When Cracked makes an article like Cool stuff Jesus did or blah blah blah, do you believe it or only treat it like made up satirical humor.
Poll: Do you trust Cracked?
- Thread starter Professor James
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Not really, its like the Daily Show or The Colbert Report. Comedy is their main goal, enlightening people is another. Although there is some truth underneath it all, I wouldn't trust it that far.
I remember them from when I was a kid and they were just a shoddy knockoff of Mad where they did a parody of "Speed" called "Peed" where everyone on the bus had to go to the bathroom really bad.
So no.
So no.
I trust that they don't blatantly make shit up, but I think they're presenting the material to entertain rather than inform.
It's a comedy site. That should tell you enough. Most of the "facts" they print are straight from newspaper headlines about several years old studies, or sometimes they're just Internet myths. Besides, there's always more information readily available on the internet or in any decent book on the subject for those who want to learn more anyway. It's interesting, sure, but their expertise on things like science is basically nothing you wouldn't already have heard watching the Discovery channel. It's not supposed to be taken seriously, though, so that's why it really doesn't bother me if they say things that are overly simplistic.
Their articles on war heroes are awesome, though. No complaints there.
Their articles on war heroes are awesome, though. No complaints there.
Comics Code [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cracked_(magazine)]).
Most articles in cracked.com provide links to their sources, usually via Wikipedia (and while it's popular to dis Wikipedia, somewhat justified half a decade ago, its accuracy on academic topics is competitive with other common-use encyclopedias, such as Britannica and World Book).
I'd argue that cracked.com has more legitimacy than Fox News, less than snopes.com. That someone would quote cracked.com as a source, incidentally, doesn't mean he naïvely trusts it, but that he's debating fairly. It's a sound counterargument to say cracked.com is not reliable (enough), but then what is?
If he provided a link, though, it's in your hands to find a counter-source.
PS: As an atheist, I was less than thrilled with presumptions made in this article [http://www.cracked.com/article_15663_10-things-christians-atheists-can-and-must-agree-on.html] by David Wong that included the religious monopoly on morality (or rather Atheists could not justify basic ethics, such as reciprocity or equality). He also singled out atheists who cheered over the death of Falwell while omitting the droves who celebrated (and still consider justified) the assassination of Dr. George Tiller.
But that's a matter of one article having a certain bias; not the whole of a website.
Most articles in cracked.com provide links to their sources, usually via Wikipedia (and while it's popular to dis Wikipedia, somewhat justified half a decade ago, its accuracy on academic topics is competitive with other common-use encyclopedias, such as Britannica and World Book).
I'd argue that cracked.com has more legitimacy than Fox News, less than snopes.com. That someone would quote cracked.com as a source, incidentally, doesn't mean he naïvely trusts it, but that he's debating fairly. It's a sound counterargument to say cracked.com is not reliable (enough), but then what is?
If he provided a link, though, it's in your hands to find a counter-source.
PS: As an atheist, I was less than thrilled with presumptions made in this article [http://www.cracked.com/article_15663_10-things-christians-atheists-can-and-must-agree-on.html] by David Wong that included the religious monopoly on morality (or rather Atheists could not justify basic ethics, such as reciprocity or equality). He also singled out atheists who cheered over the death of Falwell while omitting the droves who celebrated (and still consider justified) the assassination of Dr. George Tiller.
But that's a matter of one article having a certain bias; not the whole of a website.
This.joebthegreat said:
OT: It's for entertainment's sake, rather than enlightenment. It's all for a good giggle.
I love when their links contradict their claims by a wide margin...
I still enjoy it though and that's the point of it.
I still enjoy it though and that's the point of it.
Uriel-238 said:
I completely agree with this guy right here ^.
And it's all of a matter who writes the article. Since anyone can write an article(they still have to be approved by the main staff) then some of the stuff may seem right but if it has no sources, then I won't trust it. But since pretty much all of their facts have sources, I read through the sources and then trust it.
I believe you missed the point.Uriel-238 said:
He wasn't saying that atheists can't justify ethics, he was saying that Christians base their worldviews on the basic ethical beliefs that most people have and build from there, just like atheists base their worldviews on the basic scientific beliefs that most people have and build from there. This doesn't mean that atheists are pure science and Christians are pure ethics, it just means that they're both coming from a place that everyone should be able to understand.
Also he didn't single out atheists who cheered over Falwell's death, he singled out people of any belief who cheer over the death of someone they simply disagree with, and that both Christians and atheists do it (as well as others). That was the whole point of the article.
On topic: only if I research their claims myself and determine them to be solid enough. If I don't, I just take it as humor.
It's comic entertainment. You shouldn't take it at face value.
But they do have links to pages that usually support the article's point.
But they do have links to pages that usually support the article's point.
