32
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 21:
Line 21: + + Line 105:
Line 107: − I think Bryon's point about this being a "well known fact" is the key. You can't possibly be expected to cite every single thing in an article. If I mention for example that+ − + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Essay:Marry a Conservative (view source)
Revision as of 03:32, July 3, 2008
, 03:32, July 3, 2008Undo revision 484830 - I accidentally deleted a lot of comments
::: Why did you bother me with your question if you're not willing to follow through?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:26, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
::: Why did you bother me with your question if you're not willing to follow through?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:26, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
:::: Follow through with what? It's '''your''' essay, I'm not going to try and fix it's shortcomings. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 08:43, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
== Suggestion... ==
== Suggestion... ==
:So what you're saying is that if I demand evidence, it is my responsibility to find evidence for something else? That sounds like [[liberal dodging]] to me.....[[User:GlenW|GlenW]] 23:21, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
:So what you're saying is that if I demand evidence, it is my responsibility to find evidence for something else? That sounds like [[liberal dodging]] to me.....[[User:GlenW|GlenW]] 23:21, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
:: Bryon's explanation is clear. Insertion of {{Fact}} tags is not a way to argue here. Your demands for evidence for something that is proven and undisputed, such as promiscuity and STDs being closely correlated with other, are silly and will be reverted. Dispute that the earth is round somewhere else, not here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:25, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
"The day is divided into 24 hours, which are in turn divided into 60 minutes", would you expect me to cite a source for it? --[[User:Humble|Humble]] 20:40, 30 June 2008 (EDT)
::: "half of promiscuous people carry sexually transmitted diseases" is proven and undisputed?[[User:GlenW|GlenW]] 23:34, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
:::: Cite added ... which you could have found as easily as I did. It took about 5 minutes.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:45, 15 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::Actually, the cite does not back up the statement. It says that 40% of teenage girls who took part in a study and admitted to having sex have a sexually transmitted disease. That is not at all the same as saying half of all promiscuous people do. 40% is not 50%, admitting having had sex does not equal promiscuity, and what is true of teenage girls is not necessarily true of the overall population. Young girls are less likely to take precaution, less likely to know symptoms, and less likely to seek treatment, especially if they have to admit to their parents that they have been sexually active. Most STDs are curable, and most do not cause infertility. the story is full of speculation. [[User:Jaguar|Jaguar]] 00:10, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
I any case, doesn't Conservapedia Commandment #1 state that "'''Everything''' you post must be true and '''verifiable'''."? Although I can agree that particular fact-tag was unnecessary, it's the original author's responsibility to find a source for the statement, not GlenW's. [[User:Etc|Etc]] 12:16, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
==Questions==
In Example 1, it never says anything about Ralph marrying the liberal woman he falls in love with, but then it goes on to talk about what a hard time he had getting an annulment. He did, at some point, marry the liberal woman, right? Because if he didn't, that would go a long ways towards explaining why he had such a difficult time with the annulment.
In Example 4, Stan is described as having poorly developed social skills, a limited circle of friends and acquaintances, and a lack of knowledge about the opposite sex. Taking all this in combination with the origins of Conservapedia, I worry that people who read this example will fall back on erroneous stereotypes and assume that Stan is a product of home-schooling. Can we include some information regarding Stan's educational background in the example, in order to head that sort of assumption off at the pass?
In Example 5, Kate starts out as a Conservative. But by the end of the example, she has an STD. Does this mean she's no longer a Conservative, since one of the benefits that Conservatives bring to the table is "freedom from sexually transmitted diseases"? If yes, it seems like a regrettably harsh and unfair outcome. Is there some means by which Kate can appeal this decision? [[User:Cua1101|Cua1101]] 14:34, 16 June 2008 (EDT)
== Less STD's? ==
I was under the impression that Abstinence only education actually leads to higher rates of STD. I was also under the impression that conservatives are more likely to only receive abstinence only sexual education.
Also, rates of teenagers having sex is fairly identical for liberals and conservatives.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9504871/
Also, if there going to be actual evidence and sources in this article or are you just going to have 5 first hand accounts that even IF they were true, would still mean nothing? [[User:CRockefeller|CRockefeller]] 16:15, 27 June 2008 (EDT) - 'CRockefeller'
1. Sign your posts. 4 tildes - '~'
2. Abstinence is an '''absolute''' defence against STDs.
Learn, think, pray.
[[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:11, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
Rates of premarital sex is the same for liberals and conservatives. It is an absolute IF ACTUALLY APPLIED, but that's a big IF. Nine out of ten people have premarital sex.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4188/is_20061220/ai_n17079734
So really, conservatives have a higher chance of having STD's because they have a higher chance of not practicing safe sex. [[User:CRockefeller|CRockefeller]] 16:20, 27 June 2008 (EDT) - CRockefeller
You really are a hopeless victim of Liberal denial. True conservatives are open to teaching and education, are open to logic and reason, are open to thought being the master of impulse, are open to concepts such as honesty and purity being virtues and reasons to be proud, rather than the sniggering denigration practiced by Liberal hypocricy. Get real. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 16:25, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
Then how do you account for bushing pushing Abstinence only funding for Africa?
http://www.nationalpartnership.org/site/News2?JServSessionIdr004=gq248kikf4.app2b&abbr=daily2_&page=NewsArticle&id=10359&news_iv_ctrl=-1
I'd say that's more of an example of denial than anything [[User:CRockefeller|CRockefeller]] 16:30, 27 June 2008 (EDT) - '~'
== Example six ==
OK, where does the contributor get off saying that "most liberal college students" are drug users? Does he have personal experience of this? It's not my place to edit this, since it's an essay, but might I suggest the deletion of that particular phrase?--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 15:18, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
Frey, if you spent any amount of time on a college campus that has liberal students, you would quickly realize this is true.--[[User:Hurst|Hurst]] 15:22, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
UC Davis liberal enough? How about UCLA? I realize this is a propaganda piece, so it gets a little more slack, but that's just a blatant lie.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 15:56, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
: Frey, do you seriously doubt that at least 50% of [[liberal]] students have smoked pot? Among liberal politicians, the number may be at least 50%, let alone people who never get that far.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 16:14, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
::As it happens, I do, although I'll grant that it's possible. In six years at UCLA and three years at UC Davis, I never smoked pot, nor did I ever witness the smoking of pot, nor had any of my friends (who tended to be leftist) smoked pot, to my knowledge.
::Also, someone who has smoked pot at some point in their life and "drug user," as it is used in the story, are two very different things.
::Although I do apologize for the term "blatant lie." I should have said "blatent falsehood". Didn't mean to imply intent.--[[User:Frey|Frey]] 16:34, 29 June 2008 (EDT)