7
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 46:
Line 46: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Conservapedia talk:Lenski dialog (view source)
Revision as of 00:27, June 27, 2008
, 00:27, June 27, 2008→Liberal Tools: new section
== removal of content from this page removes context of Lenski's second reply ==
== removal of content from this page removes context of Lenski's second reply ==
I'm sure it's an oversight but Lenski, in his second letter, made several direct references to the discussion that has been removed from this page. Some of his comments thus appear inappropriately to lack context. I'm sure you did not intend to remove significant parts of this debate, especially when the result seems so one-sided.[[User:AndyMann|AndyMann]] 20:09, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
I'm sure it's an oversight but Lenski, in his second letter, made several direct references to the discussion that has been removed from this page. Some of his comments thus appear inappropriately to lack context. I'm sure you did not intend to remove significant parts of this debate, especially when the result seems so one-sided.[[User:AndyMann|AndyMann]] 20:09, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
== Liberal Tools ==
These are the tools used by liberals according to the entry on Conservapedia. Judge for yourselves whether anyone else on this website makes use of these themselves!
Deceit - Aschlafly and others here accused Professor Richard Lenski of fraud without proof, and they also claim that the data in question has not been made available. But a simple reading of Prof. Lenski's second response reveals that he has made all data available, including the bacteria used in the study (provided that the logistics of transporting such sensitive material are handled properly).
Holding conservatives to a higher standard than they hold themselves - Aschlafly posted on the front page "Lenski's latest response to a request for his data is revealing ... about Lenski's attitude. Take a good look at the attitude our tax dollars are paying for..." without acknowledging that by most accounts his own tone was rude and impolite (not to mention accusatory).
Bullying - Tom Moore wrote "...to me, it says that I'm not a biologist, and doubt I could fairly evaluate it if I received it. I know the degree of training it has required for me to achieve my present position, and I lack the hubris to think I could exercise equivalent powers of discrimination in a field so unrelated to my own. I'm not faulting you - maybe you have a degree in biochemistry, for all I know! But I know that I am not capable of fairly evaluating in context the raw data of biological experiments. My view is not a multi-book set: there's only one volume to it, and it's humility and appreciation of the credentials of the qualified." To which Aschlafly responded: "As I said, TomMoore, you apparently don't support "public scrutiny" of the data. Your own expertise is obviously irrelevant." Ad hom argument against Tom Moore = bullying.
Also, user Philip J Rayment threatened user Able806 with being blocked/banned unless he listed the qualifications of CMI staff. Sounds like bullying to me! "Do this or else!"
Censorship - Just count the number of posts deleted or the threats of blocking or banning for daring to suggest an alternative approach to dialog with Prof. Lenski! Especially by users Bugler or Philip J. Rayment.
Capturing and misleading youth - Many of the original Conservapedia editors are homeschooled students of Aschlafly.
Sowing division among conservatives, such as atheists complaining that one particular prayer might offend someone of another religion.
Desensitization - The actions of Aschlafly have been questioned by most Conservapedia users who are responding to this situation. One might say that his actions have created division among conservatives.
Jamming - Anyone who has attempted to reason with Aschlafly and suggest alternate routes of debate has been branded either a "defender of withholding data" or an "atheist" or (gasp!) a "liberal," even though one's personal religious or political beliefs are difficult to pinpoint based on selected Internet comments.
Conversion - As a Christian, I do not believe that Aschlafly's behavior is a good witness for Jesus Christ and I fear that his actions may cause non-Christians to dismiss Christian beliefs based on his poor example.
Undermining religion - It undermines and insults God when Aschlafly and others insist that He could have never used evolution as His mechanism for breathing life onto the Earth.
Mocking conservative science - Science is not biased towards liberalism or conservatism. Some scientists are. The arguments by Aschlafly and others have not been accepted as scientific by other scientists are therefore fall outside the realm of science.
Portraying criminals and miscreants as being conservative when, in fact, they are not - Prof. Lenski and others who have contributed to this discussion have been called "atheists" and "liberals" when there is no proof that they hold such beliefs.
Dismissing valid conservative criticism for no reason - Aschlafly dismissed Prof. Lenski's responses to his letters and the Conservapedia community has been trying to encourage him to reconsider, on the grounds that Prof. Lenski agreed to produce everything that has been requested and devoted significant time to responding thoroughly to the entire community.
Using the term "conservative" as a pejorative - On this page (as well as half the "news" items on the main page) the term "liberal" is used as a pejorative. "Or how can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take out the speck that is in your eye,' when you yourself do not see the log that is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take out the speck that is in your brother's eye." ~Luke 6:42
Insisting on "globalist" terms and phrasing to the detriment of American English and meanings. This is an anti-American effort to promote "one worldism" - I'm tired, but if anyone who finds an example of this on the page will win a free Internet beer.
In psychology, "projection" is essentially when one attributes one's own traits or behavior to others, often because they are negative, unwanted, or socially undesirable.
Like I said, judge for yourselves.
[[User:Kenji|Kenji]] 20:27, 26 June 2008 (EDT)