Debate:Is Conservapedia blinkered?

From Conservapedia
This is the current revision of Debate:Is Conservapedia blinkered? as edited by WesleyS (Talk | contribs) at 14:18, 4 January 2009. This URL is a permanent link to this version of this page.

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search


For an encyclopedia that proclaims to report the "truth", I find it surprising that it categorically refuses to mention certain topics, as if they didn't exist.

For example, the articles on autoeroticism and oral sex have been deleted and prevented from being created. Now, I can understand that conservatives find oral sex immoral, indecent, disgusting, sinful or whatever, but why not simply explain that in the article about oral sex, and perhaps support it with other facts, such as the spread of STDs through oral sex? Why pretend that oral sex and autoeroticism, something practised by billions of people, does not exist?

Some may argue that oral sex is simply not important enough to be included here. But this is not the case. In America it is a topic of heated debate, and many Americans have been politically persecuted for practising it, some as recently as 3 years ago.

And if you want to "protect" children who read this site, you don't NEED to describe the graphic details of oral sex, all you need to do is talk about the controversies surrounding it.

In my opinion, simply ignoring a topic that you dislike is a blinkered attitude. Pretending that something doesn't exist is not going to make it go away. Harebrained 08:23, 17 March 2008 (EDT)

Not devoting webpages to a subject is not a case of pretending a subject does not exist. As your ilk are so eager to point out, if somebody wants to know about a subject, they are only a couple of clicks away on the internet. We choose not to have pages about them. As for "protecting" children - what is wrong with that? The alternative is the unecessarily early sexualization of children, which many liberals and homosexuals seem happy to push. Why do you think a child should be educated about fellatio? 10px Fox (talk|contribs) 08:41, 17 March 2008 (EDT)
As I've said, any sexual topic can be presented in a euphemistic way that doesn't sexualise children. I don't think a child should be educated about fellatio. But if a child happens to stumble across the fellatio article, it can be written in a way that the child won't understand it and become bored of it. All you need to say is "Fellatio is a sexual practice that conservatives disapprove of. Fellatio causes X, is supported by Y, and opposed by Z" You don't need to describe the graphic details. Why would such an article corrupt a child?? Conservapedia also has an article on homosexuality. How come you think children should be educated about that but not fellatio?
You are making a blanket, false and rather trite statement that "conservatives" disapprove of things because they don't have articles about them or discuss them at the water cooler. That demonstrates very poor reasoning on your part. A healthy, active and satisfying sex life within marriage is a good thing and nothing to be ashamed of. But similarly, my wife and I don't rut in the supermarket because it is also a private thing for us within our marriage. As for the article on homosexuality, if I was the site owner I would delete that too. 10px Fox (talk|contribs) 09:09, 17 March 2008 (EDT)
Most conservatives do disapprove of autoeroticism and fellatio. In many conservative-dominated states in America the practice was punishable by prison until recently! You argue that conservatives see sexual practices as a purely private matter and that this is the reason they don't talk about them. But they don't. Conservatives have a long history of trying to meddle with the private sexual life of others (even non-conservatives). Fact is, currently there is a political debate going on between conservatives about the legality of fellatio, and this encyclopedia fails to even mention that debate. Harebrained 09:32, 17 March 2008 (EDT)
Notice that Fox said "within marriage", not just "in private". Your example from Wikipedia was not of something "within marriage". Philip J. Rayment 09:37, 17 March 2008 (EDT)


This is not your website, if you want YOUR website to discuss such matters, by all means do so, just don't link to it from here. Seeing as those who do own this website do not want to discuss such things doesn't make it 'blinkered' or whaterver you call it. This is known in Capitalism as the Protection of Property, and the owners of this website clearly do not want info on such things stored in their databases. You have no right to complain. --User:Capercorn Talk contribs 16:14, 16 May 2008 (EDT)

The owners can erase factual articles by all means, but then making grand claims that "the truth shall set you free" is hypocrisy.
I have every right to criticize Conservapedia. It's a free country. --Harebrained 06:37, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
Conservapedia, from my standpoint, was created with the intention of educating and informing people about history, politics, science, religion, etc. from a conservative standpoint. Now, placing articles like those in an encyclopedia hardly works to the benefit of conservative values. It is far more productive to use your resources for writing a quality encyclopedia that everyone of every age can read than to express interest in oversexualized knowledge that will cause debate and concern for individuals across the political/social spectrum. In an Internet culture that is oversaturated with sex and violence, Conservapedia should be considered a safe haven for moral and well-reasoned information.--CTrooper 18:05, 21 July 2008 (EDT)