767
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 62:
Line 62: + + + + + + + + + + + +
→How can there be a debate?
:::::I try to focus on points, but they're often tied to personalities since the Conservapedia userbase is so small right now. So focusing on points often leads to a focus on a few users. So my focus sometimes slips, but I try to stay on course. On the other hand, I think I got to the pointy point more in... uh... where was it... [[Talk:Homosexuality#Spelling/Grammar]]? *checks* Yeah, that's the one. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 13:28, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
:::::I try to focus on points, but they're often tied to personalities since the Conservapedia userbase is so small right now. So focusing on points often leads to a focus on a few users. So my focus sometimes slips, but I try to stay on course. On the other hand, I think I got to the pointy point more in... uh... where was it... [[Talk:Homosexuality#Spelling/Grammar]]? *checks* Yeah, that's the one. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 13:28, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
==Why should there be a debate?==
Why does it matter what anyone's personal opinion is? Is it possible to remain one step above and removed from the fray? I seriously doubt than anything any of us write here will change anyone's mind about anything important. What we can do is provide a forum where ideas can be freely exchanged. The thing I most dislike about liberals is their fascistic tendencies to ram their POV down the throats of others. I think I'm a conservative, but maybe I'm a libretarian? If being conservative means proving or disproving Evolution (or Intelligent Design or insert word of choice), then I'm not a conservative.
I don't want to expend a lot of energy attempting to lecture people who are probably smarter than I am, but I also don't want to be so frugal with my words that my point is lost in vagueness or misunderstood as an attack of some kind. I'm in favor of fairness. So please allow me one more attempt to try to explain a fundamental principle I would like to see applied.
I don't like Wikipedia's Intelligent Design, because that article is a hit-job. That travesty of an article is an intellectually dishonest attack posing as "NPOV" information. The hypocracy of the article drives me nuts. Sadly, when I look at Conservapedia's Evolution page I see an article that is devolving into exactly what I don't like about Wikipedia's Intelligent Design. You can't learn about Evolution from Conservapedia's Evolution page. All you can learn is that lots of people don't "believe" in evolution and that evolution doesn't seem to explain some mysteries to the editor of the article.
On the other hand, I love the work that is on-going at Conservapedia's [[Intelligent Design]]. I'd like to see that turn into a template for similar controversial subjects. State the premise simply and clearly. State the case for the idea and then acknowledge dissent. Don't try even attempt to explain everything there is to know about the idea. It's a waste of time and energy and it's not what a site like this is for. This site should be your first stop and your launching point for research. It should not be a definitive resource with every pertinant fact.
Anyway ... that's just one humble editor's opinion. So long as I feel that Conservapedia is heading in the right direction, I'm going to continue to edit and augment articles such as [[Virginia]] (a work in progress) and [[Oriental]]. Please feel free to edit my work or remain similarly critical of what I've put together. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 08:28, 5 April 2007 (EDT)