4,781
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 93:
Line 93: +
→Remove "ideologically motivated" tags: reply to Fernoklump
:::::::I think it's disturbing that you are blowing around a lot of talk. If the points are inaccurate, then disprove them! Did you consider that maybe the reason the article isn't crowded with citation tags is because the points are accepted to be true and the questionable ones have already been removed? We don't need citations for statements like "the sky is blue" or "Hilary is a liberal". -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 03:21, 19 November 2008 (EST)
:::::::I think it's disturbing that you are blowing around a lot of talk. If the points are inaccurate, then disprove them! Did you consider that maybe the reason the article isn't crowded with citation tags is because the points are accepted to be true and the questionable ones have already been removed? We don't need citations for statements like "the sky is blue" or "Hilary is a liberal". -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 03:21, 19 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::I don't know how you would go about disproving some of these. For example, look at the second one. I have never heard ''anyone'' make that argument. You can't prove or disprove it because its just random. Besides, the commandments say everything that is posted should be true and verifiable. Logic dictates that this would mean when someone adds to an article they should use references, instead of just making it up off the top of their head. '''[[user:FernoKlump|<font color="#000066" >FernoKlump</font>]]'''<sup>[[User:FernoKlump/petition|<font color="#bd2433" >Look at this petition!]]</font></sup> 09:48, 19 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::I don't know how you would go about disproving some of these. For example, look at the second one. I have never heard ''anyone'' make that argument. You can't prove or disprove it because its just random. Besides, the commandments say everything that is posted should be true and verifiable. Logic dictates that this would mean when someone adds to an article they should use references, instead of just making it up off the top of their head. '''[[user:FernoKlump|<font color="#000066" >FernoKlump</font>]]'''<sup>[[User:FernoKlump/petition|<font color="#bd2433" >Look at this petition!]]</font></sup> 09:48, 19 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::::Just to be clear, is this what you're referring to? ''insisting that someone needs to experience something (e.g., drugs, pornography, gambling, etc.) before being able to criticize it'' If so, I'm very surprised this is the one you chose. It's clear and flawed liberal reasoning: "don't knock it 'til you've tried it". They say you have to try something before you can have ''any'' basis for judging it as bad (funny how they don't pull this argument when a conservative judges something as good without having tried it). They will ask, "how can you ban homosexual marriage -- have you ever met a homosexual couple?" They might as well be asking "how can you ban homosexual activities -- have you ever seen them performed?" My natural revulsion at the thought gets labeled as "closed-mindedness", rather than the liberals being blamed for shoving such offensive thoughts into my face. This very "logic" is being used right here on Conservapedia, with the countless liberal-leaning editors who chastise me for having a negative opinion of [[Brokeback Mountain]] without having seen it. It's nonsense -- I know basically what the plot is about and can say with certainty that any positive picture it paints of homosexuality is nothing more than manipulation. But I'm being sidetracked -- to get back to the point, liberal logic diverts the issue at hand by flipping the playing field. Rather than them being on the offensive for making such wild points, they paint the conservative as being on the defensive for not wanting to open up to "new ideas". It's hogwash. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 04:22, 21 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::If the statements were accepted to be true, then you're right, they would not need citations. But they are not accepted to be true, which is the point of the argument in the first place! If FernoKlump thought it was common knowledge, he wouldn't have placed fact tags. --'' '''[[user:JArneal|<font color="#006666" >JArneal</font>]]''' '' 18:15, 19 November 2008 (EST)
::::::::If the statements were accepted to be true, then you're right, they would not need citations. But they are not accepted to be true, which is the point of the argument in the first place! If FernoKlump thought it was common knowledge, he wouldn't have placed fact tags. --'' '''[[user:JArneal|<font color="#006666" >JArneal</font>]]''' '' 18:15, 19 November 2008 (EST)