Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Essay:Greatest Conservative Legislation

2008-05-16T21:47:08Z

MarianS: 'Demon Drink'

Aschlafly- Please, could you explain why you reverted my changes? I didn't think the Volstead Act was exactly 'great', do you? Drinking decreased by only about 30%, and everyone else was drinking illegally. "By 1925 in New York City alone there were anywhere from 30,000 to 100,000 speakeasy clubs" [http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/volstead-act/]. Besides, it allowed gangsters like Al Capone to make a mint off of illegal sales. The police weren't even able to enforce it! Additionally, when you revert changes could you offer some sort of explanation? It makes contributing to this encyclopedia frustrating when changes are constantly reverted without any explanation. Thank you, '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User talk:FernoKlump|All the funny lines are banned]] 20:00, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

: Ferno, ''you'' were the one who reverted someone else's edit, and ''you'' did not provide a meaningful explanation. Given the harm caused by alcohol, with 10% of the public alcoholic and 25,000 a year killed by drunk drivers, and hundreds of thousands killed by alcohol-related diseases, someone else's edit is at least worth debating before censoring immediately.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:05, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

::I at least gave some insight to what I was thinking. I said "The Volstead Act wasn't exactly 'great', ever hear of the gangsterism of the 1920s?" in the edit summary. ''You'', however, just reverted with no explanation. I apologize for attempting to better this article. I had thought that prohibition caused more problems than it solved, but I was obviously wrong because you happen to disagree. By the way, your claim that I censored it immediately doesn't make much sense considering I removed the Volstead Act nearly it 5 hours after it was added. '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User talk:FernoKlump|All the funny lines are banned]] 20:15, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

::: You censored someone else's edit without discussing it before or after on the talk page. Your edit summary comment is absurd, and does not justify your censorship. "Gangsterism" did not go away when prohibition was repealed, obviously, and surely existed before the Volstead Act also.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:18, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

OK, prohibition did not have a major effect on crime. If that is what you believe, that is fine. I honestly do not care enough about this article to continue arguing. '''[[user:FernoKlump|FernoKlump]]'''[[User talk:FernoKlump|All the funny lines are banned]] 20:22, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

: Ferno, you fell for the often-taught "gangster" explanation hook, line and sinker. No big deal, we've all been fooled many times in our lives. What makes a difference is to be able recognize being fooled, admitting it, and then taking steps not to be fooled as much in the future.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:44, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

If prohibition doesn't explain the rise of gangsterism, as suggested by Aschlafly, what does?--[[User:JArneal|JArneal]] 23:25, 15 May 2008 (EDT)

: What "rise in gangsterism"? And what significance would it have? Simply to ask the questions is to demonstrate the absurdity of the theory.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:53, 15 May 2008 (EDT)

I was only asking what is wrong with "the often taught 'gangster' explanation." I learned that organized crime and illegal alcohol sales in the 1920s were directly related. Organized crime occurs only when there is money or some other form of personal gain to be made of off something illegal. It's just common sense. Selling and transporting alcohol was illegal then, and according to Ferno's information that alcohol consumption decreased by only 30 percent[http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/volstead-act/], there was plenty of money to be made. It wasn't a coincidence that organized crime became prominent with bosses like Al Capone and Bugs Moran in this time period. They got rich because they were the heads of crime organizations that were illegally transporting and selling alcohol. Why is this argument significant? Because a piece of legislation that has the effect of increasing organized crime without providing a solution to it at the same time is not what I, or anyone I know, would call great conservative legislation.--[[User:JArneal|JArneal]] 15:51, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

: That's called "Hollywood history." Maybe we need an entry for it. Al Capone was popularized by Hollywood, and now everything thinks that Prohibition is what created organized crime. But Prohibition ended over 70 years ago! Organized crime wasn't affected, it obviously finds other illegal activities to profit from. And it surely did so before Prohibition went into effect.

: Please recognize that some widely taught things about history are actually false or misleading. Guess what: not everything you learned about history is actually true. If you really want to get to the bottom of this, then realize ''why'' there is a [[political benefit]] for people to claim (falsely) that Prohibition could not last because of the problem of "gangsterism".--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:35, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

::A major part of the problem is that Prohibition was not '''continued'''. God gave us this country, and wants us to keep it pure - and Prohibition was one of the smartest pieces of legislation every enacted. If only we could bring it back, we would be free of much of this heathen modern world, polluted by the 'Demon Drink'. If anyone is interested, I support Gene Amondson's campaign to bring back prohibition - http://www.geneamondson.com/mission/ [[User:MarianS|MarianS]] 16:57, 16 May
2008 (EDT)

At least now I understand your argument, Aschlafly, but I refuse to believe that prohibition did not have a significant effect on organized crime. And to MarianS, I think that should be a debate topic. Remember, Jesus drank wine!--[[User:JArneal|JArneal]] 17:32, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

:Actually, I - and many others - do not believe Jesus ever consumed the 'Demon Drink'. Take a look at this page http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/didjesus.htm for lessons in why Jesus would never have drunk alcohol. It is forbidden, and we must not let it pass our lips. Titus 2:11-12 tells us, "For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world." Alcohol is a Demon and must be banished from society. [[User:MarianS|MarianS]] 17:47, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

Talk:Essay:Greatest Conservative Legislation

2008-05-16T20:57:58Z

MarianS: Bring Prohibition back!

Talk:Painting

2008-05-14T18:59:18Z

MarianS: dates are all wrong

== Christo? ==

He's not really a painter - more of a sculptural/installation artist, no? [[User:BrentM|BrentM]] 18:00, 21 November 2007 (EST)

Yes. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 23:47, 21 November 2007 (EST)

:Related follow-up: Then why is the "surrounded islands" shown on this page on painting? I'm no art student, but if this is an example of a painting (which I highly doubt), then it definitely needs an explanation. I will remove the image for the time being because it completely looks out of place in its current form. --[[User:JBrown|JBrown]] 12:07, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

:: He made a painting that day, it is enough to be an example. Before deleting see the reply or wait. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 12:40, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

:::So we're keeping a non-painting as an example for painting because the artist had also made a painting that day? Please, either replace the image with the painting in question or delete it. Right now, that part of the entry flat out makes no sense. --[[User:JBrown|JBrown]] 12:53, 11 May 2008 (EDT)

::::Perhaps we could see if there was a copy of the painting which is in the public domain. That way we could put the two pictures side to side to provide a comparison between subject and result (although there are probably better examples out there). [[User:StatsMsn|StatsMsn]] 06:17, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

I came here to say "why is such an obvious non-painting, by an artist who is not primarily known as a painter, included (and given such prominence) in an article about ''painting''?" I see I'm not the first! Why is this even (apparently, reading between the lines of the above comments) contentious? Delete it. [[User:Humblpi|Humblpi]] 08:57, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

: In the article there is: "''Painters have the freedom to invent their own visual language and to experiment with light and new forms, materials and techniques.''" The image shows precisely that; an example that shows how wide is the world of painters. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 16:48, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

::It isn't painting, it is [[installation art]]. Painting is a little narrower in its scope. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 18:58, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

::: Have you not seen "Mural painting" that is installed or moved? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 08:30, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

 
[[Image:Kellner Oil Spill.jpg|thumb|Oil Spill by Lisa Kellner]]

Is this installation art or sculptural painting? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 09:42, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

:Post-modern sculpture. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 09:50, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

:: The juries of that art exposition had to learn it.

Oil Spill.

Quilting pins and paint on prepared board

8’ x 4’ x 5.5

As the article says:

''Painters have the freedom to invent their own visual language and to experiment with light and new forms, materials and techniques. ''

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 10:23, 14 May 2008 (EDT)
2006

:While the quote is correct ''in context'', you are misapplying it. It does not mean that a sculpture is a painting, or an installation piece is a painting. Kellner's piece, for example, was ultimately not defined as installation art because the pins were not applied directly to the gallery wall as originally intended. By misusing the "new forms" quotation above you have redefined the art world. This article talk page, for example, can now be called a painting: I have simply used a new material and technique to paint it. I call it '''פּופּיק ''':) [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 10:35, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

:: In art, for centuries experts do not agree of what is this or the other. I can not expect to have universal applause. I could accept to remove the image in question after a serious debate. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 10:56, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

::: ''Some adhere to a rigid definition of "art", such as paintings, sculpture and other traditional genres, while others believe that art should not be strictly defined, and thus believe that anything progressive may be labeled as such.'' Source:Our own article on [[Aesthetics]].

--[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 11:07, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

::::That is about defining ''art'' - not defining "painting". [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 11:10, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

Does that mean that painting is not art? Amazing! No more is needed. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 11:12, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

:Joaquín, you are plucking random quotes and applying them incorrectly. I'm sure this isn't at all deliberate, and is more a linguistic thing than anything else, but you are butchering what the quotes originally intended to mean. ''Most'' painting is of course art: slapping a coat of white emulsion on my bathroom ceiling isn't strictly art. The quote you used above is about defining the boundaries of "art" - it has nothing to do with justifying a sculpture being labelled a painting. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 11:18, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

:: OK, lets see what happens. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 11:22, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

:::Well, that's not really an option - the article won't fix itself. People will become bored of trying to explain in as inoffensive manner as possible that you are wrong and someone will have to come along and completely rewrite the entire thing from scratch. [[Image:User Fox.png|10px]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 11:37, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

==Dating is incorrect==
I doubt that the paintings in those caves are 17,000 years old - how could they be? The Flood would have destroyed them, so they must be post-Flood. They must only be a few thousand years old at best. 14:59, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

Conservapedia:How can educators prevent school shootings?

2007-12-10T00:23:00Z

MarianS: I have been campaigning to my congressman and senator for legislation such as this for years - please support my plan

One suggestion mooted as a way to prevent school shootings is to make public schools be boarding-only. The following points outline a plan which would ensure well-run public schools producing only quality students.

#All students in attendance would live in the school as per any normal boarding school, and be under adult supervision 24 hours a day.
#Parents could of course visit at any time (probably visiting hours would have to be established so that irresponsible parents wouldn't show up at 1am or something). #Christian prayer would take place six times a day.
#The Ten Commandments would be on display over the door of the school and in every classroom.
#During summers, the schools would keep the student occupied with fun, light education similar to summer camp, but the students would remain in school under supervision 24/7.
#Pass-outs could be applied for and vetted.
#Continuous psychological and spiritual evaluation of the students would take place during their school years, and all students would be interviewed on a regular basis on their opinions of their peers.
#Students would graduate from school only by passing not only the traditional exams, but also psychological profile evaluations.
#Students who were deemed to have psychological disturbances or sociopathic behavioral tendencies would remain in school for further education until deemed fit to be released into society at large.

Do others agree this would help reduce both the number school shootings and immoral graduates? [[User:MarianS|MarianS]] 19:23, 9 December 2007 (EST)