14
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 17:
Line 17: + +
Debate:How should Conservapedia work to avoid having a conservative bias? (view source)
Revision as of 21:53, June 20, 2007
, 21:53, June 20, 2007no edit summary
:::1+3=4; 2+2=4; 2x2=4; 3+1=4; 6-2=4; -2x-2=4; 2<sup>2</sup>=4; 100=4 (binary). Maybe we shouldn't be looking for the correct answers before knowing the correct questions? --[[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]]<sub>[[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|TALK]]</sub> 18:43, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
:::1+3=4; 2+2=4; 2x2=4; 3+1=4; 6-2=4; -2x-2=4; 2<sup>2</sup>=4; 100=4 (binary). Maybe we shouldn't be looking for the correct answers before knowing the correct questions? --[[User:Rob Pommer| Rob Pommer]]<sub>[[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|TALK]]</sub> 18:43, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
The readership and editors of Conservapedia, Wikipedia, the New York Times, Fox News, in fact everyone would do well to remember Chapter 2 of J.S. Mill's ''Italic text''On Liberty''Italic text'': 'He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side; if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion'. Glib and flippant characterisations, (I hesitate to say misrepresentations) of liberal thought help no one. Liberal arguments, like Conservative ones, are amenable to rational debate. To dismiss them completely does our readership, especially those relying on this encyclopedia as an educational resource, a great disservice.
== It shouldn't ==
== It shouldn't ==