoring, in the hope that it goes away. Ke is an expert at playing the man and not the ball (probably in more ways than one!) and his “arguing” technique shows a level of immaturity that is, quite frankly, scary.
Why did Princeton University give the atheist Peter Singer a bioethics chair? He advocates immoral behavior. Of course, atheist Joseph Stalin’s experiments were horrid as well. Of course, liberals such as Max take offense when the immorality of liberals is brought up.
Max, repeatedly you take offense when I write material critical of atheism/the atheist community. Furthermore, you don’t know your Bible well as say unbiblical things. I still think you are an atheist or at the very least a liberal.
SamCoulter, not only do you bridle at accurate criticisms of atheism/evolution, but if memory serves you have had the same IP as vandals or people who have been banned. I think your days are numbered at Conservapedia. 🙂
And finally, we get Ken falling back on his pathetic “proof and evidence” drivel. Still, full marks to the editor for showing him up. No doubt Ken will run away to his little bunny hole now.
“Conservative”, you can find anything on the Internet. Here is a scholarly article tying Christianity to bestiality, for instance. It doesn’t make it true. Your articles are revolting and you should be ashamed of them. You certainly don’t follow any standard of Christian belief with which I’m familiar. It’s far more likely that you are a parodist trying to damage this site. RobertE 07:55, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
Really? You can find anything on the internet? Please provide me proof and evidence that atheism is true on the internet. Conservative08:05, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
Inasmuch as your question makes sense, here is an answer – it took me about 10s to find. Please stop playing childish games and delete your revolting articles. This is a family site. RobertE 08:11, 23 September 2011 (EDT)
And it makes the front page!
Just when you thought the British could not descend into a deeper pit of moral depravity, the leftist British press does a puff piece on bestiality which mentions supposed bestiality romances!
The Guardian article leaves out what these Conservapedia articles cite:
- Atheism and bestiality
- Evolutionary belief and bestiality