Talk:Liberal tricks

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Krishnapooja (Talk | contribs) at 08:27, 12 April 2008. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search

It doesn't hurt to try? I assume this is in reference to drugs, alcohol, etc.? DanH 23:37, 23 February 2008 (EST)

Paranoid personality disorder: Descriptive diagnosis per American DSM-IV-TR

DSM-IV-TR 301.00 Paranoid Personality Disorder.

According to the DSM-IV-TR, this disorder is characterized by a pervasive distrust and suspicion of others such that their motives are interpreted as malevolent, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by four (or more) of the following:

  • Suspects, without sufficient basis, that others are exploiting, harming, or deceiving him or her
  • Is preoccupied with unjustified doubts about the loyalty or trustworthiness of friends or associates
  • Is reluctant to confide in others because of unwarranted fear that the information will be used maliciously against him or her
  • Reads benign remarks or events as threatening or demeaning.
  • Persistently bears grudges, i.e., is unforgiving of insults, injuries, or slights
  • Perceives attacks on his or her character or reputation that are not apparent to others and is quick to react angrily or to counterattack
  • Has recurrent suspicions, without justification, regarding fidelity of spouse or sexual partner.

The traits, behaviors and characteristics

  • Do not occur exclusively during the course of a mood disorder accompanied by psychotic features nor other psychotic disorders.
  • Are not due to the direct physiological effects of a general medical condition.

Does this American definition sound familiar to anyone?SiggyF 14:04, 24 February 2008 (EST)

Or was I too subtle? The profusion of Liberal (fill in the blank) articles is bordering on ridiculous to outright delusional. These overlapping articles on one man's opinion of a large albeit imaginary group of people seems rather---paranoid. SiggyF 16:12, 24 February 2008 (EST)

I don't know of anyone here who fits those criteria. I suspect, however, that you have different opinions about some of the subjective parts of those criteria. For example, is the suspicion of the first point "without sufficient basis", or does it have sufficient basis? Is any preoccupation (second point) unjustified or justified? And so on. The way that I judge it, I can't see that list fitting anyone here. Does that answer your question, or was it more of a criticism than a question? Philip J. Rayment 20:47, 24 February 2008 (EST)

Confusing

Some of these are a bit confusing to me. I think if they are worded differently they would be more clear. (I'm taking specifically about the current numbers 1, 7, 9, and 15). HelpJazz 18:40, 24 February 2008 (EST)

This page has issues too.

This page seems to be just an attempt to make liberals look bad. I would say that most liberals do not act like this page suggests. A lot of these points are very questionable at best. Others, while it is true that liberals use them, are used by others just as much as liberals. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote in my NEW polls 22:26, 26 February 2008 (EST)

There are liberal tricks, and this entry helps identify the more popular ones. Review how much the liberals here protested our entry Hollywood Values, and watch how often the liberals on television and in magazines push Hollywood. That isn't coming from God, and we know deceitful His opposite is. To be forewarned is to be prepared.--Aschlafly 23:27, 26 February 2008 (EST)
So liberals (say folks like, Jimmy Carter, LBJ,Pierre Trudeau, Nelson Mandela and Barak Obama) are inspired by Satan, then? Or are devils themselves? what exactly are you getting at by linking liberalism to "God's opposite?" Aboganza 00:17, 27 February 2008 (EST)
Although I added a couple of points to this list, points that seem to fit the theme of the other items in the list, I later wondered if they where really tricks. In many if not most cases, I would think that there is nothing deliberate about the use of these "tricks". I'm inclined to think that "tricks" is not the best name for the article. "Liberal fallacies", perhaps? And of course, these fallacies are not used exclusively by liberals, and not by all liberals. But I would be inclined to believe that they are used more by liberals than by non-liberals.
Regarding Aboganza's question, as Christians we believe that all the evil and error in the world is ultimately influenced by Satan. No, Andy's not saying that those people are devils themselves, but that they have been influenced by ideas that find their origin with Satan.
That leads on to whether or not liberalism can be equated with Satan. And that raises the question as to what is meant by "liberal". The word, of course, has different meanings in different contexts. To take one extreme, in Australia the more conservative of the two main political parties is the Liberal Party! I guess that Andy uses it (and I'm not suggesting that he's the only one) to mean someone who holds ideas that are contrary to biblical views, the latter being held to more so by conservatives. So if they are contrary to biblical views, they are, by definition, ultimately of Satan. We do need to be careful, however to distinguish whether particular views typically held by "liberals" are contrary to biblical views, or not. For example, although gun control is apparently promoted mainly by liberals in the U.S. and opposed mainly by conservatives, I know of nothing in the Bible that supports or opposes gun control (as distinct from the right to self defence, by the way).
Philip J. Rayment 06:36, 27 February 2008 (EST)
So from your reply to my post, you are arguing that Nelson Mandela was "influenced by ideas that find their origin with Satan ?" Remarkable. What does that say about P.W. Botha, then? Aboganza 16:02, 27 February 2008 (EST)
I wasn't trying to be specific; just explaining general principles. And although liberals hold to some views that are opposed to the Bible, this doesn't mean that every view held by non-liberals is consistent with the Bible; conservatives can also hold views opposed to the Bible. Take evolution for example. Many people who would otherwise be considered conservative believe in evolution, but I would think that almost all liberals believe in evolution, whilst most (not all) believers in creation would be conservatives. So people on both sides of a political fence can hold anti-biblical views. Philip J. Rayment 21:19, 27 February 2008 (EST)

Liberal friendship

"liberals befriend you so you should become liberal (why don't they become conservative?)" You can't be serious. You're honestly saying someone like me befriends people solely because I want to convert them to the EEEEEEEEVIL of liberalism? Furthermore, what's with the stuff in quotes? Barikada 10:18, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

Brackets. I meant brackets. Also, the first instance of liberal should be capitalized. Barikada 17:48, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

Category

This article is great (like all the articles about liberals). But it should be in Category:Liberals.

Maupiti 10:23, 12 March 2008 (EDT)

My Apathetic-liberal-christian viewpoint

  1. Win an argument through luck
  2. Say that everyone's political view is just as biased, but doesn't affect you
  3. atheism = ignorance = not so blissful
  4. (me not learnded enough)
  5. ...I am now pro-Life ('nuff said)
  6. death comes to everyone, live today as it is with no worries about tomorrow
  7. it doesn't hurt to be lazy, unless it's your grades/performance we're talking about
  8. no one ever collectively agrees on one subject, so it must be false (exceptions: faith)
  9. Your own parents aren't cool, but 70% of the other parents (ie. your friend's parents) are cool
  10. No material thing is truly cool
  11. there is a shortage in piety
  12. disproving Christianity is for dummies
  13. kids are just being more smart-"butts" than old folks
  14. (see #1)
  15. call someone a racist when they are a nepotist
  16. some conservatives are jerks, as are liberals
  17. vandalism is alright, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone... which is never
  18. if you like it, don't use it (wikipedia and teaching people about sexual impurity)
  19. justice never really works, eye for eye... everyone's dead/blind

+_+ Fuzzy|AFD 20:08, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

Claiming expertise

Alright, falsely claiming (or implying) to have expertise is in a particular area is a trick, but not an exclusively liberal one. Creationists often do exactly the same thing. For example, Philip E. Johnson, who is trained as a lawyer, not a scientist. Or William Dembski, who is a mathematician, not a biologist. Or Henry Morris, who is trained as an engineer. Or Kent Hovind, who very prominently referred to himself as a doctor, even though he got his degree through an unaccredited degree mill. Are they all liberals too? Eoinc 09:24, 12 April 2008 (EDT)


you are very correct! I recommend the article to be amended to reflect this. Hare Krishna!--Krishnapooja 09:27, 12 April 2008 (EDT)