Talk:Liberalism and bestiality

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Wow, it's going better and better

70 articles talking about bestiality, and 7 with bestiality in the title!

Must be the bestiality-expert encyclopedia ! Why not rename it bestialopedia ?--ARamis 19:43, 27 September 2011 (EDT)

I don't know about the figures you allege, but Conservapedia has over 37,000 content pages according to the MediaWiki software. Generally speaking, liberals tend to whine and bellyache about the ones which offer information that show the folly and depravity of liberalism. Of course, the articles in question are no exception to this rule. Conservative 07:53, 8 October 2011 (EDT)

"All liberals are atheists"

I did not know this </sarcasm>. Please don't blindly follow Ann Coulter. Just because a majority appears a certain way, doesn't mean you can group them all into one conglomerate. All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares. Aschlafly agrees that not all liberals are atheists. ~ JonG ~ 01:23, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

Atheism and Liberalism aren't like rectangles and squares, because while it is true that not all liberals are atheists, the same is true the other way around. My best friend from grade school was an atheist with many conservative positions, such as being against Gun Control, liberal taxes, and being anti-abortion. --SpenserL 00:39, 1 October 2011 (EDT)

You are employing the Fallacy of exclusion because you are not mentioning the Princeton information. Also, in case you are not aware: Harvard, Princeton and Yale are often considered the 3 top academic schools in America and they also have a liberal bent. Conservative 02:25, 1 October 2011 (EDT)
In addition, all the European countries I cited are liberal. Conservative 09:44, 6 October 2011 (EDT)

The Barna Group found regarding atheism and morality that those who hold to the worldviews of atheism or agnosticism in America were more likely, than theists in America, to look upon the following behaviors as morally acceptable: illegal drug use; excessive drinking; sexual relationships outside of marriage; abortion; cohabitating with someone of opposite sex outside of marriage; obscene language; gambling; pornography and obscene sexual behavior; and engaging in homosexuality/bisexuality.[1] Conservative 15:20, 14 October 2011 (EDT)

I know many Liberal Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Agnostics, Deists, and Christians. A blanket statement calling all of them atheists is simply factually wrong. --SpenserL 15:27, 14 October 2011 (EDT)

Sorry, you are wrong. Theism is the oldest view and far older than atheism and therefore extremely conservative (both Adam and Eve were both theist). Atheism, on the other hand, is a newer idea and liberal. Conservative 04:50, 15 October 2011 (EDT)

" wake of homosexual marriage being legalized in France."

Homosexual marriage is illegal in France. ScottDG 19:40, 7 October 2011 (EDT)

Fixed today. Conservative 01:12, 8 October 2011 (EDT)


Bestiality is the act of engaging in sexual relations with an animal. The atheist philosopher Peter Singer defends the practice of bestiality (as well as abortion, infanticide and euthanasia)

Who cares what position Larry Singer hold? The first line includes a bunch of information that is nothing but a guilt by association fallacy, something I've noticed a lot of in Conservapedia. So, one member of a group believes this, this, this, and this. SO WHAT? That's one individual, not necessarily true of every person who belongs to said groups. GiveMeLiberty 21:01, 7 October 2011 (EDT)

You should apply your "high powered" SO WHAT? to your post. I certainly didn't find it compelling. Princeton is an elite liberal university. There was no outcry from academia or the liberal community concerning Singer's views. In fact, his views seem to have been rewarded. I haven't studied the whole women/math issue but I can tell you that Larry Summers got a lot of flack from liberals/academia concerning his women/math comment. Conservative 01:17, 8 October 2011 (EDT)
Plus, you are engaging in the fallacy of exclusion and not addressing all the information I offered including the internet links to other articles. In short, I am not at all impressed with your post. It is a big SO WHAT. Conservative 05:18, 8 October 2011 (EDT)
You included links to other articles that have no relevance. So Mr. Singer holds these particular views. Ok, does that mean all such people hold these views? Can you prove that all such people hold these views? Can you identify a pattern beyond your own ideas about what Princeton sees as Mr. Singer's views? If not, you are committing a guilt by association fallacy. GiveMeLiberty 09:04, 8 October 2011 (EDT)
Please explain for each internal link why it has no relevance. Conservative 09:31, 8 October 2011 (EDT)
Ok...he defends abortion, do all pro-abortionist people defend this position? If not, then why does it matter? The same for euthanasia. As for infanticide, saying he is for it is a little misleading IMO, he merely states that babies are incapable of rational thought and autonomy, I don't think he actually advocates killing them. GiveMeLiberty 10:00, 8 October 2011 (EDT)


The atheist philosopher Peter Singer defends the practice of bestiality (as well as abortion, infanticide and euthanasia)

It was my understanding that the CP position is that abortion and infanicide are the same thing, so including both is redundant. You should simply make it infanticide and euthanasia, because it's common knowledge on CP that abortion falls under infanticide. --SpenserL 15:30, 14 October 2011 (EDT)

Occupy wall street and bestiality chant plus telegraph article on post homosexual agenda "right" of bestiality

Occupy wall street and repeating of bestiality chant by crowd: and

Telegraph article on new "right" among some liberals post homosexuality agenda "right" of bestiality: :