Irenaeus, Siteadmin, Check users, oversight, Administrators
351,481
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 419:
Line 419: + +
Debate:Is Conservapedia fair and balanced? (view source)
Revision as of 03:00, May 10, 2011
, 03:00, May 10, 2011→No, But...
::::::::::I have to disagree. I think Conservapedia is already a great site. Before signing up as an editor I observed the site for a few months and came to respect the culture that has developed here. Sometimes people come in here so used to the watered down criticism of liberals they see in the mainstream media that they're unable to see the substance behind Conservapedia's critique. I like the site as it is, and would hate to see it change. If anything I'd like to see us step up our critique of liberalism. You complain that our commentary on atheism and Obama aren't nuanced enough. Again I have to disagree, some moral issues are black and white not shades of gray, as moral relativists would have us believe. So to present these issues in any other way would be dishonest. You also have to remember that the content Conservative authors is very popular and brings in a lot of page views. [[User:JimmyRa|JimmyRa]] 21:33, 9 May 2011 (EDT)
::::::::::I have to disagree. I think Conservapedia is already a great site. Before signing up as an editor I observed the site for a few months and came to respect the culture that has developed here. Sometimes people come in here so used to the watered down criticism of liberals they see in the mainstream media that they're unable to see the substance behind Conservapedia's critique. I like the site as it is, and would hate to see it change. If anything I'd like to see us step up our critique of liberalism. You complain that our commentary on atheism and Obama aren't nuanced enough. Again I have to disagree, some moral issues are black and white not shades of gray, as moral relativists would have us believe. So to present these issues in any other way would be dishonest. You also have to remember that the content Conservative authors is very popular and brings in a lot of page views. [[User:JimmyRa|JimmyRa]] 21:33, 9 May 2011 (EDT)
:::King, re: atheism and obesity: A few atheists? I suggest you return to grammar school and relearn how to count. It appears as though you want to play the fallacy of exclusionary game and leave it all the relevant data I provided concerning the very religious plus deal with all the data I gave concerning atheists. You are not fooling anyone. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 22:43, 9 May 2011 (EDT)
:::King, re: atheism and obesity: A few atheists? I suggest you return to grammar school and relearn how to count. It appears as though you want to play the fallacy of exclusionary game and leave it all the relevant data I provided concerning the very religious plus deal with all the data I gave concerning atheists. You are not fooling anyone. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 22:43, 9 May 2011 (EDT)
:::King, please cite one factual error or one false claim I made in the article. You can't! :)
::::Cal, the article focuses on what the variable "very religious" does concerning health practices plus mentions that most of Christianity is in the East now and they are growing fast and not overweight. It also cites many prominent atheists with PROMINENT GIRTHS. As far as your question goes, there are many factors which go into obesity such as income, race, education, etc. If you have a sufficiently large study showing the variable conservatism causes obesity and the isolate that variable using statistical analysis, then fine. But you don't. Isn't that right? I will say that the business community tends to be quite conservative and so are the very religious. My guess is that business people tend to be skinner as they often need high levels of energy to be successful and we already know what Gallup says about the very religious. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 23:00, 9 May 2011 (EDT)