Talk:Mystery:Why Do Non-Conservatives Exist?

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

A matter of perspective

The page begins with "Conservative principles are based on reason. So why do non-conservatives still exist?" But as an independent (at least, that's what I consider myself to be), I'd like to point out that such a statement is from a conservative perspective. Coming from an independent, couldn't I say, "Independent principles are based on reason. So why do non-independents still exist?" Of course, many conservative ideas have merit, but I also find that some liberal ideas also do. If one calls those subscribing to liberal ideology "inherently irrational," would that mean that I am partially irrational? I think it is just a matter of perspective or opinion, and while one side may have the superior reasoning on one issue or the other, this article seems to me like a gross simplification.

By the way, I'm a new editor here, so please excuse me about where talk pages are supposed to go (do they go on the top, bottom, alphabetical order, etc.?)

Conservatives adhere to reason more than liberals do. There's no reason to expect different groups to treat reason in an identical manner. Indeed, it would be illogical to argue that.
A liberal is far more likely to take a view because it suits what he likes, what he's done, or what he wants to do. That's not based on reason, but on personal preference.--Andy Schlafly 17:34, 4 December 2010 (EST)
But how can you say that with such certainty, and be absolutely sure that you are correct? Don't mistake me for a liberal here, I am an independent and have both a Wikipedia account (the more liberal-leaning encyclopedia) and a Conservapedia account (the more conservative-leaning encyclopedia) for good balance. And as an independent, I sometimes find myself in agreement with the more liberal-leaning opinions on certain issues. However, I do not feel that I hold those opinions because "it suits what [I like], what [I have] done, or what [I want] to do, but rather because I genuinely believe that those views represent what is in the best interests of the nation. By extension, couldn't at least some (not just 1 or 2, but a substantial minority, if not a majority) of liberals genuinely feel the same way, that their beliefs are actually what is best for the nation? Once again, I'm not saying that they are, just that it is possible that they could be. --James Cartwright 14:06, 26 December 2010 (EST)
What you need to do to get some answers to your questions is to read the various news items which are linked to the main page, as well as some of the hot-button articles (abortion, atheism, evolution, etc) that we have here. In a nutshell, conservatives believe in the rule of law and order, good morals, self-discipline, and so on; liberals today believe in a "free-for-all", with no restraints on anything except those people who don't agree with them. The results of what they say is "good for the country" is the following: millions of unborn children murdered through abortion; violence in public schools directly stemming from a loud-mouthed atheist forcing the removal of the Bible and prayer from those schools in 1960; continual battles to remove any trace of religion - specifically Christianity - from the public sphere; the annual wars against Christmas and what they believe its meaning should be; the votes in Congress to increase the public's tax burden, as typified by the Carter, Clinton, and Obama administrations; the destruction of our military through attrition, reduction of readiness, and turning it into a "social experiment"; the assistance of the planting of several Islamic mosques in the country over public objections to them, especially near Ground Zero in New York City; the trashing of the environment, despite what they actually say [1]; the pushing of psuedosciences such as global warming in order to grab American money for leftist causes; and so on, ad nauseum. No, we will never adhere to much of these liberal beliefs, because the end results are destruction and catastrophe. Karajou 14:41, 26 December 2010 (EST)
To be honest, the soundness of your statements is reduced by so greatly overstating the consequences of liberalism. One could argue that adherence to more liberal-leaning policies are better or worse for the nation (you would obviously say worse, as also would I) than adherence to more conservative-leaning policies, but that "destruction and catastrophe" would result is simply absurd. --James Cartwright 15:23, 26 December 2010 (EST)
James, I wonder which adjectives you'd use to describe the wasteland of abandoned homes caused by liberal policies in Detroit, to take just one example.--Andy Schlafly 15:43, 26 December 2010 (EST)
Sad and unfortunate would be some. Destructive and catastrophic would not. It is almost fearmongering (something which both Democrats and Republicans are both guilty of) to describe a political matter in the manner in which one would describe a heinous crime (Obama: "hostage taking") or an act of God (as Karajou did).
James, I made no mention of an act of God. This is "cause and effect" here. The image that I linked above is something you can easily study, as it pertains to one subject in liberals' hearts: environmentalism. There are laws on the books right now which demand heavy fines or prison time for trashing the environment, all placed on the books by liberals, and to have these same people treat the National Mall on Obama's inauguration day like it was their personal dumpster begs the question: do you want these people to be in charge? They were in charge of Detroit for over 4 decades, and just look at the place. Karajou 17:55, 26 December 2010 (EST)
I was referring to your usage of the phrase "destruction and catastrophe". That image is the inevitable result of assembling thousands of people together, and littering occurs during every Presidential inauguration, those of both Democrats and Republicans. Also, you seem to speak of environmentalism in a very condescending manner, by associating it with a group that you obviously find distasteful. However, it is absolutely no reason to be condescending towards a group which "advocates or works to protect the air, water, animals, plants, and other natural resources from pollution or its effects" (Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2011). To be honest, I would rather have them in charge of the environment than you and like-minded people. As an independent, however, I would prefer authorities that are entirely non-politically-affiliated, but given the regrettably partisan state of American politics, that won't happen.--James Cartwright 22:15, 5 January 2011 (EST)
As far as the use of the word "catastrophe" goes, take a good look at what is happening to California today. That state is on the verge of bankruptcy. There has been in influx of people increasing the state's population over the past 20 years, but with no change to the energy structure needed to support the increase, resulting in several power blackouts. The state used to have a money surplus, now they're deep in debt. They have written laws which burden the people with needless regulation; they have increased personal taxes. They have shut off the water to the San Joaquin Valley, resulting in a catastrophic loss to farmers amounting to over $1.15 billion dollars, and all because a stupid fish was more important than people's lives and livelihoods. Just who's been in charge of California the past 20 years? A bunch of liberals. This is evidence, James, that we don't need a bunch of fools to rule over us. Karajou 14:09, 27 December 2010 (EST)
Having read this, I've come to the conclusion that we differ too much ideologically to have a meaningful discussion. You certainly make good points and have a good argument, I do not deny that. I only mean to say that we disagree initially so much to the extent that we will not be able to convince each other of anything significant. Perhaps that is just human weakness. In any case, I feel similarly about my interactions with many other Conservapedia editors and I do not believe that it is worthwhile anymore for me or others that I continue to be on this site. I wish you all the best. Farewell.--James Cartwright 22:30, 5 January 2011 (EST)

Mind Altering Drugs

The suggestion may (or may not) have been made with parodic intent, but I had been thinking along similar lines. It is well-known that use of drugs - 'even' marijuana, which Liberals pretend is less harmful than candy - causes a range of psychiatric illnesses (which may also be hereditary); and I think that maybe between us we could come up with an acceptable form of words. Bugler 15:50, 13 December 2008 (EST)

I agree: that's why in my reversion I suggested that the original contributor expand to put the claim on a firmer foundation. How about, "use of mind-altering drugs, which encourages one to become a liberal to reconcile the cognitive dissonance, or dulls mental acuity resulting in mindless conformity," or something like that.-AlexanderM 15:52, 13 December 2008 (EST)
That sounds good to me. Bugler 15:54, 13 December 2008 (EST)
Thanks! Done.-AlexanderM 15:56, 13 December 2008 (EST)

Lots of insights in this list. I wonder if it would be possible to estimate percentages for each reason.--aschlafly 15:59, 13 December 2008 (EST)

Thanks! I expect media/school bias, along with liberal friendship & mindless rebellion, are some of the biggest contributors.-AlexanderM 16:09, 13 December 2008 (EST)
Any estimates would probably be just a guess so I suggest a data gathering exercise. If someone could set up a sub-page with a list of the options then we could all think of the non-conservatives that we are familiar with at school, work or in some cases even at home. Then we could just give one point for the reason that we would estimate for each person. I think the demographic diversity here should be sufficient to build a fairly accurate picture. This sort of thing wouldn't be allowed at WP with their dogmatic No Original Research mantra. So it highlights a real difference between us and WP in that we can generate new insights through a group effort as it would give almost everyone the opportunity to contribute. BrianCo 16:55, 13 December 2008 (EST)
Applying clear numbers to it is probably impossible, since many of the causes effect any individual. Everyone is subject to the bias in media, academia, etc..., while only some have the poor thinking skills, innate naivete, and simply, pure delusion that creates the radicals members of the far left whom we all love and tolerate. - Rod Weathers 17:00, 13 December 2008 (EST)
Probably so. But note that even the most powerful bias requires something extra to close the mind as well. Of course aging seems to have an effect of closing the mind automatically for many.--aschlafly 16:12, 13 December 2008 (EST)

Mental endowments are certainly a key reason (see The Liberal Mind: The Psychological Causes of Political Madness). A certain demographic is inherently irrational and childlike. - Rod Weathers 16:14, 13 December 2008 (EST)

I saw that on WND: I'll try to find time to read it over the break.AlexanderM 16:16, 13 December 2008 (EST)


I've tried to compact and organize it, to make it easier to grasp. Please improve. - Rod Weathers 16:27, 13 December 2008 (EST)

Great point. I think we need prioritized sections, like "Main Reasons", separated from "Other Reasons." Feel free to improve.--aschlafly 16:35, 13 December 2008 (EST)
Great job Rod!-AlexanderM 18:01, 13 December 2008 (EST)


Okay, if this isn't a parody, then it's just scary. It makes multiple errors in it's assumptions, characterizes liberals as "weak-minded" or just unthinkingly "rebellious", and heavily insists that being Non-conservative is "wrong", and that if you're not a conservative, then you are brainwashed simple thinker. Does the author realize that there are opposing views to conservatism that are not liberal? Does he realize that some liberals are quite intelligent, and have reasons for being liberal that are based on logic? I like to think of myself as a moderate conservative, but the reasons highlighted in this list serve only to make me ashamed of that. ShawnJ 16:37, 13 December 2008 (EST)

Shawn, the tenor and content of your rant (and it is 'its assumptions', not 'it's assumptions') lead us to suppose that you are very far from being a Conservative of any hue. If you held sincere beliefs, you would not be ashamed of them because of third party actions. And if you were one of those mythical 'quite intelligent liberals', you might be capable of opening up your mind to new ideas, rather than rejecting them out of hand. Bugler 16:44, 13 December 2008 (EST)
Right, Bugler. ShawnJ's talk lack substance. But perhaps it can be analyzed: why isn't ShawnJ a real conservative? His reference to liberals being "quite intelligent" suggests he aspires to be considered likewise. I sense the public school rationales at work here: the "A+" went to the liberal positions, and either ShawnJ received a few himself and cannot let go of the illusion, or he's a wannabee.--aschlafly 18:57, 13 December 2008 (EST)
Bugler, I consider myself a conservative because I was raised in a strictly conservative family, and while I don't agree with all of their positions, I still do agree with many of them. Hence me considering myself a "moderate" conservative. My whole issue with this article is it reads as an attack on non-conservatives, in no small way calling them worse people. It is a complete error to refer to all liberals as stupid, or unthinking, or ignorantly rebellious. It's the same flaw that racism and all forms of bigotry share. Trying to apply absolutes to beliefs and personalities simply doesn't hold up under closer inspection. Perhaps if you were secure in your conservative beliefs, you might be capable of opening up your mind to new ideas, instead of rejecting them because they come from someone with different political views than your own. Aschlafly, I addressed most of your argument in my reply to Bugler, but for the record, most of my "A+"s went to Math and Physics. It's really hard to put a political spin on calculations and numbers. ShawnJ 19:52, 13 December 2008 (EST)
ShawnJ, take a look at our new statistical portion of the entry. Which category do you fall into, or should there be a new one? For example, did you hear about conservative principles and the logic behind them only after you made up your mind? Do you have liberal friends whose acceptance you value?
If you got "A+"s in school, regardless of subject, then your self-esteem is likely tied to approval by the very liberal education establishment. You'd have to feel embarrassment if your teachers learned that you might become a real conservative. And your self-esteem would not permit that, right?--aschlafly 20:37, 13 December 2008 (EST)
Wait a sec--you're saying that people who get "A"s in school tend to be liberal? So would that make the converse true--that conservatives would tend to get low(er) grades? That can't be right...--RossC 22:18, 13 December 2008 (EST)
Ooooh, SO close, but no cigar! The arguments is that liberals know that professors are liberal - see professor values - and conform their behavior & values deliberately to the professor's to get better grades not for substance, but because they agree with the professor's worldview. It's not that they're smart; they're just playing the game.-AlexanderM 22:22, 13 December 2008 (EST)
I gotta say, my personal experiences negate any of the categories in the statistical portion. I simply realized, over time, that conservatism didn't hold all the answers. That, surprise, there was no perfect school of political thought. All this talk about the "liberal education system" is funny to me, because, honestly, I couldn't give you the political leanings of ANY of my teachers/professors. Who they did/would vote for, their stances on gun control, abortion, homosexuality, government, it simply never came up. I'm sure there was some rule on the books preventing teachers from discussing such things, and they were followed. The military upbringing put me in many different schools in various parts of the country, domestic and abroad, and not a single one broke that rule. Granted, I never sought out my instructors political beliefs, but the never volunteered them either. They were there do their job of teaching me, and I was there to do mine of learning.
As far as my friends go, they fall much into the same boat. I hang out with them to relax after work. Watch a game, play a game, maybe throw a party, whatever, not to have heated arguments that won't resolve anything.ShawnJ 23:36, 13 December 2008 (EST)
ShawnJ, you probably vote and so do your friends and teachers; you adhere to certain values and so do your friends and teachers; and you make statements of a political nature just as your friends and teachers do. I'm sure you've taken courses in economics, history, government, English literature, and science, and it is impossible to teach or learn those topics without forming opinions that affirm or deny conservative principles. Perhaps you were unaware of it at the time, but with an open mind you can reconsider it now.
Your teachers voted overwhelmingly for Barack Obama, to take just one example, and they taught you things consistent with their view. I'd guess that 50% of what you learned in school was false, and those of who care about the truth embark on a path to revisit and reconsider all of it. I encourage you to join us.--aschlafly 10:43, 14 December 2008 (EST)


Erm, i understand the bit about all those TV shows and the media in general, but mind-altering drugs?, isn't that just taking it a bit too far (i mean in terms of accusations, how the heck would Obama put drugs in everyone's cookies, i mean, he's busy enough as it is dealing with conniving madmen like the governor from Illinois with the weird name (apologies for the long sentence)--[[User:PhilipV|PhilipV]] 17:14, 13 December 2008 (EST)

Who is talking about Obama here? The effects of drug abuse are well known. Bugler 17:33, 13 December 2008 (EST)
I think he meant Blagovejich :)-AlexanderM 18:00, 13 December 2008 (EST)
PhilipV's comments are bizarre. But why is PhilipV a non-conservative, do you think?--aschlafly 18:59, 13 December 2008 (EST)
Sounds like he's trying to apologize for drug use.-AlexanderM 19:02, 13 December 2008 (EST)
Alex, I find that accusation offensive! ----PhilipV I Support our Troops! 12:28, 14 December 2008 (EST)
Come to think of it, how on earth is that an apology for drug use/abuse/misuse? if i had used such works of the devil (which they are) i would probably have voted Democrat so that i could have continued using illegal drugs - but no - i voted republcan this year and my political compass test says that im a right-wing authoritarian.----PhilipV I Support our Troops! 12:28, 14 December 2008 (EST)


Hmmm... in this article I see Liberal Style 21. Why must we try to make liberals seem less intelligent than conservatives? If the positions of Conservatism are much more logical than the positions of Liberalism... shouldn't that be self-evident? Why do we need to bash down liberals, calling them sheeple? And since when were issues like race and poverty "simple"? DM 17:44, 13 December 2008 (EST)

You seem to be bothered by the intelligence issue also, like another above. Please see my comments above.
Race and poverty are easier-to-grasp issues than globalism. There's no denying that.--aschlafly 19:05, 13 December 2008 (EST)
Let us tackle race, firstly. What race is President Obama? Black? No, he's not black. He's African-American. Now what's the difference? I would consider someone who is African-American to be an American who immigrated from Africa or is of African descent. Now who is Black? Black people are the descendants of Africans who were kidnapped and brought to the New World to work as slaves. Now, Barack Obama is descended from an African man. Thus, he can be called African-American. But he is not a descendant of Africans who were slaves, thus he is not Black. Is this just a difference of their places in history? No. Black people are of West African descent exclusively. They didn't sail to the other side of Africa to kidnap slaves. President Obama is of East African descent. Hmmm.
So is race a simple issue? DM 23:56, 13 December 2008 (EST)
It is extremely simple to millions of non-conservatives, who do not care one bit about the distinctions you attempt to draw in your comments.--aschlafly 10:46, 14 December 2008 (EST)
Race CAN be complex. I don't think we're arguing that it's not. However, globalism & the global economy, as well as the complex relationship between taxes & economic growth, can be harder to grasp for some liberals. That's all we're arguing (please correct me if I'm wrong Aschlafly).-AlexanderM 10:56, 14 December 2008 (EST)

Morally depraved nature

Why do sinners sin? It is because they have a sinful nature. I think this mystery article totally lacks a greater focus on man's sinful nature apart from God and also neglects to mention the grace and redemptive work of Christ and the Holy Spirit. I think this is rather odd for a encyclopedia which prominently features an article by the Christian Post through its main page which states that Conservapedia favors Christianity. conservative 22:16, 13 December 2008 (EST)

I think perhaps this article doesnt talk about the sinful nature of man because it is about political affiliation rather than religious. Or are you pointing out that all non-conservatives are innately sinful?
I think "political affiliation" is slightly off the mark. This is not about party affiliation. This article is about one's outlook as expressed in political terminology, which of course is highly correlated with how one votes.--Andy Schlafly 11:55, 5 July 2009 (EDT)

Statistical Analysis

Ok I know this is a mystery and not an encyclopedic article but could we please get one or two cites for the statistical analysis section since it would be very interesting to read the studies that that was based off of --WillB 22:47, 13 December 2008 (EST)

good wuestion WillB! how were these statistics compiled?
Agreed. It definitely does not look good at its present state where these numbers have nothing to back them up -- even if listed as estimates. --SJames 18:20, 14 December 2008 (EST)
It's an estimate, and a work in progress. Do you doubt its truth? Perhaps you're simply saying that a liberal newspaper would not admit this, and you'd be right about that. But the truth is not constrained by what liberals will admit.--aschlafly 18:29, 14 December 2008 (EST)
I was just stating my curiosity -- one that I believe most readers share -- as to how those numbers came about. As to its validity, I have no way of knowing but based on my own encounters, those numbers look about right for the most part, except for one group that I believe is missing on that list. I know quite a few non-conservatives who, with an open mind, simply weighed conservative values against non-conservative values and decided that they identified more with non-conservative values. Their values usually gravitate towards "freedom of choice", as defined by themselves. (Obviously we disagree with it)

Examples include: Freedom to choose abortion, freedom to choose religion, freedom to choose a "lifestyle", etc. You might say that these people fall into the 10%: refuse to rise above their personal temptations, often self-destructive, and refuse to accept conservative values that conflict with their personal desires like irresponsible sexual promiscuity -- and that's true for some, but not for others. Some non-conservatives aren't interested in engaging in sexual promiscuity, dwelling in person temptation and self-destruction; they simply believe that it should be up to each individual if they choose to do so. --SJames 21:42, 14 December 2008 (EST)

As I said it would be interesting to read how these estimates were arrived at. I have no idea what the percentages should be and would love to see the data but I know that since this is an essay that a cite is not required and my not be possible to get in any case. --WillB 18:41, 14 December 2008 (EST)

Aschlafly asks "Do you doubt its [the statistics'] truth?" To which I respond, yes, I do doubt it, but more importantly I doubt very much that these "statistics" should be referred to as such. I, further, dispute WillB's claim that because this is an essay Aschlafly is not obligated to provide citations or data to support his claim.

My basic issue here is that absent any sort of supporting documentation these "estimates" are nothing of the sort and are, instead, simply guesses. A guess is not the same as a statistical estimate. To understand why, consider ASchlafly's first cited reason, "Did not hear about conservative principles...", which I will refer to as Claim A. Now, in theory Claim A is true of some portion of the population (A "population" being defined as the set of things we're interested in studying. In this case, for the sake of argument, we'll assume the population is American citizens or legal residents). This value is known as a population parameter and we will refer to it as "Mu", following the common statistical practice of referring to true population values with Greek symbols. Now, the difficulty is that the population is too large for us to assess as a whole. To deal with this, we take a sample of the population- for example, a random sample. Now, the composition of a true random sample is determined by its parent population. So, for example, if Claim A is true of 40% of the population, as ASchlafly asserts, then a true random sample will- in theory- contain the same proportion of persons for whom Claim A is true. The quantity in the sample for whom Claim A is true will be referred to as X-bar, a symbol used to refer to the arithmetic mean of a sample, and is not written in Greek as it refers to an estimate or "statistic" rather than to a true population parameter. So, if our random sample is perfect Mu should equal x-bar.

Now, this is true in theory, but in practice things get tricky. While a true random sample is the ideal, it is also the case that larger samples provide better estimates (i.e. more accurate values of x-bar) than smaller samples. Thus, it is almost always the case that Mu does not equal x-bar but rather is only approximately equal to x-bar. The relation between a particular value of x-bar and the value of Mu is determined using two things: the estimated standard deviation of a distribution of means and a confidence interval. The distribution of means is a mathematical construct that indicates how often we ought to see the x-bar of a sample of a given size, n, vary by a certain amount from the value of Mu. For our purposes we would estimate it using sample information by dividing the sample variance by n (i.e the sample size) and then taking the square root. We will refer to this as SDm (i.e. the standard deviation of the distribution of means). We would then use this value to construct a confidence interval. A confidence interval is a range of scores within which we are certain to a specific probability that we will find Mu. Put differently, it is like saying, "The true population value is x-bar plus or minus y amount, with a certainty of 95%." Confidence intervals are almost always included with point estimates (i.e. estimates of a specific value, such as x-bar) because statisticians are well aware that x-bar almost never precisely equals Mu. We would construct our confidence interval by taking x-bar and then adding, and subtracting, the value of the product of SDm and a t-value corresponding to our desired level of certainty and degrees of freedom (i.e. x-bar + (SDm)(t-value) and x-bar - (SDm)(t-value)). A t-value is a score taken from the t-distribution, which is an approximation of the normal distribution used when a smaller sample size produces non-normality. The t-distribution asymptotically approximates the normal distribution, so with large sample sizes you can essentially use the normal distribution instead. The degrees of freedom in this case are equal to n-1. So, if we drew a sample of 101 people and wanted to be 99% sure that our confidence interval included Mu then we would use a t-value of 2.626. So, in summation, using the sample information we can compute not simply an estimate of the value of Mu (i.e. x-bar) but also an interval within which we can be confident (e.g. 99% certain) that the true value of Mu lies. Obviously, the smaller the confidence interval, the more exact our estimate of Mu is likely to be and, if we assume that the sample x-bar is derived from is a perfect random sample, then the quality of our estimate is based entirely on sample size. Further, the relationships discussed above are well-documented empirically and have been proven out by mathematicians and statisticians since about the turn of the century.

The reality, of course, is that samples are rarely if ever perfectly random. Sampling error inevitably creeps in and, as a result, confidence intervals often have to be adjusted for this added error. If we cannot determine the extent of the sampling error's influence on our statistics then there is no mathematical adjustment possible and we, instead, have to assess the robustness of our estimates against the probable size of the error. And what all this means is that something is a statistical estimate rather than an offhand guess precisely because it includes not only a point estimate (e.g. 40% of the population subscribes to Claim A) but also a confidence interval around that point estimate (e.g. plus or minus 10%). Moreover, the point estimates as well as the confidence intervals are produced using a set of established procedures that are rooted in the mathematical characteristics of both population/sample relationships and the estimators (i.e. the computations used to produce the point estimates). Given that this is the case, point estimates are almost always provided with confidence intervals or standard errors and, additionally, information must be provided in order to allow others to assess the likely accuracy of the estimates.

ASchlafly has provided a set of point estimates generated in an unknown manner from unknown data. He has included no confidence intervals and no indication of the degree of accuracy in these estimates. As a result they are not statistical estimates and in no way should be referred to as the product of "statistical analysis". They are, to the contrary, nothing more or less than offhand guesses and should be referred to as such. On the other hand, if ASchlafly has some basis for these point estimates he should indicate where the data derive from and provide- at a bare minimum- the confidence intervals around these estimates as well as an outline indicating how he produced those intervals.

The point of statistics is not simply to compute an answer (e.g. a point estimate) but to produce along with it an estimate of the degree or error contained in that estimate. No human, after all, is perfect and it is in the nature of statistics to honestly quantify that imperfection. Absent confidence intervals or standard errors, and some understanding of how the data were gathered the appropriate response to the question "Do you doubt its truth" from anyone who is marginally competent in statistics must be "yes." Moreover, if ASchlafly wishes to label these assertions as "statistical estimates" then it is his responsibility to justify them in the manner accepted by statisticians. Otherwise, they should be (correctly) labeled as guesses.

Understand, the substance of my objection has nothing to do with whether or not ASchlafly's claims are correct but, rather, with the appropriateness of their presentation and treatment. -Drek

Any reasonable argument should be capable of being put in two or three concise paragraphs, Drek. Your lengthy and confused screed doesn't add any light to this matter, I'm afraid. Bugler 12:07, 16 December 2008 (EST)
No sweat: ASchlafly's "statistics" are not statistics but guesses. He can demonstrate to the contrary by providing adequate citations to his data source as well as indicating the techniques used to generate the point estimates as well as confidence intervals and/or standard errors. Until he does so, referring to his guesses as "statistical analysis" is, at best, an exaggeration. Leaving this essay as-is saps credibility from both Conservapedia generally and ASchlafly particularly. See the above "confused screed" for a detailed explanation of my concerns. It's good to be succinct, but if Conservapedia is meant as an educational resource- and the criticism of Wikipedia for not offering courses lends support to that notion- then it's even better to be sufficiently thorough for students to follow the dispute. Or, as Beatrice Wright puts it, "You must learn to write in such a way that it will be as easy as possible for your critics to know why they disagree with you." -Drek
Andrew Schlafly is a qualified and experienced statistician and I'd certainly trust his judgement; not to sound suspicious, but in what way are you qualified to make such sweeping statements about this aricle? Also, you can be sure that his analyses and his estimates are based on a mature and thorough understanding of the issue being examined. Proper statistics is not just bare number crunching: it is an informed process that requires a full understanding of context. Bugler 12:58, 16 December 2008 (EST)
"Proper statistics is not just bare number crunching: it is an informed process that requires a full understanding of context." Exactly right, and as you will notice, I am asking for a disclosure of that context so that we can all assess the accuracy and reliability of ASchlafly's claims for ourselves. If he is, indeed, a "...qualified and experienced statistician..." as you assert and his numbers are based on good data and appropriate techniques, this should be trivially easy. I also appreciate that you trust his judgment but statistics aren't about trusting someone's judgment, they are about verifiable results. Whether you or I view ASchlafly as a competent statistician has no bearing on the fact that he has not, at present, provided any justification whatsoever for the figures presented. Asking about my qualifications is something of an ad hominem since I have presented a lengthy explanation of why I question ASchlafly's claims. Rather than ask how I know what I do, why not respond substantively to my points? Regardless, while I have no expectation that you will take my word for it, I have been teaching statistics in an American four-year university for six years. -Drek
I'm sorry you take it as an ad hom; I'm sure you appreciate that in such an environment a certain caution about people's claimed expertise is perhaps excusable. And I certainly accept your word as to your post and experience. But this is more than a pure, abstract, mathematical, dare I say professorial treatment of statistics. This is the application of statistics in the real world, down and dirty, relying also upon a knowledge of human nature, and in particular the nature of the Liberal-minded human, which is an additional layer of expertise which possibly you do not have - although, to be fair, working in a university (is it a public funded institution?) you would very likely be exposed daily to all kinds of Liberal nonsense. Bugler 13:19, 16 December 2008 (EST)
"This is the application of statistics in the real world, down and dirty, relying also upon a knowledge of human nature..." The thing is, Bugler, that statistics are an applied branch of mathematics. Their express purpose is to allow us to extract certainty from the vapor of possibility or, less metaphorically, to allow us to derive useful knowledge from messy research situations. Indeed, multivariate methods like regression are often used when the purity of experimental control is unattainable. Statistics can only provide this service reliably, however, when there is a full disclosure of how they are obtained. If the data are valid, the procedures appropriate, and the necessary mathematical assumptions not grievously violated, then the conclusions may be trusted to a particular degree of certainty. That ASchlafly's statistics are being used to asses the "...nature of the Liberal-minded human..." is effectively irrelevant. I do not ask that ASchlafly produce perfect statistics, but unless and until he provides a basis for judging his numbers, they cannot be regarded as anything more than his personal opinion. I appreciate your accepting my claimed expertise on my word, however. I have worked at both public and private universities and you will understand that the various strains of "nonsense" that I have encountered from a variety of ideological camps underlies my interest in seeing that statistical methods are not abused. If statistics are to be used to adjudicate between rival claims, then we must emphasize the need for them to be performed correctly. More simply, the extent to which I agree or disagree with the outcome of an analysis has no bearing on whether or not it was done correctly. And, as a side note, I have enjoyed our chat, but will probably be away from my computer for the next day or so for travel. If I do not respond to further comments, please understand it is not out of rudeness. -Drek
of course. Bon voyage! Bugler 13:37, 16 December 2008 (EST)
Drek, you really "take the cake" for the most long-winded liberal rant in recent memory here. The field of statistics does include estimates, and no one doubts that that there are percentages for each category listed. Are the estimates off slightly? Perhaps, but be specific about which one you think may be off.--aschlafly 13:48, 16 December 2008 (EST)
Mr. Schlafly,
It has taken me a long time to respond to your more or less final remarks on this subject. This has been due to travel during the Christmas holidays so that my wife and I would be with family as well as a desire to take my time in thinking before responding. I will attempt to answer each of your remarks directly.
First, I am sorry that you regard my concerns as a "liberal rant." I am not interested in the politics of this article but only in the legitimacy of labeling your estimates with the heading of "Statistical Analysis." Labeling my arguments "liberal" does nothing to refute them.
Second, I never claimed that statistics do not include estimates. Indeed, in the second paragraph of my original comments I remarked, " refers to an estimate or "statistic" rather than to a true population parameter." Your response to me that "The field of statistics does include estimates..." has nothing to do with what I said. Do I think your estimates off "slightly"? Without question- all estimates can safely be said to deviate from the true population values by at least a small amount. This is a statistical reality. As to which I think may be off- I regard all of them suspect as you have provided no information about where these estimates derive from.
Except, that isn't really true. In a response to FernoKlump at 21:22 on December 16, 2008 you remark that, "Like any estimate, it's based on experience and logic." This is the only time you have ever provided anything even approximating a citation for these estimates. Unfortunately, it does nothing to alay my fears. In regards to "experience," as I know you are familiar with the common statistical saying "Correlation does not equal causation," allow me to remind you of another common statistical saying: "The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data.'" That is to say, no individual's experiences- no matter how reasonable and observant they are- can substitute for properly gathered information. The reason is simple: the world is a large place and we are, individually, very small. We only perceive the small slice of reality that we ourselves occupy and fail to observe the world from any other position. As such, even if we suppose that there are no biases in our perceptions whatsoever (a superhuman claim) it is vanishingly unlikely that those perceptions match perfectly with observable reality. In regards to "logic" I can only remind you that logic is a poor guide if one has flawed information. If we believe that ill health is caused by imbalances in the humors of the body, it is perfectly logical to treat a variety of disorders with bloodletting. Yet, if we evaluate this practice scientifically we find that in most cases it does more harm than good. Good logic is no substitute for good data.
I suspect that you will not find my arguments above compelling, so please allow me to present a handful of additional points. The 2006 edition of the American Heritage Dictionary defines "statistics" as: "1. The mathematics of the collection, organization, and interpretation of numerical data, especially the analysis of population characteristics by inference from sampling. 2. Numerical data." WordNet 3.0 defines it as, "a branch of applied mathematics concerned with the collection and interpretation of quantitative data and the use of probability theory to estimate population parameters." The American Heritage Science Dictionary defines it as, "1. The branch of mathematics that deals with the collection, organization, analysis, and interpretation of numerical data. Statistics is especially useful in drawing general conclusions about a set of data from a sample of the data. 2. Numerical data." Finally, if we examine Conservapedia's own article on statistics we find this in the first paragraph: "Statistics is the application of mathematics to the understanding of data. It involves all stages of data collection and processing from the initial collection, to the analysis and ultimately to the conclusions and interpretations of the data." You will note the primacy of data in all of these definitions. Nowhere do any of these sources refer to "experience" or "logic" with the same emphasis as they do to "data." Likewise, I can review my books on statistics as long as you like and will never find a term in any equation where "experience" is to be added, while all deal in one way or another with data.
At this point I consider that you have finally revealed that as these estimates are based on "experience and logic" rather than data, you have conceded that they are not the product of statistical analysis. I do not object to your referring to them as estimates, but do object in the strongest terms to your labeling them "statistical analysis." Your estimates are not the product of statistics. You can accuse me of producing another liberal rant, but that does not make me wrong. You can scold people for "carping," but that does not make your estimates reliable. This is not politics, this is mathematics. -Drek
He's not claiming the statistics are wrong, he's saying that they are meaningless if the method of finding them is withheld. FernoKlumpMr. Schlafly! Look at this petition! 20:09, 16 December 2008 (EST)
Like any estimate, it's based on experience and logic. Instead of carping, please contribute.--aschlafly 21:22, 16 December 2008 (EST)

I have a quick question for Aschlafly. I notice that the percentages in the Statistical analysis section add up to exactly 100. I find this a little confusing as I don't see any reason that the events listed should be mutually exclusive. Surely a person could be a liberal for many of the reasons given? AndyJM 11:43, 31 December 2008 (EST)

They refer to the primary reasons.--aschlafly 12:13, 31 December 2008 (EST)
Hmmm, I suppose that could work. However in this instance it could be very difficult to define what we mean by the primary reason. Typically in such analysis one could self-reporting, however I doubt that would work in this case :) AndyJM 12:37, 31 December 2008 (EST)

Do these percentages refer to percentages of individuals in the population, or percentages of what brings about non-conservatism within individuals? E.g. one individual could be a non-conservative mostly because of resentment but also partly because of wanting to fit in with peers. So then, do we add up those percentages of motives within individuals to produce the total for the population as a whole; so that if the whole population consists of individuals whose motives for being non-conservative are 50% due to resentment, but none of whom is motivated 100% by resentment, then we would still count it as 50% for the whole population?

I would also question, by the way, whether people who don't even necessarily harbor a truly non-conservative opinion or who may be politically apathetic, should even be counted as bona fide non-conservatives if they're just acting non-conservative to meet a social expectation, any more than a person who goes to church just to be counted as a churchgoer should be considered a Christian. Dhdidnac 17:14, 7 January 2014 (EST)

My political alignment

Ahem, I am a conservative (just see some of my userboxes, and i am against abortion, and i support classroom prayer too) and another thing, my comments were somewhat misguided. When you said mind-altering drugs, i thought you were implying that Obama and company were putting drugs of some sort into everyone's food. ----PhilipV I Support our Troops! 12:24, 14 December 2008 (EST)

But why on earth would you suspect any such thing was implied? Surely it is clear that it meant voluntarily-ingested illegal drugs? Bugler 12:30, 14 December 2008 (EST)

Evidently not - case closed.---- 50 star flag.png PhilipV I Support our Troops! 10:18, 1 January 2009 (EST)


Are you honestly that arrogant that you wonder why people might not think exactly like you? sounds like mindless confomity to me.

A further suggestion

It struck me that denial of Conservative principles could be a result of incipient or presenting mental illness. Just as it has been widely demonstrated that Liberal beliefs can lead to psychiatric conditions (per ), so there might also be a reciprocal effect. Bugler 11:19, 15 December 2008 (EST)

"Abstract" principles

I don't define "more guns, less crime" and "less taxes, more revenue" as abstract characteristics. There are statistics to back up both claims, as there are statistics to support a counter-claim to either. Those statements are based off of concrete observations and statistics. Jeffrey W. LauttamusDiscussion 12:18, 16 December 2008 (EST)

The observation "more guns, less crime" does entail a slight abstraction, and there are people who may have trouble understanding. Statistics confirm it, as does logic.--aschlafly 13:50, 16 December 2008 (EST)
I don't doubt that people may have trouble understanding. However if it is statistically confirmed, where is the abstraction? Jeffrey W. LauttamusDiscussion 13:55, 16 December 2008 (EST)
You can always find someone to dispute statistics, as your own posting demonstrates. The real obstacle to some is grasping the abstraction of the logic.--aschlafly 14:03, 16 December 2008 (EST)
I think we're arguing for the same side here, Andy. I'm not disputing any statistics; that's my point. The statistics are there plain as day that an armed citizenry opposes crime. I would say it's just blind ignorance (or faulty logic) to believe otherwise as opposed to an abstraction. Jeffrey W. LauttamusDiscussion 14:27, 16 December 2008 (EST)
I don't think someone having, to use popular terminology, an IQ of less than 100 can easily understand the truth of "more guns, less crime." Abstractions become more difficult to understand the lower the intelligence. Frankly, this abstraction strikes many highly intelligent people as wrong at first glance, before thinking more abstractly.--aschlafly 21:11, 16 December 2008 (EST)

Tweaking the Statistics

With all due deference to Andy's knowledge on the subject, I believe that it would be beneficial to consider reweighting the estimates for why people choose to remain liberal, despite superior arguments for conservatism, as follows:

  • 25%: did not hear about conservative principles and the logic behind them until after they made up their mind, perhaps due to pervasive societal bias, and refuse to reconsider;
  • 25%: refuse to rise above their personal temptations, often self-destructive, and refuse to accept conservative values that conflict with their personal desires like sexual promiscuity;
  • 20%: were told off or disciplined once by a conservative, often a parent, and refuse to rise above the animosity;
  • 10%: refuse to let go of their past, or let go of their desire for a sense of acceptance by liberal friends or teachers;
  • 10%: mistakenly feel that conservative values and benefits are available only to those who are from an intact family, not realizing the availability and benefits to all, including children of divorced parents;
  • 5%: bitterly unemployed, or having a salary or benefits that conservatives would reduce, such as public school teachers, and a refusal to rise above self-interest; and
  • 5%: like an anarchist, genuinely want to believe in and propagate destructive ideas.

The largest reason that people remain liberal is clearly their desire to have their immoral and atheistic actions become more socially acceptable so that they can justify such lifestyles to themselves and others. Being disciplined by conservatives goes hand in hand with this - liberals do not like people pointing out that their lifestyle choices are wrong and detrimental to the country as a whole. It is primarily conservatives who are willing to call a spade a spade and chastise immoral conduct. I decreased the point about hearing about conservative principles later in life because the vast majority of United States citizens are raised in Christian churches and are taught the Bible's conservative principles from a young age. It is only once they are school-aged that liberal indoctrination can begin.--Laches 14:48, 16 December 2008 (EST)

Good insights, but American kids get indoctrinated by public schools and television at young ages prior to (and during) their formation of their views.--aschlafly 21:23, 16 December 2008 (EST)
Just one question: You are claiming that no liberal has ever taken that position through logical thought? (Usual disclaimers apply)
Okay, two questions: I would still like to see a source for those statistics. "Experience and logic" isn't enough; show me the data.
(The silence that will likely follow a response to the second question will not necessarily indicate acceptance of the argument it presents; more likely, it will mean that I believe a response won't add anything.)
-CSGuy 18:02, 17 December 2008 (EST)
The more logical a liberal is the less likely he will remain a liberal. Liberals do better in gaining adherents by avoiding logic. If you have a logical argument for a liberal position, then I'd love to hear it.
References are being added to the entry. Feel free to add some yourselves, unless you think that liberals never become conservatives (which is demonstrably false).--aschlafly 21:56, 17 December 2008 (EST)
You didn't answer my first question. Are you claiming that no liberal has ever taken that position through logical thought? (I'm just looking for a yes or a no, not an essay.) -CSGuy 22:38, 17 December 2008 (EST)
Your question is incoherent. What does "that position" refer to? Are you referring to a specific position (e.g., gun control), or a general ideology (e.g., being a liberal)?
In general, liberal views are not based on logic. There are examples of superficial liberal appeal to logic (e.g., to believe that banning guns will reduce crime), but it doesn't take long to show the error in the logic. Many liberals make superficially logical arguments simply to mislead others who are not bright enough to see the flaw.--aschlafly 22:49, 17 December 2008 (EST)
Given that I didn't mention anything other than liberalism, it seems obvious that's what I'm referring to. I'll ask again: Are you arguing that no liberal has ever become a liberal through logical thought? "Yes" or "no" will do. -CSGuy 23:14, 17 December 2008 (EST)
No one has become a liberal through truthful logical thought.--aschlafly 23:25, 17 December 2008 (EST)

Dennis Prager is one of my favorite thinkers, and took this up at length, proving what Andy says is true.

"With the decline of the authority of Judeo-Christian values in the West, many people stopped looking to external sources of moral standards in order to decide what is right and wrong. Instead of being guided by God, the Bible and religion, great numbers -- in Western Europe, the great majority -- have looked elsewhere for moral and social guidelines.

For many millions in the twentieth century, those guidelines were provided by Marxism, Communism, Fascism or Nazism. For many millions today, those guidelines are "feelings". With the ascendancy of leftist values that has followed the decline of Judeo-Christian religion, personal feelings have supplanted universal standards. In fact, feelings are the major unifying characteristic among contemporary liberal positions.

Aside from reliance on feelings, how else can one explain a person who believes, let alone proudly announces on a bumper sticker, that "War is not the answer"? I know of no comparable conservative bumper sticker that is so demonstrably false and morally ignorant. Almost every great evil has been solved by war -- from slavery in America to the Holocaust in Europe. Auschwitz was liberated by soldiers making war, not by pacifists who would have allowed the Nazis to murder every Jew in Europe." Does religion make people better or worse, Dennis Prager - 24 columns on topic

--₮K/Talk! 00:27, 18 December 2008 (EST)

TV Shows

How about some citations or examples for South Park, Family Guy, and Hannah Montana? Well, the first two are somewhat political anyway I guess. But Hannah Montana? Please, example or citation. Did you know Billy Ray Cyrus is with Sean Hannity on the Freedom Concert, and Miley Cyrus is a strong Christian? User:AddisonDM 28 December 2008

I don't watch TV, so I hope someone else can help out here!--aschlafly 20:07, 28 December 2008 (EST)

Hannah Montana is a kid's show. I don't watch it often but it does not seem to be ether conservative or liberal. I think it should be removed from the list of liberal TV shows. --AmeliaJ 14:49, 31 December 2008 (EST)

Don't say South Park pushes liberal values. Matt Stone and Trey Parker are both libertarians. For example in a certain episode, a one Mr. Reiner tries to take down the local tobacco company, and in the end he is portrayed as ridiculous, out of touch, and the townspeople rally around the tobacco company. --Snotbowst 14:20, 4 January 2009 (EST)

Libertarians are socially liberal. You could benefit from our entries on both. Thanks and Godspeed.--Andy Schlafly 14:33, 4 January 2009 (EST)
I know what socially liberal and libertarian are defined as. What I am gettng at is that the show is wrongly heaped. Another example could be the show's mockery of the attempt to ban the N word through an entire episode. Besides it's crassness, the show is one the most balanced on TV and it handles issues with maturity while throwing a mask of fart jokes to add some comic relief.

As for The Simpsons, the show does lean leftward, but gives both sides a say. For instance, the show makes scatig comments about neo-hippies, President Carter, and President Clinton. Ned Flanders is often a set up but the jokes are never hugely inflammatory (to put it in perspective if someone made jokes about my POV at that level, I'd let it slide, maybe even let a smile crack through). And if you can't laugh at yourself, you don't deserve to be taken seriously. --Snotbowst 21:12, 4 January 2009 (EST)

By the way I'm glad Hannah Montana is off the list. I don't think it is really liberal, and there are definitely more harmful shows that could be listed instead. User:AddisonDM 6 January 2009


Where did the author of the various statistics get their information? It looks to me like the information was fabricated from thin air. In fact, the entire article makes the conservative movement look bad because we come off as extremely arrogant. This is no way to convince liberals to see reason; it only solidifies their belief that we are unable to see any side but our own. This article will make us more enemies than friends. WilliamBeason 14:57, 31 December 2008 (EST)

The estimates are based on experience and available articles. More citations can be added and I encourage you to do so. Is there a particular statement that you dispute?--aschlafly 16:07, 31 December 2008 (EST)
My problem is that the entire article in general is committing the logical fallacy known as "poisoning the well". Rather than directly confronting liberal ideas, it uses weighted phrases inclusively describing all liberals as: "close-minded", "irrational", having "poor abstract thinking", and having "arrogance" to create a view that makes all liberals to seem like horrible people. The article seethes with hypocrisy from these statements. If we should seek to show liberals that their views are incorrect, we should combat on issues, not participate in labeling a person simply based off of their political views.
The article should be rewritten following the title. As it asks the question "Why do Non-Conservatives Exist?", it should cover more than just liberalism, as there are many political movements other than conservatism and liberalism. To name a few other major movements: libertarianism, federalism, and marxism. Followers of each political movement have different reasons for existing (be they world events, nationality, socioeconomic class, etc.)
But to summarize an ideal article under this topic: non-conservatives exist because humans think differently. Because there is such a staggeringly large number of ideologies, sub-ideologies, and other ways to view the world, one would be hard-pressed to find two people who thought that the world should exist in the exact same way. To further compound this, there is no easily definable line that separates one ideology from another because many people take their beliefs from a variety of political movements.
Thank you for reading this, and best regards for the new year!
WilliamBeason 23:15, 31 December 2008 (EST)
Your comments are thoughtful, and thought-provoking. Thank you. But there are some insights in this entry worth developing. Liberals do try to keep conservative ideas from reaching people. Why? Because many people are liberal simply because they haven't heard conservative principles with an open mind. If they are liberal for long enough, then the mind is closed and will not reconsider.
Politics is a battle for control of the future. Liberals know how to play the game to serve their purposes. The percentages might be tweaked a bit, but just watch how the liberals themselves behave. They censor and demonize conservatives, for example, and this entry explains why. Just look at the beginning of the entry by Wikipedia on Conservapedia and you can see the liberal strategy in action.--aschlafly 23:27, 31 December 2008 (EST)
You are correct in saying that liberals try to keep conservative ideals from spreading. However, when looking at the scheme of things from a larger perspective, it quickly becomes noticeable that all political movements attempt to hinder those that are (or even simply those that they see to be) opposed to themselves. The Romans tried to hinder Christians; Catholics hindered heliocentrism; atheists hinder theists; and theists hinder atheists. Censoring and demonizing opposition is not a new method developed by liberals for hindering conservatives: it has been a tool of politics for ages. But even so, is this article currently not a monument to demonizing liberals? Even though some liberals demonize us, it does not make it right for us to demonize them. We need to show that we are above that. We need to show that the conservative movement is above pointing the finger and telling nasty stories like schoolchildren.
To add some further perspective: read your previous post. In your mind replace "conservative" with "liberal" and "liberal" with "conservative". Does it make the post any less true? Have we removed the plank from our own eye?
Thank you for taking the time to read this with an open mind. WilliamBeason 18:54, 1 January 2009 (EST)
William, the tactics used by liberals are not used by conservatives whatsoever. They censor school prayer, we don't censor the teaching of Evolution. Also, we don't require students to write that God exists on tests like they do with Evolution or Global Warming. Dford 12:12, 30 May 2010 (EDT)


It is possible for 20% of one group of people to also be in the 15% of another group of people. It's a type of "inclusive clause" -- I'm not sure of the proper term for it. Here's a math problem from a while ago...

There are 1000 students in a school. 35% like math, 60% like history, and 75% like both (disregard the existence of other subjects). How many students only like history? (I messed up on the quoting of the problem, but you can figure out what I'm trying to convey)

You did not need to readjust the percentages because a new item was added to the "Statistical" list. ZacharyM 00:21, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

Good point, but untrue when listing the primary reasons (or favorite courses).--Andy Schlafly 00:26, 13 October 2009 (EDT)


I would like to point out that also a lot of people become liberal on conversion to Christianity as they feel that liberalism is more consistent with the Bible than conservatism. My personal belief is that both are very inconsistent on different points, and I've voted both ways. --Trinity123 10:11, 9 February 2009 (EST)

If somebody thinks that the Bible supports liberal ideologies then they are incorrect. The Holy Bible is quite clearly Conservative in nature to the point where their values are almost identical. Dford 12:23, 30 May 2010 (EDT)


Surely the answer to this question is self-evident. Conservative is a relative term as is liberal. To put it simply, conservatives exist because liberals do. If everyone had exactly the same views on all issues then there would be no need for a word to describe them. Although as the usage here implies, they are now used as set terms to describe a set of views, it must be remembered that there is a spectrum of political views. As such the word conservative is best used as a relative term, as is the case with liberal. RobertWDP 12:59, 27 February 2009 (EST)


I agree with you that most liberals are liberals due to some sort of social pressure, whether it be a liberal family, being surrounded by liberal bias in the classroom and mainstream media or believing the demonisation of conservatives because they are afraid to think otherwise. Dford 12:12, 30 May 2010 (EDT)

Just thought I'd share this study that came out earlier this year.[2] Seems relevant to the page. Ayzmo :) 18:25, 19 October 2011 (EDT)


Shouldn't this redirect to problem of evil? Dhdidnac 11:51, 7 January 2014 (EST)

Evil contributes to the reasons why non-conservatives exist, but more specificity is also enlightening.--Andy Schlafly 16:22, 7 January 2014 (EST)

God's judgment

God sends judgment on those who love sin and lies more than Gospel truth, insuring their fate in the form of a deluding influence so that they continue to believe what is false. It is not just any delusion but a "strong delusion" (2 Thessalonians 2:11). Further, the heathen are not only wicked but also "unreasonable" (2 Thessalonians 3:2). By definition, delusions are beliefs held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary. Is it any wonder, then, that we have trouble reasoning with them and getting them to recognize the fallacies and factual inaccuracies on which their ideologies are based?

The Greek word for "delusion", ρλάνη, means fraudulence or a straying from orthodoxy. It is the feminine version of ρλάνος, meaning roving (as a tramp). It is no mystery, then, why the intellectually loose heathen accept any ideology that comes along, if they are offered enough of an inducement. This harlotry has been going on for thousands of years, and will continue until judgment has been fully executed.

If, by means of a false ideology, the forces of evil can undermine the wisdom and prudence upon which a Godly kingdom or republic depends for its prosperity, then the country is exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within. In this way, the heathen can overcome the country's defenses and enslave the people until such time as they repent and pray for deliverance. This has happened several times during the course of history. Dhdidnac 18:26, 7 January 2014 (EST)

Indeed it is supposed to happen. God allowed entire cities to turn to crap, only to obliterate them, and this was in the days when a city was a nation in its own right. Now it is happening again, but with a global civilization rather than a city state. This may seem like overenthusiastic extrapolation, but it looks to me like Conservapedia will eventually come to serve as kind of an Ark - perhaps one of several - when it is time for God to start the whole humanity thing again. This is a natural cycle that the Mayans had some primitive inkling of, even though they missed the point of it. There are already stores of valuable plant seeds being prepared, and that is a different kind of Ark, perhaps more directly analogous to the original. Even though the maintainers of such arks do not know their true purpose and may even be atheists in some cases, they are serving God through dedication to their work. They are the new Noahs. JamesWS 09:55, 22 February 2014 (EST)

The Simpsons

I don´t think that The Simpsons inject liberal beliefs and mock conservative values. Although there are many liberal themes like supporting gay marriage, many episodes have a strong church focus like "Homer the Heretic". It also criticizes public schools.--JoeyJ 08:19, 30 June 2014 (EDT)

I believe that the program has liberal and conservative writers and does a better job mocking both sides such as the atrocious Family Guy. It does a very good job satirizing the American public school system, and the Democratic Party, for instance. --James Wilson 08:24, 30 June 2014 (EDT)

Mystery:Why Do Non-Conservatives Exist?

Honestly, this is the most arrogant question I've seen in a long while. If this is not a joke, and it probably isn't, the question amounts to saying: We are in possession of the whole truth and everybody else is just deluded. I'd recommend a trip to a psychiatrist to the one who came up this idea. He'll probably be diagnosed with megalomania, and as I understand it, that is not a Christian value. Sorte Slyngel (talk) 17:00, 24 August 2015 (EDT)

Isn't there a better answer to the question than that??--Andy Schlafly (talk) 17:32, 24 August 2015 (EDT)
Andy, you gave a sensible and respectful answer to that guy. Even though his remarks were provocative. I applaud you for that, and note that it seems to be consistent with the more tolerant attitude that I have noticed here lately. And I applaud you for not blocking him, also consistent with the more tolerant attitude. But not everyone "got the memo". You see, Sorte Slyngel (really stupid name, but that's not for me to judge!) got blocked shortly after you wrote your reply. Please unblock him, and see that everyone gets the memo. SamHB (talk) 20:31, 24 August 2015 (EDT)
He broke the Conservapedia commandment "Thou shall not engage in 90/10 behavior. You shall surely be blocked". No need for a memo. Conservative (talk) 20:38, 24 August 2015 (EDT)
But if Andy extended the courtesy of replying to him, he must not have thought Sorte's thoughts were worthless, or pointless arguing, "last wordism", or any of those things that sysops quite rightfully object to. For Vargas to ban this person was rude and disrespectful to Andy. SamHB (talk) 23:01, 24 August 2015 (EDT)
Note the assumptions and consequences of the word "must". Perhaps Andy was asking a rhetorical question like "Will no man rid me of this meddlesome priest?" addressed to all except Sorte. VargasMilan (talk) 01:34, 25 August 2015 (EDT)
I was following Andy's example of blocking someone because of the 90/10 article edit/talk edit ratio rule, as he did recently (though the edits were probably lost in the 6-day data deletion that even removed all of the discussion on this section of this page) as Sorte had made more than nine talk page edits with no main space edits (that is, edits to articles). VargasMilan (talk) 15:05, 28 August 2015 (EDT)