Talk:Main Page/Archive index/116

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Presidential Odds Update

I've updated the Presidential Odds for the first time in several months. Things haven't changed much in the meantime with Obama still favoured. -- Ferret Nice old chat 07:42, 9 August 2012 (EDT)

Am I right in thinking that you lift these percentages from a British Bookmaker? If so, what allowance do you make for the fact that people are generally more likely to bet more on events they want to happen (ie an Obama win in liberal Britain) than they should based on reality? --DamianJohn 07:58, 9 August 2012 (EDT)

Romney has closer ties to the bankers and many bankers have wanted bailouts and acted corruptly as of late. In addition, there is not any strong indication he would shrink the size of government or curb it's increased desire for power at the expense of individual liberty. In addition, the Republicans may not fight his poor policies as much as Obama's. I agree with this article on some points: http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/willard-is-even-worse/

There are some points on which Romney could be better but as a former RINO governor of MA, I can't say he is going to be that much better than Obama who is left of him as far as the social issues. Plus, look at what Supreme Court Justice Roberts chose to do on his ObamaCare care ruling. With Paul/Perry and probably Bachmann, you had people who wanted to shrink government and increase liberty (not licentiousness which is different).

Romney could be better, but it seems like a roll of the dice.

I could get excited about a principled conservative Bible believing Christian as President, but I can't get excited about Romney. I have a feeling the next president is going to be faced with a big financial crisis and it will stain the political party that he is a member of for 4 or more years. The more I think about it, the less I am going to follow this presidential race.

Overall, I am realistic and not pessimistic as I think it is often possible for people to have a good life despite what is going on in the political realm. Of course, there are times when bad politics does affect people in very big ways (Soviet gulags, etc.). I have decided to just roll with with punches, keep a good attitude and be very adaptable to the circumstances as I see some dramatic future changes occurring due to economic necessities and due to technological change. Conservative 17:41, 9 August 2012 (EDT)

Bible believing Christian and fiscal conservative? Only one to fit that bill in the last 40 years is JimmyCarter Nikroberts 7:47 10 August 2012 (BST)
I never followed Jimmy Carter too closely. Is he pro-life? What are his views on homosexuality? Conservative 10:17, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
"So if a local Baptist church wants to accept gay members on an equal basis, which my church does by the way, then that is fine. If a church decides not to, then government laws shouldn’t require them to.” - Jimmy Carter. Carter is definitely not a Bible believer and the Bible is clearly against homosexuality. For example, Romans chapter 1. Also, although I am not for the banksters who got bailouts, I can't see the Apostle Paul endorsing the unlawful and chaotic Occupy Wall Street movement like Carter did. Most Bible believers are pro-Israel too or at least neutral and Carter seems anti-Israel. Conservative 10:27, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

"Christianized Jamaica"

Perhaps we should changed this phrase to "The Christian country Jamaica" or "The Christian majority country Jamaica." It seems to flow better and the phrase "Christianized" makes it seem like the country was recently introduced to Christianity which is not the case. --Conlibtar 11:13, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

Joke Sports

Apologies if this seems like a personal attack, but the underlying issue is an important one...

I looked at the comment on the main page about dressage, and followed it to the entry for joke sports and thence to individual sports such as Badminton which is described as a 'joke sport'.

Seriously, is this the sort of thing anyone should be posting in an encyclopedia? Conservapedia may set out to have a conservative and Christian outlook, but there is really nothing Christian about posting lists of sports you don't happen to like. Can you imagine a young Christian and Conservative Badminton player coming here and seeing the article. Is he or she likely to give much credence to any other article on the site?

There's nothing wrong with having opinions on sports (you should here my mum going on about which events she thinks should be in the Olympics), but it's not what encyclopedias are about.

So, User:Aschlafly, I appreciate that you founded this site, but you do describe it as an encyclopedia. When it comes to your personal opinions regarding you favourite sports, have you ever though of setting yourself up a blog? That way when an idea occurs to you, you can decide whether its a well-established, widely accepted concept, or whether it's the sort of thing you'd like to discuss with you mates over a pint of beer. If the former, put it on Conservapedia. If the latter, use your blog.

--DHouser 13:30, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

I don't dislike badminton. I even enjoyed playing in a few badminton competitions. But many might agree that it's a bit of a joke as an Olympic sport.
A political decision must be made about which sports, joke or not, to include in the Olympics. The decision has political consequences, and this is as valid a topic as who might win the fall elections.--Andy Schlafly 13:40, 10 August 2012 (EDT)
Perfectly valid points, but matters of opinion. Blog it. Don't put it in entries in an encyclopedia.--DHouser 13:43, 10 August 2012 (EDT)

How, if I may ask, does whether sports are counted as Olympic sports or not factor into politics? As far as I'm concerned, the Olympics are just 2 weeks of competition among the world's best, and the viewers at home being entertained by it. I have yet to see it come up in a presidential debate, on either side of the political spectrum.

--CanadianCanuck 11:50, 10 August 2012 (MST)

Da olympics is pretty much the only time that these sports get recognised by the mainstream sport press, they deserve their day in the sun. A couple of the more irrelevant sports such as baseball and softball have been removed for more global sports such as rugby sevens and golf! Events such as dressage and modern pentathlon are in the olympics due to them being in there since the pre ww1 games. If they were trying to get in now i doubt they would get in but they are there and they have a reasonable following so they can stay. Re the irrelevant sport thing, i could say the same about gridiron because pretty much no one gives a hoot about it outside america, it would defs be a joke sport if added to da olympic games --Nacacube 11:54, 11 August 2012 (EDT)

Can't we all be friends?

First off, I will admit, I am an atheist. However, I believe that everyone has the right to believe what they want, and I do not attempt to try and "convert" anyone, as I believe it to be a foolish waste of time with little results. If I can accept you for having different values than me, why can't the same be done on your end? Why should I respect your beliefs when you clearly don't respect mine?

--CanadianCanuck 12:08, 10 August 2012 (MST)

That's a good question to ask atheists (other than yourself) who insist on censorship of classroom prayer.--Andy Schlafly 01:03, 11 August 2012 (EDT)
It seems to me that there are unreasonable, rude people on both sides of this debate who give the more reasonable, respectful members of the respective parties a bad name. I believe that Richard Dawkins, for example, has done far more harm to evolutionism than he has for it.--DTSavage 01:21, 11 August 2012 (EDT)
CanadianCanuck, why do theists cut agnostics more slack than they do atheists? Should respect of views be automatically given or should it be earned via merit? Conservative 03:30, 11 August 2012 (EDT)
DTSavage, the Bible says: "The fool in his heart says there is no God". Why should Bible believers have respect for atheism? Conservative 03:30, 11 August 2012 (EDT)
Well done Conservative! 10 out of 10 for missing the point.--DHouser 09:37, 11 August 2012 (EDT)
DHousier, get back to me when atheists and liberals start frequently making good points. I don't think I am going to live that long. In the meantime, I will continue my present ways of doing things. Conservative 11:55, 11 August 2012 (EDT)
Conservative, my point was that people on both sides of the debate should be able to accept that the other side exists, and that they're not going to disappear completely any time soon, so for the betterment of humanity as a whole, can we as a species tone down some of the vitriol. If you want to loudly shout down people who disagree with you, you're only encouraging people like Dawkins to attempt to do the same to Christians.--DTSavage 18:06, 11 August 2012 (EDT)
But Christians do not censor the free speech of atheists. In fact, we defend the free speech of those with whom we disagree, and placed protection for it in the First Amendment. Many atheists, however, do censor Christian speech, as in communist nations and with respect to classroom prayer in the United States.--Andy Schlafly 18:39, 11 August 2012 (EDT)
I agree with Andy. However, I should be sure to stress that it is many, not all liberals. Just as many, but not all conservatives agree with you on free speech. And for what it's worth, my great-uncle got labeled a communist back in the McCarthy era for defending the free speech of radicals even the ACLU wouldn't touch. He didn't agree with their views (as far as I know), but he felt they had a right to free speech. Gregkochuconn 19:00, 11 August 2012 (EDT)

DTSavage, recently Niles Barber published an article at Psychology Today and Huffington Post indicating that atheism will defeat religion by 2038.[1] Obviously, that is a ridiculous claim based on poor reasoning. [2] Given the history of atheism, I suspect Barber's claim is based on utopian thinking and bitterness/anger toward Christianity. I don't see major Christian news outlets publishing such foolish predictions about atheism.

While Christians may engage in activities to proselytize atheists or inhibit the adoption of atheism in an ethical manner,[3][4][5] I see many atheists/evolutionists engaging in futile anger and rancor. For example, Richard Dawkins recently called a creationist student a "pathetic little idiot".[6]

It is clear that Richard Dawkins bitterly resents the fact that Jesus is triumphing around the world and that creationists are going from "victory to victory"[7][8]

In politics, the secular left has often engaged in envy (class warfare, etc.), bitterness and violence (Atheism and mass murder), while conservatives like Glenn Beck and Ron Reagan and their followers are often happy warriors.[9][10] Conservative 00:53, 12 August 2012 (EDT)

Paul Ryan.

You agree with the Huffington Post, then? RayM 00:45, 11 August 2012 (EDT)

Liberal Irish-American website criticizes Katie Taylor for praising God

Irish Central, run by well-known Democratic Party lick-spittle Niall O'Dowd, has run a column arguing that Katie Taylor, Ireland's great boxing gold medallist, is "wrong to bring religion into sports". Disgusting. And worth of reporting on Conservapedia's front page.

--Jdixon 12:01, 11 August 2012 (EDT)

Olympics

It was our pleasure. I am glad you enjoyed it, personally I have found it the most amazing and uplifting 16 days and I think I can speak for (almost) all GB when I say this has been a fabulous and revealing 2 weeks. Now for the paralympics. I suspect we will now host the greatest ever of those games as well. Enjoy the closing ceremony. Apart from the ridiculously overhyped spice girls I reckon it will be a cracker. Davidspencer 12:35, 12 August 2012 (EDT)

The Brits were fantastic hosts, proving once again to the world that the British Empire can run things well.--Andy Schlafly 12:59, 12 August 2012 (EDT)
Sorry to rain on the parade but, as with the hysteria after the death of Princess Diana, there is plenty of dissent but it doesn't get reported. What's more, while the Games have had all the headlines, David Cameron is losing the confidence of his Conservative Party as well as his coalition partners, the British economy has slowed down even more, Spain's negotiations for a bailout are finally putting the entire Euro in question and so on. Instead of creating something of real value, the fun and games have been an entertaining distraction, a bit of feel-good, while the real news is relegated to page 16.
As for the closing ceremony, where are the role models among the fornicators, adulturers, homosexuals, drug abusers, left wingers and anarchists? Rafael 14:21, 12 August 2012 (EDT)
There is not lots of dissent, unreported or reported. There is a small amount of dissent, especially in some areas of London, and this has been reported on the BBC. But by and large the British public swung behind the games in a way that surprised me. I do not personally know a single person who 'dissented' over the games AT ALL. Davidspencer 02:50, 13 August 2012 (EDT)
The problem with relying on the mainstream media is that they present their self-interested, self-centred view of things as the whole truth. Just look at the way the British media is fawning over the badly written Fifty Shades porn trilogy. Look at the Daily Mail, often quoted on this site, which ran a series of online articles critical of the liberal bias in opening ceremony before quickly falling in line with everyone else. The notoriously liberal BBC,as part of the MSM, cannot be relied to be objective at the best of times, let alone when its pumping out 24 channels of nothing but the Olympics which we are paying for through the licence fee tax - do you really think the BBC would report an inconvenient truth that cuts across its entire raison d'etre for the last two weeks? The Olympics, like any single issue cause, has caused waves across the political spectrum, from the cycle activists of Critical Mass to the traditionally conservative black cab drivers; from the kids who found the music at the opening and closing ceremonies bland and predictable to the suburbanites who onjected to the rosy view of a multicultural Britain and the NHS; from the unions representing tube, train and bus drivers and immigration staff to the small business owners crippled by the lack of trade in London at the moment and, going back a few years, the small business owners who were legally robbed of not only their businesses but the land they owned to make room for the Olympic Park; from the luvvies who can't watch open air theatre in the Scoop by Tower Bridge to the retired colonels who object to the Olympic logo barges and Al Jazeera's pop up screen ruining some of the best views in London. Yes, most of the dissent is in London - that's where the Olympics were. Turn off your TV, come down and see for yourselfRafael 08:44, 13 August 2012 (EDT)
Tosh, complete tosh. A bing search on Olympics Critical mass Protest returns as it's first result a BBC report on the incident. For the black cabs protest the first result in bing is guess what?, the BBC. The reports on trains and bus driver disatisfication are too many to bother linking to. To say that there is plenty of dissent is ridiculous. Maybe in your chattering classes wine bars there is but in my working class, and largely conservative pubs, there is not. People have LOVED this entire event and by and large only the mean minded and closed minded have made any complaints at all. Davidspencer 09:12, 13 August 2012 (EDT)
What can I say? One one hand, there is very little dissent, on the other hand there are too many reports to link to. You sling out a liberal ad hominem about the "chattering classes" without stopping to think that the chattering classes ARE the mainstream media. But hey, if the BBC and the people in your pub say its true, it must be true.
If you can't be consistent, if you can't be civil, if you can't rise above the mainstream media line, maybe a more liberal site would suit you better.Rafael 10:19, 13 August 2012 (EDT)
You can say you were wrong. You said that "there is plenty of dissent but it doesn't get reported" and I am saying that not only was there not plenty of dissent but what little dissent there was WAS reported in the mainstream media. I have yet to meet, face to face, a single person who has complained about the olympics. I have met a few, a very few, who expressed disinterest in the games but I have not yet anyone who opposed them. And I do not necessarily disagree with what you say about the 'real news' (as you term it) I disagree with your comments about there being plenty of dissent. Davidspencer 10:28, 13 August 2012 (EDT)
All your cherry picking of the liberal media won't change anything. You are obviously very keen on the Olympics as presented by the mainstream media (and your pub) and there are none so blind as those who cannot see. We can go backwards and forwards as much as you like, the truth is the truth is the truth.Rafael 11:36, 13 August 2012 (EDT)

Since nobody else has mentioned it, I will: USA Basketball wins Olympic gold over a tough Spanish team. With scoring leader Kevin Durant shut down by the "box and one," "Overrated Sports Star" Lebron James leads the team to victory with an inspiring fourth quarter dunk and back-breaking three, despite being saddled with four fouls. Congratulations medal winners USA, Spain, and Russia! - chicagotony

Good to be back

Well, it's been a long five years, but I'm happy to have now returned. I've reflected a bit during my extended 'time out' and I'd like to think I can be a useful presence here. To be honest, I wasn't entirely certain Conservapedia would exist in 5 years when I was blocked, but it's good to see it's still going strong. Anything I need to be caught up on before I start editing? PortlyMort 17:15, 14 August 2012 (EDT)

Main page

Present layout is a success in visual content. --Joaquín Martínez 19:12, 14 August 2012 (EDT)

Fertility Rate

From this week's copy of The Economist:

"The American rate is now 1.9 and falling. France's is 2.0 and falling. The rate in England (sic) is 2.0 and rising slightly".

Thought this might interest you, particularly User:Conservative.

HumanGeographer 08:43, 15 August 2012 (EDT)

Thanks. Conservative 10:22, 15 August 2012 (EDT)

29th anniversary of KAL 007 shootdown

Can we post under news

Aug.31/Sept.1, 1983 - The 29th anniversary of the Soviet Union shoot down of Korean Airlines Flight 007 off Moneron Island carrying 269 passengers and crew, including 22 children under 12 years of age and including Democratic conservative Congressman from Georgia and 2nd head of the John Birch Society, Larry McDonald. There is presently a petition, with promise of Senator Scott Brown to further in Congress a reopening of the investigation due to reports of survivors, including Cong. McDonald http://www.change.org/petitions/president-barack-obama-speaker-of-the-house-john-boehner-conduct-an-investigation-of-flight-kal-007 .

Hero Stops Shooter at Family Research Council's DC HQ

For main page: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/08/15/guard-at-family-research-council-shot/ --Krayner 17:03, 15 August 2012 (EDT)

The ghetto thugs at the Southern Poverty Law Center deliberately had the Family Research Center targeted in DC, where guns are outlawed and only the outlaws and militant queers have guns. Because of their rejection of God, homosexuals are evil, violent, and wicked and thus will burn in hell unless they repent. WilliamWilson 23:52, 17 August 2012 (EDT)

We should feature the Applewhite Voter ID case (PA) on MPR

Pennsylvania judge denies challenge to state's voter ID law. GregG 12:31, 16 August 2012 (EDT)

Colorado U.

I read that article about CU this morning, and I took it as a good thing; guns were previously allowed nowhere in the dorms, but now they are allowed at least somewhere. I think CU deserves at least some credit for taking a good first step. PaulRP 12:35, 17 August 2012 (EDT)

Ryan requested stimulus funds...

While the source is obviously liberally biased and pro-Obama, this does seem to bear out Conservapedia's position concerning Ryan's questionable conservative credentials. [11] Perhaps Governor Romney will reconsider the wisdom of selecting a more consistently conservative running mate. --Benp 12:37, 17 August 2012 (EDT)

And it's notable that he supported one of the requests on the grounds that it would cut greenhouse gas emissions, which is slightly hypocritical for a global warming skeptic. --Esseph 13:40, 17 August 2012 (EDT)
  • Please explain how the above comment helps us improve the main page, or any other article in this encyclopedia. --Ed Poor Talk 16:43, 17 August 2012 (EDT)
Why is liberal nit picking featured on the "not fully covered by the MSM section? " Ryan has a duty to his constituents. If his constituents ask for his assistance to apply for federal money, he should help them. His constituents should not be put at a disadvantage because they voted for a conservative (and yes he is a conservative).
I am not a fan of the Ryan as a pick - I think Rubio brings everything he does without the baggage- but as Romney said, the Democrats want to make this an election about small things. A couple letters to help constituents apply for existing government programs is a small thing.

--PeterNant 16:13, 17 August 2012 (EDT)

I think the question is whether Ryan simply endorsed two constituent requests for federal funds - without much thought whether these were using the dreaded "stimulus funds" - or whether Ryan himself had an idea for which he knowingly and hypocritically used stimulus funds.
I'd like to read more about his supposed "denials". Was someone holding the letters (and not showing them to Ryan) while asking questions? Or did they fax a copy to his office first, and give Ryan plenty of time to remember what happened? --Ed Poor Talk 16:42, 17 August 2012 (EDT)
I honestly don't think the specific incident is critically important; however, I do think it highlights a strain of inconsistency in Ryan's actions...a strain which Conservapedia has repeatedly pointed out in the past. The MSM is attempting to sell the narrative that conservatives blindly adulate Ryan, which is, of course, not true; genuine conservatives acknowledge both his strengths and weaknesses. --Benp 08:55, 18 August 2012 (EDT)

15-year-olds who report that they are overweight or obese according to BMI

A new report has come out by the World Health Organisation of Europe, and can be downloaded here [12]. It also includes data for the United States and Canada. I wish to draw your attention to Pages 90-91 in Section 2.3, where a comparison of child obesity at ages 11, 13 and 15 are shown. The United States are the fattest nation (by quite a margin), followed by Greece, the most obese nation for children in Europe.

I thought this data might be particularly useful for User:Conservative. I'll give it a few days, then I'll think about incorporating it into some of the pages. Note that the US and Greece are the only countries that have more than 25% of children overweight at the age of 15, and both countries are more religious than average. Also note more-religous Wales and Catholic Ireland being more overweight than England. I would screen-capture the data so it could be presented as an image within articles but unfortunately I don't seem to have permission to upload images.

Hope you find the data useful

Regards, HumanGeographer 08:57, 18 August 2012 (EDT)

HumanGeographer, I would suggest citing well designed research which uses multiple regression analysis which isolates the variable of religion/atheism/agnosticism. I would also suggest using talk pages of relevant articles instead of the main page talk page. There is no sense rehashing things on a fresh talk page when another talk page has addressed various arguments/evidence. Conservative 20:37, 18 August 2012 (EDT)
Why would anyone do a multiple regression analysis here? The paper is only reporting data and noting correlations. Do you believe the data is faulty? If so why? Please do tell us what you think the purpose of a multiple regression analysis is. Do you find it relevant that the paper isn't attempting to make any predictions? What would you analyze if you were doing a multiple regression analysis? Have you taken a statistics class? Seems to me that you don't even know what regression analysis is and what it is used for. Nate Nate 15:17, 19 August 2012 (EDT)
Just to clarify: There's no such thing as the World Health Organisation of Europe. There is a World Health Organisation, which happens to have its headquarters in Europe, and it is this to which you refer.. --Esseph 20:33, 18 August 2012 (EDT)
Nate, I took courses at a fully accredited university which dealt with statistics. The last statistics course I took I received an above average grade. Next, I have no desire to wrangle with you about this matter as it seems you want to be needlessly argumentative. Conservative 23:28, 21 August 2012 (EDT)

Incorrect headline: "Liberal reality sets in: Finland prepares for the collapse of the European Union."

Note that this should be: "Liberal reality sets in: Finland prepares for the collapse of the Eurozone."

The Eurozone is the grouping of countries that use the Euro. It is NOT synonymous with the European Union, and the Eurozone is headed by the European Central Bank, rather than the EU. The United Kingdom, for example, is part of the EU but not part of the Eurozone since we use the Pound as our currency.

Hope this clears things up, HumanGeographer 09:03, 18 August 2012 (EDT)

The movie 2010 is now playing.

It's called 2016. DennyR 14:13, 18 August 2012 (EDT)

Florida absenteeism

I read the article, and it's very interesting that in many cases, the parents do not take adequate measures to get their children to school on time, in some cases due to financial problems. I don't think absenteeism is really caused by the public school curriculum. (It would be interesting to see what the absenteeism rates are for students in private schools, but the issue with using that data is that parents who choose to place students in private school [and can afford it] are a self-selecting sample.) GregG 13:40, 19 August 2012 (EDT)

Many students don't want to attend public school, and the indoctrination with atheism is surely one of the reasons.--Andy Schlafly 00:29, 22 August 2012 (EDT)

Biggest blows ever to hit world atheism on the horizon - it will be devastasting

China location.png

World's biggest atheist population about to see a big decline

The two biggest sacred cows of atheism, Sweden and China, are about to be tipped![13]

The future of European Darwinism and atheism is bleak. [14]

"There is no wisdom and no understanding And no counsel against the LORD." - Proverbs 21:30

For it is written, "I WILL DESTROY THE WISDOM OF THE WISE, AND THE CLEVERNESS OF THE CLEVER I WILL SET ASIDE." - I Corinthians 1: 19 Conservative 15:51, 20 August 2012 (EDT)

Todd Akin

Will there be a main page item on Todd Akin and his abortion comments? There are rumblings he may withdraw, and the NRSC will not advertise for him in his race against Claire McCaskill. In addition, Romney and Ryan have both repudiated the comments and a Romney spokesman said that his administration would allow abortion in the case of rape. PhilRoss 16:15, 20 August 2012 (EDT

Conservatives are still working on a way to blame it on Liberals Nikroberts 23:00, 20 August 2012 (BST)

Are liberals outraged or are they gloating? A break from defending Obama's dismal record I suppose. Look, squirrel!--Jpatt 18:02, 20 August 2012 (EDT)

and it didn't take long!!Nikroberts 23:06, 20 August 2012 (BST)

and it only took Mark Levin 30 seconds to bring up Ted Kennedy and a minute to bring up Bill Clinton - well deflected Mark!!Nikroberts 23:10, 20 August 2012 (BST)

What study says 1 in 50 rapes results in pregnancy? According to that study, what the rate for consensual sex? Some of the ones I found [15] 5% or 1 in 20. This one claims [16] 6.4% of rape victims vs 3.1% for consensual sex. Even if we take the number on the front page of 1 in 50, that's 2%. Compared to 3.1% in consensual sex, it's lower, but not really rare. I'm against all forms of abortion, but Akin's comment, or trying to justify him or shift blame to the liberals is a huge disservice to the pro life effort. It's disgusting, and an insult to women who unfortunately have been raped (whether they got pregnant or not) . I know people use rape pregnancies to push abortion. Akin just gave them more ammo !! We should be pushing against abortion in all cases because of the ethics of it, because there are other options like adoption, not because someone made up some medical study results. Do you want to convince people that are on the fence about the evil of abortion? Well, it just got harder !! Yes this is rant Nine 22:41, 20 August 2012 (EDT)

Akin's comments were scientifically correct and people of political positions should deplore the demagoguery being used to bully him. The first text I found to discuss the issue (by Steen and Price) said the pregnancy rate is 1 in 50. That is "really rare" in layman's terms. Pro-abort politicians should not stoop to the level they have to pretend that Akin was wrong. When scientific facts cannot be discussed by politicians, then the entire Nation suffers.--Andy Schlafly 22:49, 20 August 2012 (EDT)

According to that paper, what's the rate for consensual sex? If have a link to the paper or some details, it would be much appreciated. Nine 22:55, 20 August 2012 (EDT)
How many pregnancies per year does it account for anyway? Is it a significant number? WilcoxD 22:58, 20 August 2012 (EDT)
I've found only one source so far. According to this study from 1996 [17] around 32,101 per year. It seems significant to me. Nine 23:08, 20 August 2012 (EDT)

Statistics on the number of pregnancies which are the result of rapes isn't known with any high degree of certainty, but it seems to lie somewhere between 2% and 7%, as I've now seen figures indicating both. It doesn't really matter. If Akin had merely stated that pregnancies resulting from rape are rare, likely no one would have seriously argued with him, as "rare" is a vague enough term to apply in this case. Such a statement would have been generally accurate, but also irrelevant. Lots of things are rare, but that doesn't mean they aren't significant, and should be dismissed out of hand. Murders are rare; compared to the overall population, the rate of murder victims is small indeed, and statistically none of us are likely ever to be murdered, but that doesn't mean we can dismiss murder as something that doesn't happen. It does, and so do pregnancies from rape. No, what Akin said was not merely that such pregnancies are rare, but that there is some sort of biological guard against it, which there is absolutely no evidence for, and which implies that most people who are impregnated through rape weren't actually raped. This is a significant accusation, and one which I would not think an elected representative should make if he can't back it up with hard evidence. Clearly he can't, and pointing that out is hardly bullying. WillV 02:42, 21 August 2012 (EDT)


So Andy Schlafly, you are saying that Akin's science is correct, essentially saying that a woman who suffers a rape is less likely to become pregnant than a woman who engages in consensual sex. Without referring to the media or other politicians, please explain how this is true. Sources would be great. Thanks, - Chicagotony

That's what medical science says, and it should not surprise anyone. Trauma and stress make pregnancy less likely. Deniers of this are opposing science and logic.--Andy Schlafly 11:18, 21 August 2012 (EDT)

Thanks for responding. Trauma and stress do not make pregnancy less likely AT THE TIME A RAPE IS OCCURRING. It may lead to a decrease in fertility over time. From Reuters:

"Mental stress can temporarily alter the functioning of your hypothalamus - an area of your brain that controls the hormones that regulate your menstrual cycle," explains the Mayo Clinic in a publication about infertility. "Ovulation and menstruation may stop as a result."
But the stress that reduces fertility is the chronic kind that occurs over months or years, not the acute trauma of a rape.
"A woman who is raped at a vulnerable time in her menstrual cycle is as likely to conceive and retain a pregnancy as a woman who was voluntarily attempting pregnancy," said ACOG's Levy. "There's absolutely no validity to any sort of theory that the trauma related to rape - or to any thing else for that matter - would shut down ovulation that has already begun."

User Nine above has linked to studies that show that pregnancy is at least, or more likely to result after rape. The American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology says the pregnancy occurs in 5% of rapes. If Akin is correct, why did he say he misspoke? Where is your source for your claim? You say deniers are opposing science but where is your science to back up your claim? - chicagotony

ACOG repeatedly sides with the pro-aborts, no matter what the issue is. I wouldn't cite anything ACOG says on this issue, if objectivity is the goal.
Stress and trauma are widely thought to cause miscarriage, and it would be silly to deny it.--Andy Schlafly 13:15, 21 August 2012 (EDT)
If stress and trauma are "widely thought to cause miscarriage," then can you please cite a source which states that the stress and trauma from rape significantly impact the rate of pregnancy? I have never seen a study which supports that position, and right now you are engaging in a Logical fallacy, specifically "argumentum ad populum." That is, you're saying 'Everyone knows X," when, by the nature of this debate, it is obvious that X is not clear or widely known at all. Jpope14 13:26, 21 August 2012 (EDT)
Once it is accepted that 2+2=4, then a specific citation is not needed to conclude that 2+3=5. Stress interferes with the delicate process of pregnancy, and rape is a stressful and traumatic event.--Andy Schlafly 13:33, 21 August 2012 (EDT)
So you are unwilling to cite a source to back up your claims. Okay. Glad that has been cleared up. I hope this conversation stays up for a long, long time, for the entire public to see and judge for themselves. Jpope14 13:43, 21 August 2012 (EDT)
I hope so too, because logic prevails in the long run. 2+3 does equal 5.--Andy Schlafly 13:47, 21 August 2012 (EDT)
Wow, just wow! I am sure that any example of this kind of lame and dishonest reasoning by the liberal media would meet with Mr. Schlafly's utter contempt. Baobab 13:53, 21 August 2012 (EDT)
"Once it is accepted that 2+2=4, then a specific citation is not needed to conclude that 2+3=5." In this case, the conclusion follows a priori from the definition of 2, 3, 5, +, and =, and, in fact, can be proved without reference to the (also true) statement that 2+2=4. This is entirely different from using a general claim about stress and miscarriages and applying it to rape-induced stress. GregG 14:31, 21 August 2012 (EDT)
Honestly, the claim to be driven by "logic" in matters where mathematical simplicity is not at work is very reminiscent of Soviet Union style thinking, specifically the early Stalin years. I am currently reading Darkness at Noon, and this is eerily similar to the arguments of the Soviet party faithful. You move straight from one point to another without considering what other influences may be at work, what may be wrong about the assumptions, the degree to which those assumptions are true, etc. For complicated issues like biology (or history), so many logical chains are possible that the way to be sure of results is by questioning and testing assumptions. It's impossible to simplify these issues to the point where logic applies, because what matters is how you choose to simplify the issue - the logic is simply a formality.
Math and morality start from a few absolutely true base assumptions, at which point logic is what needs to be checked. For messier issues, like most of life, what matters is refining the assumptions. This is why I agree with PaulRP's argument. It is absolutely true that no matter the source of the pregnancy, a child is a life and must be protected. This is the core of the issue, not the faulty assumption that the pregnancy did not come from a rape. KingHanksley 14:15, 22 August 2012 (EDT)


The problem with with Mr. Schafly's argument is that there is nothing that has been accepted here. Studies have shown that there is little to no evidence that psychological stress and trauma lead to miscarriages, and physical trauma is unlikely to do so in the first trimester as the uterus is protected by the pelvic bone. So while 2+3 does equal 5, continually repeating such does not make his statement any more factual. SJCootware 16:36, 21 August 2012 (EDT)

And the problem with liberals arguing this is a clear double-standard. No demands for Biden to resign after his "chains" comments? No problem with a sexual predator speaking at the Dem Convention (that Clinton guy)? Did libs go en masse to Chick-fil-A? You haven't got an argument to stand on. Karajou 17:16, 21 August 2012 (EDT)
OK, so all the liberals can shut up because they're liberals. Fine. What's your response to Mitch McConnell when he says that Akin "made a deeply offensive error at a time when his candidacy carries great consequence for the future of our country"? Dismiss him as a RINO? --JohanZ 21:29, 21 August 2012 (EDT)
As above, you still haven't got an argument to stand on. And yes, liberals can shut up because they're liberal. Karajou 22:12, 21 August 2012 (EDT)
It doesn't trouble you that the GOP establishment are queuing up to put the boot into Akin? --JohanZ 22:24, 21 August 2012 (EDT)

All this faux outrage...What Akin said wasn't that bad (maybe a little insensitive, but his underlying point was still the same), and neither was what Biden said (maybe a little insensitive, but his underlying point was the same). Can't we all just debate the issues without flying off the handle every time someone says something off the cuff? PaulRP 22:48, 21 August 2012 (EDT)

Well put, but the media reaction to Joe Biden was very mild compared with the intense media bullying of Todd Akin. It's not symmetric.--Andy Schlafly 23:20, 21 August 2012 (EDT)

This is ridiculous. You couldn't WAIT to change the subject. Andy, I want a source that says conception is less likely from a rape. That's all I'm asking for. Can you, or can you not provide one? -chicagotony

Logic requires no citation, and it would be silly to look for one. Nor does logic care whether people accept it or not. Enough citations are available, and if they don't persuade someone, then I doubt additional citations would either.--Andy Schlafly 00:34, 22 August 2012 (EDT)
I have two sources and my guess is, like Andy says, no amount of citations will change those individuals determined to disregard the notion as ridiculous. [18][19] --Jpatt 01:03, 22 August 2012 (EDT) --Jpatt 01:03, 22 August 2012 (EDT)
Just an excerpt from the abstract to the first article posted: "Rape-related pregnancy occurs with significant frequency." Sorry, AS et al.: funny how those troublesome things called 'facts' really mess with your worldview, eh CP?MBell
Very good, Jpatt, neither of your sources actually backs up your claim. MBell points out what's wrong with the first, and the second one doesn't even try to make the claim. In fact, it doesn't look at the statistics of how many pregnancies from rape occur each year, it tries to guess them by making wild estimates. In fact, when making its mathematical projections, it blatantly assumes that rape victims are 50% less likely to be impregnated: "What further percentage reduction in pregnancy will this cause? No one knows. but this factor may well cut this last figure by at least 50%," So your "source" proving the claim that rape is less likely to lead to pregnancy is simply someone saying "I have no idea, and no facts to back me up, but I'm going to just say it's half as likely". In fact, your two sources blatantly contradict one another. Your second says that, based on their incredibly fuzzy math, there should be between 200 and 500 such pregnancies per year ("So, assault rape pregnancy is extremely rare. If we use the figure of 200, it is 4 per state per year. Even if we use a figure of 500, we're talking about 10 rape pregnancies per state, per year."), while your other source says over 32,000. That's off by just a little, don't you think? Please find a real, peer reviewed study if you want to make this claim. WillV 10:09, 22 August 2012 (EDT)
WillV and MBell, I think it's very reasonable to ask that both of you come up with a bona-fide peer-reviewed study to back up your claims. Karajou 10:28, 22 August 2012 (EDT)
How do I back up a claim that there's no evidence pregnancy from rape is less common than pregnancy from non-rape? I'm not saying it's impossible that the rate for the former might be slightly less than for the latter (even adjusting for the fact that if one is trying to get pregnant they will have improved chances due to timing and the like), I'm just saying that there is no evidence for it. Even if evidence were discovered, the rates would have to be very different to excuse Akin's comment; a 2% difference, for example, is not enough to warrant such a statement on his part. WillV 10:33, 22 August 2012 (EDT)
It's pretty simple: you back that claim up with a peer-reviewed paper. Isn't that what you wanted us to do for our side of the argument? Surely, your side - the liberal, Democratic side - must be correct in this matter, and have all sorts of medical documentation to prove it. If such is the case, then we must adhere to these facts and in all conscientiousness post them. So provide those peer-reviewed papers. Karajou 10:44, 22 August 2012 (EDT)
Indeed. Karajou forgot to mention Mr. Schlafly himself and should remember that the onus is on the claimant. Mr. Schlafly claims that pregnancy from rape is less common than pregnancy from consensual intercourse, so he should come up with bona-fide peer-reviewed studies to back up his claim. Baobab 10:40, 22 August 2012 (EDT)
You can add yourself to the search for a peer-reviewed paper to back up your claim, Baobab. Go find it. I'd love to see it. Karajou 10:44, 22 August 2012 (EDT)
Wrong again. I haven't made any claim. I just would like to see that Mr. Schlafly backs up his controversial claim with peer-reviewed studies. Baobab 10:58, 22 August 2012 (EDT)
Then you are not a part of this argument, Baobab. Karajou 11:03, 22 August 2012 (EDT)
It's Andy who said "that's what medical science says", yet when called on it, instead of backing it up with scientific studies, switched to "it's logic". My claim is simply that, as far as I know, no medical science backs up his claim. I'd love to be able to prove that claim, but proving a negative like this isn't possible. All I ask is Andy back up his claim with a link to actual medical science. It seems he can't. WillV 11:33, 22 August 2012 (EDT)
And where is the proof that no medical science "as far as you know" backs up his claim? Do you conceed the argument that you have nothing at all to back up your claim beyond an opinion? Karajou 11:49, 22 August 2012 (EDT)
And where is YOUR proof that "there are no pink unicorns on Mars," User:Karajou? Do you believe that pink unicorns reside on Mars? No? Then cite sources which show there is NO evidence. Do you understand the notion of onus of proof, User:Karajou? But fine. Here is your peer-reviewed study: [20]. And I quote: "CONCLUSIONS: Rape-related pregnancy occurs with significant frequency. It is a cause of many unwanted pregnancies and is closely linked with family and domestic violence." So, User:Karajou, where is YOUR evidence? The user below, "Chicagotony," is correct. Not even Akin himself is defending his claim anymore. Why must those in charge of Conservapedia continue to defend scientific inaccuracies? If this were a liberal, I guarantee this debacle would be plastered all over the front page. Stop defending people simply because they are conservative; if they make a mistake, they make a mistake. People like Rep. Akin do NOT represent conservative values and do NOT represent the best that conservatives have to offer. He should step aside, and those in charge of this website need to acknowledge the fact that they, as usual, are incorrect on this scientific matter. Jpope14 12:11, 22 August 2012 (EDT)

Let's go back to the beginning. Akin says pregnancy is less likely to occur from a rape. Andy says the medical science backs up Akin's claim. Some of us ask for proof from Andy. He doesn't provide it, claiming "logic doesn't need citation." User Nine posts a link to a study by the ACOG that says pregnancy is at least as likely to occur from a rape. Andy dismisses that study because the ACOG "often sides with pro-aborts," whatever that means. Akin first says he misspoke and now says he was misinformed. So as it stands, Andy is defending Akin's claim even though Akin says he was wrong? -chicagotony

The Todd Akin entry has one supporting quote from a medical authority, the 2012 edition of a medical textbook. The citation above on the effect of stress provides further confirmation. But people have free will to reject logic. Anyone who wants to pretend there is precisely no difference in pregnancy rates is free to do so, despite the implausibility of that position. Over time, logic does prevail.--Andy Schlafly 12:15, 22 August 2012 (EDT)
The quote in the article doesn't actually back up Akin's claim. It says the chance of pregnancy resulting from rape is low. Well, the chance of pregnancy from any single act of sexual intercourse at any random time is low, so the quote is meaningless when examining whether it's less likely than consentual sex. I'm not sure what citation about stress you're referring to is, but while stress can cause miscarriages, this would only apply to a rape victim who is already pregnant. Since conception does not occur until after sex (sometimes days after, even) a miscarriage from a rape cannot occur. Likewise any potential disruption of ovulation would not be a factor, because the woman would not get pregnant unless she was already ovulating. Perhaps stress of this sort could be a factor in implantation, but that's simply a guess. Unless you can cite a medical journal examining this all you have is guesswork. Yes, we all agree that pregnancy as a result from rape is not especially common, as in certainly not the majority of cases, and even 1 in 10 would be a very high estimation, but that doesn't mean we can dismiss it as a non-issue, as Akin seems to. If you want to take the position that when a woman is impregnated by a rapist it's terrible, but the life of the fetus must outweigh other factors, fine, you certainly have that right, but don't take this "it almost never happens so we don't even have to concern ourselves about it" attitude. WillV 12:31, 22 August 2012 (EDT)
User:Aschlafly, you have been presented with multiple peer-reviewed studies which claim just the opposite of what the quote on the Todd Akin entry says. Furthermore, the quote from the 2012 Gynecology textbook is uncited - you say it is from the text, but offer no chapter or page numbers, and the quote cannot be viewed online to be confirmed by other users. Can you offer the chapter and page numbers of the quote, to prove to users that you're not simply making up a quote? Also, how do you explain the MULTIPLE peer-reviewed journals whose entire process, methodology, data, and conclusions are available online to review, which directly contradict your positions? FURTHERMORE, how do you explain that TODD AKIN HIMSELF is no longer supporting his claim? You are correct - logic WILL prevail. The logic that when a person retracts THEIR OWN STATEMENT, which is unsupported by any significant, reputable medical journal or study, chances are they are incorrect. Jpope14 12:28, 22 August 2012 (EDT)


Let's cut out the petty arguing. Here are some sources -
http://hrcak.srce.hr/file/2904
http://www.springerlink.com/content/wp5cnp43k6byxj4d/
http://www.ajog.org/article/S0002-9378%2896%2970141-2/abstract
http://www.ajog.org/article/S0002-9378%2896%2970141-2/abstract
All of these suggest around a 5% incidence of pregnancy related to rape. That is at the high-to-mid range of studies I've seen for consensual sex (2.5% to 6.0% I've seen). So, pregnancies happen.
But again I say - why are we arguing this? Yes, pregnancies occur due to rape. That doesn't change the fact that the child is still a child. We need to stop backing up every little thing a conservative says (especially if he admits he misspoke) and focus on the real issue he was trying to make. I don't think Akin really cares what the per-rape incidence of pregnancy is. What he cares about is protecting children, but all you're trying to support is his erroneous claim about rate of conception, not his great point of "Why are we punishing an innocent child for this crime". We need to stop bickering, stop being outraged at every little perceived slight, and start focusing on the real issues. </frustrated+passionate> PaulRP 12:30, 22 August 2012 (EDT)
User:Aschlafly The Lentz paragraph finishes with "Many of these pregnancies occurred in women who did not receive immediate medical attention". And by medical attention, as mentioned in the same paragraph, it means "morning after-pill". It also mentions that the rate is 2% or 5% depending on the source. Still the same data as presented in the NIH source posted above (which none has taken the time to refute), and still in the same realm as consensual intercourse. Nine 12:43, 22 August 2012 (EDT)
I have to agree with [User:PaulRP]. This debate - along with dozens of others in recent memory - demonstrates a remarkable and disturbing trend of the management of this website going to any lengths to support any and all conservatives, regardless of how inflammatory, scientifically implausible, or downright offensive their remarks or actions. If this encyclopedia is to be "trustworthy," it cannot be blindly supporting everyone who calls themselves conservative. I recognize that this is a "conservative" encyclopedia - it's impossible not to notice - but the main page says "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia." Based on this debate, and the dozens of other instances where the management of this website has refused to acknowledge logic, banned anyone who disagrees with them, and blindly supports anyone who says they are conservative, without bothering to fact-check or common-sense-check, this website is anything but "trustworthy." Jpope14 12:39, 22 August 2012 (EDT)
Two things, Jpope14: 1. You did NOT show us anything more than summaries of what you state are the peer-reviewed papers; you did not show us the FULL papers themselves. None of us are obligated to pay $40.00 a paper just to look at them, so the onus is still on you to provide the proof. 2. You, Jpope14, do NOT come here and try to shove your opinion on us with a bad attitude to match. I can and I WILL shove you right out the door. Karajou 00:40, 23 August 2012 (EDT)
Karajou, there's no need for incivility here, so please don't threaten ohter users. Just like many others Jpope14 is only helping Conservapedia to get its facts right. Kind regards, Baobab 10:03, 24 August 2012 (EDT)
Apparently the management of this website no longer cares about getting their facts right, as User:Karajou engaged in typical liberal last wordism by censoring another user who was beating him in an argument, then posting a comment to try to claim victory. Clearly, however, User:Karajou has never read many peer-reviewed papers. If he had, he would know that using my subscription to that website to post the full paper online in a setting such as this one would be in violation of a number of patent laws, and would leave me subject to lawsuits from both the website that hosts the paper and the individuals who wrote the piece. Furthermore, the summaries that you should be able to see include some of the methodology and the conclusions that the paper reached, which fully answer the question of whether rape can result in pregnancy. FURTHERMORE, the only evidence presented to support User:Karajou's position is an unsourced quote from a textbook in the Todd Akin article; but, despite User:Karajou's insistence that all evidence be posted online in full, the quote he has used to promote his position cannot be found online, cannot be double-checked, verified, or otherwise confirmed using any online source without paying - which is the exact problem he took with my source. If you want me to post the full papers, User:Karajou, then I would fully expect you to provide chapter and page numbers of the quote in question, as well as pay for the license to post the full textbook online for us to see to confirm whether the quote is actually there.
In short, it has become clear that the management of this website is no longer concerned with putting forward a trustworthy, verifiable encyclopedia. Rather, they are concerned with promoting various conservative blogs, in spite of how dramatically inaccurate and fallacious the blogs may be. They are concerned with censoring anyone who disagrees with their position, rather than engage in a serious debate, even with other conservatives who happen to disagree with them. They are concerned with going to whatever lengths necessary to prove "media bullying" (when, ironically, even the GOP presidential and vice-presidential candidates agree with the "lamestream media") but ignore momentous news like the loss of an American Icon, such as Neil Armstrong. Call it having a 'poor attitude' if you wish, but I would choose to call it recognizing the futility of trying to promote trustworthy, verifiable, accurate information on a place whose management is so obviously disconnected from reality. Good day. Jpope14 15:18, 26 August 2012 (EDT)
Wrong, Jpope14. First, you made a demand to others that we prove our claim pertaining to Akin's comment, as if you did not have to do so yourself from your point of view. Second, you're insistence that the links you provided to the papers in question which supposedly back your opinion up were little more than that. Where are the quotes in question? We here do not have to pay a dime to look at something that you insist is correct, and your claim that showing us would expose you to a lawsuit from the author is just another lame excuse for you not to do it. You have shown us nothing at all to back up your side.
Third, you decided on your own to be contemptuous; you could have easily shown your claim in a respectful manner, and I am on record as to having told my fellow admins that If there are supporting facts from your side of this controversy, I'll be the first to post them. You chose another route. Karajou 18:18, 27 August 2012 (EDT)
I agree. Conservapedia used to be factual, relevant, and hard hitting--but this has all been replaced with the silliness represented above, and facilitated through censorship en masse. Though one point does bear correction: the idea that there are specific biological processes which 'shut down' pregnancy post-rape is not a conservative one. It is simply absurd.MBell

What?

It horrifies me you would think that 1 out of 50 rapes resulting in pregnancy is "really rare," and disgusts me that you would pretend that this was what Akin was even talking about, instead of a complete misunderstanding of biological processes--processes of which any highschool kid is aware. Akin said something very different, which Schlafly has not proved in any respect. A bridge too far, here, Conservapedia. MBell

And what was it that he said that causes liberals everywhere to check into the emergency room after snorting their morning lattes up their noses while reading this bit of news? Is the world going to come to a screeching halt because of it? Or does Akins pose so much of a threat to the liberal taxpayer-funded gravy train that they will say and do anything to keep him from office? Karajou 00:17, 21 August 2012 (EDT)
It concerns me at least because I expect our office-holders to be somewhat better informed than that about the topics they will be making decisions about. Akin is, I would note, a member of the House Science, Space, and Technology committee.--DTSavage 00:21, 21 August 2012 (EDT)
The bottom line is that we conservatives are fed up with liberals, their lying, their theft of public money, their envies, and their senseless, baseless attacks on us. Chick-fil-A showed the world exactly what they are like. Karajou 00:36, 21 August 2012 (EDT)

(Edit conflict, replying to first comment above) You might see liberal style #4, written long ago. Fortunately, Missouri voters are unlikely to fall for it.--Andy Schlafly 00:24, 21 August 2012 (EDT)

I'd be surprised if folks in Missouri get the chance to vote for Akin. Romney/Ryan seem to want him thrown under the bus ASAP. --JohanZ 10:11, 21 August 2012 (EDT)
Conservatives don't cave into media bullying, and Romney-Ryan are embarrassing themselves if they think otherwise.--Andy Schlafly 10:19, 21 August 2012 (EDT)
This whole issue and the discussion it has generated is fascinating. Once again, this website has been courageous and objective in its analysis - as a Brit, its a great counterpoint to the mainstream media coverage over here. However, I would like one thing clarified; your last statement, Mr Schlafly, suggests that Romney and Ryan, by vacillating in their support of Akin, are not conservatives. Can you elaborate on that? Rafael 14:38, 22 August 2012 (EDT)
Romney-Ryan didn't simply vacillate in their support of Akin - they told him to get out of the race, something no conservative would do. Romney-Ryan caved in quicker to the liberal media than liberals themselves do. This is why the media have long favored Romney as the Republican nominee: the media knows they can tell Romney what to do, and Romney won't stand up against them on the all-important social issues.--Andy Schlafly 15:40, 22 August 2012 (EDT)

Let's try this one more time. Karajou has censored my post twice, now, even though it answers her question above. What she keeps deleting is the following: Andy, you write that Akin's claim is scientifically factual. Akin claimed that there is a biological process post-rape that women use to 'shut down' pregnancy. Is this process a biological fact?MBell

The correct response to Akin's comments

It seems to me, instead of saying "Akin's comment was factually right" without providing data, we should be saying "Akin's misspoke, and rapes cause pregnancies, but his point is the same, and important; namely, why are we punishing an innocent child for this crime?"
The way it's being presented now makes it seem like we are trying to skate by on a technicality, rather than standing up for the believe that all life is precious. Just my thoughts. PaulRP 16:27, 21 August 2012 (EDT)

Great comment. We should stand up for the right to live, not stand up for some "misspoken" comment. Nine 16:43, 21 August 2012 (EDT)


29th anniversary of KAL 007 shootdown

Can we post under news

Aug.31/Sept.1, 1983 - The 29th anniversary of the Soviet Union shoot down of Korean Airlines Flight 007 off Moneron Island carrying 269 passengers and crew, including 22 children under 12 years of age and including Democratic conservative Congressman from Georgia and 2nd head of the John Birch Society, Larry McDonald. There is presently a petition, with promise of Senator Scott Brown to further in Congress a reopening of the investigation due to reports of survivors, including Cong. McDonald http://www.change.org/petitions/president-barack-obama-speaker-of-the-house-john-boehner-conduct-an-investigation-of-flight-kal-007 .

Conservative authors outsell liberals in virtually every state

Got to be worthy of a mention on the front page. Even the ultra left-wing Guardian has been forced to acknowledge this story.--Jdixon 10:08, 22 August 2012 (EDT)

'been forced to acknowledge' = 'researched and published' --DHouser 10:11, 22 August 2012 (EDT)

Attention secular Europeans and all lovers of evolutionism

Religious immigrants highly resistant to secularization will dramatically alter the religious landscape of Europe.[21]

The future looks very bleak for Darwinism and atheism in Europe, but quite promising for Bible believing Christianity. [22][23] Conservative 11:26, 24 August 2012 (EDT)

You say literally the same thing every single day, yet statistics show that atheism and secularism are growing at a substantial rate. Not only are you wrong, but you are terribly tedious about it as well. WillV 21:41, 24 August 2012 (EDT)
Another atheist making a claim without supporting it. Ho-hum. By the way, do you have any proof and evidence that atheism is true? See also: Evidence for Christianity. As sister Dorinda Clark Cole would say, we are taking Europe back. [24] Praise the Lord. As sister Regina Belle would say, "God is just good. Say that with me!" [25] Conservative 23:42, 24 August 2012 (EDT)

Call for authors

If you'd like to help our project, please dive in and improve an article. Or start one of your own.

Note that our Conservapedia:Commandments are slightly different from Wikipedia policy, but if you have come in good faith, it won't be too hard to stay out of trouble. (Returning troublemakers, of course, will be blocked on sight.) --Ed Poor Talk 20:49, 25 August 2012 (EDT)

It's telling that this invitation already comes with a warning. Conservapedia would be much more welcoming and attract more editors if you and the other high profile administrators showed less hostility towards other users. The other day, for instance, I saw you blocking someone who only tried to defend his actions. Here is what you told him: "Your "apology" is a defense of your own actions and a criticism of mine. How is this helping our project? Think it over for a day, and if you're ready to follow instructions, you may return." Now, don't get me wrong, but what really isn't helping the project is blocking a potentially valuable and productive user who merely defends himself, patronizing him and not being able to handle any criticism. People will only help this project if they feel appreciated and know they can speak their mind. Baobab 12:38, 26 August 2012 (EDT)
But we don't want users who only come to speak their mind - even though we maintain the Debate topics page for that (third link from the top, under 'popular links' on the left side of every page!)
For article contributors, we want people who provide true and relevant information. I did not block someone who "only" tried to defend his actions, but someone who violated our policies. That's the same as kicking a student out of high school after being reprimanded by a teacher for a rules violation who said (in front of the entire class) "I didn't do anything." The latter offense is 10 times worse than the first.
It is because of reasoning such as yours, which "defends" those who openly flout our policies, that we must police our site against saboteurs. --Ed Poor Talk 11:54, 27 August 2012 (EDT)
Personal tools