User talk:StevenM/Archive 1

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Archive 1


Hey Steve! Instead of using {{UB:Christian2}} (This is an example, it applies to every box) you should use, {{user:Christian2}}. Also if you would like them to look like they do on my page, before and after your boxes, put this for example:

{{userboxtop | backgroundcolor = #CCCCCC|My Stuff}}

In the previous example, the "backgroundcolor = #CCCCCC", where the #CCCCCC is you can put any color. You can find colors at You can also put what ever you want the top of you box to say where "My Stuff" is for mine.

At the bottom, put:


Good Luck! :P --Ilisia(aka: Beth)Talk2ME 13:52, 10 October 2007 (EDT)


Please post on your userpage, this code: [[Image:Evolutionfairytale.gif‎|thumb|left|150px|300px|]] Thanks! --BCSTalk2ME 17:39, 8 November 2007 (EST)

I did like that when I saw it on your page....--StevenM 15:26, 10 November 2007 (EST)


Steve, can you join our Timberwolves (Team1) in the upcoming Contest3??? Hope so ... see our team page at Conservapedia:Team Timberwolves

I wanted to; but Mom said regular studies take precedent over Conservapedia, and I'm behind in some other subjects. --StevenM 20:29, 12 November 2007 (EST)


Good work! --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 09:04, 15 December 2007 (EST)


I see that you've done some work on the Spiderman article and others to do with superheroes. I'm just letting you know that I just deleted the Spiderman article, as the creator of it directly copied it from the introduction of Wikipedia's Spiderman article. Philip J. Rayment 10:18, 15 December 2007 (EST)

Wailing Wall

"The Wailing Wall is......" what? You have to finish this. Karajou 12:38, 22 December 2007 (EST)

Yeah, sorry. Wailing Wall I'll get right to it. --Stevie 15:22, 24 December 2007 (EST)

Wars etc

Dumb category lol. Funny, I agree, but unecessary cat. :) 10px Fox (talk|contribs) 19:48, 7 January 2008 (EST)


StevenM, would you like to join our Conservapedia:Team Freedom in the ongoing contest? We're in the second day and it would be great to have you on our team.--Aschlafly 10:15, 14 January 2008 (EST)

Sure, why not? I mean, that is if you really...well, I guess I yes --Steve 10:17, 14 January 2008 (EST)

You're in! I'll add you our roster at Conservapedia:Team Freedom.--Aschlafly 10:30, 14 January 2008 (EST)
The point system is here: Conservapedia:Contest4.--Aschlafly 10:33, 14 January 2008 (EST)
I've since taken two articles off the most wanted list. Jonathan and Nut. --Steve 10:35, 14 January 2008 (EST)
Fantastic! The point system awards bonuses of 3 extra points, in addition to the points awarded for the new entry itself, which is usually 4 or 6 points depending on its detail. All this spelled out at Conservapedia:Contest4.--Aschlafly 11:10, 14 January 2008 (EST)

22 points: excellent!!! I just added them to the formula at the bottom of our team page also, so it is included in our overall total.--Aschlafly 21:46, 14 January 2008 (EST)

Great work on James McReynolds! By the way, if you download and use the most recent version of the free Firefox browser [1], it underlines any misspelled words. That makes it much easier. Enjoy!--Aschlafly 18:38, 19 January 2008 (EST)

I just downloaded FireFox; tell me more about it? --Steve 18:44, 19 January 2008 (EST)

Use it now as our browser, and notice the red underlines of misspelled (or unrecognized) words when you edit Conservapedia!--Aschlafly 18:53, 19 January 2008 (EST)

Steve, great effort on the Contest. You did very well as a rookie! Watch, we'll win it next time as our team gets stronger.--Aschlafly 08:53, 21 January 2008 (EST)

New Contest

Hey Steve!

I thought you might want to consider joining our latest contest: Conservapedia:Contest5.

SharonTalk 13:46, 17 February 2008 (EST)

Sorry, (you asked a while ago) I didn't log on till now. Yes I heard about the Contest, as usual I wouldn't have a lot of time to contribute but it would be fun. --Steve 19:52, 18 February 2008 (EST)
That's OK. I certainly understand what it is like to have a busy schedule! Talk to you later, ~ SharonTalk 20:07, 18 February 2008 (EST)
Yes, later. :-) --Steve 21:15, 19 February 2008 (EST)

Evolution animation

Hey franklin, that evolution animation on your page is sweet. I used it on my user page... CPWebmaster 12:27, 8 March 2008 (EST)

Thanks, i think Beth had it before me though. =) --Steve 13:58, 9 March 2008 (EDT)

How could you?

You put as your comment in the little box after you edit the page, “Explained where the case came from.” Don’t end sentences in prepositions!! :P ~BCSTalk2ME 13:50, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

Ha, ha. You are so funny, Bethany. I still don't understand why it is wrong to end sentences in prepositions. ~ SharonTalk 13:52, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
Yea. Same here. It is so depressing to hear someone end a sentence in a preposition. It brings a tear into my eye!! ;P ~BCSTalk2ME 13:55, 10 March 2008 (EDT) P.S. I just follow the grammar book's rules!! :P
Oops, it was just the little box though, I didn't think it was that bad because it wasn't in the actual article. To tell the truth I didn't even notice. Don't be so critical or I'll tell everyone how often you take showers. ;) lol--Steve 13:57, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! You weren't even supposed to hear that!! :P BTW: your off my list of people to nag about bad grammar! ;P ~BCSTalk2ME 13:59, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
SHAME ON YOU!! Blackmailing me like that!! :P LOL ~BCSTalk2ME 14:03, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
Does BTW mean "by the way"? Lemme try: BTW I'll remember to end my sentences with stronger parts of speech.--Steve 14:04, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
Si...'BTW' significa "by the way" ~ SharonTalk 14:05, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
Really sorry Beth, but I guess that explains why you said you wanted to live in 1775-  :D--Steve 14:06, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
What explains it?? BTW: I'll bet you don't know what TTYL means. TTYL, ~BCSTalk2ME 14:07, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
"Ta Ta For Now" in Australian? No it's talk to you later: I've got need to study gun control now, TTYL --Steve 14:09, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

Same here!! I'm writing a nasty 900 word paper!! :( ~BCSTalk2ME 14:12, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

Me too...I'm supposed to be writing about John McCain...~ SharonTalk 14:12, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
""Ta Ta For Now" in Australian?": Hey, what language do you think we speak in Oz?  :-) Philip J. Rayment 18:59, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
That was a joke; i said Australian because it had to be a non-foreign language. It was, other than the US, the first country where English is spoken that I thought of off the top of my head. I thought it came across as funny. --Steve 19:54, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
Yes, I did realise that it was a joke, but I don't see why it had to be a non-foreign language. Quite often initials don't match the words when it is a foreign language, because the name or phrase, and not the initials, are translated into English. And one reason for my reply (also a joke) was that some ignorant yanks (as distinct from the knowledgeable Americans) don't realise that we speak English. Philip J. Rayment 20:09, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
Oh, I didn't get that your reply was a joke. ha ha :-)--Steve 21:44, 10 March 2008 (EDT)


Hey Steve!! :) DeborahB. 22:18, 11 March 2008 (EDT)

Curly?! o_0 Fuzzy|AFD 22:32, 1 April 2008 (EDT)
Who is this?--Steve 09:24, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

Speech Saturday

Steve, I had to give a speech Saturday to a statewide college group that had been set up for a long time, and made it impossible for me to attend the rally. I'll be there next time! Godspeed.--Aschlafly 16:30, 30 March 2008 (EDT)


Steve: please keep in mind that "its" is the possessive form, not it's.--Aschlafly 22:36, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

I'm sorry, I often leave punctuation out when I type. --Steve 22:43, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

But the problem wasn't what you left out, but what you incorrectly added (the apostrophe).--Aschlafly 22:47, 11 April 2008 (EDT)
Really? Where was this?? --Steve 22:56, 11 April 2008 (EDT)
OoH, the debate page. ouch! that stinks. I can't change the name of the entry, can I? --Steve 22:58, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

Your Fourteenth Amendment Issues

Steve, I saw your debate page, and simply could not contain my disgust. Comparing the Fourteenth Amendment's alleged ill effects to those of slavery is something that could only be done by someone who, with the benefit of 142 years of hindsight, could look back on the oppression of an entire race, their subjugation and frequent murder, and say, "that's not as bad as all those women scrambling for their rights 'n all." I intend to come back to this point - this policy error - but first let's turn to the legal error. And boy howdy, it's a doozy.

Legal Errors

You claim that the fourteenth amendment is the first time the Bill of Rights was ever used against citizens. First, and most importantly, how is the first amendment used by the citizens against government? Please explain.

I think what you might be referring to is the fact that, in the Reconstruction era and especially the 1960s, the power of government was used to compel desegregation. First, I can't imagine that you would claim that's bad. I'm... shocked. But, second, most of the desegregation decisions (restaurants, hotels, etc) were done by the power of the Commerce Clause, not the Fourteenth Amendment. See, e.g., Katzenbach v. McClung. Those were instances of the state using its power against the citizens through the Bill of Rights, but it was used by the state against citizens for the benefit of other citizens. So, your argument doesn't stand up.

Of course, the school decisions were 14A decisions - Brown v. Board - but I don't see how that's state power against the individual either.

In fact, quite the opposite of your argument is true.

The fourteenth amendment has been the best vehicle by which the individual can secure his rights against the state. It's turned out to be the amendment which quite literally makes sense of the Bill of Rights - by conferring substantive weight upon the due process clause, the fourteenth amendment (coupled with the fifth) secure for the citizenry the freedom from arbitrary government distinctions. The equal protection clause provides a similar vehicle to that end, ensuring that the government can't hurt the citizen by classifying him or her based on unfair and irrational distinctions. See Carolene Products Co., footnote 4; cf. Loving v. Virginia (holding that, where discrete & insular minorities are assailed by the power of the state, strict scrutiny is applied by the courts against the state to safeguard the minority from arbitrary distinctions). All this is to say that the state's power is vastly limited by fourteenth amendment... not expanded and incorporated against the individual!!!!

Further, a settled core of fourteenth amendment doctrine is the state action doctrine (is this even an article here?) under which the fourteenth amendment never applies to restrict action by an individual - unless the state is the one making the arbitrary distinction, or abridging the due process rights of the individual, no constitutional recourse is had. Obviously, this means that private citizens can't sue private citizens for their constitutional rights. Again, your argument about the bill of rights versus the individual collapses to... nothingness.

Policy Errors

What I think you're arguing for is that favorite touchstone of the conservative movement - the persecution complex - according to which the white, Christian, heterosexual male resents the ascendancy of the minority to a position of equality. It's true that the lingering effects of the Civil War and the fourteenth amendment have been to secure the blessings of freedom and equality before the law to everyone - male, female, black, white, and (soon) gay or straight - but I fail to see how this is bad, too! Equality is not a zero sum game. Every time a black man enjoys a good night's sleep at a mansion, rather than a slave cottage, are you hurt? No. Every time a woman passes the bar or wins an election, are you hurt? No. The blessings of equality fall equally upon us all, or ought to, and you aren't hurt by their doing so. If you have to put up with people and viewpoints that aren't like you, well, what of it? This is the blessing and the curse of living in a free and civilized society. If you don't like it, well, you're more than free to go move to a theocracy, where you can create your own arbitrary distinctions and ensure that you never have to come into conflict with any challenging ideas. I understand Afghanistan has some openings.

On the contrary, slavery was an institution which fell with crippling force upon a group of people, destroying in as literal a way as possible their very spirits, and their lives. A kind of living death, slavery - characterized the absence of freedom violently compelled - is quite literally incomprehensible in its horror to you and I, who sit behind our computers and debate its evils. The difference between you and I is that I don't try to put a value to how awful it must have been, while you try to quantize it next to the petty tribulations of daily life in a pluralist society.

Further to the point, slavery has a lingering effect upon this nation, which may never be erased, and if it is, it'll still be a while. Because of slavery, a large portion of society is still recovering from a generational dearth of educational opportunities. Slavery not only killed the past, it wounded the present and the future. To compare it to your "oppression" is... insulting.


I understand that - since you say you're "home learnded" - you're probably young. You haven't taken a constitutional law course; you haven't been exposed to the wide world. These, though, are quite frankly the only excuses for the wildly ignorant opinion you posted on your debate page. I hope in due course you'll come to grapple with these issues and, if you don't come around to my way of thinking, at least come out of your narrow, ethnocentric perspective.

In the movie Amistad, one of the characters (Dustin Hoffman as John Quincy Adams) refers to the prospective end of slavery as the "last battle of the American Revolution." Think about that for a bit. -Murgatroyd 00:31, 12 April 2008 (EDT)

1) I have a problem with the way the Reconstruction limited our rights. The First Amendment was not used by the citizens against the government; you misunderstood me because I'm relatively bad at communicating. John W. Whitehead put it better:

Understanding the Fourteenth Amendment is necessary because the Supreme Court has been enabled by utilization of the amendment to nationalize the Bil of Rights. Such usage shows how, instead of being a restriction on the federal government, the Bill of Rights has become a tool for furthering centralization of all governmental power in Washington, D.C.

2)Everything you said above concerning slavery is true. However, the atrocities of slavery in America are widely exaggerated. The price paid for slaves made them a valuable asset: not likely to be abused. No sane masters truly wished to harm their slaves; they were worth too much. Also, why did so many slaves convert to their master's religion? They were not forced to convert, they sang Christian songs while out in the field (although with the African-inspired music), and even after they became free the kept going to Church. Not all the masters could have been that cruel, or else they would have been revolted by Christianity.

I'll add some other points, (I've been really busy this weekend and have only done limited research on this.) --Steve 21:28, 13 April 2008 (EDT)

have only done limited research on this. Understate much, Steve? Murray 22:49, 13 April 2008 (EDT)
Just a few points to ponder:
  1. "they sang Christian songs while out in the field " ... The (Jewish) Girl's Orchestra of Auschwitz played at the gate when the work gangs went out, again when they returned, and outside the gas chambers as their fellows were being exterminated. The SS guards were particularly fond of their rendition of Madame Butterfly.
  2. "why did so many slaves convert to their master's religion?" ... Slaves weren’t supposed to read the Bible or follow the Christian religion, but they often did anyway. Normally one of the (rare) educated slaves would read out of the Bible to the others. Even though the slaves got caught numerous times they still kept on meeting because they thought that the Bible was their last hope and that it was the only thing that they could trust. They particularly were interested in the Old Testament sections dealing with the deliverance of the Hebrews from their bondage in Egypt...
  3. "The price paid for slaves made them a valuable asset: not likely to be abused. No sane masters truly wished to harm their slaves; they were worth too much" ... There is a famous African proverb which states, "Until the lion writes its own history, the tale of the hunt will always glorify the hunter." Meaning until slaves themselves were able to document their treatment or until others on their behalf exposed the truth, the true nature of slavery would never be known, and the "happy slave" myth would continue to perpetuate. You seem to be still under the influence of that myth... "Mary Prince's The History of Mary Prince, a West Indian Slave, Related by Herself is the earliest known slave narrative by a woman, published in 1831. It is a saga of overwork, abuse and sexual violence that well over 10 million unnamed slaves had experienced during Colonial Slavery. She details horrific scenes of physical abuse inflicted upon her by her mistress. She says, "To strip me naked – to hang me up by the wrists and lay my flesh open with the cow skin, was an ordinary punishment for a slight offense." However, she soon details a far worse scene of brutal treatment towards the slaves by describing what happened to a fellow slave of hers named Hetty after a cow she had tied up had gotten loose. She says, her "master flew into a terrible passion, and ordered the poor creature(Hetty) to be stripped naked, notwithstanding her pregnancy, and to be tied up to a tree in the yard. He then flogged her as hard as he could lick, both whip and cow skin, till she was all streaming with blood. Her shrieks were terrible." After the brutal beating, she was brought to bed where she give birth to a stillborn child. After partly recovering, she was again repeatedly beaten by the mistress and master and later died due to her injuries...

Olaudah Equinao was a former slave who authored a slave narrative when freed. In the narrative he witnessed a horrific scene also. He says he saw, "a negro man staked to the ground and cut most shockingly, and then his ears cut off, bit, bit by bit, because he had been connected to a white woman, who was a common prostitute! As if it were no crime in the whites to rob an innocent African girl of her virtue; but most heinous of a black man only to gratify a passion of nature, where the temptation was offered by one of a different color, though the most abandoned woman of her species.” The act of raping an African slave was legal and a normal occurrence during slavery. Due to the fact that Africans where not thought of as humans, but as property, they did not have rights which whites enjoyed. Rape by nature is a violent act, whether the victim puts up a struggle or not. This is because rape is when a victim is forced into a sexual act against his or her will. The fact that it was legal to rape an African, because she was a slave, shows the barbaric and inhumane nature of slavery. Rape is just many of the gruesome and violent acts committed against Africans during slavery. As noted in the slave narratives, many of the slaves were beaten so severe that their injuries were life threatening. The psychological effect of being beaten brutally or seeing someone else beaten could cause post traumatic syndrome. Showing that not only was slavery physically abusive but also mentally. The slave narratives stand in sharp contrast to the pro-slavery stories of a happy and well treated slave and also shows how important it is for the lion to write it’s own story."

  1. "During the War of 1812, the British blockaded American ports, invaded Virginia and guaranteed the liberty of runaway slaves, and the number of runaway slaves soared. Slaveholders moved their slaves away from British forces, where they would have a harder time running away. "In South Carolina", Franklin and Schweninger reported, Elliott's Cut became so filled with runaway slaves during the war that the governor ordered out a detachment of militia to clear this 'Negro thoroughfare.'" Does this sound like the happy-clappy "negro-kibbutz" that you seem to imagine slavery actually was?
  2. I wonder if you have read much about Holocaust denial? "The denier strategy is simple and familiar. They distort, even fabricate, history and then broadcast their creations. They have learned that "a lie is believed because of the insolent inflexibility with which it is propagated." [Deniers] are engaged in what historian Deborah Lipstadt has termed an 'assault on truth and memory.'"

Denial or down-playing of the barbaric treatment and conditions inflicted upon slaves is no different to Holocaust denial, and stems from the same groups (Liberty Lobby, various Klan factions, neo-Nazis, the Aryan Nations and other Christian Identity groups, racist skinheads, etc) has been widely embraced within the otherwise disparate contemporary "hate movement" "...because it serves as an ideological cement that meets a very contemporary political need. In particular, it provides a sanitized envelope for latter-day would-be Hitlers by seeking to show that the heinous crimes ascribed to the original never took place. As such, much of the barrier preventing politicians and movements of the ultra right from making a strategic breakthrough by appealing to a more mainstream audience would be removed..." Yes, points to ponder. 10px Fox (talk|contribs) 07:58, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

More on Slavery

Steven, I respect that you're trying to learn by opening this debate topic. However, I believe that you've illustrated the fundamental problem & flaw with ASchlafly's "don't read a book; write a book!" modus operandi - by discussing this topic without knowing, apparently, the basic law or the basic history, you've developed an uninformed opinion, which you'll now be irrationally committed to despite our attempts to the contrary. Also, you've placed the burden of educating you on us, whereas it should be on you in the first place. Nevertheless....

Fox highlighted the problem with your "Slaves were Christian; ergo they must have loved their masters" argument. The reason for Christianity's success is precisely that it doesn't carry one message, but rather that it appeals to all. Masters saw in Christianity their salvation from a lifetime of sin. Slaves saw in it the possibility of justice in heaven, where there was none on Earth. Please educate yourself as to the wicked lives of slaveowners.

As to the rest of your arguments, it's true that the fourteenth amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights against the states. But I still don't think you've proved how that has restricted the rights of ordinary citizens. As I said above, most of the antidiscrimination laws find their power in the Commerce Clause, and besides, if the fourteenth amendment restricts the rights of citizens, through states, to design their own racist little communities, I don't see how that's a right worth protecting. If you're arguing that "States' Rights" means that the terminus of the single state's power ought not end with the Constitution, I think you're making a very poor argument indeed, but I want to make sure, first, that that is the argument you're making. Do you honestly think that the Bill of Rights ought not to apply to the states?

I've heard some people argue that, while the results of the fourteenth amendment (a way to stop racism) have been desirable, perhaps the text isn't broad enough to guarantee the results. That is, they argue that the result is good, but the means are insufficient. I've never heard someone argue against the result. Is that what you're doing? Please develop your legal and social arguments further after reading up on the subject.-Exp 10:29, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

I Surrender!

I was hoping to illicit a response but didn't expect anything like this. All of your comments are impressive and persuasive. See back on the debate page where this all started: I didn't mean to cause such a ruckus. --Steve 12:05, 14 April 2008 (EDT)


This might be confusing, so hang tight...Begin by creating a link to a page titled: User talk:StevenM/Archive 1| Archive 1. (Brackets as if you were linking to another page) Then copy your talk page(ctrl + c)to that link(shown above) and delete what you copied from your user talk. Create the link on your talk page so people can access it. Hope this helps. ~BCSTalk2ME 18:27, 16 April 2008 (EDT)