Talk:Main Page/archive47

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Bladed weapons

Hmm... Could some one clarify what is the message of the news item that claims teenagers carrying bladed weapons have tripled since gun control? Are you saying that they should have guns then instead but because of gun control they needed to settle for bladed weapons? HeikkiL 14:33, 22 January 2008 (EST)

I'm confused by this as well. Is the fact it has tripled a good thing because the british are finding a different way to exercise their 'right to bear arms'? Spinnydizzy 20:04, 22 January 2008 (GMT)

Japan has some of the most strict weapon control laws in the world, yet their crime rate compared to America and the UK is surprisingly low. Just to clarify a point: Gun Control is not the problem. Giving guns to morons and psychopaths is. CodyH 1617 22 January 2008 CST

An excellent point. The problem isn't too many or not enough guns. It's guns in the hands of idiots. And Mr. Schlafly's comment about "bladed weapons" increasing threefold due to gun control is odd... is he saying that if guns were widely available, the teenagers wouldn't carry weapons at all? Seems to me that if guns were available, these teens wouldn't NEED blades at all, and would trade up to Glocks and Berettas! I may be misunderstanding the point, though. What would more guns do to reduce the level of lethal weaponry in schools? JKaplanek 19:59, 22 January 2008 (EST)

Guns deter and prevent crime. Virtually every study supports that. If people had guns in Britain, then teenagers wouldn't feel confident in terrorizing others with knives. After strict gun control went into effect in Britain, muggings in London far surpassed those in New York City.--Aschlafly 20:05, 22 January 2008 (EST)

The part you left out was this was principally because the number of muggings in NY took a massive nosedive. To widen the field to include all violent crime in Britain, rather than focussing on one specific crime in one city, according to the British Crime Survey, violent crime in Britain actually dropped to the tune of 34% between 1997 and 2005. The only reason the police's figures show differently is because what is considered 'violent crime' was changed and the rules for recording it were changed to be more standardised across the various British police forces (look up the National Crime Recording Standard if you want to know the full details, but a brief summary is available in section 3 of this document). Zmidponk 21:35, 22 January 2008 (EST)

Don't you think that it would be the exactly same people that now carry blades that would carry guns if they just where able to get them? Whats really the diffrence on carrying gun or knife? You support carrying guns, why not allso knives? These knives could be used in self defence just as guns could? why aren't the muggers worryed about people carrying knives, dosen't more people carrying knives allso prevent crime? HeikkiL 01:10, 23 January 2008 (EST) ST)

Guns don't kill people, knives/rottweilers kill people!
To be serious - I suppose because a gun is more effective in self-defense then a knife. Feebasfactor 10:15, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Mr. Schlafly, you propose that an armed society is a polite society. I have to agree, but I must also propose that an intelligent society is a prosperous society. Maybe we should focus on improving ourselves before we improve our laws. CodyH 0723 26 January 2008 (CST)

There you go again, quoting Heinlein: Beyond This Horizon, if I recall correctly. Remind me not to drop any lobster parts over the balcony when you're around! ;-) --Ed Poor Talk 21:30, 2 February 2008 (EST)

Milking deaths for political gain

Come on, guys. Ledger died. Is it really nessecary to try and use his death to make a political point? Barikada 23:39, 22 January 2008 (EST)

If you have to start the first article under "In The News" with the words, "This isn't news"...then it doesn't belong in that section. --Jdellaro 07:24, 23 January 2008 (EST)

We educate and inform, and don't censor information that falls into that category. The front page item about the latest effect of Hollywood values plainly qualifies as educational and informative, despite liberal denial.--Aschlafly 10:30, 23 January 2008 (EST)

So, taking sleeping pills and accidentally overdosing has EXACTLY WHAT to do with liberal values? --JimmyB 10:52, 23 January 2008 (EST)
Seems not so much "educational" as it is gossip...--RossC 11:00, 23 January 2008 (EST)
Drug overdoses are "accidental" only in a limited sense of the word. The Hollywood value system has an undeniable role here.--Aschlafly 11:40, 23 January 2008 (EST)
accidental • adjective 1 happening by accident.
Well, they are just as accidental as any other accident, like for instance a gun accident. Now, if you can explain how an accidental overdose of sleeping pills is AT ALL related to liberal values, I would fascinated to hear it. Do only liberals take sleeping pills? Or is it prescription medicine in general that is a liberal value?--JimmyB 12:40, 23 January 2008 (EST)

I'm a movie buff, and I only stumbled into your site by chance while trying to find out as much as I could about Heath Ledger's death - I found the link to your site buried WAY deep in Google. Anyway, I'm kind of appalled at the cheap shot your site is taking at his death - don't you think that's really, REALLY mean? Especially since we don't even know what happened yet, as it's not even 24 hours since he passed away? Do you know ANYTHING about the man's life to be so critical, cruel and judgemental? I can see from your site you're Crazy Christians and pretty reactionary, but I'm pretty surprised that such a supposedly 'Christian', charitable, caring and kind group would be so....so....hideously mean, really, is the only word I can think. Your site doesn't interest me much, and I can see in a brief scan that you're WAY right-wing and there's lots of boring debates about already settled arguments, so I'll be passing on here, but I just want to say as a disinterested observer that after a brief overview, you're a pretty disgusting bunch of knee-jerk backwards reactionaries. 'So long, and thanks for all the fish'. Misterlinx 12:08, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Your rant could be described as liberal denial. Ideas do cause deaths, and we're going not to going to pretend otherwise here. No one is judging this latest victim but God, and our prayers are with the victim. But we're not going to be irresponsible and ignore the causes of this needless and tragic death.--Aschlafly 12:17, 23 January 2008 (EST)
The cause of Mr. Ledger's death has not yet been conclusively determined or reported, so on what do you base your comments? Dadsnagem2 13:51, 23 January 2008 (EST)

So, are all sleeping pills evil and amoral if taken because someone is having insomnia? If it turns out this was a simple accidental overdose of legal sleeping pills, would that not affect your statement and make you feel even a little bit ashamed? We just don't know yet what all the facts are yet to make a judgement, and trying to score political points off of a tragic death, while not unusual for this site, is certainly a bit ghoulish. QNA 12:34, 23 January 2008 (EST)

By the way, in context, "This isn't news" refers to the Hollywood values, not the actor's death itself. DanH 12:52, 23 January 2008 (EST)


As an above commenter noted, since the cause of death hasn't been determined by an autopsy, "An autopsy Wednesday morning on actor Heath Ledger was inconclusive, and a cause-of-death determination will take 10 to 14 days, a medical examiner's spokeswoman said." http://www.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/Movies/01/23/heath.ledger.dead/index.html Aren't you jumping to conclusions then, regarding his death, and, dare I say, engaging in gossip? In fact, the article further goes on to state that the prescription drugs were not even "scattered around" as previously reported. Suggestions of an overdose are merely gossip and speculation at this point. All we have instead is an actor who passed on at a young age. Unfortunately, young people do die in this country, and not every one is because of "Hollywood values." --Jdellaro 14:10, 23 January 2008 (EST)
Never mind, engage in gossip if you so choose. I couldn't care less about Heath Ledger, and it is only for God to judge how you have used his death for your own purposes. --Jdellaro 14:12, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Just so you know, the title of this section wasn't a suggestion. Barikada 20:35, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Folks, ideas have consequences. Hollywood values have tragically been responsible for many needless deaths. 28-year-olds do not just die naked on the floor of natural causes. Don't deny the obvious.--Aschlafly 21:54, 23 January 2008 (EST)
I'm sure they do, but can you at least wait until we get the autopsy results before attempting to capitalize on the tragic death of someone? Barikada 23:03, 23 January 2008 (EST)
Why do you see this as someone "attempting to capitalize"??? A tragedy occurred, and responsible people observe the likely causes to prevent recurrence of it. If there was a car accident at a dangerous intersection, would you also oppose comments about how dangerous the intersection is? No, you seem determined to cover up for Hollywood values when you wouldn't cover up for a dangerous intersection.--Aschlafly 00:10, 24 January 2008 (EST)
Well, I see it as an attempt to capitalize on the grounds of your repeated attempts to slam Hollywood because one man died, before we even have a conclusive cause of death. If you're really attempting to "prevent recurrance of it", you'd be motioning to ban sleeping pills. But I thank you for knowing more about my own thought processes than I do. Barikada 01:33, 24 January 2008 (EST)

In what is probably a mistake, I decided to come back here to point out this set of very complimentary tales about Heath Ledger, who seems like an ordinary, well liked guy without drink or drug problems. Your attempts to make cheap political shots about his death are hideous , and your hollow prayers would hardly be welcomed by his family and friends, who grieve. One thing - you should probably edit your article on the illness of depression to clarify that it is liberal deceit? And another thing I just noticed - why on earth are you now pointing out that 'gay rights activists' are mourning his death? Because you think that playing a gay role makes him a friend to sinners? Why is it even relevant? You might as well add that his death is mourned by 'members of cowboy organizations'. Angrily, Misterlinx 22:11, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Couple points that need to be made:

  • Many people sleep naked.
  • Heath Ledger was known to have suffered from insomnia.
  • He was found with sleeping pills nearby.
  • Many people have died from overdosing on sleeping pills.

Furthermore, the man is dead. You could abstain from your little liberal-bashfest until a more appropriate time, although this seems to have been a faculty that has been historically lacking on Conservapedia. --MakeTomorrow 22:29, 23 January 2008 (EST)

Liberal denial is persistent, I'll say that. A tip for you: don't become an investigator. I doubt you'd find anything suspicious about a knife in someone's back!--Aschlafly 00:10, 24 January 2008 (EST)

Nor should you, as I'm sure the knife in the back would indicate to you that the individual was killed by a liberal who opposes prayer in school and supports gun control, since he obviously couldn't find a gun to use. Jumping to conclusions is hardly a praiseworthy trait for a lawyer. QNA 07:33, 24 January 2008 (EST)

For a lawyer educated at one of the top law schools in America you seem to have quite a bit of trouble understanding the concept of "innocent until proven guilty". If you have some substantiated allegations make them, but otherwise refrain from making subtle suggestions that Ledger killed himself or that there were suspicious circumstances surrounding his death. As MakeTomorrow has said, many people sleep naked and many people have overdosed on sleeping pills, if you have an alternate theory which is supported by the evidence then please put it forward, otherwise stop accusing others of liberal denial and the like when all they are doing is reiterating the most likely cause of death. You say that you want to stop tragedies like this from happening again, perhaps you could let us in on what you believe the tragedy to be and how exactly Hollywood was involved, otherwise stop putting gossip in the news such as "Hollywood values serves up another death", because without evidence that line is exactly that, gossip. TheGuy 04:44, 24 January 2008 (EST)

When I saw the "news" posting about Ledger's death I wasn't just disappointed, I was ashamed. Gossip-like, judgmental comments with no basis in fact do not belong on a site that represents itself as a fact-based reference worthy of trust and respect. This is nothing more than an opportunistic excuse to use the tragic death of a prominent individual as a platform for ranting against "Hollywood Values", as if anything like that was the actual, proven cause of his death. Considering your legal background, Schafly, it's particularly disturbing that you're so adamant in stringing together unrelated facts to make your point in a way that would never be accepted in a courtroom, and at the same time hold up Conservapedia as a responsible, fact-based resource kids can use in their education. Why wait for an autopsy when you've already decided that the values of strangers are the cause of his death? This is just another example of people claiming to be Christians sidestepping the lesson about people being without sin casting stones when it suits them. DinsdaleP 11:46, 24 January 2008 (EST)

No illegal drugs found in Ledger's apartment Maestro 17:50, 24 January 2008 (EST)

Nobody claimed or even implied that Ledger was on illegal drugs, though that remains a possibility regardless of whether it was found in his apartment. What is painfully obvious is that a 28-year-old dependent on drugs like Valium and misled by Hollywood values has needlessly lost his own life.--Aschlafly 17:58, 24 January 2008 (EST)

You try and try to duck and weave, ASchlafly, but you cannot:

  • You continue to make baseless, fabricated, prejudicial remarks which would have you thrown out of any court:
    • Suggesting that illegal drugs - for which there is no evidence - "remains a possibility regardless of whether it was found in his apartment". Since you are apparently a lawyer, you would know that this fabricated slur is possibly libellious.
    • Mentioning Valium, which I don't see mentioned anywhere, but which is entirely legal and perhaps you even have relatives taking it yourself?
  • The autopsy has not been done. So, no-one knows anything, which, since you're a lawyer means you are prejudging the evidence?
  • Despite having jetlag, the flu, allergies, anxiety and insomnia and working 22 hour days, he had half the number of prescription drugs in his home (6) compared to the average American (12)[1]. How many prescription drugs are in your bathrooom cabinet?
  • It seems he may have died accidentally, as there's no suggestion from relatives that he had been depressed. Would that disappoint you?
  • You say he was "misled by Hollywood values", yet reports suggest how normal, simple and kind he was. I'm not suggesting he was a Saint, but Paris Hilton he certainly was not.
  • The White House withdrew a planned speech on prescription drug abuse today so as not to be seen to be "opportunistic" about the event. The least you could have done was Follow Your Leader.

Yours, etc, Misterlinx 19:23, 24 January 2008 (EST)

It's truly sad, Schafly, that you're so obsessed with pre-judging the situation because he's an actor that you continue to make objectively libelous statements about Ledger. What reputable news source are you citing to back up your statement that he was "dependent on drugs like valium"? Would you make that statement to his grieving father's face?

I'd hope not, but in this "friendly" setting, though, it seems to be okay to set aside the fact that the official cause of his death is still undetermined, or that for every John Belushi there are hundreds of people in the entertainment industry who are healthy, well-adjusted and make a living without destroying their lives (my ex-wife was one). Might as well label and blast a "culture of corrupt ministries" because of the occasional Jim Bakker or Ted Haggard.

The National Center for Health Statistics reported that 19,250 people died of accidental drug poisoning in the U.S. in the year 2004 - it's a sad, tragic occurance that can touch anyone's life regardless of occupation. I speak from experience because when my son was 4, he got past a child-proof lock on a medicine cabinet AND the child-proof cap (smart kid), and drank an unknown quantity of children's Tylenol because it has a sweet grape flavor. I had to take him to the ER for tests because even Tylenol is toxic if you take enough, and luckily he was fine.

I can see from your other comments on this topic that it's more important to you to blame the evils of the "Hollywood Culture" than it is to show fairness, let alone compassion, for the individual person being discussed. Can you be big enough to separate your issues with the Hollywood Culture from the unknown reasons why this young man died, and let his family, friends and fans simply mourn his passing with the dignity all of us deserve? DinsdaleP 08:25, 24 January 2008 (EST)

A deafening silence from the accuser says everything that needs to be said, as does the disgusting unsubstantiated innuendo in the News section on the Main Page. Misterlinx 22:59, 24 January 2008 (EST)

I take the lack a of direct response to my comments here from Schafly, along with the "news" posting remaining unchanged on the main page, to be the only answers I'll get from him to my strong but civil comments. I could wish that he is treated with the same consideration and respect that he's shown to Ledger & his family, but I don't - nobody deserves to be treated that way. I only hope this thread is left intact for others, including the students who put so much credence in Conservapedia, to read and evaluate for themselves. --DinsdaleP 12:04, 25 January 2008 (EST)

Indeed. The debate has since moved to the Hollywood values article Talk page, btw. No attempts to provide accurate news is wanted here, it seems, and instead references to showbiz celebrity pages are preferred. Misterlinx 12:11, 25 January 2008 (EST)

Ledger is just one of many examples at Hollywood values. Clear answers were not forthcoming in some of the other examples either, but 28-year-old persons do not drop dead naked in the middle of the day merely from natural causes that are not immediately detectable. Res ipsa loquitur. Our posting on the main page is accurate and no one has identified any specific errors with it.--Aschlafly 12:53, 25 January 2008 (EST)

People can die from any number of causes (like an aneurysm) that are not immediately apparent, and their state of clothing is irrelevant. Unless you have a degree in forensic pathology and examined him directly, it's inappropriate for you to arrive at armchair conclusions about his death as you do. Specifically, what gives you the right to say that he was dependent on any drug? "Res ipsa loquitur" does NOT apply, because you're drawing on invalid connections. To apply that to my example above, I could say the following: "Several prominent ministers resigned because of scandal, without elaborating or commenting in their formal resignation letters. Minister 'X' has just resigned without elaborating or commenting in his formal resignation letter. Therefore, he was involved in a scandal which is the reason he resigned. Res ipsa loquitur". Please. You've personally redacted and locked pages about individuals when you found cited statements unfavorable, and justified it as "eliminating gossip from Conservapedia,because it has no place here". Yet you feel that you are entitled to state that because someone had prescription drugs in his home he was dependent on them, or that because he was an actor his personal values were lacking in some way, and led to his death. How is that NOT gossip? Can you explain the criteria you use to define something as gossip? I realize that I'm not likely to change your mind on this, but this is a discussion page and I'm hoping that having this exchange on the record will be instructive for others, who can make up their own minds as to how Ledger and his family are being treated in this forum. --DinsdaleP 13:23, 25 January 2008 (EST)

Oh, and as for the "and no one has identified any specific errors with it." comment regarding the news posting, this entire discussion topic revolves around individuals who are objecting to it, and their stated reasons for it. I'll pick the most obvious objection - unless you have an autopsy report in your hand, please refrain from citing drugs, Hollywood Values or any other reason as the cause of death on a News listing. --DinsdaleP 13:42, 25 January 2008 (EST)

Sorry, DinsdaleP, your attempt at censorship is misplaced here. Amid an array of prescription drugs including the often-abused Valium and a rolled up dollar bill, a very public figure dies naked in the middle of the day just before his appointment for a massage. His autopsy tends to rule out natural causes. This story is top of the news and we're not going to sit by quietly while liberals deny the obvious and mislead people further. Hollywood values and liberal denial about them misleads too many people. Go somewhere else to deny how much harm Hollywood values cause.--Aschlafly 14:40, 25 January 2008 (EST)
(removed provocateur-style posting by someone who has since been blocked)
Number one: Aschlafly, There has been no mention of valium being found near his body, he had less prescription drugs in his home than the average person, lots of people sleep naked, his preliminary autopsy was INCONCLUSIVE, it was a twenty dollar bill, I don't see any censorship by DisdaleP, and you're making random, unfounded attacks on the character of Heath Ledger. You shrug off any of the facts, claiming that the reality is "liberal bias" "liberal denial" or "hollywood values."
Don't try to say you don't-- A quick look at the history on the Hollywood values page will show that you do.
And AndySphan... why does the word "being" direct you to deceit? For that matter, the movie was Brokeback Mountain, we're all going to die, and it was a role he played. He also played the Joker in The Dark Knight, but does that mean that he was a mass murderer? No! Barikada 15:20, 25 January 2008 (EST)
Andy, you trickster you, that makes even less sense. Barikada 15:50, 25 January 2008 (EST)

If you read what I've actually posted, there was never an attempt at censorship. My consistent point is that you are jumping to conclusions about a person and the cause of his death by stringing together generalities in a manner that suits your viewpoint, rather than addressing the facts objectively for what they are. So he was found naked in his hotel room? Big deal - nothing wrong with being unclothed in your own hotel room. Finding a $20 means nothing - could have been emptied from his pants when changing, could have been tip money for his massage therapist - it has nothing to do with a cause of death. My fiancee is a licensed massage therapist - they help people deal with muscle/joint/body pain WITHOUT drugs, and there is nothing wrong or sordid about the profession or anyone who benefits from it. The drugs found in his room were prescribed legitimately, and there has been no objective evidence to date that any abuse of them was involved. Every time you are presented with rational, logical arguments against the way you're ridiculing this man's life and death, your response inevitably seems to be to call it "liberal denial", as you did instead of answering my question of how you differentiate your "news" assertions from "gossip". So please let go of the name-calling, and provide your students with an example of objective, critical analysis instead by addressing these objections with facts instead of innuendo. --DinsdaleP 16:46, 25 January 2008 (EST)

...and over 24 hours later,silence. --DinsdaleP 22:34, 26 January 2008 (EST)
There is no point in continuing to repeat the obvious to you: the "police said the death was caused by a possible drug overdose." [2] The autopsy's failure to find a natural cause of death reinforces that likelihood. Even if the drug overdose was prescription drugs with "anti-anxiety" drugs like Valium (what euphemism that is), it doesn't change the obvious conclusion this is yet another example of a needless death from Hollywood values.--Aschlafly 23:30, 26 January 2008 (EST)
The autopsy was inconclusive, Valium is not a euphamism, and do you actually have a source saying that, #1: Taking Valium is a Hollywood value, and #2: Ledger was actually on Valium? Barikada 23:38, 26 January 2008 (EST)
And once again my point is confirmed. In the article you reference the word "Valium" is not mentioned - that is your own innuendo being added. The same article also does not specify what, if any, of the six prescribed medications in his room he may have overdosed on, but without any proof you state authoritatively that it was the anti-anxiety meds, because that fits your preconceived notions better. You still haven't provided a single, objective, causal link for Ledger's working as an actor with his accident, and the reason for that is simple - there is none. It was just a tragic accident that can happen to anyone taking medication, like the 19,250 fatal ones in the U.S. in 2004 that I mentioned above. I'd also guess that your dependence on innuendo instead of documented facts to support your position is why my request for you to define "gossip" versus "news" has been sidestepped again.--DinsdaleP 23:57, 26 January 2008 (EST)
So do you agree that this death was not due to natural causes? That it was likely caused by an overdose of "anti-anxiety" drugs? Sorry, but intense anxiety is the result of Hollywood values -- and it's long overdue to recognize that so similar needless tragedies can be averted.--Aschlafly 00:02, 27 January 2008 (EST)
Intense anxiety is caused by many other things than Hollywood Values, if that can be considered a valid reason at all - ask any regular wage-earner who just got laid off. My oldest son was just diagnosed with a brain lesion, which is causing me intense anxiety and has nothing to do with Hollywood. (and no, I'm not on anti-anxiety meds - just coping day-to-day). All I agree with in regards to Ledger's death is what was reported by the authorities who were speaking from the tests & evidence available to date: the cause of death is still officially undetermined, and while likely to be related to the prescription drugs in his room, any other assumption is speculation until the results of the toxicology and blood tests come back.
That's called sticking to the facts, and being both fair and respectful to the victim and his family.
Thought it was worth adding that I have nothing against you personally, Schafly. This is your Wiki and you can say whatever you want on it, but I'm sure what's written here has an impact on the the readers, especially students encouraged to use this as a trusted reference by conservative parents and educators. Fair-minded people have an obligation, then, to object to statements like the ones you've made about Ledger's death, and call out gossip and innuendo for what it is when it's presented to readers as "news".--DinsdaleP 00:12, 27 January 2008 (EST)
Dinsdale, my prayers go out to your son. As to Ledger, he was glamorized and promoted as a way to change the values of our youth. But it has been kept from our youth that these same Hollywood values led to a wealthy 28-year-old being dependent on multiple anxiety drugs that probably led to his unnecessary death. If Hollywood didn't glamorize and push its values on our youth, then I wouldn't find it necessary to publicize how deadly those values are. This site is not going along with the political correctness and deception of others. We tell the truth here: Ledger's tragic death at the age of 28 was another in a long list of victims of Hollywood values. Young people, don't be fooled and imitate that.--Aschlafly 00:29, 27 January 2008 (EST)
Thank you for your kind thoughts regarding my son. I guess the verbal dancing isn't going to end, so this will be my final comment on this topic.
The American Heritage Dictionary defines "gossip" as "Rumor or talk of a personal, sensational, or intimate nature." You are stating that your intention is to educate youth about the dangers of Hollywood Values. You have been asserting, without any documented proof, that Ledger took Valium, that he was dependent on his prescriptions versus using them as directed without being dependent, that his abuse of these prescriptions versus some accidental combination or overdose led to his death, and that his occupation as an actor meant that what you define as "Hollywood Values" influenced him to the point that it directly led to his misusing drugs. "It seems any reasonable person would find these to be unproven rumors about someone's personal life with the intent to sensationalize an opinion. Sounds like gossip to me.
You have every right to object to what you call "Hollywood Values" if that's how you feel. People like myself in this topic have been objecting to the opportunistic way you've latched onto Ledger's death to make a statement about Hollywood Values through assertions about his lifestyle and the circumstances of his death that have no basis in fact. If you want to set a good example for youth, then find real, documented cases of people who have messed up their lives by choice and died as a result, instead of jumping to the conclusions that fit your preconceived notions better and presenting them as "news". I'm not an apologist for what you call "Liberal Values", or suffering from "Liberal Denial". I'm just a regular person who believes we should respect the privacy and dignity of others, especially in times of tragedy. It's sad that your need to find a subject for expressing your opinions via the news wound up targeting a young man whose death has left him and his grieving loved ones the recipients of one-sided and one-way accusations that attack his character. Is this really the example you want to be setting for kids, and was it worth the anti-Hollywood points you were trying to make? --DinsdaleP 01:13, 27 January 2008 (EST)
Dinsdale, Ledger was used to promote Hollywood values. Theres no denying it. Yet those same values have caused many premature deaths, apparently including Ledger himself. We're not going to mislead youth here by concealing the truth about Hollywood values. If a bridge collapsed because of a faulty design, then of course we'd publicize criticism of the design to prevent recurrence. When a wealthy and healthy 28-year-old unexpectedly dies, then we're going to publicize the causes to prevent recurrence of that. Despite your numerous and verbose comments on this, I still don't understand why you seem to want to silence a discussion of the causes of a premature and tragic death.--Aschlafly 01:28, 27 January 2008 (EST)

Dinsdale - if some man in ... say Kansas ... died of smallpox would we publish that? Of course we would. And really, there's no difference for Hollywood values, while Hollywood values obviously don't directly kill people, it is still obviously responsible for Ledger's death. Your claim that we're somehow milking it is simply odd, as we gain nothing through this - we can, however, hope that this death is the wake up call that Hollywood needs to clean itself up.--IDuan 01:34, 27 January 2008 (EST)

Actually, he didn't claim you're milking it, I did. And sure you did, you get a chance to slam Hollywood and the left in general. See: Andy's posts above with his repeated unfounded assertations that an inconclusive result really means it was a drug overdose, and his repeated assertations that Ledger was using Valium. Barikada 01:36, 27 January 2008 (EST)

Wow, you honestly think we're trying to milk his death? Were you part of the same group saying that liberals don't think that conservatives are really, really bad people?--IDuan 01:38, 27 January 2008 (EST)

The "Hollywood Culture", DinsdaleP, includes a lot of sex, drugs, divorce, questionable morals, the ocassional murder. The initial reports of Ledger's death involved a pill bottle and a rolled bill; kinda looks like cocaine use from the start, and is reflective of that culture. Now it's turning out that Ledger may not have died from drug use at all except from the possible side-effects of a prescription sleep aid [3]. Do you notice how easy it was for me to get that link? You could have gotten it too, DinsdaleP, but instead of contributing to the building of this encyclopedia and making it better, you chose to argue. I personally like to be refuted with sound evidence displayed in a reasonable manner. Try doing it instead of arguing. Karajou 01:46, 27 January 2008 (EST)

I'm still lost, how exactly did "Hollywood Values" cause or even lead to Ledger's death? The facts as I recall are:

  • Ledger had insomnia
  • Ledger took legal sleeping pills in order to deal with insomnia
  • Ledger appears to have accidently overdosed on said sleeping pills

Now there are three ways that Hollywood could have had an influence here:

  1. Hollywood caused Ledger's insomnia due to stress or whatever, in which case we need to blame "Medicine Values", "Legal System Values" and "Banker Values" for causing insomnia in doctors, lawyers and investment bankers
  2. Ledger's desire to continue being an actor caused him to take legal sleeping pills in order to remain in Hollywood, again we need to also condemn other industries for their workers taking sleeping pills in order to continue performing
  3. Something related to Hollywood caused Ledger to accidently overdose, given that thousands of people overdose on sleeping pills worldwide I don't think we can restrict this to Hollywood

So, given that there are people here who appear to strongly support the idea that "Hollywood Values" lead to Ledger's death (at least Andy and Iduan) then perhaps they could come and explain to those of us less able to make the connection. TheGuy 06:05, 27 January 2008 (EST)

Dinsdale is obviously some sort of infiltrator, as he is named after a Monty Python character.RobertK 12:30, 27 January 2008 (EST)
I'm waiting, please don't let my feeble mind wonder for too much longer TheGuy 18:12, 27 January 2008 (EST)
Still waiting... TheGuy 21:13, 27 January 2008 (EST)

Ledger wasn't whiter than white, as some above have tried to suggest. Ledger was allegedly a reckless narcotics user, hooked on cocaine, heroin, ecstasy and anti-depressants and sleeping tablets used as downers. The mother of his child had left him because of his continued promiscuity, "party" lifestyle and "showing up at all hours of the night with his band of hangers-on and taking drugs". As for "Hollywood Values", well, I think it's part of the whole culture of celebrity that isn't confined to just Hollywood - look at English Premier League Footballers, too - where young people have far too much disposable cash and no moral compass, and have drugs and booze and sex almost thrown at them. Nobody disapproves of it until one of them ends up in court charged with rape or reckless driving or something, and then it all blows over in a matter of days. the "hero worship" and adulation from fans serves to provide some measure of approval for their behaviour, in fact, and anyway, when you can afford the best lawyers in the business, have teams of PR people and tame journalists in your pocket, you can afford to carry on living the libertine lifestyle. Drug-taking Heath Ledger was named bad influence as girlfriend 'wanted sole custody of daughter' 10px Fox (talk|contribs) 04:58, 28 January 2008 (EST)

Sigh, we're not talking about whether or not Ledger was part of the Hollywood culture or not, or whether this is a good or a bad thing, we're talking about whether Hollywood values were responsible for Ledger's death, as the breaking news item suggested (statements to the effect of "Hollywood values claim another life" clear imply that Ledger's lifestyle directly lead to his death, something which for the time being is unsubstantiated at best). So, for the third time, how were Hollywood values responsible for Ledger's death? TheGuy 06:26, 28 January 2008 (EST)
And might I make it quite clear that the opinion of one person with no medical training and who themselves is relying on hearsay is nowhere near enough to support your position. TheGuy 06:32, 28 January 2008 (EST)
It's been written many times here what the Hollywood Culture is about, and you've been told how it my have influenced Ledger's death in the first few days afterward; you've also been told that he may may died from the after-effects of a prescription sleep aid; but you still insist on continuing this argument. It stops now. Karajou 08:17, 28 January 2008 (EST)
SILENCE KNAVE! Enough of your annoying questions! We do not need your logic here. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED.
Seriously though, "It stops now"? What is that? A voice from above? I thought we didn't censor here. I guess I have been mislead. --GDewey 16:18, 28 January 2008 (EST)
Well, actually, if you want to get technical, TheGuy has been told that Hollywood Values are directly responsible for Ledger's death, Ledger took Valium (no proof), sleeping in the nude is INCREDIBLY ABNORMAL, gay rights activists were the only ones mourning his death, and that autopsies are useless. But why would we want to do that? Barikada 16:47, 28 January 2008 (EST)
Folks, we're building an encyclopedia here. The autopsy tended to rule out natural causes of Ledger's death, and the evidence is overwhelming that he overdosed on prescription drugs, like dozens of privileged Hollywood stars before him. See Hollywood Values. Now, please contribute to this encyclopedia-building effort or go whine about the facts somewhere else. No amount of whining is going to change those facts.--Aschlafly 17:43, 28 January 2008 (EST)
There is no use in arguing against fact indeed, and you probably have evidence for your allegations. Why not simply post it here, and we can move on. Order 19:55, 28 January 2008 (EST)

I apologize, when I last tried to respond, I apparently removed some of Andy's (and possibly someone else's) comments. I'm not quite certain how I managed to pull that off. Barikada 23:19, 28 January 2008 (EST)

@Karajou - I have been told what Hollywood Culture is about, but I have not been told how it has contributed to Ledger's death. From what I can read Hollywood Values tend to revolve around illegal drugs, however from what we can gather it appears that Ledger overdosed on a legal, prescription drug. It seems that people are quite happy to blame Hollywood Values for Ledger's death, but as soon as they are asked why they demand that people stop asking questions.
@Andy - So you're now admitting that Ledger overdosed on perscription drugs? There's only one problem with labelling this as an example of Hollywood Values: thousands of people all around the world accidentally overdose on perscription drugs every year! It affects liberals as much as conservatives, the rich as much as the poor, the famous as much as the not so famous. If you admit that Ledger overdosed on prescription drugs (which is what we've been saying all along) then you have to also admit that Hollywood Values did not play a part. TheGuy 03:35, 29 January 2008 (EST)

"Your rant could be described as liberal denial. Ideas do cause deaths. - Aschlafly" Liberal denial? This is completely made-up; the very idea of Liberal is that a person accepts another peoples values, points of view and opinions and expects them to do the same. Not necessarily AGREE, but ACCEPT that other people can see things differently based on differing life experiences. 'Ideas do cause deaths.' This was brilliant, absolutely B-R-I-L-L-I-A-N-T... It is probably a universally know and undeniable truth that only one idea, above all others, has caused the most amounts of deaths around the world; through persecution, through lack of understanding and acceptance, through a desire for power and an insufferable will to infect the entire planet, I'm not going to dare put it here though, I'll be persecuted :-) Entheogenicorder 12:30, 30 January 2008 (EST)

I don't know about persecuted, but I'm fairly sure you would be wrong. In the 20th century alone, deliberate state policy in Communist states led to 95.2 million deaths; in Dictatorships, 20.3 million deaths; add the 40 million deaths caused by abortions since 1973 in the United States and Puerto Rico; the 35.7 million deaths caused by 20th century politically motivated wars; and the 15 million deaths caused by the state-sponsored Ukraine famine of the early 1930s. A "universally known and undeniable truth"? Sounds more like leftie agitprop and "is completely made-up"  :) 10px Fox (talk|contribs) 07:58, 30 January 2008 (EST)
I do follow something vaguely resembling a left-wing political approach, and I believe it is the only approach you can follow and still truly call yourself Christian. One small amendment; I don't believe that abortion is an idea. Other than that, I accept your correction - as long as your figures are accurate - because I did not thoroughly research this topic, it was more an assumption. If I had said 'one religious idea', maybe I would have been right, it is very hard to accurately determine, especially if you look at some of the religious incarnations of the various dictatorships and horrific events you have listed above. The fact is that (here goes) Christianity has caused more deaths at least than the 'Hollywood culture'. Also, I'm sorry, I did not mean to offend in any way, I found the original comments I cited offensive and thought it necessary to respond to what I see as absurd claims. Entheogenicorder 13:14, 30 January 2008 (EST)
You can't seriously be comparing at most a 50-year culture Hollywood Values to a 2000-year-old culture Christianity in terms of absolute numbers of deaths, but perhaps you're right in the sense that Christianity has led to the deaths of many martyrs killed for their faith.
In the last 50 years Hollywood Values has taken far more lives, tragically, than Christianity could be accused of.--Aschlafly 08:22, 30 January 2008 (EST)
I decided to include the figure for abortion by loosely associating it as a - comparitively recent - "idea" or "concept" that some lives eg the unborn are less equal than others. A strange idea, considering that US federal law deems that the fertilized eggs of any of over 800 species of native birds warrant federal-government protection under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 while the fertilized egg of a human being is regarded as a disposable mass of tissue. And I wasn't at all offended by your comment, I just believed it to be incorrect, and something that has been stated so often that it is now accepted as indisputable fact. 10px Fox (talk|contribs) 08:30, 30 January 2008 (EST)
Fox, I have to agree with you, reluctantly, again, that this law shows our higher concern for other species than our own and this is not right.
Of course it would be ludicrous to compare the deaths caused by Christianity and 'Hollywood Values' directly, even over a fifty year time period. Mostly because it is indertiminable how many deaths are caused - to whatever degree of influence - by either one. However, having had a reasonable discussion wwith 'Fox', and having had to concede some areas of argument, I find it almost displeasing that such a brash statement should be thrown into the debate. Firstly, I had not even considered the number of martyrs in the name of Christianity - I had considered only the 'heretics', jews, witches, arabs, muslims, blacks and other general cultures that had been persecuted for the idea of Christianity, so combined the total would obviously be higher than I had previously considered.
From the 'Hollywood Values' page, I can come to see that you consider any depressed celebrities suicide to be attributable to this phenomena. However, in some instances I would disagree. For example under Kurt Cobain it states '"turned to drugs and alcohol to help him cope," then committed suicide'. However, it is well documented that even before he was famous, Kurt Cobain had been depressed, due to spending long periods of time seperated from his family and living homeless, and that he had experimented with drugs long before his fame. This is just one instance. So it is impossible to accurately compare the two - I would argue one thing, you would argue another and really it is a matter of perception and attribution. Who's right? God decides.
Also on that note, if all actions are the will of our omnipotent Lord, and if it is by his will that the world exists or does not, then every single death in history can be said to be God's will, and if God is the supreme being first shed light upon by Jesus Chrsit, then he it can be said that every death in the history of mankind is a result of Christianity. I want to make it clear that this is not what I believe, but I am replying to Aschlafly in kind, with brash claims :D Entheogenicorder 14:50, 30 January 2008 (EST)

I'm sorry, but this is just ridiculous. There is one question that needs to be answered here, and it doesn't involve communist governments or abortions or even any other celebrity other than the one in question. So can we please have a nice discussion without going off topic.

How were Hollywood values responsible for Ledger's death?

This question does need to be answered, both to justify the news item that we ran and to support the inclusion of Ledger's passing on the Hollywood Values page. And I apologise if you believe me to be in liberal denial over this issue, because I probably am. I view overdosing on a legal, prescription drug as a tragedy that befalls thousands of people worldwide and that does not discriminate on political lines. The fact that Ledger's death got publicised is undoubtably because of his fame, however it does not make the actual passing any different to any other. TheGuy 04:50, 31 January 2008 (EST)

If I were wealthy, but I had insomnia, I'd pay for a full-time nurse. I love myself too much to want to take a chance on an accidental overdose. What's a mere $200,000 a year to a man who makes millions? --Ed Poor Talk 21:34, 2 February 2008 (EST)

Possible News Story

Terrorist force two innocent, mentally disabled women to become suicide bombers. (Note to Wikipedia: where does "freedom fighter" fit in this sentence?)[4]--IDuan 15:01, 1 February 2008 (EST)

Terrorist? Just one? Barikada 18:08, 1 February 2008 (EST)
The typo is fixed on the main page--IDuan 18:09, 1 February 2008 (EST)
Please remove the petty and inaccurate jab at Wikipedia on the Main Page. They don't use the term "freedom fighter"; in fact, they discourage it: [5] The only pages I've found that use it are the article about the term "freedom fighter" and a series of articles on Indian revolutionaries that seem to be written by the same person - in any case, they are nonviolent people who seem to be genuinely fighting for freedom. Wikipedia does call people terrorists if they truly deserve that label: [6]. Gillespie 20:06, 1 February 2008 (EST)
No one has responded; does that mean I'm right? Gillespie 20:04, 2 February 2008 (EST)


A Lighter Bit of News

This bit of silliness might be worthy of the main page. To wit, three Mississippi legislators have introduced a bill that would prohibit restaurants from serving fat people.--RossC 19:49, 1 February 2008 (EST)

Education in Britain

State provided education isn't failing, Britain is ranked higher than the United States, and Australia (where public, government schools regularly trounce private schools) is even higher. States such as Hong Kong, where education is almost entirely state sponsored, are ranked even higher still. So criticise the British education system all you want, but remember that if you say that it is of a poor quality you are indirectly acknowledging that the US system must be poorer still.

Source - OECD International Study on Education Systems TheGuy 06:18, 2 February 2008 (EST)

"...Australia (where public, government schools regularly trounce private schools)...": I'm not so sure that's correct (and your source doesn't address that point). Philip J. Rayment 06:28, 2 February 2008 (EST)
Absolutely definite, given that I just came out of that system. I will find a source soon, but my point still stands regarding the British and US education systems, and Fox's lack of understanding of the success of state sponsored education. TheGuy 06:56, 2 February 2008 (EST)
Lulz. Those statistics are pretty meaningless, although it has a pretty colour scheme. Given that you just came out of school in Australia, you're probably not aware that us stupid poms have our own organizations here to monitor such things, and the British Chamber of Commerce didn't pull its punches when it stated: "Too many young people are still leaving school without having mastered basic English, maths and ICT. They also lack softer skills including communication, teamworking and time-keeping. Huge numbers of British businesses are extolling the skills of migrant workers in the UK. We do not want to see our young people missing out on jobs because our education system is failing to provide them with the skills they need for the world of work." 10px Fox (talk|contribs) 07:09, 2 February 2008 (EST)
That doesn't change the fact that the British education system is still one of the best compared to most other countries, and that you cannot slam it as an example of the failure of state sponsored education, especially with countries with greater dependency on government schools achieving much higher rankings. TheGuy 07:14, 2 February 2008 (EST)
"At 639 schools, fewer than 30 per cent of pupils achieved five good GCSE passes last summer, including English and maths, accord-ing to official figures. Overall, only 46.7 per cent of pupils achieved the target standard, a rise of just 0.7 percentage points on 2006, the first year that this measure was published." (Source: The Independent 10 January 2008) ... "Nobody who teaches A-level or has anything to do with teaching first-year university students has any doubt that A-levels have been dumbed down, to use the pejorative term, or democratised, to use a more positive description." (Source: The Guardian 22 August 2004) ... "GCSE results owe more to dumbing down than £3billion spent on flagship Government schools policies" (Source: Daily Mail 13 November 2007) ... "The nation's children deserve a better service. And the nation will be better served by a properly educated workforce. It's not rocket science." (Source: Personnel Today 28 January 2008) ... You sir, are talking out of your hat. 10px Fox (talk|contribs) 07:25, 2 February 2008 (EST)
And please, don't go for the lowest common denominator thing. Sure, England has a better education system than Sierra Leone, I am assuming. But that is a meaningless comparison and a meaningless way to measure the success or otherwise of the state education provided by one of the G8. 10px Fox (talk|contribs) 07:27, 2 February 2008 (EST)
I used the international source to show that Britain's education system, whatever its flaws, is still a lot better than the United States and many other countries. I also used it to show that countries such as China (Hong Kong) and Canada which (as far as I am aware) rely mainly on state sponsored education are rated some of the highest in the world, so saying that switching to private education will fix all of the system's problems is not supported by the evidence. I would also be surprised if you were able to support your implied claim that private education would be better, especially given the requirement to support lower income families and children with special needs. Prehaps you could provide the source which you were able to use to update the Education article, that may have some more information to be uncovered. TheGuy 07:37, 2 February 2008 (EST)

(reset) At no point have I mentioned switching to private education; the education article is referenced and supported by secondary references at almost every sentence. Perhaps you are just in need of a wikibreak to reflect on the pugnaciousness of your contributions here, and could return in a month with a little more maturity. 10px Fox (talk|contribs) 07:41, 2 February 2008 (EST)

Fox, that in Australia students from public schools do better at university than those from private or confessional schools isn't a secret, it is actually old news [7][8]. Order 07:49, 2 February 2008 (EST)
The article is specifically about the state education in England and Wales; at no point does it mention a difference between public schools and state schools or homeschools or other schools. 10px Fox (talk|contribs) 07:53, 2 February 2008 (EST) Edit to add: Trolls may wish to try to widen the debate and try to put "words into my mouth" to suit their own agendas, but I think that it is self-explanatory. 10px Fox (talk|contribs) 07:56, 2 February 2008 (EST)
Not sure who is trolling, but TheGuy referred to Australian public and private schools, Philip referred to Australian public and private schools, and you talked about Australian schools as well. Didn't you? Order 09:48, 2 February 2008 (EST)
Personal tools