Changes

This disregard for entire swathes of research not only lends no credence to their views, but also makes them less likely to be the most accurate: there is so much to be gained by considering that one may be wrong, or at least that those that have been disregarded may not always be automatically wrong. This is also true of generalisation, stereotyping and prejudice – just because some that have a certain opinion engage in hypocrisy, delusion, selective referencing and illogicality, does not mean that they are wrong, does not mean that those with differing stances do not engage in similar acts, and certainly does not mean that all with similar opinions do also.

This disregard for entire swathes of research not only lends no credence to their views, but also makes them less likely to be the most accurate: there is so much to be gained by considering that one may be wrong, or at least that those that have been disregarded may not always be automatically wrong. This is also true of generalisation, stereotyping and prejudice – just because some that have a certain opinion engage in hypocrisy, delusion, selective referencing and illogicality, does not mean that they are wrong, does not mean that those with differing stances do not engage in similar acts, and certainly does not mean that all with similar opinions do also.

This is inevitably the case in some articles on Conservapedia: including [[Liberal bias]], [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]] and [[Liberal Hypocrisy]]. However, I do not condone their removal, or changing them in any way, or demand creation of articles such as [[Conservative hypocrisy]] on this domain – we all have a right to purchase a domain and allow who we choose to contribute their views, and which of those views to keep and which to remove; once this is in place, any attempt by others to censor it are a violation of the universal freedom of speech. I merely hope that readers of such articles will not automatically consider them representative, and I hope that the 'powers that be' will not always consider [[Conservative hypocrisy]] an invalid article or a non-existent act.  

This is inevitably the case in some articles on Conservapedia: including [[Liberal bias]], [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]] and [[Liberal Hypocrisy]]. However, I do not condone their removal, or changing them in any way, or demand creation of articles such as [[Conservative hypocrisy]] on this domain – we all have a right to purchase a domain and allow who we choose to contribute their views, and which of those views to keep and which to remove; once this is in place, any attempt by others to censor it are a violation of the universal freedom of speech. I merely hope that readers of such articles will not automatically consider them representative, and I hope that the 'powers that be' will not always consider [[Conservative hypocrisy]] an invalid article or a non-existent act.

 

It must be noted that although some say Wikipedia may be six-times more liberal than the average United States citizen (I assume this is inferred from polls on issues which correlate with such beliefs), the average European is probably as liberal as Wikipedia, and six-times more liberal than Conservapedia (basing this assumption on polls like the [http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/index_en.htm Eurobarometer]). This is think is where the justification for Conservapedia lies: not as a protest to the liberally-biased Wikipedia, but as an American alternative to what is a more foreign viewpoint.  

I also know that the actions described above are entirely natural; they are part of what thought is – if a human does not believe that their opinions are right, then they do not have opinions. I know that it is extremely hard to overcome this seemingly logical process: to look at what others have to say, without prejudice to its validity, and to risk diluting one's own dearly held values in the search for truth. I don't expect that those that I debate with to always do this – I don't expect myself to – but I will always remember that it is possible, sometimes even likely, that I am wrong and others are right, and I hope that others can at least try to also. If some do not, then it will not alter my view of their arguments, or any others which are similar, but I will be more careful when taking them at face value. I ask for you to do the same to me and those who share my views.

I also know that the actions described above are entirely natural; they are part of what thought is – if a human does not believe that their opinions are right, then they do not have opinions. I know that it is extremely hard to overcome this seemingly logical process: to look at what others have to say, without prejudice to its validity, and to risk diluting one's own dearly held values in the search for truth. I don't expect that those that I debate with to always do this – I don't expect myself to – but I will always remember that it is possible, sometimes even likely, that I am wrong and others are right, and I hope that others can at least try to also. If some do not, then it will not alter my view of their arguments, or any others which are similar, but I will be more careful when taking them at face value. I ask for you to do the same to me and those who share my views.

I will most likely disagree with many other users. Do not disregard my arguments – I will not yours. But, more importantly, do not consider me any different to you. I am not.

I will most likely disagree with many other users. Do not disregard my arguments – I will not yours. But, more importantly, do not consider me any different to you. I am not.